Oil Archives - Page 30 of 32 - Common Sense Evaluation

Amusing

The Democrat’s Energy Plan: When Common Sense Is Not So Common

May 15, 2008 gags

So how is the Democrat’s “common sense” energy plan working? Well, as Charles Reichley points out in the six years before they took control, oil increased an average of about $5 a year. But in the 16 months the Democrats have been responsible for the nation’s energy policy, the price of oil has risen to $126. That is an increase of almost $70 a barrel or $5 each month.

He also notes that the energy bill is one of the few real “accomplishments” the Democrats have had since they took office. If $3.70 a gallon gas is an “accomplishment,” we can all hope they fail more. Their “success stories” are driving us all to the poor house.

Drilling for an energy plan

When President Bush took office in 2001, the price of oil was around $30 a barrel. Six years later the price had doubled. Democrats promised voters they had “a common sense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.” On October 20, 2006, just before the Democrats took over Congress, a barrel of oil was about $57.

So, how is the Democrat’s “common sense plan” working? In the six years before they took control, oil increased an average of about $5 a year. But in the 16 months the Democrats have been responsible for the nation’s energy policy, the price of oil has risen to $126 — an increase of almost $70 a barrel or $5 each month.

If I had a choice, I’d take $5 a year over $5 a month. Meanwhile, gas prices on the Democrat’s watch went from $2.20 a gallon to $3.67, an increase of almost 10 cents a month. The Democrat’s plan isn’t working, unless their plan was to decrease our dependence on oil by making it so expensive we can’t afford to buy it.

It’s clear the Democrats are fumbling our energy policy. Last week Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged President Bush to get Saudi Arabia to drill more oil so prices would go down. But at the same time, she rejected drilling for domestic oil, claiming that increasing domestic supplies won’t lower the price we pay.

So which is it? Do we want more oil or not? How do we decrease our dependence on foreign oil if we reject domestic oil and increase foreign oil?

While claiming oil drilling won’t help, the Democrats said we should stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which will increase supplies by 70,000 barrels a day. They say this will decrease gas prices by up to 24 cents a gallon. Economists say the effect will be negligible.

Meanwhile, Democrats reject drilling in ANWR because they say adding a million barrels a day would only drop the oil prices about 5 cents a barrel. So 70 thousand barrels saves us 24 cents a gallon, while a million barrels won’t do a thing?

Also, Democrats want to raise taxes on oil companies. By increasing taxes, they promise the price of gasoline will drop, and the oil companies will increase supply. In reality, taxes decrease incentives to supply oil and raise the price we pay.

Of course, we are collecting a huge amount of taxes from the oil companies. The feds took over $30 billion from Exxon-Mobil last year (that’s more than the taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of all individuals).

The Democrats also say drilling in ANWR is useless because we won’t get any oil for 10 years. But they take credit for a bill they passed which will force Americans to buy more fuel-efficient cars. Their plan requires cars to get 35 miles per gallon, by 2020 — 13 years from now. So we shouldn’t drill in ANWR because it will take 10 years before it helps us, but increasing gas mileage over 13 years is “smart energy policy.”

Meanwhile, my car gets over 45 miles per gallon today — beating their standard for 13 years from now by 30 percent. Americans could buy these cars now, but haven’t. So the Democrats will force us to.
But it won’t help as much as they claim — when cars get more efficient, gas use will increase, because people will be able to afford to drive farther.

The one thing that will make us stop using oil, and switch to alternative fuels, is if gas gets so expensive we get tired of paying the cost. The Democrats claim they want us to stop using gasoline, but they are pushing the administration to force companies to lower gas prices, which will make people use more gas.

So the Democrats want to cut gas use, but are pushing lower prices. They say Bush let prices get too high, but since they took over the price has gone up ten times as fast. They say a million barrels a day won’t make a difference, but 70 thousand a day will. They won’t drill ANWR because it will take too long, but passed fuel efficiency standards that will take longer.

