No Runny Eggs

After looking foolish attempting to explain that the surge didn’t cause the increased security in Iraq, Barack Obama has learned that when you have no core beliefs and are forced to change a position to get elected, you need to make sure that you hedge your changes to keep maintain plausible deniability on the issue with your radical base.

After telling us numerous times that he was against any increased oil drilling, today, Barack waffled on the topic.   When discussing  a new proposal put together by a bipartisan group of Congressmen Barack said:

“‘If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage – I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done,’ Obama said.”

Obviously Barack has seen that McCain’s closing in the national polls is as much about McCain’s position on energy as it is people’s concern about the Obama “risk” factor, hence his change.

“Don’t want to be rigid?” He’s giving cooked spaghetti a bad name he’s so “flexible” on his positions.

As I mentioned, Barack hedged his flexibility with:

“‘I think it’s important for the American people to understand we’re not going to drill our way out of this problem,’ he said. ‘It’s also important to recognize if you start drilling now you won’t see a drop of oil for ten years, which means its not going to have a significant impact on short-term prices. Every expert agrees on that.'”

I think Barack’s hedge let the Dem’s cat out of the bag.

Barack and the Dems know that they are behind the eight ball with energy. They will be forced to accept some form of an energy compromise, prior to the election, to mollify the strong public sentiment on the issue. However, just because they agree to the bill, doesn’t mean that they will take the next step and clear the decks so that stupid, inane, time wasting and meant to intentionally block, lawsuits, from the Dem’s leftest compatriots, are prevented. Of course not.

Barack, Harry and Nancy will do what they consider politically expedient for the election and then conspire with the Envirowhacko portion of their base to ensure that not “a drop of oil for ten years.”

I covered Obama’s Energy plan here. Inflate your tires and get a tune up, was Barack’s solutions. In my previous post I showed you that at best, the savings of Barack’s plan would be 6% or $.24 on a $4 gallon of gas. Of course with most of newer cars being largely unimpacted by traditional “tune-up” needs and that not all cars have underinflated cars, the 6% at top drops quickly to some number less than that…probably 1/2.

In an attempt to be generous, let’s assume that if we all ran out an implemented Barack’s “Energy Plan for America,” the average savings would be 4%. 4% of $4 gas is $.16/gallon. That’s Barack’s plan, saving $.16/gallon.

While I’m not for it because it doesn’t solve any long term needs, John McCain suggested removing the federal gas tax. Barack Obama dismissed that option in April by saying:

"We’re arguing over a gimmick that would save you half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer so that everyone in Washington can pat themselves on the back and say they did something," said Obama.

Ummmmm, the Federal gas tax is $.184/gallon. Barack’s solution is $.16/gallon. According to Obama, McCain’s wasn’t worth considering because it “would save you half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer.” If McCain’s was a gimmick, what does that make Barack’s solution?

Gimmick or Pander….you decide!

I couldn’t decide which way to go with this so….Here’s the story:

Test Finds Gas Additive Doesn’t Improve Mileage

My first thought was:

Well, there goes Barack’s energy plan!

But than I thought better this:

Psssst, someone leak this to Obama’s campaign before he adds it to his energy plan.

Got some others?

This idea was started by Jessi at Wake Up America. It will appear here every Tuesday (whether I’m here or not; the only difference is I won’t be able to update the current gas price while on vacation) until Congress wakes up and allows a lot more domestic drilling (I’m not talking about just ANWR, or just off the Florida coast where Cuba, Red China and Brazil are preparing to drink our milkshake, or just the shale fields in the Rockies).

My Gas Price (south suburban Milwaukee County, Wisconsin): $3.729/gallon cash // $3.779/gallon credit for regular unleaded

America needs to drill here drill now. America is having a energy crisis, and we need to do something now!

Urge Congress to pass a bill to drill in America, where the United States has vast oil and gas resources onshore and offshore that are currently illegal to develop and therefore inaccessible.

U.S. law prohibits the development of approximately 38 billion barrels of undeveloped oil resources (19 billion barrels onshore and 18.92 billion offshore).

U.S. law prohibits the development of approximately 180 trillion cubic feet of undeveloped natural gas resources (94.5 trillion cubic feet onshore and 85.7 trillion cubic feet offshore).

