It is time to end our nation’s self-imposed embargo on domestic energy
By Rep. Wally Herger Posted in Energy — Comments (50) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrats promised a commonsense solution to rising gas prices. A mere 18 months into Democratic control, gas has reached a painful $4 plus national average. But I certainly don’t want to give you the impression that the Congressional Democrats have stood idly by. Instead, they have been working on a plan that would make energy costs even higher.
We recently got a glimpse - albeit a brief one - of the Democrats' much heralded cap-and-trade global warming bill in the Senate. If there is any consensus in this debate it's that this bill is going to cost taxpayers trillions (you read that right) in higher energy costs.
What's frightening to me is that the Senate bill is the modest approach. A version recently introduced by Speaker Pelosi's hand-picked point person on energy and global warming, Rep. Ed Markey, is much more ambitious. House Republicans are demanding an open and thorough debate on this bill. If the Democrats' signature energy policy is estimated to raise gas prices and grow government by trillions, the American people deserve to hear about it.
Faced with growing outrage among the American people over today’s record prices, it was not surprising that the majority decided to shelve their costly climate change proposal indefinitely. What Democratic members haven’t shelved is their longstanding opposition to increasing American energy production. But a recent Rasmussen survey shows that 67% of the American people support the removal of our nation’s self-imposed embargo on domestic energy. I couldn’t agree more.
I stand with other House Republicans in supporting policies that would both lower gas prices and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. While there is clearly no magic solution that will solve our problems overnight, we can ease the gas crunch on Americans with safe, environmentally-responsible exploration of energy reserves in Alaska and deepwater areas. By increasing our own supply, we can make life easier for millions of hardworking American families. And only by taking this action immediately, will Congress begin to lay the foundation for lasting relief at the pumps.
Like I keep saying:
Drill everywhere there's oil and if there isn't oil somewhere, what a great place for a nuclear power plant.
:)
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Did you sign Newt's petition yet? I have included a link to it in the below.
http://www.americansolutions.com/
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
That site is blocked at work.
I'll try when I get home if I can remember to.
Tuesdays is martial arts and normally I'm dead tired when I get home.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
I'm just an ordinary citizen with passions about many things. However, I am focusing my attention on energy independence. It is easy to feel as we as individuals have no voice. However, if we get together, we can be heard. Just think of all the projects that have been stopped by a handful of enviro-facists.
I've started a website called "It's Our Oil ... And We Want It Now." I'm trying to provide web links to various sites that tell the truth about energy, as well as alert people to things we can do support those who are in favor of energy independence and let those who aren't know of our intense dissatisfaction.
Please visit the website at http://www.itsouroil.us/ and let me know if you want to be on the mailing list. It is not complete, but I'll be adding more things as I find them. I charge no money, but I may need volunteers as time goes by.
Signing with my real name,
Leslie Denning
and save our own. That time has passed. It is time to
DRILL HERE- DRILL NOW- PAY LESS. The Dems are too afraid of the hard left Elite-Environuts to do what is needed. The Dems are NOT ready for "Change"- otherwise they would be pushing for change to Drill Here- Drill Now- Pay Less, instead they want the past- Drill Nowhere, Never Drill, Pay More, Tax More.
Some Change they want!
All this time I thought you were a democrat...huh...anyhow no matter your leaning you definitely nailed it on this one.
Drill, go after the oil shale...go nuclear....do everything we can to no longer be dependent on other nations...and if we come out with a surplus sell it on the open market to drive down global prices.
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
We have a Representative posting a common sense diary that addresses the biggest issue to the voters this season...we should show him that we support his efforts in the House by getting this to the top of the recommend list.
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
In fact it was Thur-Sat. Talked with Mike Huckabe, Newt, Mitt...sadly missing was McCain. Oil, Illegal Immigration, Pro-Life, Marriage Ammendment... were Huge topics of discussion. As many delegates stated after many speakers- we are all energized by ther stand of the Party on these issues,then we realize McCain is against our positions. Guess that is why he sent Sen. Hutchenson to encourage us, for McCain. Guess the largest Republican Convention in the nation (yes its bigger than the Nat'l Convention) is not worthy of McCain-so sad- in fact several Nat'l Delegates think it is a slap in our face that McCain did not come, but he held a fund raiser in the same city two days later: Figure that one out!
