The Return of Nine Percent Nancy

According to an article posted on National Review :

...the House is expected to vote as soon as tomorrow on Democratic legislation that would “allow drilling more than 100 miles from the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and as close to 50 miles from the shore if coastal states agree to it.”

According to the Institute for Energy Research (IER,) the Pelosi Plan will:

• Permanently ban access to about 97 percent of the undersea oil lying within 50 miles of the California coast.
• Continue the ban on energy production in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.
• Impose a brand-new ban on oil and gas leases in Alaska’s coastal waters out to 50 miles.
• Not allow states that approve new leases beyond 50 miles to share royalties with the federal government, thus stripping any financial incentive for states to stand up to environmental pressure groups, who will continue to agitate against any new oil and gas operations offshore.

The Democrat's plan will PERMANENTLY ban all the blue and green, leaving only the red available for drilling and exploration.

Original chart can be found here.

How does taking 97% of the off-shore oil reserves "off the table" break our reliance on foreign-sourced oil? Once the Republican side of the House votes against this ridiculous piece of garbage, the Democrats will use it to deflect criticism away from themselves.

Politics as usual. All the more reason to make sure the Dems lose in November.

Hmmm.....

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out. Aw heck, even us bitter, gun-clinging folk in flyover country can darn well see what is happening.


Image courtesy of IBD Editorials

This price drop, of course, can be reversed. It's all in the hands of Madam Speaker and her Do-Nothing Congress. The Congressional ban on offshore drilling expires at the end of September. Congress must act to either continue the ban, or lift the ban. Either way, their action will send a strong message to the oil market.

What would we like the message to be? America is doing what it takes, changing their decades-old policies, and expanding their own search and production for their own oil, thus reducing their dependency on oil sourced from the Armpit of the World?

Alas, not if Madam Speaker has her way, judging by her comments and inactions.

How I spent my summer vacation

Dear Congress,

I hope you are enjoying your summer vacation. We all need to get away once in awhile to relax, reflect, and rejuvenate ourselves. Have a good time. Make sure you wear your sunscreen and drink plenty of fluids. The sun can get pretty brutal, you know, with all that global warming and stuff.

Oh, one other thing - in case there are no newspapers or radio or TV or Internet where you are, I think you ought to know that oil has fallen over 20% since July. I know you and your majority will attempt to take credit for this, but all us bitter, gun-clinging people are not as dumb as you think we are.

Maybe it's just a coincidence, but didn't your arch nemesis in the Oval Office lift the executive ban on offshore drilling in July? I think he did. Yeah, I'm sure he did.

See, even if domestic drilling might not produce a significant amount of oil for 10 years or so, just the IDEA that we, the largest consumer of oil in the world, are one step closer to expanding our own oil discovery and production infrastructure, the stock market notices. Traders stop buying so many oil futures, since there may be a bigger supply of oil in the future and their contract purchases now might end up losing value. Simple Economics 101, Congress. Perhaps you ought to pick up a copy of Economics for Dummies while on vacation, and come back next month a little smarter and wiser than you are now.

Who knows? With a little more intelligence and action on your part, and you might actually be able to get your approval rating out of the single digits. Nine-percent is pretty lame, don't you think? Not only are you jeopardizing your own political hides and screwing the people you were elected to represent, but your 9% won't exactly help Wonder Boy in November.

What ARE we waiting for?

Borrowed from a Reader's Comment to an OP-Ed posting by A.W.R Hawkins on HumanEvents.com

Very well put op-ed piece, James A. Nollet from Poland. Very well put, indeed. (Also read the original post from A.W.R. It's a good one, too.)

Saying that America can't drill its way out of its energy crisis is like saying you can't dig a well to find water to alleviate thirst, or you can't plow a field to raise crops in order not to be hungry.

It is ABSURD on its face.

Then there's the John Kerry argument against ANWR (lamentably supported by John McCain), that it's pointless to drill in ANWR since by itself, it cannot lift America's energy crisis. By THAT illogic, America should never again look for ANY new sources of energy, since NONE, by themselves, can relieve America's energy shortage.

All steps to find new energy take America so much closer to the goal of being once again energy INdependent.

Pelosi and Reid do not like America's involvement in wars in the Middle East. I understand their opposition -- but then, why do they not see that America's current dependence on foreign oil is precisely what helps drag America into Middle Eastern wars?

So in 1990, Saddam Hussein's Iraq invades Kuwait and threatens Saudi Arabia and even Iran; should Saddam get his hands on those oil sources, he's got over half of the world's oil under his thumb.