Also…

CONGRESS RECENTLY VOTED TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO DEVELOP U.S. OIL SHALE RESOURCES

With oil prices at an all-time high, Americans are facing escalating gas, diesel, and aircraft fuel increases. Oil prices are projected to increase further.

Congress, however, has made it illegal to develop vast domestic oil resources in large parts of the United States.

The most startling Congressional prohibition on domestic oil production concerns the recently enacted ban on the development of oil shale resources in parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming in the Green River Formation. According to a Rand Study estimate, this reserve contains over one trillion barrels of oil, with 800 billion barrels fully recoverable, or three times the current oil reserves as Saudi Arabia.

SIGN THE PETITION (if you haven’t already)!

Today you get a double dose!

First this article from the WSJ:

Gas Conservation Threatens Road Funding

As the Left continues to cheer the return to the 18th century where carbon fuels don’t exist for transportation, they find a problem. When fuel gets expensive, people buy less of it. When people buy less fuel they pay less taxes for fuel. Less taxes paid means less taxes for the govt. to spend! Right now the Highway trust fund will take in about $3B less than it plans to spend. Oops!

If the national problem isn’t enough, the average state tax is about 150% of the Federal tax. That would suggest the States will be finding themselves short about $4.5B.

Any bets on the number of state fuel tax increases that will be imposed in the next year?

For our second “be careful what you wish for,” we go to the Rochester Postbulletin  for a lament over the lack of B-99 biodiesel.

A year ago B-99 (99% biofuel diesel) was available at a couple of area stations for a price comparable to oil based diesel. B-99 is made from soybeans. Unfortunately, as the price of corn skyrocketed due to the increased demand required for ethanol, more farmers moved from soybeans to corn. The result is that along with corn, soybean prices have soared. B-99, if available at all, is now significantly more expensive that good, old fashioned, oil based diesel. Even the Greenies in the article say they won’t pay more than $.10 a gallon extra to be green.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, our economy is based on inexpensive energy! That’s not rocket science, that’s common sense if you pick your head up and look outside of the Washington or any State Capital’s beltway. Rapidly and dramatically increased energy prices have implications that the Greens and too many in Washington either don’t want to understand or are intentionally allowing to continue.

I know many on the right are still not comfortable with McCain but remember this. As you go to the polls in just over 3 months, be careful who you vote for. Your vote also could have unintended consequences.

As the Dems continue to bet on a losing hand, they’ve posited all kinds of reasons why we shouldn’t open ANWR. The one that is focused on the heart strings and gets repeated with both great ignorance and emotion is: “You can’t drill in ANWR! The Caribou will be disrupted and not be able to migrate, mate, make little Caribous etc.”

As I’ve said before, I’d be happy to sell Alaska back to the Russians for the same price we bought it for. I’ll guarantee that the Russians would put a drill through the head of a sleeping baby Caribou to get the oil out.

I was initially suprised that some found my plan “insensitive.” However, when I thought about it more, I see their point. It would be like selling a used car that you knew had a bad head gasket. Why would we want to saddle the Russians with our Envirowhackos? We should be willing to deal with our own problem.

So what about these Caribou? The MSM would have you believe that they will be at big risk should we disrupt them in ANWR. When we show them pictures of Caribou hanging around the Prudhoe Bay facilities and pipeline, they tell us that they gather there because we have disrupted their migration patterns.

Nuts!

Take a look at what the Alaska Department of Natural Resources says about Caribous and oil drilling.

 Alaska Department of Natural Resouces says about Caribous and oil drilling:

Population dynamics: There are approximately 950,000 wild caribou in Alaska (including some herds that are shared by Alaska and Canada’s Yukon Territory). Caribou are somewhat cyclic in number, but the timing of declines and increases, and the size to which herds grow is not very predictable. Although overhunting caused some herds to remain low in the past, today, varying weather patterns (climate), overpopulation, predation by wolves and grizzly bears, and disease outbreaks determine whether most herds increase or decrease.

In the 1970s people were concerned about the effect of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline, expanding oil development, and increased disturbance from use of aircraft and snowmobiles on caribou. Although there was some displacement of caribou calving in the Prudhoe Bay oilfield, in general, caribou have not been adversely affected by human activities in Alaska. Pipelines and most other developments are built to allow for caribou movements, and caribou have shown us that they can adapt to the presence of people and machines. As human activities expand in Alaska, the great challenge for caribou management is for man to consider the needs of our caribou herds and ensure that they remain a visible, healthy part of our landscape.

