Exclusive: The Democrats' Oil-Drilling Flimflam: Betting the Public Is Too Dumb to Catch On

Family Security Matters ^ | August 11, 2008 | Joel Himelfarb

[Delacon]

The mantra from Barack Obama and congressional Democrat leaders is that they represent "change" - and when it comes to gas prices, they certainly have a point. The cost to heat and air-condition American homes is certainly "changing" in very negative ways for the American consumer, as is the cost of getting to work or taking a trip with the family.

  

Regular readers of this column know that I have been critical of Republicans' performance on many issues. But on energy today, the GOP on Capitol Hill has shown that it understands that oil supply must be increased, and lately it has been indefatigable in working to make this a reality. Even John McCain, a longtime advocate of costly, job-destroying legislation on climate change, is supporting offshore drilling and demanding that the Democrat leadership bring Congress back to Washington right away to debate energy. The Democrat Party, by contrast, is controlled by elitists who think they can profit politically by demagoguing against oil companies and commodities traders and making empty threats to induce OPEC to produce more. In reality, their policies would ensure that Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and corrupt government officials and pipeline saboteurs in Nigeria cement their power to send American energy prices sky-high.

  

On Capitol Hill, the House Republican Whip's office has been distributing a chart titled "What was the Democrat Congress Voting on as Gas Prices Skyrocketed?" The chart shows that while the Democrat Leadership in both houses has done everything possible to block Congress from voting on expanded drilling for oil, it has had plenty of time to spend on feel-good resolutions and trivial measures that do nothing to alleviate the hardships caused by soaring energy prices.

  

For example, on January 29, 2007, when gas was $2.22 per gallon, Congress voted on "Congratulating the U.C. Santa Barbara Soccer Team." On September 5, 2007, when the price had risen to $2.84, "it was "National Passport Month." By February 6, 2008, ($3.03), Congress was voting on "Commending the Houston Dynamo Soccer Team." On May 14th, the issue was "National Train Day," ($3.77) and on May 20th it was "Great Cats and Rare Canids Act" ($3.84). By June 10th, with the price at $4.09, Congress was considering the "International Year of Sanitation" and by June 17th, having pushed the price up to $4.14, the great change agents on Capitol Hill were discussing the "Monkey Safety Act."

  

To their credit, House and Senate Republicans appear to have found their voice on the energy issue: contrasting their efforts to support offshore oil drilling and exploration in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) with the Democrat leadership's efforts to block it at every turn. House Minority Leader John Boehner and Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell have spent the past two months doing everything possible to show the link between the Democrat leadership's intransigent opposition to drilling and the crushing burden of higher energy prices the American people. While discussing weighty matters like primates, soccer teams and the like, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and their allies have dedicated themselves to preventing Congress from voting on efforts to expand energy supplies.

  

In the House, Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, a liberal Wisconsin Democrat who has served in Congress for 39 years, has spent much of his summer trying to pass spending measures without letting the House vote on drilling. In June, Obey let it be known that he would not bring up legislation funding the Interior Department; the legislation contains a yearly renewal of a ban on drilling in ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf. Had the Interior measure come up, Republican supporters of drilling would have in all likelihood defeated Obey and the Democrat leadership and their environmentalist allies. Then, Rep. Jerry Lewis, California Republican, offered an amendment to the Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations bill that would have forced multiple votes on drilling. In response, Obey, realizing he would likely lose this vote as well, adjourned the committee rather than permit an up-or-down vote.

   

The Democrat Leadership in Congress has embarked on a two-part strategy to pretend to support drilling while continuing the status quo - that is, continuing to carry water for the radical environmentalists. Before the Congress left town on a five-week break, the Democrats pushed though the House an energy bill titled the "Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands (Drill) Act." The bill doesn't open new lands to exploration. Instead of opening ANWR, which contains known reserves of 10.6 billion barrels, it opens something called the National Petroleum Reserve (NPR), which contains an estimated 10.4 billion barrels. But a careful examination of the Democrat bill shows it to be laden with booby traps.

    

For one thing, it contains boilerplate language mandating that oil leasing be done in an in an "environmentally responsible manner" (ill-defined wording that sounds reasonable but in reality will ensure that environmentalist lawyers keep the issue tied up in litigation for years). Moreover, it is worth noting that the area of ANWR that would be open to exploration would be just 2,000 acres. By contrast, the NPR fields are spread over 23 million acres. In addition, the ANWR area is just 75 miles away from the current pipeline infrastructure, while the NPR fields are more than 250 miles away. And there is no production in the NPR right now because of - you guessed it - ongoing litigation.

    

"By focusing on a patch of Arctic tundra more spread out that ANWR, a greater distance from current pipelines, and subject to lawsuits not addressed by the legislation, the Democrats chose to respond to American cries for expedited drilling in such a way that would have made it harder to produce energy," Rep.Michele Bachmann, Minnesota Republican, noted in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. Moreover, the Democrat bill contains language that Obama, Reid and the entire Democrat Party have embraced that would cripple new exploration: so-called "use it or lose it" language which bars the government from issuing any new exploration or production leases unless the applicant can certify to lawyers' and judges' satisfaction that every lease currently held is being "diligently developed." But, contrary to the Democrats' propaganda line that companies are hoarding leases and refusing to develop them, the truth is that these companies pay fees upfront, in addition to annual rent payments, regardless of whether oil production actually occurs. The delays result from the fact that exploration is a difficult, expensive, time-consuming process in which success follows years of failure and frustration.