The energy bill is one of the few real “accomplishments” the Democrats have had since they took office. If $3.70 a gallon gas is an “accomplishment,” I hope they fail more. We can’t afford too many more “success stories.”

Amusing

ANWR Derangement Syndrome: Senate Democrats Reject Domestic Oil Drilling

May 14, 2008 gags

“We can’t drill our way to lower prices,” said Sen. Dick “Head” Durbin, D-Ill.

Hey Dick, if we can’t drill our way to lower prices then why did this vote occur in the first place? If your desire is to increase the supply to the public, then why not actually increase the supply to the public?

Senate Passes Halt On Oil Stockpiling To Curb Gas Prices

A veto-proof majority in the Senate voted Tuesday to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to try to curtail soaring gasoline prices.

The vote dealt a setback to President Bush’s policy of boosting oil stockpiles in the event of a major supply disruption. But it had a limited immediate market impact.

Crude oil spiked to $126.98 a barrel on fuel oil demand and Iran’s talk of cutting exports. Oil shed some gains on the SPR vote, but still closed up $1.57 at $125.80.

The Senate voted 97 to 1 to halt crude deliveries now averaging 70,000 barrels a day until the price of oil drops below $75. That’s less than 0.1% of global demand of 87 million barrels. A House vote was scheduled later in the day.

The Energy Information Administration estimates stockpiling 100,000 barrels a day adds $2 a barrel to the price of oil and 4-5 cents a gallon to gasoline.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office says an SPR halt could save drivers 5-24 cents a gallon.

Influential oil economist Philip Verleger told Congress in December that filling the strategic reserve “may have added as much as 10% to the light sweet crude price.”

He suggests the Energy Department sell light sweet crude stocks and fill the SPR with more-plentiful sour crude, which has a higher sulfur content. That means refiner rules would need to be relaxed in an emergency, he says.

The White House has kept boosting crude stockpiles over growing criticism. Bush argues that preparing for a national emergency trumps the negligible price declines that would result.

He proposed doubling SPR capacity to 1.5 billion barrels in his 2007 State of the Union address. The reserve now holds just over 700 million barrels, enough to cover 58 days of imports.

“Congressional tampering with presidential authority to fill the SPR may be unconstitutional,” wrote Heritage Foundation senior fellow Ariel Cohen. The move “interferes with the executive branch’s authority to conduct national security policy.”

Republican lawmakers are parting ways with Bush on the strategic reserve, but they are united in supporting more domestic drilling.

“(W)e’ve been heartened that by bringing up the SPR plan Democrats are conceding a link between increasing our supply and reducing our price at the pump,” House Minority Leader John Boehner and Republican Whip Roy Blunt said in a statement.

They noted in a letter to Pelosi that opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling could eventually yield 1 million barrels per day. The Senate on Tuesday voted 56 to 42 against a bid to open ANWR.

The senators also urged Congress to lift restrictions on deep-water drilling off U.S. coasts.

Meanwhile, Democrats are pushing a resolution to halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia until it ups oil output.

“If Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries do not substantially increase production, we in Congress will block their lucrative arms deals,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Democratic leaders haven’t backed a federal gas-tax holiday proposed by presidential contenders Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Other

Shortsighted Politicians Responsible for High Energy Prices

May 13, 2008 gags

In this article, Newt Gingrich does layout a common sense approach in solving the current energy situation. I don’t have a problem with 99% of these ideas, as they are at least a step in the right direction.

The Politicians’ Energy Crisis — And Its Cure

We Can Thank Shortsighted Politicians for High Energy Prices

The starting point of any discussion of America’s energy future has to be this: Shortsighted politicians have created the current energy crisis.

For decades left-leaning politicians have advocated higher prices and less energy. They were going to save the environment by punishing Americans into driving less and driving smaller cars. Now their policies have succeeded with a vengeance.