In fact, the myths you hear about the Caribou were based on hypothetical hysteria before any development had been done (sound familiar?) or, as the Heartland Institute shows in this paper, on incomplete studies:

In 1995, Congress considered opening ANWR to oil exploration, but the initiative failed. That same year, an important census was taken of the caribou herd that uses the existing oil fields. Caribou numbers were found to have declined from 23,000 in 1992 to about 18,000 in 1995.

Most notably, the numbers of caribou in the western part of the range (with the oil fields) fell from 14,842 in 1992 to 6,327 in 1995, while numbers in the eastern part of the range (without oil fields) increased from 8,602 to 11,766 during the period.

The results of the census were heralded in a front-page headline in the Anchorage Daily News, “Oil field caribou decline.” The story focused on speculation that something about the oil fields had caused the decline.
…..
The herd was counted again in 1997, and the caribou numbers were found to have increased from the 1995 levels, to over 19,000 caribou. The number of caribou in the western range (with the oil fields) increased to 10,669 between 1995 and 1997, while the numbers in the eastern range (without oil fields) fell to 9,061 caribou.

The year 2000 caribou census showed the herd population had increased to 27,128 animals. The number of caribou in both the western (oil field) and eastern (no oil field) ranges increased (to 14,295 in the western range and 12,833 in the eastern range). This provides strong evidence that the oil fields did not cause the decline in caribou numbers between 1992 and 1995.

Incredibly, these dramatic reversals of the negative results of 1995’s census were not reported to the public.

“But Wait,” the Whackos say. “We’re not talking about any ‘ol Caribou this time! We’re talking about the Porcupine Caribous and they are MUCH different!”

Um, no, they aren’t really.

The Porcupine Caribou wander vast areas and move their calving grounds from year to year just like their cousins by Purdhoe Bay. Yes, the proposed drilling area is in part of their known calving area, but so was Purdhoe Bay’s drilling area in a calving area. While Purdhoe Bay was more centrally located in a calving area (this is part of what you’ve heard referred to as the “caribou migration issue”) and much larger, the ANWR drilling area is proposed on the very Western side of a large, annually changing, calving area. Just like their cousins to the West, unless the Porcupine Caribou have become intransigent Democrats, they will adjust and be no worse for the wear…again, just like their cousins.

Perhaps Nancy and Harry could learn something from the Porcupine Caribou.   When the Caribou’s circumstances change, they adapt to survive while the Dems refuse to acknowledge reality.   Could it be that the Caribous are actually a higher evolved specie than that of a Democrat leader?

President Bush finally kicked a leg out from under the shaky stool Pelosi and her “DOPES” are sitting on by saying he will lift the Executive restriction on offshore drilling.   This has been an issue that the DOPES have been attempting to use to point a gnarled finger back at Bush i.e. “If he doesn’t remove the restriction, he’s not serious about drilling!”

Bush to Nancy, “Check”

Your move Nancy.   All of America is watching to catch a glimpse, any glimpse of what might pass for leadership from yourself and Harry.

There’s a part of me that is pleading that Nancy continues her obstinate ways.   It won’t help my family finances but that short term pain may well be worth seeing the backlash tsunami that is growing everywhere outside of the beltway.

Feeling blue about the increased cost of gasoline?   Don’t!   There’s a silver lining, at least according to this article:

According to a recent study by professors Michael Morrisey of the University of Alabama-Birmingham and David Grabowski of Harvard Medical School, as gas prices increase there is a decrease in automobile accident deaths. A 10 percent increase in gas price resulted in a 2.3 percent decrease in deaths. Automobile accidents account for nearly 40,000 deaths per year, and it is estimated the recent gas price increase to $4.00 per gallon could decrease automobile deaths by nearly 1,000 per month, resulting in nearly a 1/3 reduction.

Oh, but that’s not all:

A real benefit of increased gas prices is the potential for healthier lifestyles and a better environment. As people drive less and less to save money on gas, there is a potential many of these people will increase walking, biking and other activities as modes of transportation. Less driving also means less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is good for the environment. While to pain of filling up your tank at the pump increases everyday, it is good to know there may be benefits associated with the rise in gas prices.

So rising gas prices are good for us? Gee, it doesn’t feel so good!