    

"In the real world," Rep. Bachmann notes, "forcing companies to 'use' their leases immediately or lose them means making exploration more cost-prohibitive. It will ensure that less exploration will take place. It's akin to forcing a pharmaceutical company to develop a cure for cancer in some arbitrary number of years or else lose the ability to seek the cure."

     

But, in a nutshell, that's exactly what the Democrat Party's energy solution is: offering phony "solutions" and "compromises" which guarantee that new drilling never takes place and that OPEC and hostile foreign powers remain in the drivers seat - and betting that the American people are to dumb to catch on.

 

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Joel Himelfarb is an editorial writer for The Washington Times. The views expressed here are his own. Feedback: editorialdirector@familysecuritymatters.org.

[Delacon]

ping

[Bitsy]

We not only got it, we’re MAD AS HELL ABOUT IT!

[vietvet67]

[musicman]

[netmilsmom]

And this is why

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2060605/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2060687/posts

[ichabod1]

LEt tehm drill on the sixty-eight million acres they already have under lease. Use it or loose it! s

[CitizenM]

ping and double ping ping!

[Delacon]

LEt tehm drill on the sixty-eight million acres they already have under lease. Use it or loose it! s

From the article: " Moreover, the Democrat bill contains language that Obama, Reid and the entire Democrat Party have embraced that would cripple new exploration: so-called "use it or lose it" language which bars the government from issuing any new exploration or production leases unless the applicant can certify to lawyers' and judges' satisfaction that every lease currently held is being "diligently developed." But, contrary to the Democrats' propaganda line that companies are hoarding leases and refusing to develop them, the truth is that these companies pay fees upfront, in addition to annual rent payments, regardless of whether oil production actually occurs. The delays result from the fact that exploration is a difficult, expensive, time-consuming process in which success follows years of failure and frustration.
    
"In the real world," Rep. Bachmann notes, "forcing companies to 'use' their leases immediately or lose them means making exploration more cost-prohibitive. It will ensure that less exploration will take place. It's akin to forcing a pharmaceutical company to develop a cure for cancer in some arbitrary number of years or else lose the ability to seek the cure."

[dirtboy]

You’ve been here over three years and are still a sucker for Dem talking points, I see.

[bassmaner]

But, in a nutshell, that's exactly what the Democrat Party's energy solution is: offering phony "solutions" and "compromises" which guarantee that new drilling never takes place and that OPEC and hostile foreign powers remain in the drivers seat - and betting that the American people are to dumb to catch on.

This begs the question: what is the 'Rats' *REAL* motivation for all this stonewalling? We all know the enviro-wacko mantra about 'global warming', but when the truth is that China has surpassed the US in total carbon emissions in its quest for superpower status, it's quite clear that that's a canard.

The most logical conclusion is that they're hell-bent on destroying the most productive economy on earth in order to usher in some kind of socialist utopia. As we all know from history, this has never been accomplished and never will be because it's diametrically opposed to human nature, and every attempt to impose it has resulted in massive bloodshed and human misery.

The 'Rats must be stopped, and the productive forces in our economy unleased, or America's days are numbered.

[bassmaner]

unleased=unleashed {grrrrr}

[netmilsmom]

Why should they waste money drilling an “if come” when they can drill where known supplies are?

I’m tired of this crap. I could drill in my backyard. It doesn’t mean I’ll find anything.

[netmilsmom]

See post 6 for why.

[toddlintown]

Bingo! The House and the Senate will agree on a worthless piece of “legislature.”

[bassmaner]

I thought there was something fishy about Pickens ... as always, follow the money.

As far as the 'Pickens Plan' to build windmills with taxpayer money, I have 2 questions:

1) What happens when the wind doesn't blow?

2) Where does the electricity come from when the windmills get shut down by court order because a endangered-species bird got sliced and diced?

[netmilsmom]

We’ve just lost a WHOLE lot of money.

[thackney]

while the NPR fields are more than 250 miles away

That part is misleading. The Alpine field production center is right up against the NPRA border. Pipelines not 10 miles from NPRA connect to pump station 1 of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=70.345084,-150.926743&spn=0.028408,0.105743&t=h&z=13

This facility is already designed to handle initial expansion into NPRA. The first wellpad was designed a few years ago and is still waiting for permit approval. I was on the design team.

[LomanBill]

>>And this is why

That’s only part of it. Read Carry_okie’s excellent post where he shares some very interesting insight regarding environmentalist’s funding:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/999451/posts?page=67#67

“Big Oil” funding enviroweenies? Whaaaat?

Supply and Demand = Price.

The better to eat you with, my dear!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Excellent article.