McCain has work to do. We WANT to be with him, he just keeps pushing/blocking us from coming to him!
But I see that you are 100% R....sorry for the unintended insult...;^)
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
All after the same goal! Keep America, America by electing officials at all levels of Gov't who will keep America, America.
Nothing but Love for All!! (:o)
I'm sure that House Republicans will use every trick in the book to stall any bill that Democrats try and push through the House.
"The second kick from a mule is of no educational value." -Old Southern Saying
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
For standing up for common sense and good policy. You are to be commended for your support for more domestic production to help drive down energy prices and reduce our reliance on foreign energy.
That about sums up my energy policy.
Oh yeah, and fire every jerk off that currently works for BLM.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
To see what drives my animus regarding the BLM as it re
alates to energy policy, see this comment the other day from jackbenimble .
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
This should be in the GOP platform:
1. Drill offshore.
2. Drill in ANWR.
3. Allow oil shale to be used.
4. Eliminate the import tariff on Canadian tar sands oil.
5. Eliminate the import tariff on Brazilian ethanol (and the subsidies on locally produced corn ethanol).
6. Allow oil refineries to be built.
7. Allow nuclear power plants to be built (subsidize insurance if necessary).
It is time to cut-back on importing OPEC oil by pumping more uSA oil.
But, until you end the Enron Loop-hole in the energy futures market oil and gas prices will only drop a little.
term.
If you don't have the ability to buy and sell assets, you force people to hold onto assets when they otherwise would prefer not to.
Imagine if there was a rule that said you could only buy and sell stock 2 days a year?
Or if there was a rule that said you could not buy or sell stock in Ford unless you bought a Ford car on the same day?
Markets serve as signaling mechanisms in advance of the actual disaster. That is why oil speculation is increasing prices now--there is a problem with supply/demand that looms large. If it didn't (i.e. if people weren't nervous about it), the speculators would find something else to make money on (like stocks or bonds).
to speculate on a commodity....you should be willing to up the ante for a large sum payout...other than that I have no problem with speculation.
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
why should we interfere?
Its like with the no money down mortgages. So long as there are no bailouts, why should the free decisions of two or more people be impeded.
Are you against options? Derivatives? Buying on margin?
Or should we all just buy S&P 500 index funds and call it a day?
Freedom is freedom. Some people will take risks, and others wont.
I am self-employed, so risk assessment is something I do each and every day.
are not costing enough to be called a risk...I think just another 10 to 15 percent to buy in....I mean if its risk lets make it risky...that's all.
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
Why create arbitrary transaction costs? Futures trading is an easy way to lose one's shirt. There is already plenty of risk.
Why not require home owners to put at least 50% down?
Why not require car purchasers to put at least 50% down?
Why allow credit cards to be used when debit cards are available?
Maybe we should prohibit gold trading and limit people to buying and selling gold-related mutual funds?
No offense Jaded--I like what you have to say 99.9% of time. This is the first time my response to anything you have said is . . . Huh?
bought my condo and I bought my SUV without credit....I waited until I could afford it....so those items are sounding very good to me....I have no problem with credit cards though I use my debit card....again I personally don't like debt.
I don't see a problem with gold trading....I like precious gems trading also....they have transferred as money for thousands of years so they are always a great investment....I just find this oil speculation to be a little untoward that's all...I would like to see a larger amount down to speculate....instead of the small betting tables it should be the large betting tables.
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
Nobody is forced to buy things on credit, to avail themslves to future trading, or to do anything else. Why a conservative would want to prevent a monetary transaction from occurring between two people who want to engage in the transaction is beyond me.
Maybe we should just make sure that none of the trading facilities have air conditioning so there will be less trading activity? There are requirements for a seat at such exchanges. I am not sure what the exact requirements are, but I am surprised that you would want to increase those requirements.
Arbitrary restrictions on what free people can do remain arbitraty restrictions. Why should oil speculation be treated differently than cattle or gold? Why should commodities trading be treated different than options, derivatives, or equities purchased on margin?