If these folks are happy that we have fewer traffic deaths because we can’t afford to drive as much, they’d be ecstatic if the price went to a point where cars became obsolete! At that point there would be zero deaths!

If removing all risk of death is the means by which we measure what’s good for America, let me see if I can offer some policy suggestions.

• There are 350 deaths each year caused by a machine.   If we can get the cost of energy high enough we won’t be able to manufacture or operate any more of these killers!
• There are 500 deaths from Medical & Surgical Complications and Misadventures each year.   Rather than going to Universal Health Care we should abolish all health care so that we don’t lose one more person to these completely avoidable tragedies.
• 3,300 people die from suffocation each year.   Most of these deaths mostly resulted from blockages of the respiratory system by food or other objects.   I propose that we prohibit all ingesting of food or any other substance, that should help!
• 3,700 people die from fires and burns each year.   This one is easy to fix.   As soon as the Envirowhackos eliminate all sources of energy and implement carbon credits, there will no longer be any means or allowance to have a fire….all burns are gone!
• 4,000 drownings occur each year.   I propose no more swimming or baths.   Heck, Barack wants us to be more like the French.   We could start by smelling more like them!
• 14,900 people die of falls each year.   I propose we mandate that no building be more than 1 story.   I have no idea how we’d all manage to live within walking distance of the major down towns once all transportation has been eliminated, but that’s not my concern.   I’m only trying to eliminate deaths!

Actually, in the minds of the extreme left, the best solution would be to abort all babies and never reproduce.   While it might take 100 or so years, eventually all humanity would cease to exist on the earth.   From their point of view this would be the optimal…no more deaths plus the earth would once again be its pristine self.

I’ve been searching for a video like this one. If you have any concerns about “spoiling the natural beauty” of ANWR, watch:

Perhaps John McCain would like to explain how exactly this compares to drilling in the Grand Canyon?

I appreciate McCain’s desire to drill offshore. However, ANWR is still a lighting rod for the gas price issue. You can see the Dems slipping on their refusal that this is a supply problem. I hope McCain takes this entire issue and builds a practical not theoretical line between himself and Obama. John McCain should support drilling in all areas, especially those that are proven, and make Obama come to him on this issue!

H/T Bill Dupray

While many Americans believe our government form to be a Democracy, the proper definition of our government is a Constitutional Republic which is a form of a Representative Democracy. The details of the exact differences are unimportant for this post. My purpose was to ensure that folks aren’t confused that I’m confused about the whole Democracy/Representative/Republic issue as I get to this….

Amidst the clamor for lower gas prices from nearly all corners of America comes a Senator with a unique vision. Senator Robert Menendez from New Jersey has initiated a bill that would not only retain the off shore drilling moratorium but make it permanent so that we would never be able to drill off shore, anywhere, anytime. Menendez’s bill is named The COAST Act.

Menendez uses a number of worn, easily refuted and alarmist answers to why drilling is the wrong way to go.

SurveyUSA today released a poll  surveying people from the area, about their willingness to drill off shore of New Jersey. It’s bad news for Senator Menendez.

Amongst the findings of the poll are:

• 66% of the respondents are ready to drill.   Even 62% of Dems are ready to drill.
• People are realistic about the results, 60% say prices will not go down immediately but eventually
• About 17% of the respondents say they would never, ever drill under any circumstances (cue PT Barnum)

The Dems are digging themselves a big hole!   Nancy, Harry and company have decided that the “Do Nothing Congress” was going to finish the session doing what they do best, nothing.   That means that barring any Obama flipflop, nothing will be done to address the need for additional drilling prior to the November election.   I know there are some people who vote party above all else but with poll after poll showing the fuel prices are one of the top two issues and the Dems unwilling to do anything to help and in fact, proposing legislation that would compound the problem, is it really possible that there are enough “party only” people that will vote to maintain and possibly expand a Dem Congress?

One of Menendez’s reasons for not drilling off the New Jersey coast was:

No state on the West Coast will ever allow drilling, and since the Gulf Coast is excluded from the plan, the GOP is banking on the East Coast for production.

Menendez put out his press release on June 18, 2008. Ten days prior, SurveyUSA released a poll showing that 59% Californian’s agree that drilling should be expanded off the coast of California.

Has “The Big One” hit? Isn’t California still a West Coast state?

As for the time machine….It’s Menendez and the rest of the Dems that are trying to use the time machine….to send us back to the 18th Century!