The very left wing politicians who favored a policy of no oil and gas exploration, no use of coal, no development of nuclear power, and no aggressive development of new technologies are now panic-stricken that their policies of higher prices have led to higher prices.

And now the same shortsighted, dishonest politicians who created the crisis are blaming everyone but themselves for the crisis. Because they refuse to be honest about the policies which led to this crisis, they can’t be honest about the policies that will lead us out of it.

The politicians want scapegoats. The American people just want solutions.

The Solution? A Pro-Investment, Pro-Creativity, Pro-Production Energy Coalition

Politicians with vision — working with entrepreneurs, scientists, and engineers — could rapidly replace the current shortages and high prices with a flood of new energy at lower prices. And America’s current vulnerability to blackmail by foreign dictators could rapidly be turned into virtual independence with a North American energy strategy that includes Canada and Mexico.

The key is to create a new coalition of Americans who favor greater investment, greater discovery, greater creativity, and greater production.

That coalition could lead to a new era of American prosperity with a more prosperous economy, more abundant energy, a healthier environment, and greater national security.

Americans Support Energy Independence, Innovation, Incentives, and Nuclear Power

At AmericanSolutions.com you can view the Platform of the American People, a collection of 91 planks with the support of the majority of Democrats, independents, and Republicans.

The Platform shows that the American people overwhelmingly agree that we should use our resources to become independent from foreign dictators.

Brazil recently discovered two very large oil fields in the Atlantic Ocean. They are so large that they will make Brazil completely independent from Middle Eastern oil.

This is important because the Minerals Management Service has estimated a mean of 85.9 billion barrels of undiscovered recoverable oil and a mean of 419.9 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered recoverable natural gas in the Federal Outer Continental Shelf of the United States. And that estimate does not include any Brazil-size surprise discoveries.

The Platform also shows that Americans believe deeply in the power of technology, incentives, and innovation to develop new sources of energy and new methods of energy conservation. For example:

“We can solve our environmental problems faster and cheaper with innovation and new technology than with more litigation and more government regulation. (79 to 15)

If we use technology and innovation and incentives we do not need to raise taxes to clean up our environment. (68 to 29)”

And Americans also believe in the safety and reliability of nuclear energy.

“We support building more nuclear power plants to cut carbon emissions. (65 to 28)”

The First Step: Replace Warner-Lieberman with Domenici

In a sign of how out of touch the Congress is with the current realities of the average American, the Senate is planning to bring up the Warner-Lieberman bill. This “tax and trade” bill will be an economic disaster. A better name for it would be “The China and India Full Employment Act” because it is going to raise the costs of doing business in America so dramatically that most future factories will be built outside the United States.

SUMMARY OF WARNER-LIEBERMAN
FINANCIAL COSTS OF WARNER-LIEBERMAN
ESTIMATED JOB LOSS DUE TO WARNER-LIEBERMAN

“Tax and trade” is a more accurate term than “cap and trade” because buried in this bill is a massive tax increase which will lead to a much bigger federal government with much more bureaucracy and a much smaller private sector operating only with the permission of federal bureaucrats.

LEARN MORE ABOUT CAP AND TRADE

At a time when the American driver is already complaining about the cost of gasoline and the American homeowner is beginning to complain about the cost of natural gas and home heating oil, the Warner-Lieberman bill will make those costs much worse.

Instead of turning to Warner-Lieberman, the Senate would send a better signal to the American people by taking up the American Energy Production Act, sponsored by New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici ®

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE AMERICAN ENERGY PRODUCTION ACT

Where the Warner-Lieberman bill is one more step toward higher prices, more scarcity, and less production, the Domenici Bill is a first step toward trying to increase production.

If the Senate votes to bring up the Domenici Bill, they are beginning to get the message that we want more energy and lower prices.