Of all the resources and markets in the world, you are all for capitalism without arbitraty limitations, except when it comes to oil?
way of thinking on this and neither are you....so we will have to agree to disagree.
But really what is this particular (see below)....I would say strawman but it hardly rises to that supposed to prove...
"Maybe we should just make sure that none of the trading facilities have air conditioning so there will be less trading activity?"
I mean really JS was there always air conditioning at the Stock Exchange and if not did they still do trading? and I cannot believe I am asking this question ;-)
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
Jaded, I posted this in a slightly different form on the 4 gas thread, but it's appropriate as a response here, too. I can't tell from your comments here if you are arguing that raising the margin requirements will alleviate the high-gas-price problem, or if you just think the margins should be raised for some reason, but I'm assuming the former.
A key argument against higher margins is the point that airlines use futures contracts to stabilize their fuel costs and therefore ticket prices. It would be very expensive to all of us if they had to put 25% to 50% down on each contract. (See below, but the real key statement is in the final sentence of the comment.)
One question: If it's so easy and riskless to make jillions by purchasing oil futures, why aren't we all doing it?
...there are plenty of stories out there, and this one ("It's the speculators' fault") is the current favorite of Bill O"Reilly after he found he couldn't get any traction for his campaign to blame it all on "gouging" by American oil companies. If I were a speculator, I would put my money on the side opposite wherever O"Reilly is.
I learned about speculating in commodities about 30 years ago when I lost $500 dollars or so on one cattle futures contract. It was a cheap lesson: Don't play if I don't really know what I'm doing. Bill hasn't yet learned that lesson.
The argument that speculators are responsible is akin to the argument that the market will always go up, because after all, when prices go down, those speculators lose. It's just that It's pretty likely that the price of oil will continue to rise, because supply isn't increasing but world demand is.
Put very simply, the person buying oil futures at an ever-increasing price is betting on an even higher price. The person selling the contract is betting on a lower price. If nothing else, that's why the contracts go up relatively gradually, not in multi-dollar jumps. (This is not the case in times of international crisis--then the price can jump around wildly.)
I should also say that when the speculator guesses wrong, he has to meet margin calls and continue paying the interest on his margin loan, and he loses some or all of his principal if the price doesn't recover before the contract expires.
Can a market be controlled by speculators? Maybe, but I mention the Hunt brothers. They attempted to corner the silver market, or at least they thought they could outfox the market.
The margin requirement (amount put down) can be adjusted to cut down on the number of participants in the commodity market, but it won't necessarily reduce its volatility. And if it's raised too much, it could put some airlines out of business and cause a significant increase in ticket prices for those that remain, simply because they'd have to include a larger premium to compensate for the uncertainty of jet fuel spot price at flight time.
What would actually help would be for a major producer (OPEC) to start offering oil futures at a lower price. They have no incentive to do this as long as there are buyers willing to pay more and more. Because the world demand is so much bigger than ours is, it wouldn't even help if all American bidders bid lower--we just wouldn't be able to buy, and we need oil every bit as much as we need oxygen.
If you ask how drilling at home could help, I think the economics are that increased income for the American oil industry increases our national wealth, which should strengthen the dollar, greatly improve our balance of trade, and reduce or perhaps even eliminate the deficit. It would be a huge boost to a home-grown industry, and it would create thousands of jobs that can't be exported. This is especially important if it is true that we have more oil reserves than does all of the Middle East.
Also, commodity prices tend to have inertia--they keep going for no apparent reason. If the direction of prices can be reversed, they might go down quite some distance. If we began to develop and expand our own industry, that could be a catalyst toward lower prices, even before the capability exists.
Even if I'm wrong on some details, the fact that we have two Presidential candidates who are unwilling or unable to even contemplate the facts, whatever they are, and instead thoughtlessly continue to kowtow to the environ-mental cases, is perhaps the most depressing aspect of this campaign. This could be our country going down the drain. And more regulations restricting trading in oil futures will no more save us than will a vow to never buy gas on Mondays!
Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!