 In early June, as the debate over rising gas prices was heating up, Barack Obama was quoted as saying:

I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing.

The “Greenest convention ever” is touting their 450 vehicle fleet of cars, 20% of which will be E85 vehicles. Even though the host city is far behind in their fundraising efforts, they convinced Coors to kick in the fuel for the E85 vehicles.

Watch the relief on the DNC’s Director of Transportation as he describes the benefit of having E85 fuel donated:

Yup, you heard it right! Andrew Sullivan, Director of Transportation for the DNC said”

I’m always up for free gas! Especially with prices being what they are today!

Gas prices an issue for the DNC? How can that be?

If the DNC’s presumptive nominee has any say about it, today’s gas prices will look like a bargain in the near future. The combination of no increased drilling, increasing taxes on oil companies, implementing cap and trade and suing sovereign nations, will do nothing but increase gas prices and further erode the pocketbooks of every American family!

Over at Redstate.com the term COPEC has been coined. COPEC stands for “Congresspersons Opposed To Petroleum Extraction in our Country.” Seeing as how most of the Republicans have finally gotten the message on oil exploration and domestic production, I propose COPEC be changed to simply DOPES, Democrats Opposed to Petroleum and for Energy Sacrifice. It seems fitting that Barack Obama will be the Presidential nominee for the DOPES!

As a complete aside, isn’t every drop of beer Coors makes “waste beer?”

In their latest attempt to obfuscate any responsibility for high oil/gas prices, the Dems are now trying to lay the blame for the off shore drilling bans on President Bush.

On the Spot (CNSNews.com) – President’s Bush’s call on Wednesday for Congress to lift its 27-year moratorium on offshore drilling is an “example of typical Bush White House politics,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) told Cybercast News Service Thursday.

and

“What the president is doing is unfair to the American people to indicate, ‘We will let Congress do something about it,’ ” Reid said. “He has the authority to do it himself.”

Wait a minute! Isn’t “Unilateral Action” what the Dems have been scolding and denigrating President Bush over on a whole host of topics?

Regarding Iraq:

Senator Clinton excoriated President Bush July 10, 2007, for his “unilateral decision to rush to a preemptive war.” Just three weeks after his 2002 vote in favor of the authorization of military force, Edwards slammed Bush’s “gratuitous unilateralism, a determination to act alone for the sake of acting alone.” Kerry routinely blasted Bush’s “unilateral preemption” on the 2004 presidential campaign trail. In April, according to CNN, Reid “painted the President’s war policy as unilateral.”

Regarding the Free Trade Agreement with Columbia:

"Further, the President’s decision to act unilaterally in sending the FTA disregards three decades of established precedent under fast-track legislation, and demonstrates yet again his lack of respect for Congress.

The Dems even kept Congress in session during the winter recess just so that President Bush couldn’t “unilaterally” invoke his constitutional right to appoint recess appointments for judges.

President Bush could certainly have revoked the ban on offshore drilling.   If he had done so, the Democrats would once again be screaming about his “unilateral actions” and how they hadn’t been consulted.   Instead, as he often does, he is attempting to lead Congress to do the right thing.   He’s doing this by publicly making the case for the elimination of drilling restrictions.   He’s allowing the common sense of the American public to weigh on Congress, hoping that they see the light and decide to act in accordance with the public’s desire.

President Bush, may I humbly offer some advice:

The Democrats are in a corner on this issue.   They have no where to go but down (if that can even be imagined).   If you remove the drilling ban they will attempt to paint you as in the pocket of “Big Oil.”   So what?   You’re not running for reelection and you know better than anyone in Washington that expanded drilling is absolutely necessary regardless of any other efforts that some may want to explore to deal with our energy shortage.   I suggest you contact Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid and tell them that on Tuesday evening of next week you will have a national television address in which, you will tell the American public that you will sign an executive order eliminating the drilling ban.   With that done, the energy issue will hang over the Democrats like the Sword of Damocles.

Upon your notice Mr. President, the Democrats will have a decision to make.   They may choose to continue their petulant tirads, much like they have over funding for Iraq or supporting FISA. In the end they know that they will not only lose the issue, but stand a chance of reversing what should be an electoral success in November as the American public takes out its wrath on those who have purposely chosen to harm the welfare of their families.   On the other hand, they may take the advice of a frontier snake oil salesman who when asked how he managed to maintain his reputation after being run out of town after town across the frontier said:   “It’s simple.   When the crowd gathers with the rail to run me out of town, I get to the front of the mob and run, gesticulating my arms as if I’m a band leader.   That way, rather than being run out of town, I can tell people that I was leading the parade bidding me farewell for the next leg of my journey!”

