Congress Responsible For High Oil and Gas Prices

 Amusing  Comments Off on Congress Responsible For High Oil and Gas Prices
May 182008
 

I think the explanation for why the Democrats are always on the wrong side, choosing to keep oil in the ground and punish us with higher gas prices is finally coming to light.

The Truth about Oil in America is that we have over a trillion barrels. Why then would Democrats constantly be opposed to us using any of our own fossil fuel to lower prices here? There can only be one logical answer for this. The Democrats are being paid by OPEC leaders to stop development.

Let’s look at the facts. OPEC has money, a lot of money. OPEC and the Islamic Middle East really have only one thing the world wants and that’s oil. If we take away that oil revenue and allow the USA to become “energy independent”, or even not as needful or dependent on OPEC , then OPEC and the entire Islamic Middle East are in deep do-do.

So, the logical thing for OPEC to do is spread some of that oil-money around. Just buying them a little insurance, you know?

OPEC shrugs its shoulder at the fact that Americans pay $4 a gallon for gas. Why would they care? After all, it’s not like any one’s forcing American politicians to take this money.

Crude Mistake


Energy: With the price of oil spiking above $127 a barrel, the search for scapegoats has begun. Some point to the Saudis, OPEC’s No. 1 producer. Others blame the oil companies. We have a better candidate: Congress.

As President Bush traveled to Saudi Arabia to ask the House of Saud to open the oil spigots a bit wider, Congress showed once again how clueless it is when it comes to energy policy.

Underscoring its failure to grasp the nature of our current problems, the Senate Appropriations Committee on Friday refused to end its moratorium on oil shale development in Colorado.

“If we are really serious about reducing pain at the pump,” Colorado’s senior senator, Republican Wayne Allard, said, “this is a vote that would make a difference in people’s lives.” He’s right.

But the shale proposal went down to defeat with Allard and 13 other Republican members in favor and 15 Democrats opposed. Once again, Democrats were on the wrong side, opting to keep oil in the ground and punish you with higher prices as a result.

This was no minor thing. Estimates put the amount of oil locked in shale in both Canada and the U.S. at more than 1 trillion barrels. Pulling out even a tenth of that would quadruple our current reserves.

This is the same Congress that refuses to allow drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which holds up to 20 billion barrels of crude, or offshore, where another 30 billion await.

Meanwhile, Brazil — which recently made a major oil discovery almost in sight of Rio’s beaches — announced that it has leased 80% of the world’s deep-sea offshore oil rigs. In other words, Brazil unlike the U.S., isn’t dithering as prices soar. It’s drilling.

If you think Congress’ decision-making on energy couldn’t get any worse, think again. While Bush was in Riyadh urging the Saudis to pump more oil, congressional Democrats were busy undercutting him, threatening to halt arms sales to our Mideast ally.

It was a politically peevish move with consequences both for U.S. energy security and the balance of power. If we don’t sell arms to Saudi Arabia, Russia will. The result would be a loss of American leverage with the Saudis, who, like many, feel threatened by a nuclear Iran and the menace of al-Qaida.

At least Bush convinced the Saudis to boost output 300,000 barrels a day. That helps. But we still have to do more ourselves.

The U.S. uses about 21 million barrels of oil a day. But only 8 million come from our own sources. That leaves a 13-million-barrel-a-day deficit that, at $126 a barrel, will cost us $600 billion to plug this year. That’s more than two-thirds of our total trade deficit.

Congress could reduce much of our oil shortfall by drilling for more on our own territory. This would lower prices and increase security. Yet, Congress seems dead set on doing the opposite.

With its failure to tap the vast supplies in ANWR and offshore, its passage of costly global-warming legislation and now its refusal to exploit our massive resources of oil shale, Congress has set us on a path to less energy, higher prices and weakened national security.


Related:
Saudis And Democrats See No Reason To Raise Oil Production Now
The Democrat’s Energy Plan: When Common Sense Is Not So Common
ANWR Derangement Syndrome: Senate Democrats Reject Domestic Oil Drilling
Energy Pandering: Congress Divided On Energy Plan
Senators Introduce Bill to Increase Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Production
200 Billion Barrels Of Oil That Could Make The U.S. Energy Independent
Democrats Put Big Oil on Display Once Again
Corn Prices Jump to Record $6 a Bushel, Driving Up Costs for Food

Saudis And Democrats See No Reason To Raise Oil Production Now

 Amusing  Comments Off on Saudis And Democrats See No Reason To Raise Oil Production Now
May 172008
 


How ironic! We ask the Saudi’s to increase their oil production and when refused Pelosi, Schumer and all the other Liberals start whining. The same bunch of Liberals won’t let us drill, produce coal, build refineries or build nuclear plants. They refuse to seek our own energy independence.

Remember this every single time you fill up your tank; with new domestic oil supplies and nuclear power YOUR PRICE AT THE PUMP WILL DROP LIKE A STONE. The people standing in our way are the Demo-Leftist-Fascists who “mandate” and “prohibit” all day long.

I think it is time that we hold hearings just to see who in Congress is taking lobby money from “Big Oil” and wacko environmentalist groups. There can be no other reason for denying us our energy independence.

Saudis see no reason to raise oil production now


Saudi Arabia’s leaders made clear Friday they see no reason to increase oil production until customers demand it, apparently rebuffing President Bush amid soaring U.S. gasoline prices.

It was Bush’s second personal appeal this year to King Abdullah, head of the monarchy that rules this desert kingdom that is a longtime prime U.S. ally and home to the world’s largest oil reserves. But Saudi officials stuck to their position that they will only pump more oil into the system when asked to by buyers, something they say is not happening now, the president’s national security adviser told reporters.

“Saudi Arabia does not have customers that are making requests for oil that they are not able to satisfy,” Stephen Hadley said on a day when oil prices rose above $127 a barrel, a record high. “What the Saudis wanted to tell us was we’re doing everything we can do … to meet this problem, but it’s a complicated problem.”

The Saudi oil minister, Ali al-Naimi, announced that the kingdom decided on May 10 to raise production by 300,000 barrels at the request of customers, including the United States. He said that increase was sufficient.

“Supply and demand are in balance today,” he told a news conference. “How much does Saudi Arabia need to do to satisfy people who are questioning our oil practices and policies?”

Bernard Picchi, an energy analyst at Wall Street Access, an independent research firm, said the 300,000-barrel Saudi production increase was “a token amount” that is not expected to have much impact on prices.

It would be different, he said, if Saudi Arabia boosted production by 1 million or 1.5 million barrels a day. The announced increase will have Saudi Arabia pumping 9.45 million barrels a day by June, Saudi officials said. That’s about 2 million barrels below its capacity.

Oil prices advanced Friday as traders, unimpressed by efforts to boost supply, kept buying on the expectation that prices would keep setting new records.

Saudi Arabia often adjusts its output to meet demand, and the increase coincides with the start of the peak driving season in the U.S. “It’s a way to raise production without raising production,” said Phil Flynn, analyst at Alaron Trading Corp. “I think it was a way to save face.”

Hadley never mentioned the Saudi’s new production in his recap with reporters. He said the Saudis briefed Bush again on their plan to increase their production capacity over time. They also argued that even an increase would be unlikely to bring down the soaring prices, driven more by uncertainty in the market, lack of refining capacity for the type of oil readily available and other complicated dynamics, he said.

Economists say prices are being driven up by increased demand, not slowed production. Energy-guzzlers China and India are stretching supplies.

As a result, Hadley suggested the White House was satisfied with — or at least accepted — the Saudi response. He added, however, the Bush administration will see if the explanation “conforms to what our experts say.”

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said the discussion with Bush about oil was friendly. “He didn’t punch any tables or shout at anybody,” the minister said. “I think he was satisfied.”

High energy costs are a major drain on the U.S. economy, which is experiencing a slowdown that some think is already a recession. At the pump, gas prices rose to a national average of $3.78 per gallon on Friday, according to a survey of stations by AAA and the Oil Price Information Service.

When Bush and Abdullah met in the kingdom in mid-January, the president also sought more Saudi output in a plea that also ultimately was for naught.

Iran was the other dominant topic of Bush’s overnight visit with the king.

The two shared a concern over the recent violence in Lebanon, where Hezbollah overran Beirut neighborhoods last week in protest of measures aimed at the group by the country’s government. The display of military power by the Shiite militant group, which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization, resulted in the worst internal fighting since the end of Lebanon’s 1975-90 civil war.

With Shiite-dominated Iran backing Hezbollah, Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia — eager to stop any advance of regional power by Tehran — joins the West in supporting Lebanon’s government. Hadley said Bush and Abdullah shared a concern that the recent events would “embolden Iran.” The U.S. and Saudi Arabia, he said, “are of one mind in condemning what Hezbollah did.”

On Thursday, Hezbollah and the government reached a deal to end the violence after Lebanon’s Cabinet reversed measures aimed at reining in the militants.

Bush’s Saudi stop was intended, in part, to celebrate 75 years of formal U.S.-Saudi relations and strengthen ties that, once strong, have frayed over the perception Washington favors Israel too much in the dispute with the Palestinians, the Iraq war and the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Fifteen of the 19 airline hijackers were Saudis, and Americans blamed Saudis for allowing the religious extremism that gave rise to them, an accusation that stings here.

Bush was spending the day with Abdullah at his lavish farm complex outside Riyadh, talking mostly out of public view over multiple tea services and meals. Abdullah greeted Bush warmly at the airport, and rode with him in his limousine out into the desert.

The White House hoped that new agreements formalized during Bush’s visit would give the relationship a boost.

Among them was an agreement for the U.S. to assist the kingdom in developing civilian nuclear power. Another agreement involves U.S. promises to help protect any Saudi nuclear infrastructure with training, the exchange of experts “and other support services as needed.” Hadley said it would not involve U.S. troops.

But the rising price of oil commanded attention.

When Bush first ran for president in 2000, he criticized the Clinton administration for high fuel prices and said the president must “jawbone” oil producing nations and persuade them to drop rates. At that time, oil was nearing $28 a barrel — less than a quarter what it is now.

Bush’s visit comes two days after Congress voted to temporarily halt daily shipments of 70,000 barrels of oil to the nation’s emergency reserve.

After Bush’s talks on Friday, his administration announced in Washington that it has canceled oil shipments into the reserve beginning in July, when the current purchase contract expires. Bush has refused to stop pouring oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, saying the stockpile was meant for emergencies and that halting the shipments would have little or no impact on gasoline or crude oil prices.


Related:
The Democrat’s Energy Plan: When Common Sense Is Not So Common
ANWR Derangement Syndrome: Senate Democrats Reject Domestic Oil Drilling
Energy Pandering: Congress Divided On Energy Plan
Senators Introduce Bill to Increase Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Production
200 Billion Barrels Of Oil That Could Make The U.S. Energy Independent
Democrats Put Big Oil on Display Once Again
Corn Prices Jump to Record $6 a Bushel, Driving Up Costs for Food

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

 Amusing  Comments Off on The Democrat’s Energy Plan: When Common Sense Is Not So Common
May 152008
 

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.”


Related:
ANWR Derangement Syndrome: Senate Democrats Reject Domestic Oil Drilling
Energy Pandering: Congress Divided On Energy Plan
Senators Introduce Bill to Increase Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Production
200 Billion Barrels Of Oil That Could Make The U.S. Energy Independent
Democrats Put Big Oil on Display Once Again
Corn Prices Jump to Record $6 a Bushel, Driving Up Costs for Food

ANWR Derangement Syndrome: Senate Democrats Reject Domestic Oil Drilling

 Amusing  Comments Off on ANWR Derangement Syndrome: Senate Democrats Reject Domestic Oil Drilling
May 142008
 

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.


Related:
Energy Pandering: Congress Divided On Energy Plan
Senators Introduce Bill to Increase Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Production
200 Billion Barrels Of Oil That Could Make The U.S. Energy Independent
Democrats Put Big Oil on Display Once Again
Corn Prices Jump to Record $6 a Bushel, Driving Up Costs for Food

Shortsighted Politicians Responsible for High Energy Prices

 Other  Comments Off on Shortsighted Politicians Responsible for High Energy Prices
May 132008
 

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.