The Next Steps to Clean, More Abundant, Lower Cost Domestic Energy

After switching focus from the Warner-Lieberman bill to the Domenici bill, here are the next steps toward an energy abundant American future:

Change federal law to give all states with offshore oil and gas the same share of federal royalties Wyoming gets for land-based resources (48%). Today most states get zero royalties from offshore oil and gas development while states like Wyoming reap 48% of federal royalties for its land-based oil and gas. If Richmond, Tallahassee, and Sacramento suddenly had the potential to find billions of dollars a year in new revenues, their willingness to tolerate new oil and gas development with appropriate environmental safeguards might go up dramatically.

Change federal law to allow those states that want to permit exploration with appropriate safeguards to do so. Companies could be required to post bonds to pay for any environmental problems, and a share of the state and federal revenues from new offshore development could be set aside to finance biodiversity and national park projects.

Allow companies engaged in oil and gas exploration and development to write off their investments in one year by expensing all of it against their tax liabilities. This will lead to an explosion of new exploration and development.

Immediately renegotiate the clean coal (FutureGen) project for Illinois to get it built as rapidly as possible (see the chapter in Real Change for rapid contracting techniques with incentives that can reduce construction time from years to months). It is utterly irrational for the Department of Energy to postpone the most advanced clean coal project in America (LEARN MORE ABOUT DOE’S FAILURE ON FUTURE GEN).

Coal is America’s most abundant and lowest-cost energy resource. If clean coal technologies can be demonstrated to produce power with virtually no carbon release, then coal becomes environmentally very acceptable. America IS the Saudi Arabia of coal. We simply must fund the most advanced experiment and get on with using our most abundant resource.

Congress should pass a series of tax-free prizes to accelerate innovation in developing new technologies for using coal. The result will be a better environment, more energy independence, and more energy at lower cost. Eliminate half the Department of Energy bureaucracy and turn the money into paying for prizes. America will get a much bigger, faster return on its investment.

Develop a tax credit for refitting existing coal plants. There are a lot of existing coal plants which are going to be around for a long time. The most efficient way to make them more environmentally acceptable is to create a tax credit for retrofitting them with new methods and new technologies.

Pass a streamlined regulatory regime and a favorable tax regime for building nuclear power plants.

Make the solar power and wind power tax credits permanent to create a large scale industry dedicated to domestically produced renewable fuel. A contractor recently told me about a solar project he had planned for the American southwest that is now being built in Spain because he distrusts the American Congress and is tired of it playing games with short-term tax credits. We have enormous opportunities in solar, wind, and other renewable fuels; and they can be developed with a stable tax policy.

Develop long distance transmission lines to move wind power from the Dakotas to Chicago. The potential is there for an enormous amount of electricity generation, but it is locked up geographically because the neighboring states have no reason to be helpful. The Dakotas can generate the power and Chicago can use the power, but the federal government may have to make the connection possible.

Allow the auto companies to use their tax credits for the cost of flex fuels cars, hybrids, and the development of hydrogen cars including necessary retooling for manufacturing. The American auto companies have billions in tax credits, but they have no profits to turn the tax credits into useful money. The federal government could make the tax credits refundable and therefore useful if they were spent on helping solve the energy problem. This would be a win-win strategy of much greater power than the fight over CAFE standards.

Conservation as a Parallel, Co-Equal Strategy with Production

At the same time we work to increase production of energy, we must work to find ways to increase energy conservation. There are a number of steps that can be taken.

Congressman Roy Blunt notes that we currently spend eight times more money on federal subsidies for low income heating than we spend on modernizing homes so they don’t use as much energy.

A variety of tax credits should be developed to accelerate maximum efficiency in energy use and to accelerate the replacement of inefficient systems with more modern, more efficient systems.

The Choice is Ours

The time has come for Americans to demand a fundamental change in energy policy.

If we want less expensive gasoline, then we have to demand the policies that will increase the supply of oil and reduce its cost.

If we want a reliable energy policy that reduces our dependence on foreign dictatorships, then we have to demand greater use of American resources and American technology.