OBVIOUSLY the world had to stand up against Saddam and push him out of Kuwait. And please spare me the arguments that the Coalition was fighting for "oil." OF COURSE IT WAS FIGHTING FOR OIL! Oil is LIFE! Economies collapse, and real, ordinary human beings go jobless, hungry, cold, and even die when there's no oil. People shoot each other fighting for what oil's left.

But suppose the USA had been energy INdependent when Iraq invaded Kuwait? America then could have said to the world: "Dear World, we are AUFULLY sorry that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait ahd threatens all of your economies. And if you wish to go to war to remove him from Kuwait, we totally understand. We might even help you logistically.

"But what we will NOT do is send armed forces over there. Because we don't NEED to. Because we've already seen to our own energy independence. Because we now have no dog in this fight."

Woiuldn't Pelosi and Reid and Kerry LOVE such a position of non-involvement?

Every single American president since LBJ has let America down with regard to energy independence. I most of all blame Ronald Reagan the so-called "Great Communicator" for not calling upon America to do for energy independence what JFK did for landing a man on the moon -- by calling for a crash program of energy independence, mission to be accomplished within 10 years.

Not sure I agree totally with singling out Ronald Reagan here. But Jim's point is on-target...they have ALL let us down with regards to energy independence.

But maybe THAT'S a way to sell energy independence and drilling to the Dhimmicrats -- if they don't want any more future Iraq wars, then let them NOW support drilling (and other forms of energy, such as solar, wind, nuclear, coal gasification, sugar-from-Caribbean-islands-to-ethanol, etc.) and maybe America can indeed afford to sit out the next Middle Eastern war.

Let's think grandly here -- maybe, when the next Middle Eastern war happens and America actually produces SURPLUSES of energy, maybe AMERICA could actually SELL energy to the rest of the world. Wouldn't THAT do wonders for the balance-of-trade deficit?

James A. Nollet; Milkowice, POLAND

Drilling alone certainly isn't the answer, while finding and developing other renewable sources of energy certainly is. However, it won't happen overnight. While alternative sources of energy are being researched and developed (wind, solar, hydrogen, etc), America must find it's own sources of oil, rather than becoming more and more dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Once we do become energy independent, the rest of the Middle East can return to the 7th century...what they all seem to long for anyway.

Commonsense we can live without

Flashback to the spring of 2006. With a Congressional election looming in the fall, the Democratic Party teased and taunted us with promises of a "commonsense plan" to reign in the then-skyrocketing gas prices.

Taken from her own press release in April 2006

Washington, D.C. – House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on President Bush’s, Speaker Hastert’s, and the Republican Congress’ empty rhetoric on gas prices. Key facts on the Majority's failure to address gas prices follows Pelosi’s statement.

With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline – 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price than when President Bush first came to office.

I'll give her credit here, she's correct. Consulting the Energy Information Administration, the average price of U.S. regular gasoline on April 24, 2006 was indeed $2.91. It was also up 33 cents from a month prior. This figure did double the average price of $1.31 in January 2000, when President Bush first took office.


Flash forward a bit to January 2007. The Democratic Party, having received the majority in both the Senate and the House, take over the reigns of the Congress. They now control what bills are brought to the floor for vote, and what bills are not. The average price of U.S. gasoline had dipped a bit, now at $2.16 a gallon - even before any aspect of the promised "commonsense plan" could be enacted.

OK. Flash forward yet again, back to the present. On July 14, 2008, the average price of U.S. gasoline sits at $4.11 a gallon.

Using these figures, and a little commonsense math, we do see a 100% increase in gasoline prices between January 2000 and April 2007. We also see a 92% increase in the price of gasoline between January 2007 and July 2008.

So, while it took almost seven years for a gallon of gasoline to double in price under President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress's watch, the new "commonsense plan" of the Democratic-controlled Congress was able to accomplish almost the same thing in just 18 months.

Applying some more commonsense math, at this new commonsense rate, we'll be paying well over $60 for a gallon of gas in seven years.

So, just what IS their commonsense plan anyway? While we're all still waiting to find out, I can tell you what it is NOT.

PELOSI: “The United States cannot drill its way to energy independence.”( Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “Today, Congress Took Action On Real Solution To Lower Price At Pump,” Press Release, 5/13/08)

SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: “The President should reverse his 'drill and veto' policies and return from his Middle East trip with firm guarantees from OPEC for increased production levels …” (Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “President Should Push OPEC for Increased Production, Abandon His 'Drill and Veto' Policies,” Press Release, 5/13/08)

Did you catch that???? Nancy Pelosi challenged President Bush to pressure OPEC to drill and produce more oil, but still states that we cannot drill our way to energy independence. So, she'd rather the U.S. become even MORE dependent on foreign oil.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked President Bush on Tuesday to draw down a portion of the country's Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a way to reduce crude prices and help motorists who are suffering from the rising cost of gasoline.