I agree. Let's drill. Let's drill in ANWR, let's drill off shore, let's drill where we can. Given the fungibility of petroleum, the non-market oriented OPEC cartel and the ever increasing global supply, I would like to see all of these Senators and Congressmen commit to resigning if all the drilling does not lower gasoline prices to below $2.50 gallon in the US within the next 10 years.
successful in blocking the actions you describe. ANWR is NOT going to happen. I hope we can get the other stuff going. However, since the other side is not going to acquiesce quietly, it would be suicide for someone to promise anything.
They could very easily say, "If the Democrats will allow us to drill in ANWR and OCS and other defined locations, and gasoline prices do not decline to $2.50, I will resign. If the Dems put restrictions on drilling and limit the ability to produce the maximum level of domestic oil production, then the offer is off." At that point, I will take them seriously. Otherwise, this is a pure political pander since there is little to no evidence that shows that ANWR or OCS oil production will make anything other than a minor dent in energy prices. I actually support domestic drilling as a short stop-gap solution while we quickly move to cheaper, renewable, domestic sources of energy (nuclear, coal gasification?, solar, hydrogen cell, wind, etc.) The problem I have with this approach is that it makes it seem that increasing domestic oil production will solve all our problems. It won't. It will only temper the pain slightly if at all.
nonetheless.
Technically speaking, it is legal to build nuclear power plants. However, few permits are granted.
Technically speaking, smoking is legal--you just can't do it in most places.
I am an attorney. There are a million ways to allow something in such a manner as to not really allow it.
Its not a cop out. Its reality.
If the Dems want to block drilling, perhaps they can. The problem is that the idea of unlimited, unfettered domestic drilling will actually get us back to $2.50 gasoline. That's a fantasy and not preparing ourselves for the realities of future energy demand and supplies will only lead to a bigger negative economic impact in the long run. So, go ahead and drill. I'll personally club any baby seal that gets in the way. However, let's not pretend that that is the solution to our energy problems. It's only a band aid.
the price could easily go below $2/gallon. The problem is, once the price starts going down, all of the restraints will be put right back into place.
If we fully access drilling for oil, liquified coal, shale, nuclear, etc. the price for gas could easily be less than $2/gallon.
It won't only because we won't do all of the things that could make it so.
And yet, the only ones who CAN do something about it just regularly have the oil execs come in so they can yell at the execs.... then threaten to steal their profits.
Some days I wonder if Congress WANTS prices to be this high so that they can have something to complain about during an election year to help tell Republicans from Democrats on something OTHER than the war.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
But It would take 20 years for this to happen, you should haved for this in the 80's when.....Oh wait, yeah.
Wonder if any of these long term Republicans can pull up some old footage from last time we tried to get this stuff done and cross cut it with the dribble coming from Nancy and Harry now.
Voting for the Sexy(Pres) - Sexy(VP) Dream Ticket
Jindal/Palin 2012
Step 1: Vote out every Democrat and RINO, including anyone who is wishywashy on Environmental or Energy policy.
Step 2: Kick enviro-weenies in the butt. (It doesn't do much, but it feels good)
Step 3: Drill. drill drill drill anywhere there is oil.
Step 4: Wherever there isn't oil, build a nuclear powerplant or wind farm.
Step 5: Kick enviro-weenies in the butt. (It doesn't do much, but it still feels good)
Step 6: Elect LanceKates as President in 2016. (First election I can run in)
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Here's his "energy policy" as of last week, and I wrote him back thanking him for the "DNC talking points"
What if you owned a car that was exactly like the one you currently drive except that it ran solely on battery power? New technologies are quickly emerging, making this a viable option.
Last month, I spoke with the executive of a new automobile company that will soon release two new vehicles, a Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) and a Small Utility Truck (SUT). While they look like regular SUVs and SUTs that run on fossil fuels, they are electric vehicles. With the proper equipment, charging the battery only takes ten minutes, and each vehicle will go up to 120 miles per charge—one that will exceed 200 miles per charge is currently in development. Both vehicles can carry four passengers, have zero-emissions, can travel at highway speeds, and have five-star safety ratings. While their purchase prices are higher than their fossil fuel counterparts, savings on gasoline can make up the difference in the course of three years.
Such innovation couldn’t come at a more opportune time. Hybrid, flex-fuel, and battery-powered vehicles can provide welcome relief to families and small businesses in this time of rising gas prices.