If we want these changes to come before we are blackmailed or bankrupted by foreign dictatorships, then we must demand that politicians cut through the red tape, change the bureaucracy, and get the job done.

And if our elected officials want to stick with the current scarcity-producing, high price-resulting energy policies, then its time to retire them for leaders who want more production at lower cost.

Amusing

Energy Pandering: Congress Divided On Energy Plan

May 12, 2008 gags

This is the way I see it; oil is both our nation’s primary strategic vulnerability and our nation’s primary corrupting influence. Congress is not a solution, it is a problem.

Here’s how I would force OPEC’s hand on both increasing their supply and limiting the price spikes. It is sort of a Mafia – Godfather solution.

1) Tap a few hundred new wells in ANWAR, The Gulf of Mexico, The Atlantic and Pacific shelf. Expand refinery capacity to handle the new influx of supply.

2) Stop all international charity to any OPEC nation, any organization who gives money to any OPEC nation or anyone allied with an OPEC nation. Yes, that means no more money to the IMF or UN. Use the savings to build a refinery.

3) Grain (corn, wheat) embargo under conditions in #2. You see, OPEC countries are loaded with oil, but most cannot grow their own food, and only two countries have the agriculture capacity to help supplement them. Guess who number one is?

Let everyone start feeling pain while we start tapping our own spigots. When a few million people start starving and rioting, then maybe things will settle down and everyone will get back onboard with who the Big Dog is.

Congress divided on energy plan

As millions of people approach the summer vacation season under the threat of $4-per-gallon gasoline, Congress is scrambling to respond. But don’t wait for anything that will drive down prices at the pump.

A Senate vote on a GOP plan is scheduled for Tuesday, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has promised to bring up a Democratic package before the Memorial Day congressional recess. Except for halting the flow of oil into the government’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve, neither plan is likely to go very far. Both will be challenged by filibusters by opponents, meaning they would require 60 votes to advance.

Here is a rundown:

THE DEMOCRATIC PROPOSALS.

_Enact a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

SPIN: Oil companies are making too much money, earning $123 billion last year while motorists faced soaring gasoline costs. Imposing a 25 percent windfall profits tax on the five largest oil companies and repealing $17 billion in tax breaks could help the shift away from fossil fuels toward alternatives. Taxes could be avoided if profits are used for refinery expansion or development of wind, solar or biomass projects.

FACT: Profits are large because the companies are huge, and oil now sells for well over $120 a barrel. The taxes could spur some new alternative energy projects, but economists say they also could reduce investments in oil and gas exploration, and are unlikely to affect prices. They could do more harm than good, says Robert Hansen, senior associate dean at Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business. “Anytime you put in a tax you create an incentive to avoid it,” says Hansen.

—

_Create a law against energy price gouging and new rules to stem energy market speculation.

SPIN: The government must police the energy markets with a federal law against price gouging and new rules against market speculation. The proposal creates a federal price gouging law with civil penalties of up to $5 million during a presidentially declared energy emergency. The law would prohibit refiners, wholesalers and retailers from charging an “unconscionably excessive price.” Traders would be required to put up more cash collateral in the energy futures markets to curb speculation.

FACT: Energy price gouging laws now in 28 states are uneven and inadequate to deal with energy market abuses. Congress has considered a gouging law since 2005. Separate versions have passed both the House and Senate, but never gained final approval. Critics say gouging is ill defined and the law amounts to price controls. Bush has threatened a veto.

A former Federal Trade Commission chairman argued such a law could do consumers more harm than good and may result in higher prices if providers, fearing stiff penalties, avoid selling fuel when prices soar.

Increasing cash collateral, or margins, in energy futures trading could curb speculation, but there might be unintended consequences. Such new requirements, said a spokesman for the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, which would enforce the new rules, “may drive traders to unregulated trading or overseas” without reducing market abuses.

—

_Take on the OPEC oil cartel.

SPIN: We need to stand up to the OPEC oil cartel. The Justice Department would be given authority to bring antitrust cases against countries that collude to fix prices as part of OPEC.

FACT: While politically popular, such a measure would probably not change OPEC production decisions and could provoke retaliation. Similar proposals have been debated in Congress since 2005. “It’s a catchy phrase, but it doesn’t have any substance,” says energy consultant Robert Ebel of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

THE REPUBLICAN PROPOSALS.

_Pump oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, now off limits.

SPIN: The coastal strip of ANWR, as the refuge is called, probably has 11 billion barrels of oil. At the rate of 1 million barrels a day, it would add to domestic production, reduce U.S. reliance on imports, lower prices and produce jobs. With modern technology wildlife and the environment can be protected.

FACT: Drilling in ANWR has been debated for 28 years and remains one of the most contentious environmental issues. Several times the House, under GOP control, has approved development; it passed Congress in 1995 only to be vetoed by President Clinton. Drilling supporters repeatedly have been unable to get the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters and are unlikely to do so this time.

While ANWR has substantial oil, none would flow for 10 years. Even then, its impact on global production of 87 billion barrels a day will be minimal, energy experts say, as OPEC could adjust to compensate.

—

_Develop vast amounts of oil and natural gas in offshore waters now off limits.

SPIN: For a quarter century, energy development has been blocked in more than 80 percent of U.S. coastal waters, depriving the country of vast oil and gas resources. States should be allowed waivers to the moratoria and get some of the revenues from development.

FACT: Most areas of federal offshore waters outside the western Gulf of Mexico and off much of Alaska have been placed off limits to drilling by a succession of presidential orders and congressional action to protect tourist industries and avoid the risk of spills and environmental damage. The House has twice approved giving states the right to opt out of the federal ban.

—

_Ease permitting for new refineries.

SPIN: A shortage of refineries is fueling high gasoline and diesel prices. There has not been a new one built in 30 years, with environmental and other permitting problems contributing to the reluctance of oil companies to build new refineries.

FACT: The lack of new refinery construction has been more an issue of economics, not government regulations. While the oil industry has complained about permitting and environmental regulations, oil company executives also have said the permitting issue has not been a deciding factor over refinery expansion or construction. Refinery investments are based in expectations of increased demand.

Oil company executives, asked recently if they wanted to build new refineries, said no. In part, this is because of the growth of ethanol as a substitute for gasoline. The industry prefers to expand existing refineries.

—

_Allow coal-based diesel be used as motor fuel.

SPIN: Coal is the country’s most abundant energy resource, and technology exists to produce diesel fuel from coal. A mandate to produce 6 billion gallons a year of coal-derived motor fuel by 2022 would contribute to greater energy independence and spur the industry’s development.

FACT: The process requires large amounts of energy and results in greenhouse gas emissions, running counter to efforts to combat global warming.

Amusing

Senators Introduce Bill to Increase Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Production

May 8, 2008 gags

The sad truth is that there is no shortage of oil in the U.S., just a shortage of politicians with enough sense to use it. ANWAR and other sources should have been opened years ago!

John McCain should jump all over this. This would be a HUGE vote getter. If presented wisely, opposition by any Democrat can be used against them given the current concerns of average Americans.

Senators Introduce Bill to Increase Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Production; Coal-Derived Fuel Mandate

US Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, introduced the American Energy Production Act of 2008 (S.2958) to increase domestic production of oil and natural gas and to fund the development of oil shale and coal-to-liquids technology. Eighteen other senators co-sponsored. Included in the bill is language for a coal-derived fuels mandate.

The bill would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) as well as the Atlantic and Pacific regions of the Outer Continental Shelf for exploration and production; and lift the one-year moratorium on developing oil shale in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah.

Specific provisions of the bill include:

Outer Continental Shelf. The bill allows petitions for leasing activities in the Atlantic and Pacific regions of the Outer Continental Shelf. The bill allows the Governors of coastal states to submit a petition for a lifting of the moratorium within their state boundaries. The bill creates a revenue sharing agreement for participating states in which 37.5% of revenues will go to new producing states, 12.5% to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and 50% to the Federal Treasury.

ANWR. The bill establishes a competitive oil and gas leasing program for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain under the Mineral Leasing Act. It provides for a 50/50 share of ANWR revenues between the Federal Government and the State of Alaska. Directs that $35 million of the State share be deposited annually into a “Coastal Plain Local Government Impact Aid Assistance Fund” for Alaska communities.

Permitting. Repeals the $4,000 fee for new applications for permits to drill that was established in last year’s Omnibus Appropriations Bill.

Refineries. Grants the EPA authority to accept consolidated applications for permits required to construct and operate refineries, and authorizes financial assistance to states and Indian tribes for the hiring of personnel to process permits. Establishes a 360-day deadline for the approval or disapproval of consolidated permit applications for new refineries and a 120-day deadline for applications to expand existing refineries.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Suspends filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for 180 days.

Renewable Fuel and Advanced Energy Technology. Amends the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to strike the definition of renewable biomass and replace it with the Senate-passed definition.

Establishes a program of direct loans and grants to accelerate the production of advanced batteries in the United States.

Establishes a research program to determine infrastructure needs for the transport of renewable fuel blends, and directs the Secretary of Energy to consider the compatibility of existing infrastructure with intermediate blends of renewable and petroleum based fuels.

Studies the environmental and efficiency attributes of diesel-fueled vehicles.

Coal-Derived Fuels. Mandates that 6 billion gallons of coal-derived fuels be produced by 2022, starting at 750 million gallons in 2015 and ramping up by that same amount annually. Requires that CTL fuels produced result in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions not greater than those associated with gasoline and provides waiver authority based on economic or environmental harm.

Oil shale. Repeals the one year moratorium on funds to complete final regulations for the commercial leasing of oil shale established in last year’s Omnibus.

Increases the current allowable contract duration of five years to 25 years for procurement of synthetic fuels by the Department of Defense.

Repeals Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which prohibits federal agencies from procuring alternative fuels with lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions greater than those associated with conventional fuels that they replace.

Domenici and thirteen other Senators have asked the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) to analyze the impact the legislation will have on America’s reliance on foreign oil and energy prices as compared to forecasts the agency made in its Annual Energy Outlook 2008.

The EIA has assessed the impact of drilling in ANWR before. In March of 2004, the Energy Information Administration, at the request of Representative Richard W. Pombo, then Chairman of the US House Committee on Resources, published a report using government figures and analyzing the projected effect of drilling in ANWR. The report lays out three scenarios: one for low-oil resources, one the mean case, the other for high oil resources.

Some of the report’s findings:

The mean-case estimate is that there are 10.4 billion technically recoverable barrels of oil in ANWR, divided into many discrete fields. This estimate includes oil resources in Native lands and State waters out to a 3-mile boundary within the coastal plain area. The mean estimated size of oil resources in the Federal portion of the ANWR coastal plain is 7.7 billion barrels.

It will take approximately 10 years to bring the first field on-line (comparable to other Arctic drilling).

Assuming sequential development of the fields, rank ordered by size, ANWR production would peak, in the mean case scenario, in 2024 at 870,000 barrels of oil per day.

Assuming that every barrel of ANWR oil is consumed domestically, it would reduce imports on a barrel-for-barrel basis.

Co-sponsors of S.2958 include Senators Allard (R-CO); Barrasso (R-WY); Bennett (R-UT); Bond (R-MO); Bunning (R-KY); Chambliss (R-GA); Cornyn (R-TX); Enzi (R-WY); Hutchinson (R-TX); Inhofe (R-OK); Isakson (R-GA); McConnell (R-KY); Murkowski (R-AK); Sessions (R-AL); Stevens (R-AK); Thune (R-SD); Voinovich (R-OH); and Wicker (R-MS).