Drill Drill Drill

Virginia stands to be a leader in the development and use of domestic energy, if the soon to be newly elected Republican majority in the General Assembly, the Senate and the Governor's Mansion have the cajones to stand up to the EPA and government regulations and reaffirm State Sovereignty. Its about states' rights. Its called the 10th Amendment.

We have the right as a sovereign state to take care of our citizens first, and I would expect nothing less from the other 56, ahm, I meant 49 states. The federal government has no authority to impose restrictions or mandates which diminish, or restrict the ability to improve, the standard of living of any citizen, regardless of what the law or regulation was intended to do when enacted.

Family Security Matters has a piece posted today, part of which is excerpted here:

Our future prosperity and freedom are at risk. This is because we have a current energy policy that puts them at risk. We are also contemplating a new energy policy, commonly termed “cap and trade” which could very well push our nation’s economy of a cliff, (my conclusion, not that of Chevron). Mr. Watson started his remarks with a plea that we start with some “facts,” what President John Adams called “stubborn things.”

Over the horizon, we will need to invest some $26 trillion in energy production, transportation, and efficient utilization technology. The U.S. population is growing and so is that of the world. The U.S. and world economy also need to grow to raise the standard of living of people everywhere – to secure the “heat, light and transportation” that we all take for granted said Watson. But over eighty percent of the natural gas and petroleum reserves in the world are in the hands of governments. And 85 percent of such U.S. reserves are off limits to exploration and development.

Watson further noted the U.S. oil and gas industry is responsible for 9 million American jobs and 7.5 percent of our GDP. The challenge of providing an affordable energy supply for more than 300 million Americans is being made all the more difficult by the regulatory ambitions of the U.S. government and its growing debt. Yet most Americans want to be less dependent on foreign supplies of oil that can be manipulated to harm our economy. And they believe we need a stable but diverse energy supply. And they also want to do their responsible part for ameliorating any negative impacts on our climate and environment.

/snip

....the current restrictions on the exploration and development for U.S.-owned fossil fuel resources make so little sense. U.S. oil production has declined by 4 million barrels a day over the past 25 years while demand has grown by exactly that amount – 4 million barrels a day. Thus, although we are the number 2 or 3 producer of coal, natural gas and oil from domestic resources, when we import 8 million barrels of oil daily, (the combined drop in production coupled with the increase in demand), it is at a cost that approached some $450 billion a year when oil hit $147 a barrel.

Yet the U.S. Geological Survey is forbidden by federal law from actually doing an accurate assessment of how much oil and gas we have off of our coasts and on Federal land. And we still propose to tax those oil and gas resources we do produce at a rate far greater than other resources. Add to that the prohibition on exploration, and it is easy to understand how oil exploration and development was pushed overseas and with it the complimentary run-up in U.S. oil imports. Reasonable estimates are that at least 30 billion barrels of oil are readily available off our shores or in places such as Anwar. While we cannot “drill for independence,” said Watson, we can and should “drill for more energy security.”

.

I take exception to the remark that we cannot "drill for independence". Once we start extracting our own reserves and refine those resereves into a marketable product, we become independent. We can sell it, or keep it. Either way, its ours, we own it and we'll do with it as we please.

VA-05 Needs A New Representative

It's Time To Stop Them

“House Democrats have finally made clear that they will fund their government takeover of health care by raising taxes on hard-working American families and small businesses in the midst of one of the worst recessions in recent memory. With unemployment nearing double digits nationwide, the last thing we need is a massive tax hike that will punish small businesses and cost even more American jobs.”
House Minority Leader John Boehner

Would anyone mind if I pointed out the obvious AGAIN?

Dhimmicrats are deliberatley undermining the economic and national security of America. They have no intention of stopping. They have the votes to pass any piece of legislation they choose, anytime they want. Most of what they are doing is outside the scope of their Constitutionally mandated authority.

If they were serious about helping Americans, the first step would be to lift the restrictions on offshore drilling and allow American oil companies to build refineries.

Second, lift the restrictions on domestic drilling inside the borders. Start pumping the oil and gas we own. We need to stop buying oil and begin selling it.

Third, cut the capital gains tax rate in half and make it permanent.

Fourth, eliminate Federal witholding on income and begin the process of instituting a flat tax/fair tax.

But, we all know the dhimmicrats don't give an FRA about ordinary Americans.
They demonstrate that every day.

Ending Our Dependence On Foreign Oil

is a very simple problem to solve, and will create long-term permanent jobs.

1. Start drilling. If the oil companies say they know the oil is down there, let them go get it.

2. Build refineries; refurbish existing refineries.

3. Offshore drilling. I defy anyone to produce an instance of an oil spill from an offshore drill rig.

4. Let AMERICAN oil companies have first crack at the Iraqi oil. Our soldiers risked their lives for that oil, why did the dhimmicrats give it to China?