Viable electric vehicles offer other potential benefits. They may reduce our dependence on foreign oil thereby enhancing our national security. Since these vehicles have zero-emission, they are also better for the environment.
Of course, increased use of electric vehicles poses new challenges. We will have to find new ways to generate the electricity needed to power such vehicles. Expanded alternatives such as wind and solar could help us produce that power with minimal impact on the environment.
The ingenuity inherent in these electric vehicles represents a new type of thinking regarding energy independence and environmental stewardship. While such opportunities may not provide immediate relief at the gas pump, they allow Americans the opportunity to begin considering innovative technologies that can over time save money and increase our nation’s energy independence.
Sincerely,
Jeff Fortenberry
... being in favor of alternative energy options other than fossil fuels and being concerned with minimalising the impact of our energy use on the environment does not mean that one cannot be in favor of increasing the domestic supply of oil as a short-term or long-term solution to reducing the cost of energy.
Left-Wing environmentalists have struggled mightily to make it as if one cannot be in support of one without being in opposition of the other. But in reality, it's a false choice.
"First you win the argument, then you win the vote." - MARGARET THATCHER.
So let's start winning the argument.
there is a Bill in the senate right now that needs to be passed first. Newt plans on presenting his petition at the conventions at the end of the summer. S.2958 is already an actual energy Bill/Act that aims to achieve from what I can tell, pretty much everything Drill Here, Drill Now supports.
So if we can all get behind S.2958 and makes sure it makes it through then Newt's petition will drive the message home for whomever gets in the Whitehouse to sign S.2958 into law.
To support S.2958 and write your Senator or Congressperson go here:
"The billions being spent in Iraq could have paid for a producing Oil Shale project AND paid to have oil flowing from ANWR. We would have had hundreds of thousands of new jobs, lower gas prices, lower food prices, a much lower trade deficit and increased taxes to pay for schools, libraries, cancer research, needed social programs and the list goes on......More importantly, 4000 soldiers would still be alive!"
Just so you know more than 30K dead jihadi's are not plotting to come to America because we killed them in Iraq and we have not had an attack on our shores since 9-11....and all of those things you think could be paid for if we "just hadn't went to Iraq" wouldn't mean crap if we had been hit again.
Your statement that those billions would have paid for shale and ANWR is a lie because congress voted those projects DOWN so NO money would have been spent on them at all.
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
I sent them an email yesterday about that little blurb. It does say "could have paid for" NOT "would have paid for", but still it is confusing.
Anyway S.2958 is a good Bill.
I agree with you on nuclear plants. The old president of Green Peace now endorses nukes after spending who knows how many years fighting them.
Steve Marshall is and where is his funding coming from? I didn't become Jaded overnight....so I need more information and I will be checking it out! Thanks for responding to my concerns!
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
Democrat talking points they are so keen on using. When you hear the next Democrat talk about the "failed policies of this administration", please consider using the following little gem to counter. Flippantly call them all members of C.O.P.E.C. It stands for Congresspersons Opposed to Petroleum Extraction in our Country. It's time we go on offense against them in a big way. As you know, defining terminology against our political adversaries is among one of the most effective ways to counter their drivel. Pardon my saying it, but the Republicans in Congress haven't been all that effective in playing their little word games, and I believe we have them over a barrel in this regard.
Tim Schieferecke
There should be more Representatives that think like you. Hard to figure why that's not obvious to everybody.
Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!
We're never going to get out of this mess until we get past the point where one person with a law degree can stop any project indefinitely. Now that people can sue on behalf of the polar bears, it's only going to get worse.
We need to get the environmental laws back to what they were meant to be, a reasonable review of plans and impacts, rather than a playground for obstructionists.
Come to think of it, I'd be happy to just get to a point where "obstructionist" is once more considered an insult.
_____________________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
nuclear power plants and let the market decide on other alternatives....if people will pay for alternatives, companies will make them. This is not only about lasting relief at the pump but it is also about the Middle East, when we continue to need foreign oil we do pay for terrorism. I for one do not like subsidizing the Saudi government and would like to see that dependence stopped. There a myriad of reasons to drill and build nuclear plants but the two stated above are the reasons you can use to get it done!
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion