Wednesday, July 23, 2008 |
|
MythBusters |
|
Posted by:
Michele Bachmann at
2:56 PM |
Energy has clearly been the focus of this blog for the past several weeks, and with gas prices where they are, for good reason. People want to know what America has for energy resources and how we can access them to lower the cost of gas.
Recently, I did my best to debunk the sham "Use it or Lose it" legislation that failed in Congress with a bi-partisan majority.
I'd like to once again set the record straight about some claims that have been cited in a few recent newspaper articles. More specifically, claims made by Philip Budzik of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) that can mislead many readers against the benefits of drilling in ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), and of accessing our enormous oil shale supplies to help lower the cost of gas.
For instance, here's an exert from Sunday's Star Tribune:
"Bachmann was expected to visit ANWR today to underscore her desire to drill there. But opening the refuge to drilling 'is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices' or the price of gasoline, said [Philip] Budzik of the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Tapping the refuge could cut the cost of a barrel of oil by perhaps 2 percent and shave 1 cent to 3 cents off the pump price of a gallon of gas, he said. As for the Outer Continental Shelf, the EIA said it 'would not have a significant impact" on oil prices before 2030.'
Here's what false assumptions Budzik makes in order to justify saying this:
Assumption #1: Current bans that have prevented American consumers from accessing American energy will remain in place until at least 2012 (exactly what Republicans are working to reverse – right now, not 4 years from now): “Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017.”
Assumption #2: Once we finally get to the OCS, we’ll only be able to find a fraction of the oil and gas that the Minerals Management Service (MMS) – like EIA, also an agency of the Dept. of Energy – believes is out there.
- What Budzik says: “With these assumptions, technically recoverable undiscovered resources in the lower 48 OCS increase to 59 billion barrels of oil and 288 trillion cubic feet of natural gas."
- What MMS says: “The mean estimate for undiscovered technically recoverable resources (along our nation’s Outer Continental Shelf) totals 85.9 billion barrels of oil and 419.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.” (http://www.mms.gov/PDFs/2005EPAct/InventoryRTC.pdf)
Budzik should be distributing accurate energy information, not just using whatever numbers he feels.
Here's what actual economists have to say about the positive impact an increase in energy supplies will have on the cost of gasoline. This is from last week’s Financial Services Committee hearing:
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA): Is there any way to give a numerical answer? Would half a million barrels [of oil] a day affect the price, a quarter million?
Fed. Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke: The short-term elasticity is … that a 1 percent increase in supply could lower prices by 10 percent.
Here are the facts:
We have the resources to bring down the cost of gasoline. Those are the facts.
|
|
|
Wednesday, July 23, 2008 |
|
The Really Inconvenient Truths ... |
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
9:12 AM |
|
Last night, I attended a terrific little book reception for Iain Murray, author of "The Really Inconvenient Truths" -- a book which pokes holes in environmentalist movement dogma. The event took place on the rooftop garden of Christian Josi, one of the event organizers. Josi says of the book, "It’s one of my all-time favorite books by one of my all-time favorite people."
Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) -- a champion on this issue -- was kind enough to attend -- and introduce Murray. Inhofe was unstaffed, and actually drove himself to the event, which took place in Old Town Alexandria, VA.
Murray's remarks were brief and witty. His British accent would probably make him sound erudite were he to merely read the phone book -- but his analysis is well reasoned and compelling.
Last night's talk focused primarily on the harm radical environmentalism has caused. From wildfires in California, to eliminating d.d.t. -- the best control for Malaria in Africa -- adherence to radical environmentalism has led to dire, if unintended -- consequences. Anyone interested in this topic would be well-served to read Murray's book.
|
|
|
Tuesday, July 22, 2008 |
|
Exclusive Interview: Bachmann and ANWR |
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
11:27 AM |
|
I just spoke with Congressman Michelle Bachmann (R, MN-6), who is fresh off her trip to ANWR. Though she is trained as a federal tax litigation attorney, Bachmann has a keen understanding of energy issues. She explains that she has always been interested in energy -- something she might have picked up in Alaska, where she spent two summers of her youth, visiting her uncle.
The trip started out in Golden, Colorado, where several GOP Members held discussions and briefings on several forms of energy, including solar, ethanol -- and interesting new research being conducted on algae (oil can be extracted and turned into renewable energy). Bachmann's Minnesota district is home to a nuclear plant, and because nuclear energy was not the focus of this trip, she tells me she would like to bring some Congressmen out to tour the nuclear plant in her district.
As you probably are aware, Bachmann is a huge supporter of drilling in ANWR. She explains that the part of ANWR that is usually shown on television is not the area under consideration for drilling. Only about 2,000 acres out of the approximately 19 million acres of ANWR are under consideration for drilling. As she describes it, it's "a postage stamp out of a football field."
During her trip to Alaska, Bachmann also had the chance to meet (for the first time) with Gov. Palin, who also supports drilling.
Regarding GOP presidential nominee John McCain's opposition to drilling in ANWR, Bachmann admits that, "It's difficult when our nominee is not on the same page with us."
She also added: "I believe if Senator McCain could come to the area and listen to the people who live there -- I believe that he might likely change his mind."
|
|
|
Monday, July 21, 2008 |
|
Bob Barr Praises Al Gore |
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
2:52 PM |
CNS News reports:
“America responds well to challenges, if it is laid out, if it’s in terms that people can understand and relate to, if it makes sense – and what he’s laid out makes sense,” Barr said in an interview with Cybercast News Service after Gore spoke." Rush responds: "Somebody needs to explain to Bob Barr what Libertarianism is, because what Gore is proposing is Socialism."
|
|
|
Monday, July 21, 2008 |
|
Alaska's Northern Energy Slope |
|
Posted by:
Michele Bachmann at
10:09 AM |
On Sunday, my colleagues and I got to see firsthand the remote North Slope of Alaska where America needs to be increasing our production of oil to help bring gas costs down. It was quite an educational experience for all of as we got to take an in-depth look at current and emerging gas and oil technologies in the region.
The day began north of the Arctic Circle at Prudhoe Bay where we got to view the oil production processes at the Endicott Production Facility located in the Arctic Ocean. We also visited Mile Marker Zero at Pump Station #1, the starting point of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline.
From Prudhoe Bay we took an aerial tour of Alpine Field, where oil and gas production is underway, and parts of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) currently being explored for potential oil production. We also took a flyover of offshore oil production facilities operating in the Arctic Ocean.
Heading into the trip, I was most excited to see and learn about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), but more specifically, the “10-02 area” of ANWR. Officials in the North Slope confirmed for us that this area could provide an incredible amount of petroleum (10.4 billion barrels) with a minimal environmental footprint. ANWR in its entirety measures 19 million acres, but this one oil-rich location where we are interested in drilling is a mere 2,000 acres. To give you a better picture of what that means, the area for drilling is the size of a postage stamp on a football field.
Couple that fact with the convenient proximity of the 10-02 area to the Trans-Alaskan pipeline, and this area would provide us with the most convenient and efficient route to get more petroleum to the continental United States.
We were also warned by local officials that at its current rate of declining oil supplies, in 10 years the pipeline would be processing less than 300,000 barrels of oil per day, a sharp decline from the 720,000 being produced today. Without adding new supplies of oil to the pipeline, it would stop operating in just over 10 years because there aren’t enough supplies in the areas we’ve already tapped into to maintain its viability.
Although many have been skeptical about the relationship between oil production and the surrounding wildlife and environment, we were given evidence that the two can co-exist. The best piece of evidence was the documented increase in size of a herd of native caribou near the Prudhoe Bay facilities. Since the facilities began its operations in the 1970s, the heard has increased its size from 5,000 to around 30,000 today.
This trip validated for all of us America’s urgent need to increase its supplies of oil to help drive costs down. This needs to happen not only in the areas we are currently exploring and operating in, like Prudhoe Bay and the NPR-A, but also in the 10-02 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. ANWR was set aside by President Carter for future oil development, so to keep it locked up makes no sense whatsoever.
If we couple increased oil production with the emerging technologies we witnessed at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado, then our nation will be the world’s leader in energy innovation and no longer left to the whim of foreign exporters who often wish us harm. This is the All-of-the-Above strategy that Republicans have put forth to the American people. The only thing we’ve heard from the Democrats is “Drive Less, Pay More.”
We have two weeks left until our August recess and the Democratic leadership continues to play games while gas costs rise throughout the nation. If we move to increase supplies here domestically, prices will begin to come down on that fact alone. If we have it, we better use it, and the majority of Americans agree.
|
|
|
Monday, July 21, 2008 |
|
House Republicans on American Energy Tour |
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
8:28 AM |
|
From left to right: Scalise, Bilirakis, Smith, Bachmann, Latta, Heller, Boehner, McCarthy, Fallin, Jordan.
As you probably know, several Republican Members of Congress are in ANWR. I received this group photo from Rep. Michele Bachmann's office.
So what are they up to? This is from the GOP Leader's press office:
"The House GOP’s American Energy Tour brought Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and nine of his Republican colleagues to Alaska’s remote North Slope today. The delegation spent the day learning firsthand about both current and emerging oil and gas production technologies which hold tremendous promise not only for consumers but for American workers as well. Increasing production of American energy is expected to spur substantial job creation, particularly in places like the North Slope, the Mountain West, and far off our shores on the Outer Continental Shelf."
|
|
|
Friday, July 18, 2008 |
|
First Stop - NREL |
|
Posted by:
Michele Bachmann at
9:42 PM |
This afternoon my House colleagues and I toured the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado. Essentially, we got to take a stroll through our nation’s energy future and I’ve got to say, the lab is doing absolutely incredible work.
The lab’s purpose is to find fresh renewable ways to power our homes, businesses, and cars, a key component of the Republicans’ All-of-the-Above energy plan. They are developing cutting edge methods to use wind, solar, biomass, and fuel cell technologies more efficiently.
What I was most impressed with was the work that the lab is doing with a variety of vehicles run by renewable energy including: Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles, Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles, and Solar Hybrid Electric Vehicles. We also investigated the programs of Wind to Hydrogren Technologies and received an overview of the Lab’s Biomass Technologies.
America's priority must be to lessen its dependence on foreign sources of oil. They only way we will achieve true energy independence is to combine the latest technologies from NREL and similar government and private sector labs throughout the country with increased domestic exploration of our own natural resources.
We’ve got a long plane ride ahead to Alaska. I’ll be sure to check in again to share with you what I learn in ANWR.
|
|
|
Friday, July 18, 2008 |
|
More Impeccable Timing From the "Goracle" |
|
Posted by:
Carol Platt Liebau at
4:06 PM |
Remember back in 2004 when Al Gore delivered a speech on global warming in NYC -- on the coldest day in decades?
Well, the Goracle's impeccable sense of timing remains consistent.
Yesterday (with an entourage consisting of two Lincoln town cars and an SUV, one of the former idling in order to keep the interior cool for Mrs. Gore and Karenna), he delivered himself of another apocalyptic warning about the "climate crisis." With characteristic understatement, Gore intoned that "The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even more, if more should be required, the future of human civilization is at stake."
What a profoundly "inconvenient truth," then, to read today that the American Physical Society is backing off its past embrace of the theory of manmade global warming:
The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."
Oh, and by the way, is anyone in the media interested in pointing out, as does the invaluable Newsbusters, the fact that Al Gore has a financial interest in a lot of the "alternate energy" forms he's busy promoting?
|
|
|
Friday, July 18, 2008 |
|
Off to ANWR |
|
Posted by:
Michele Bachmann at
9:03 AM |
Today my House colleagues and I are starting our trip to ANWR. On the way, we’ll be stopping in Golden, Colorado to tour the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The lab’s purpose is to find fresh renewable ways to power our homes, businesses, and cars, a key component of the Republicans’ All-of-the-Above energy plan.
Hopefully we’re able to take some pictures there so I can share them with everyone. After that, we’ll be off to Alaska. I’ve got my video camera with me so I’ll be sure to take some good footage to share with everyone when I return next week. In the mean time, here are some facts from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) about the estimated amount of recoverable oil we have in ANWR.
According to the USGS, the mean estimate of technically recoverable oil in the Coastal Plain of ANWR is 10.4 billion barrels – all of which is now economically recoverable.
• That’s more than twice the proven oil reserves in all of Texas.
• That’s almost half of the total U.S. proven reserve of 21 million barrels.
• That represents a possible 50 percent increase in total U.S. proven reserves.
What does 10.4 Billion Barrels of Oil Mean?
10.4 Billion Barrels produces:
• 436.8 Billion Gallons of Gasoline
o 12.6 Billion Tanks of Gasoline (based on a 16 gallon tank)
o 93 tanks of gas for EVERY registered passenger vehicle
• 10.4 Trillion Gallons of Diesel
o 320 Million Tanks of Diesel (with Two 150 gallon tanks on a semi)
• 4.3 Trillion Gallons of Jet Fuel
o 5.7 Million Tanks of Jet Fuel (on fully fueled 737-600s with 6,875 gallon tanks)
Let’s be clear about this. The Coastal Plain of ANWR, also known as the 1002 Area, is neither wilderness nor refuge. It was set aside by Congress and President Carter in 1980 for future oil development. Development would be limited to 2000 acres of the Coastal Plain or 0.01% of the entire 19.6 million-acre refuge. These lands were set aside for America to produce its own energy resources. What are we waiting for?
|
|
|
Thursday, July 17, 2008 |
|
The Cost and Future Scarcity of Electricity |
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
5:36 PM |
CNN's Situation Room just carried a report that electricity costs in Maryland and D.C. have soared 46% in the past two years, and that "experts" predict widespread shortages of electricity across the country in just three years.
Given the ability to build new nuclear power, plants there is no shortage more easily remedied than that of electricity. But building the nuclear plants requires political will and legislation clearing the regulatory hurdles out of the way. Let's be clear: This is another Democrat-made shortage, and like the Congress-induced bans on producing oil that have led to the soaring price of gas, if you want more energy pain on the electricity front, just vote for Obama and his colleagues on the Hill. They have no intention of doing anything about the need for more energy in all of its forms.
Their solution remains the same: You are to shut up, sit in your dark houses and sweat. Deindustrialization is the Democrats' only plan.
|
|
|
Thursday, July 17, 2008 |
|
A Sham Energy Bill |
|
Posted by:
Michele Bachmann at
2:53 PM |
Today, the Democrats are bringing to the floor their supposed “drilling” bill. The Drill Responsibly in Leased Land (DRILL) bill was pushed through committee yesterday where Democrats voted down every pro-production amendment offered by Republicans.
This bill essentially does 3 things that the Democrats want to use to mislead the American people into thinking they support increasing domestic energy production.
SHAM 1
It once again brings back the “Use it or Lose it” idea that was defeated a few weeks back by a bipartisan coalition because of its worthlessness. The 68 million acres that the Democrats say are in need of “use” are, in fact, being used. They are in some stage of exploration right now but are caught up in a bureaucratic maze of approval. As far as the “lose it” portion of the proposal, energy companies are already required to utilize acquired leases within a five to ten year period or the Interior Department Secretary has the right to revoke the lease.
SHAM 2
It says we can’t export oil from Alaska. Not a bad idea, but the problem is we haven’t
done that for the past 10 years.
SHAM 3
It “opens up” land to drilling in Alaska. While they’re on the right track, if they really
cared about opening up land for drilling, they’d do so in ANWR and not in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPRA) that has (1) already been open for 25 years, (2) is 250 miles away from the nearest pipeline, and (3) isn’t all that serviceable in that it only has 53 workable days a year of thaw.
Conversely, ANWR is close to the Trans-Alaskan pipeline that is already in service. More importantly, ANWR has more production potential on a much smaller piece of land. If the Democrats’ key fear about drilling is the damage it causes to the environment, what sense does it make to use a much bigger piece of land for a substantially smaller return?
Democrats know the vast majority of the American people want to drill here, drill now, and pay less – but this bill will not hide 30 years of shutting off access.
This bill is more of the Democrats’ same failed policies. It’s simply cover for doing nothing to produce energy and it’s the Democrat Leadership’s excuse for blocking votes on real oil and gas production.
Just yesterday, at a Financial Services Committee hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke stated “…a 1 percent increase in supply could lower prices by 10 percent.”
Enough smoke and mirrors. If the Democrats want to drill in Alaska, ANWR is sitting there waiting.
|
|
|
Wednesday, July 16, 2008 |
|
Wild and Scenic Factories? |
|
Posted by:
Michele Bachmann at
12:39 PM |
To give you an idea about what tough issues Congress is tackling this week, here’s one resolution we’re discussing that sums it up:
H.Res. 984 - Expressing support for the designation of July 26, 2008 as "National Day of the Cowboy" (Sponsored by Rep. Giffords / Oversight and Government Reform Committee)
Another week, and the Democrats still aren't addressing the nation’s energy concerns by bringing any legislation to the floor to help struggling Americans - unless you consider H.R. 415 an energy policy:
H.R. 415 - To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers (Structured Rule) (Sponsored by Rep. Frank / Natural Resources Committee)
Take a look at this picture at let me know if this looks wild and scenic to you:
The Democrats are designating this simply to block the construction of a Liquified Natural Gas Facility. Never mind that right across the river is a Coal Power Plant already in use. Once again, the Democrats are doing everything in their power to stop production of American Energy.
|
|
|
Tuesday, July 15, 2008 |
|
You Can't Drill There...There's Oil There! |
|
Posted by:
Michele Bachmann at
10:37 AM |
Below is part of a release from Majority Leader Hoyer (D-MD) in response to President Bush’s announcement to lift the executive ban on offshore drilling:
___________________________________________________________
“Drilling in the OCS will do nothing to lower gas prices, but it will mean one more handout to those who are already enjoying billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. Let me remind President Bush: If the oil companies wanted more domestic drilling, they could begin today. They could begin on the 68 million acres of land that are already set aside, leased, and available for drilling. And with upcoming Democratic legislation to speed up the leasing process for 20 million more acres in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, they’ll be able to drill there, too.” ___________________________________________________________
I can think of no better example of pure partisan rhetoric. This statement does nothing more than contradict itself. On one hand you have Majority Leader Hoyer saying that offshore drilling in the OCS will do nothing to lower gas prices, but then he promotes Democrat legislation to speed up the leasing process for drilling in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. If increasing supply doesn’t matter as he implies in his comment about the OCS, then why promote legislation about drilling in Alaska? Could it be that the pressure from America to drill is forcing the Democrats to appear like they care about rising energy costs?
Hoyer is reaffirming the Democrat talking point of being against drilling which appeases their base, but being for drilling on lands where leases already exist to assuage the anger of the average American voter. That might be a good policy if these lands where leases already exist actually contain oil and natural gas. However, we know this is not the case -- as do the Democrats who voted to recently defeat the Hoyer-Pelosi so-called “Use it or Lose it” bill. (That’s what his 68 million acre line refers too.) Nearly 1 in 10 Democrats joined Republicans to defeat that bill because it did nothing to actually increase our energy supply.
These are the kind of games that explain why Congress’ approval rating hovers at 9%. This statement proves that the Democrats are willing to talk the right talk but not seek out real solutions. Americans want energy; they don’t want political ploys.
|
|
|
Monday, July 14, 2008 |
|
Democrats Must Make the Next Move |
|
Posted by:
Michele Bachmann at
3:55 PM |
With President Bush lifting today the executive ban on offshore drilling, the Democrat Leadership in Congress in the only barrier left standing in the way of opening up our nation's energy resources.
Until about a month ago, the Democrats' mantra in regards to drilling was "we can't drill our way into energy independence." But then they noticed the overwhelming support from Americans, regardless of political party, for increased energy production here in the U.S.. The pressure was apparently too great to ignore so they started to echo faintly the Republican support for drilling.
Don't be taken by the Democrats empty rhetoric. According to The Hill newspaper, "Speaker Pelosi has already shut the door on expanded oil and gas drilling beyond areas that have already been approved for energy exploration."
If Speaker Pelosi was really concerned about increasing America's energy production to lower gas prices, she'd open up ANWR as well as follow President Bush's lead in allowing offshore energy production and further exploration of our enormous supplies of oil shale.
It's all up to Speaker Pelosi. She must make the next move.
|
|
|
Monday, July 14, 2008 |
|
All Right Congress, Your Turn |
|
Posted by:
Amanda Carpenter at
1:56 PM |
|
More facts on OCS--
President Bush's decision to allow offshore drilling is only the first step in a two-part process towards tapping our natural resources.
Before energy producers are permitted to explore offshore Congress must lift their own legislative ban against drilling off the shores of California, Florida and Virginia that has been in place since 1981. Congress will have an opportunity to do so when it returns from August recess. The ban must be renewed each year and is scheduled to expire on September 30, unless Congress takes action to keep it in place.
|
|
|
|