Mr. President, please kick the last crutch out from under the Democrat’s excuses for not drilling.   As it regards energy and America’s need to dramatically increase our oil exploration it’s time to “Go To The Mattresses!”

While I don’t enjoy paying $4/gallon for gas, I have enjoyed watching the Democrats become human Gumby’s as they twist trying to find new reasons why the majority of the American public  are wrong when it comes to expanding drilling.

I figured that the game would continue to play and like good chess players, the Dems would work hard to avoid getting their king cornered.

I thought wrong.

The pressure on the Dems has surely increased,  evidently to the point of breaking, at least for some.   As recorded by Fox,at and around a press conference where the Dems were attempting to explain why they were smarter than the President and nearly all other Americans, the following was said:

You cannot drill your way out of this.

Current mantra of those beholden to the Envirowhackos by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), chairman of the House Select Committee on Global Warming.

The governors of California and the governors of Florida are going to scream this is not the way to go.

Gee, I think I heard Charlie Crist was now on board Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling, you may want to get you’re updated talking points.

What we do has to be in the interest of the American people. Not major corporations.

Gee Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), last I looked the majority of the American people did want drilling to increase. Being a Democrat, I can only assume that you’re including dead people and illegal aliens in your counts of “majorities” just like you do when you count elections.

It’s like when I talk to my kids. Before we’re going to talk about dessert, we’ve got to talk about what’s on your plate. I hope I’m a little more successful with the oil industry than I am with my kids.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), chairman of the House Select Committee on Global Warming. Well now Ed, I need to talk to you like I talked to my boys when they were 4….

Do it now, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Do nothing else until you complete this one simple takes that I have asked you to do multiple times!

Finally, the quote that is the Coupe de grace and shows the Dems true colors and just how much pressure they are facing is this quote, once again from Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling:

We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.

Sounds a lot like Maxine Waters a couple of weeks back when excoriating oil executives for a problem that the Dems have created:

Guess what this liberal will be all about? Socializing!

Not like it was a BIG secret but the cat’s out of the bag. The Left is all about envy.   They don’t want anyone to have it better than anyone else….everyone gets the same outcome regardless of what effort they’ve put into it.   The Dems are envious because a two bit tyrant, Hugo Chavez has managed not only to take full control of a country and kill all desent in only 9 short years but he’s also managed to line his personal pockets by “nationalizing” the oil companies.   The Dems want the same outcome.   The Dems want higher gas prices because they want to run the oil and gas companies and line their personal pockets.

Keep the government out of business. Send the Dems to the poor house!   Keep the pressure on them!
Drill here, drill now, pay less!

Yesterday the Republicans formally introduced a petition that would force immediate consideration of the No More Excuses Energy Act (H.R. 3089). The act has over 50 authors, representing at least 24 states. The act is brief and to the point with a focus on growing energy production in the US. The act reads:

No More Excuses Energy Act of 2007 – Requires the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the taxpayer election to expense the cost of certain refinery property not later than 60 days after the enactment of this Act.

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) allow the issuance of tax exempt facility bonds for the financing of domestic use oil refinery facilities; (2) extend through 2018 the tax credit for producing electricity from wind facilities; and (3) allow tax credits for the production of electricity from nuclear energy, natural gas production, and carbon dioxide tertiary injectant processes.

Requires the President to designate at least 10 sites for oil or natural gas refineries on federal lands and make such sites available to the private sector for construction of refineries.

Prohibits the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from denying an application for nuclear waste disposal on the grounds of present or future insufficient capacity.

Terminates all existing federal laws prohibiting expenditures to conduct oil and natural gas leasing and preleasing activities in the Outer Continental Shelf.

American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act – Directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish and implement a competitive oil and gas leasing program in the Coastal Plain of Alaska.

Repeals the prohibition against producing oil and gas from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Sets forth requirements for the sale of oil and natural gas leases in the Coastal Plain, environmental protection, transportation easements, and royalty payments to Alaska.

