Now we know which bills to urge our Congressional delegates to support.

Please keep hammering home this issue. The future of our energy policy (and economic stability) is dependent on it.

but I doubt M. Speaker realizes any of the above.

The next day she said: “This call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax, it’s an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this administration”

What a bunch of hypocritical rubbish.

$20 says nothing happens until after elections.

You are correct, this is an issue that is at the front of most American’s concerns right now. At this point, my concern is that the House leadership is going to do everything possible to obstruct the progress on these pieces of legislation.

It is my sincere hope that the Republican leadership has plans to reach out directly to the people, to raise awareness of this issue, when progress is not made. Under the current leadership, only intense public pressure will force them to act in our interests.

n/t

I know this is a little off-topic, but in 2006 I made this little thing lampooning Bush’s energy plan:

Bush’sEnergy Solution (SFW)

The Nancy tells the President that Big Oil already has plenty of land to drill on. What is our response? Why can’t more oil be drilled on these pre-existing leases?

I also saw a comment in the press that drilling for more oil is pointless without additional refinery capacity. Are we maxed out there? I hadn’t heard that we were.

Thanks!

Am I the only one who remembers that the “S” in SPR stands for “strategic”? As in, if we have to go to war suddenly, we have the oil reserves to run the military without imports for at least a short time.

The idea that the D’s want to draw down that rather than drill is a perfect demonstration of how the donks value environmentalism over national defense.

Am I the only one who remembers that the “S” in SPR stands for “strategic”? As in, if we have to go to war suddenly, we have the oil reserves to run the military without imports for at least a short time.

The idea that the D’s want to draw down that rather than drill is a perfect demonstration of how the donks value environmentalism over national defense.

Since it is important to lead by example, the GOP can engage in a bipartisan venture by having a walk-to-work day.

This would save energy, reduce CO2 emissions, provide good cardio and give Congress insight into the choices the masses are facing.

Just a thought!

My first post here, so be gentle with me if I make a mistake, please.

Not too long ago I seem to remember the Dem’s asking Pres. Bush to divert the oil so that it did not go the SPR, and now they want to pull more oil out!

As noted above, I would think strategic means something different than useful for political convenience or a quick fix.

It is a sad state of affairs when ideology and the desire to control the legislation is being determined by a party who think we the people work for them and not the other way around.

I feel the answer lies within the free market ability to respond to this development with little or no government control. We need less government, and not more. Government should simply clear the way.

And, I might add… Any oil drilled and supplied from US sources should stay in the US first, then secondary markets as appropriate. I don’t think this is protectionism; it’s cover your own bases first. And one more point, if I may… Drilling and energy sources (new or recoverable) could end up being a driving force by benefiting the economy.

Since it is important to lead by example, the GOP can engage in a bipartisan venture by having a walk-to-work day.

This would save energy, reduce CO2 emissions, provide good cardio and give Congress insight into the choices the masses are facing.

Just a thought!

The democraps want to draw down the oil reserves as a way to stop any action on Iran. To a Democrap there is always an ulterior motive, always. They also want to keep oil prices up by not drilling refining etc. The high paying jobs that would be created both by drilling and refining would be a boon to the economy, can’t have that now can we.

I talk to a lot of people because of my work, and Dem and GOP voters want to drill.

It’s my personal opinion that an intent to wisely use our natural resources (the definition of conservation before the real conservation movement was usurped by leftistas) by drilling responsibly would have an impact on prices. If there’s even a hint of additional supply, my gut tells me the price will budge even if it’s a small budge.

Pelosi and company are the best reason I can think of to urge people to vote for McCain. If our current Congress has a liberal Democrat at the helm, we are in even bigger trouble than we are in now.

Anybody notice the trouble came after the DNC assumed control of Congress? Things were pretty good up until November.

best, Kay

You’re absolutely correct. No one is shrugging the $4 a gallon. What an opportune time to make Big Oil more profits while cashing in politically on this hoax. With the recent announcement that the Saudis would release more oil and the lower consumption of the US, all we’ve seen is record high crude prices. Why would a 10 year down the road investment do any better? Why is the magic wand suddenly potent when just a month ago, Bush declared “There is no magic wand to wave right now”? The only reason most Americans support this nonsense is because they are being bleed at the pumps and can easily be suckered in to whatever glimpse of snake oil someone wants to sell them. The only thing this will do is make a ton of money for the already wealthy while doing nothing for the less well off, which is pretty much the hallmark of the Bush Administration. Which by the way (and this to me is the sad part) is why American voters are electing Democrats.

As a member of the Team McCain Coalition on Energy Alternatives, I wholeheartedly agree that domestic drilling is a necessary step in reducing dependence on other countries for our energy needs. It’s not like ANWR is a national park where people go camping and hunting anyway.

But I think as this tv ad from Senator McCain’s website points out, we must also consider alternative energy sources like wind power.

Unfortunately no one wants windmills in their backyard (the old “NIMBY” problem), so I propose a bold solution: why don’t we locate windmills in the ANWR region and off-shore? Besides solving the nimby issue, these remote clean sources will provide power more quickly than drilling alone (liberals are fond of pointing out that oil from ANWR won’t make it to the domestic market for at least five years, but the wind power would be available almost immediately). There’s no reason we couldn’t forge on with drilling AND use alternative sources like wind power and nuclear power in these remote locations, thereby reducing our dependency on foreign oil all the more quickly.

There are so many examples of their heads being up their backsides on this. There is even the recent Shumer eruption with him getting visibly upset about being pressed on this point. Yes when he isn’t destroying banks he is destroying our energy policy. Pelosi and Reid are both repeatedly on the wrong side of this. The democrat messiah Obama is so far off in left field in this he would have to run a marathon to get back to center on this.

I appreciate your promoting this but why isn’t the RNC/Congressional/Senate comittees doing more on this.

Wind turbines serve reservation, state
Journal Editorial Board, Rapid City Journal, July 14, 2008

Pine Ridge Indian Reservation joined the growing list of wind turbine sites in the state last week with the installation of its first wind turbine. Pine Ridge and the state’s other reservations have a unique opportunity to develop wind energy in South Dakota because they can produce more energy than they need on site and they have the need for the economic development. And while the development of wind resources on Pine Ridge is clearly good for the reservation, it’s also good for the state.

As soon as oil companies get ready to drill, there will be a mad dash to find “endangered species” in every spot.

There is no doubt that drilling and energy independence will resonate with America this election cycle. Picking Governor Palin of Alsaska as VP will emphasize this and she has the credibility on this issue that McCain does not. It is also time to put the old guard behind us. These are those that squandered the Reagan legacy and led the conservative movement to the point it is today. New blood!!!!

The cheapest form of energy (electrical by kWh) is nuclear. Wind is 7 times more expensive. France gets 80% of it’s electricity from nukes. The only major nuke disaster was Chernobyl. We burn a lot of fossil fuels on electricity, so lets put in a bunch, I mean a bunch, of nuke plants and tell the little green people (who are red in the middle) to go save a snail. Maybe with abundant cheap electrical power then the city folks can drive their little golf carts and the people like me will still be able to take our five kids in an SUV. If we really get serious, we should use the nukes to convert water to Hydrogen, then pipe it over (we’d have to take over some existing lines) the US and give an incentive for stations to build H dispensing units. Cars will go on hydrogen and they are already doing this in Sweden. Then lastly, we can all moon the enemies we pay daily as there only cash generator turns to a black ooze they can sell to Zimbabwe.

We need to attack this from all angles, but we need to attack it now since the problem is not going away and as long as we listen to the nonsense from the DC elitists we will continue to have high energy prices, instability in the mid east and a well funded and emboldened enemy determined to kill us.

Being somewhat of a novice with energy infrastructure and economics it seems this issue requires a multi-pronged approach.

Just the fact that we could start to drill and do more than talk about it should take some pressure off of the market.

Add in a meaningful conservation plan that addresses more than cafe standards also. We need electricity conservation to take some of the load off of the grid and to gain capacity for future growth.

Add some nuke plants in areas where the demand is required. This might be considered as a distributed scope. Put in wind where it’s applicable (where the source is most constant). Solar in the southwest.

Expand the grid to pick up the new power sources. Work on demand reduction (kW, not just kWh). By trying to mitigate the demand reduction the need for gas turbine peakers could be reduced. That would save some natural gas.

Geothermal for air conditioning systems is one way to minimize the demand, because the heat sink is now the earth (much cooler) than the ambient air in the summer.

Can these issues be solved? Sure. Someone just has to get out of the way!