And last but not least:
CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It's a neccessary component of life. Stop treating it like its poison. If it were poison, all the trees and plants would be dead.

Of course, cap and trade is not about clean energy, climate change, or foreign oil.

Lt Col Allen West on Cap and Trade

Re-posted with permission. If yo have family or friends in Florida, please encourage them to support this man.

An officer and a gentleman

Lt Col Allen West's Facebook page
His Twitter page

West Slams “Cap and Tax” Legislation
Calls on Klein to Support Energy IndependenceRepublican Congressional candidate Allen West (R-FL 22) called the upcoming vote on the so-called climate change legislation, “just another example of a bloated government program that will not address our nation’s energy problems”. West also called on Democratic incumbent Ron Klein to support legislation that will address our country’s need for energy independence.

The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote Friday on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. This bill is aimed at addressing climate change that contains a cap-and-trade program, commonly referred to as a National Energy Tax.

“The Pelosi-Klein approach to our nation’s energy needs will do nothing but increase energy costs and raise taxes in this tough economy,” West said. “This will be a key issue in my race against Ron Klein next year.”

West noted that the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that under this bill gasoline prices could increase by as much as 77 cents per gallon. Other estimates say every American family will be over $3000 in higher taxes.

“We need legislation that will make America energy independent by cutting regulations that are inhibiting the development of all new sources of energy. That means everything from drilling for more oil to clean coal to alternative forms of energy“

I’m an avid scuba diver. I’m for protecting our environment. But this bill will not move us forward in the right direction.“Take nuclear energy. Klein and Democrats say they are for more nuclear energy. But this bill does nothing to reduce the red tape involved in building new nuclear plants. Just last week a new nuclear plant was announced in southern Ohio. But the experts all say it will be a decade before any energy will be produced there. That’s ridiculous.”

West went on to describe the difference between himself and Ron Klein. “Ron Klein continually votes for the expansion of government that adversely affects everyday Americans, programs that have not worked in the past and will not work in the future. I’m for a program that uses the full spectrum of energy resources—plans that will provide energy independence for America and protect our citizens from higher taxes and huge increases in energy costs.”

Its An Energy Tax Its a Dessert Topping Its An Energy Tax

Blogowner's comment:
The first thing that needs to happen is for people to stop calling carbon dioxide a pollutant. How is a substance necessary for life to continue a pollutant?
Trees and all green plants need CO2 to survive. They breathe CO2 and give back oxygen; we breathe oxygen and give back CO2. Almost seems like it was planned that way...DUH!!!!!!!!!!!

DEAL OR NO DEAL ON SPEAKER PELOSI’S NATIONAL ENERGY TAX?

No matter how Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) re-arrange the deck chairs, the fact of the matter is that their bill is a huge national energy tax. The so-called “deal” that was struck between Waxman and Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) is a sham. Hollywood, San Francisco and Boston still get a sweetheart deal at the expense of families, farmers, and small businesses. Here are the facts on the so-called Waxman-Peterson deal.

PART I – USDA, EPA & Agriculture Offsets

Myth #1 – The Waxman-Peterson “deal” on agriculture offsets will allow agriculture to benefit from the legislation.

FACT, Part 1 – Today the nation’s largest organization representing farmers, the U.S. Farm Bureau, voiced continued strong opposition to this misguided legislation, calling it “seriously flawed” and “detrimental to U.S. agriculture.” This influential group with members in all 50 states argues that the bill would “…force agriculture and other productive sectors of our nation’s economy into a position of severe competitive disadvantage with trading partners like China and other nations who will not burden their economies to control carbon emissions.”

FACT, Part 2 – Farmers and ranchers spent $60 billion on fuel, electricity, fertilizer and chemicals in 2008 and for some crops, those energy intensive inputs account for more than 70 percent of production costs. There is no debate that each of those inputs will increase in price under Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax. An agriculture offset program – no matter if it is administered by USDA or EPA – will allow farmers to recoup a fraction of their increased production costs. The Heritage Foundation recently estimated that farm income would drop $8 billion in 2012 and $50 billion in 2035 and that offsets will make-up for less than 10 percent of this lost income.

FACT, Part 3 – Many farmers will not be able to participate in an offset program, and will simply be stuck with significantly higher energy costs. Some crops like fruits, vegetables, rice, cotton and potatoes are simply not suitable for no-till or other farming practices to sequester CO2 in soil. The start-up costs to purchase the necessary equipment to engage in farming practices potentially eligible for an offset can be cost prohibitive, with some equipment costing more than $1 million. And, a new analysis by EPA projects virtually zero potential for soil sequestration.

Myth #2 – Under the Waxman-Peterson “deal,” the EPA will have no ability to regulate farmers and ranchers.

FACT, Part 1 – According to press reports, Chairman Waxman’s description of the deal is that “we will seek guidance from the Administration to figure out the appropriate role for the EPA.”

FACT, Part 2 – The 1,200-page Waxman-Markey has more than 800 references to the EPA or the EPA Administrator and includes the phrase “the Administrator shall” 274 times. In addition, for just the cap-and-trade section of the bill, the EPA is required to produce more than 60 rulemakings, agency and regulatory actions or reports. In contrast, USDA and “agriculture” appear a total of 12 times. Make no mistake, the EPA is the top cop on the beat.

FACT, Part 3 – The devil is in the details…of which there are very few. Until legislative language is produced and reviewed, it is impossible to determine the true impact of the so-called deal between Chairmen Peterson and Waxman. According to press reports, even the Blue Dog’s are reluctant to support a bill if given very short notice to review it. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) said the following:

“The coalition is just not going to be ready to vote on this next week, particularly if we don’t get language until Monday,” she told E&E last week. “Because many will insist that we have a number of days to review the language ourselves, to have back and forth with our constituencies and stakeholder groups, to understand how the system with a significant manager's amendment will work. Yes, absolutely, we need to chew on this awhile”


PART II – Indirect Land Use & Biomass Definition

Myth #1 – The Waxman-Peterson “deal” on indirect land use fixes the problem.

FACT – According to press reports, this “deal” simply kicks the can down the road by delaying the rule for five years and having the EPA and USDA jointly study the issue. The legislation Rep. Peterson introduced (H.R. 2409) permanently prohibited EPA from using indirect land use changes in the calculation of lifecycle GHG emissions.

Myth #2 – The Waxman-Peterson “deal” improves the definition of renewable biomass.

FACT – There is no deal. According to press reports, Chairman Peterson “hoped” to have an agreement by the end of the day (Wednesday). This issue – using the language from the 2008 Farm Bill to define biomass – is also included in H.R. 2409.


PART III – Rural Co-ops

Myth #1 – The Waxman-Peterson “deal” protects Rural America from electricity price increases.

FACT, Part 1: Farmers, families, and ranchers in rural America will still pay higher electricity prices. Why? The deal that the Democrats struck with the rural co-ops leaves some states way in the hole. The sham deal leaves many state co-ops still far short of the free permits they will need to comply with the new standards in the bill. Translation: rural America will pay more to comply with the bill.

FACT, Part 2: The Democrats’ backroom deal ties the hands of the co-ops to help offset the costs to their consumers. The few additional free allowances that were given to rural co-ops have strings attached. The money can only be used for efficiency, renewable, or low-income assistance. The local distribution company cannot use these allowances to cover the increase in the electric costs due to carbon permit costs. But these local distribution companies need the permits BECAUSE they face higher electricity costs, but the bill says they are not allowed to use these permits to pay for those costs?

FACT, Part 3: Although the bill made marginal improvements by prohibiting “excess distributions,” the deal simply means that states like California and Washington don’t actually make excessive profits on this provision. This Waxman-Peterson deal still means consumers in most of rural America will end up paying more for electricity.

Myth #2 – The Waxman-Peterson “deal” protects consumers and small business from electricity price increases.

FACT: Residential or commercial customers who use a lot of electricity, such as groceries or convenience stores, could be especially harmed by the Democrat deal. The deal now provides for industrial customers to receive allowance value based on the quantity of electricity they purchase and to reduce costs for them. However, utilities are NOT required to reduce costs to residential or commercial customers - the bill only requires that the allocations should be used for the benefit of ratepayers, and specifically prohibits rebates based on the amount of electricity they buy.

Myth #3 – Free allowances to the electricity sector are equitable.

FACT: The bill still distributes allowances to LDCs based 50 percent on emissions and 50 percent on retail sales. This is unprecedented. The much-touted acid rain permit program, for example, allocates permits solely on the basis of emissions. The Waxman-Peterson deal means that states with higher CO2 emissions are penalized. None of the changes they made in the bill remedy that inequity.

Dhimmicrats Deliberately Working to Undermine Security and Economy

A powerful congressional chairman has joined a growing number of Democrats who want to sharply increase the cost of drilling leases that the government provides on federal lands, a move vigorously opposed by Big Oil and Republicans.
Rep. Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia Democrat and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, has proposed a plan to boost royalty rates by 50 percent and to cut the lease periods to five years from the current 10 years or more. His recommendation would be part of a sweeping overhaul of the $22 billion, scandal-tarred oil and gas drilling program that the Interior Department oversees.
The plan also appears in line with the broader energy goals of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who is conducting a review of the Interior Department's handling of oil and gas leases and royalties as the House prepares to push through a bill to address climate change and the Senate works on its own energy legislation.