Establishes in the Treasury the Coastal Plain Local Government Impact Aid Assistance Fund to assist Alaska jurisdictions that are directly impacted by oil and gas exploration and production in the Coastal Plain.

The act has been held up in committee since July of last year. It will require signatures of by two-thirds of the House members to move it to the floor.

I consider getting the required number of signatures a long shot but it should show who’s willing to “walk the walk” and not just “talk the talk!”

Make sure and ping your Representative, especially if they are a Dem and encourage, cajole, harass them until they sign the petition! If they don’t, this ought to be all the ammo required to put them in the unemployment line in November.

After nearly a year of battle, Union County, South Dakota has voted to change their zoning ordinance to allow for the building of an all new oil refinery.   If completed, it would be the first new refinery built in the US since 1976.

The zoning change was voted on by the citizens of Union County and won handily, 58% to 42%.   Those supporting the refinery pointed to the 4,500 construction jobs and 1,800 long term jobs that the refinery will provide.   However, before you get to excited, I need to tell you that not everyone is excited by the proposal of a refinery:

While conceding defeat, opponents vowed to keep fighting the controversial project on every imaginable front, pressing on with a lawsuit it filed against the county over the zoning procedures and opposing Hyperion as it applies for a bevy of state and federal permits.

If the people of Union County can rise up and vote common sense in over the objection of the greenies, why can’t we get it done at a state or federal level? Think people are fired up about this? Read the comments attached to this article. It’s clear that the opinion is running at least 9 to 1 in favor of the plant with those for being unusually intense about their opinions.

To the State who gave us the disaster known as Tom Daschle we say:

“Well Done. All is forgiven. Lead us to the promised land!”

What if I told you:

• I could guarantee oil at no more than $75/barrel
• We would have a 100 year supply at current usage levels
• Gas would cost about $2.50
• We could eliminate at least 25% of our foreign oil import
• At $75/barrel, we could eliminate sending $67B dollars a year to foreign governments
• The most it would cost US taxpayers is an amount equal to what we just paid for the phony stimulus checks.

Would you be interested?

In 2006 when oil was running about $75/barrel, the CEO of Jet Blue, David Neeleman put together a plan  to develop an industry that converted coal to oil.   The technology for this process was developed in WWII and was used by the Germans to manufacture oil as they were being shut out from other sources.   Following WWII  the abundant availability of cheap oil, along with lobbying from oil companies and environmentalists  caused various US trials and efforts towards commercializing coal gasification technology to be forgotten.

So why can’t we get coal gasification going now?   First, as you may have already guessed, environmentalists go crazy any time coal is mentioned.   The gasification process does release carbon dioxide (oooooooh, the boogieman of global warming!).   However, recent advances in cleaning processes have advocates claiming that they can actually make the process less carbon impactful than today’s burning of natural oil.   Additionally, carbon dioxide is used by traditional oil companies to claim oil otherwise unattainable.   The carbon dioxide is pumped deep into wells which causes oil to move towards the surface.   Once in the ground, the carbon dioxide naturally is reabsorbed into the ground.

The second reason coal gasification hasn’t moved forward is that it is economics.   Neeleman’s plan had an estimated cost of $4B per plant that was capable of producing 20M barrels of oil each year.   The estimated break even point is about $55/barrel.   One can imagine the difficulty of gathering capital to produce a commodity that has the significant fluctuations of oil.   Even in 2006, there were well known analysts saying that oil would settle back to $30 or $40 per barrel.   Neeleman’s proposal would be that the US government would guarantee the capital investment.   Ironically, in exchange for the guarantee, Neeleman’s plan offered a windfall profit to the government of 25% of any amount that oil went over $75/barrel.

Neeleman’s plan called for 45 plants for a total guarantee of $180B (this would be a guarantee not a handout).   With 45 plants they could replace about 25% of our current imports.

As with other solutions, coal gasification isn’t going to solve our energy problem overnight.   However, also like other solutions, if we don’t start, we’ll never get there.

It’s time for Congress to quit telling us what won’t work  or spending time on asinine pandering like voting to sue OPEC or degrading oil executives.  

If Congress took our energy problem seriously they would  recognize that for the forseeable future there are no alternatives to petroleum for transportation.   It’s time to take the Ben Bernanke approach, throw out “business as usual” and develop new tools that address the very specific issue of expanding supply.   Anything else is just wasting time.   Unfortunately, that’s one of the few things that Congress seems competent in doing.