Did you catch THAT one??? While increasing our dependence of foreign oil, she's requesting we draw from the country's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Hmm...not a very smart idea, when we already import over 60% of our oil from the Middle East, and with Iran threatening to close off the Strait of Hermuz and all...


Borrowed from Ben Pershing of the Washington Post

Building on last month's bipartisan legislation passed overwhelmingly by the House requiring the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to use its emergency powers to curb excessive speculation distorting the energy markets, the House Agriculture Committee this week will hold three days of hearings on oil market speculation. The goal is to present the House with strong legislation this month to bring transparency to the markets and to end speculators' ability to artificially inflate the price at the pump.

So, here it is folks...their magic bullet, "commonsense" plan to combat high gasoline prices and reduce our dependency on foreign oil..Don't drill anywhere but the Middle East, siphon from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and go after the market speculators with committee hearings.

Sounds a lot like the previous administration's response to the first WTC terrorist attack. Rather than combating the true source of the problem, they sent in their lawyers and indicted Osama bin Laden.

Yeaaahhh, I think he missed his court date.

Drill Here. Drill Now.

I've been saying this for months...

Cheers to Larry Kudlow from National Review Online...

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Bush Says Drill, Drill, Drill — and Oil Drops $9! [Larry Kudlow]

In a dramatic move yesterday President Bush removed the executive-branch moratorium on offshore drilling. Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136.

Now isn’t this interesting?

Democrats keep saying that it will take 10 years or longer to produce oil from the offshore areas. And they say that oil prices won’t decline for at least that long. And they, along with Obama and McCain, bash so-called oil speculators. And today we had a real-world example as to why they are wrong. All of them. Reid, Pelosi, Obama, McCain — all of them.

Traders took a look at a feisty and aggressive George Bush and started selling the market well before a single new drop of oil has been lifted. What does this tell us? Well, if Congress moves to seal the deal, oil prices will probably keep on falling. That’s the way traders work. They discount the future. Psychology and expectations can turn on a dime.

The congressional ban on offshore drilling expires September 30, so that becomes a key date. A new report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if the moratorium were lifted. The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium. They’re talking about 10 billion barrels worth off the coast of California.

There’s also a “gang of 10” in the Senate, five Republicans and five Democrats, that is trying to work a compromise deal on lifting the moratorium. So it’s possible a lot of action on this front could occur much sooner than people seem to think.

So I repeat: Drill, drill, drill. Deregulate, decontrol, and unleash the American energy industry. Those hated traders will then keep selling oil as the laws of supply and demand and free markets keep working.

Bravo for Bush. Bravo for the traders.

As soon as "the market" sees that the US is serious about finding more oil and supplementing the supply, the prices will go down. Traders and speculators ultimately set the market price of oil, not the oil companies. And they buy and sell oil as futures...meaning they speculate about the supply and demand of oil in the future. Currently they see more worldwide demand and less supply, so they buy oil contracts (x amount of barrels) now, expecting to be able to sell them at a higher cost in the future. One problem with this is they are only required to put up 7% of the price to buy these oil futures. Not much of a risk on their part, as they speculate the supply will not meet the demand in the future, so their 7% upfront cost is relatively safe. One way to reign this in is to require oil futures traders have to put up more than just 7%...say 50%. This way they have much more of their cash invested, and will be less likely to buy as many futures, which will keep the prices down. However, this would require Congress, and other countries, to make this happen.

If the US is seen as serious about doing more to meet the demand, the prices adjust accordingly. For crying out loud, I learned this simple supply and demand principle in my Associates degree program. It amazes me how many supposedly smart people don't grasp this concept. It's much simpler and more politically-correct to "blame Bush" rather than comprehend what is actually fueling the fire. They are so consumed by their hatred of the man that he gets blamed for anything and everything that goes wrong.

Granted he has had his share of missteps and screwups. However, there are 535 members of Congress, and he's only one man. Which group do you think has the most power to make regulations and policies to help stimulate and sustain our economy? Answer: the Democratically-controlled Congress, who, at this moment, hold an approval rating in the single digits...the lowest in American history.

Hmmmm....let's put all the blame on the Oilman in the Oval Office...this is obviously all his fault.




...OK, I'm getting off my soapbox now...