Newt Gingrich: Drill Here, Drill Now makes top videos

Well Newt Ginrich fianlly made the top 20 most blogged videos on the internet with his campaign to “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less.”, an appeal to reduce gas prices by increase domestic drilling. Newt’s online petition has netted a million signers in just three weeks (however one values online signers). Here is the video…

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 23 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Rupert in Springfield

    Great video. One has to wonder about Newt in recent years. Lets face it, he was nothing short of a genius in 1994, but with recent lurches into the the folly of Global Warming, one has begun to wonder where his logic skills have gone. This video is the Newt of ’94 that I remember. Succinct, direct and compelling.

  • Bob Clark

    I sure would like to see a more balanced approach to energy and the environment, and I think this is what Ginrich and McCain are about. Just attacking energy from the conservation and renewable side is probably not as effective as attacking it from the conservation, renewable, nuclear ramp up and more drilling access side. The latter is less risky to the economy as well. The scalability of renewables, and their cost effectiveness, are yet untried whereas a thing like opening the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is expected to result in very large amounts of domestic oil not unsimilar to the Alaskan North Slope project back in the late 70s and early 80s.

    People may not realize this, but the demo’s proposed conservation/ renewable only path puts at risk such federal services as Medicare and Social Security. Two programs they cherish. Why? Because these programs and similar federal spending progarms depend on a growing economy. If economic output falters because solar and wind projects can’t grow fast enough to replace faltering oil production and grow electricty supply, then tax revenues decline relatively reducing federal services like Medicare and Social Security both of which depend on continued federal revenue growth via continued economic growth.

    I don’t have to tell you the U.S is in a box now and borrowing more relative to income growth causes a fall in the dollar which spurs inflation. To increases tax rates, on other hand, probably causes economic growth to stumble and tax revenues to remain flat.

    So, by all means, we should use all the tools in the tool box, balancing between economic and environmental priorities. Drill here, Drill Now!

  • Sybella

    I have no problem with looking for alternative energy. I think it could be good, I already use some solar power, it works well, but sorry, it just doesn’t replace electricity from the electric company.

    I have been hearing about renewable energy for the last thirty years. So far, I haven’t seen much come of it. Other than the fact our food supply is now going into our gas tanks.

    Now they have had all that time to do something about it and alternative energy still isn’t cutting it. Tell me why I have to go back and live like it’s the 1930’s? In the meantime while this is , quote, being developed, we should use that which is available to us.

    I saw not too long ago, where the people in america got up in arms about the illegal immigration problem and got it stopped. Where is the outrage, when the greenies, want our lives?

    I signed the petition.

  • dean

    “Drill here…drill now…so we can pay less.” What a winning slogan! What a crock of sh**.

    First…opening up the off shore areas that President Bush 1 and 2 and brother Bush and John McCain all agreed (and brother Bush lobbied hard for so that he could be governor) to place off limits to drilling might lower gas prices 10 or 20 years from now. It won’t lower them today or tomorrow. Why? Drilling for oil and transporting it from difficult, remote places is not like going to the dentist for a drilling. It takes time unless one wants to get sloppy about it, but that would mean dropping the “environmentally safe” part of the message.

    Second…these same characters, particularly Gingrich, are the same ones who enabled and defended America’s cheap oil policy for the past 20 or more years by refusing to raise taxes on oil (to encourage conservation) or to raise CAFE standards. leading direcly to the SUV market boom, or build a rail transport network. Add to that the Gingrich Congress was elected in 94, and maintained power until 06 along with a friendly President for 6 of those years. Where was the energy policy that reduced dependence on foreign oil? MIA. Free markets except for oil and gas subsidies. There is your policy. We reap what we sow friends.

    Did Gingrich-Bushes-McCain choose to open the few remaining American areas with oil up to drilling when they were in power? No. Did they get any more Nukes built? No…I think the last Nuke plant was started in 78. Did they find a permanent, safe repository for the nuclear waste we are already generating? No on that. Did they do anything to encourage investment or deployment of alternative energy? Uh…no. Did they do anything to improve conservation? No to that as well. Free market. They preserved the free market and we bought SUVs and over sized homes out in the sticks. Reap what you sow.

    So now…with our national nipper in a tight ringer and people finally beginning to make the necessary adjustments that should have been started 10-30 years ago, we are going to drill for oil. That’s it. There is your new energy policy. Prices will come back down. Fabulous. Brilliant. Why didn’t I think of it?

    In 10 years time…which is the minimum time it would take for the first drop of ANWAR or Gulf oil to reach a refinery….we could replace 80% of our gasoline sucking over-sized personal vehicles with plug-in hybrid electric or all electric ones. We could be getting 20% of our electricity to help charge these with wind, solar, and other renewable, clean, and non Arab, Iranian, or Venezuelan power. We could have an inter-city high speed train network up and running that reduces the need for gas guzzling plane travel. 20% of us could be cycle commuting on safely re-designed streets, with svelte healthy bodies tucked into multi-colored lycra. Our air would be cleaner, our seas left as habitat for edible fish (high in Omega 3s,) and Alaska oil would still be there in the ground for that final emergency or maybe just as a monument to the past.

    Which future do we shoot at? Prolong the inevitable or finally get on with what we have been putting off? Is Newt Gingrich our oracle? not likely.

    That said…IF opening our last best places to oil drilling is combined with a serious bipartisan commitment to rapid deployment of renewable energy AND a carbon cap or tax….I’m supportive, and will encourage my whacko environmentalist friends to get on board. If this is just a PR campaign to to suck out the last bits before our grandkids grow up, then include me out.

    • Anonymous

      Trouble is we are not replacing them. At the rate that is happening, maybe ten to twenty or maybe another thirty years will have passed. What are you saving it all for. It’s going to all end any way and it WAS GIVEN TO US TO USE.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >or build a rail transport

      You really want to repeat the disaster that is Amtrak?

      >Add to that the Gingrich Congress was elected in 94, and maintained power until 06 along with a friendly President for 6 of those years.

      Are you aware Clinton was the president then? The relationship was far from cordial. As far as energy policy, Clinton was an absolute flop. He sealed up our only known low sulpher coal reserves with his first historic monument declaration. Al Gore really helped out when he sold off the Navel Oil reserves as well. What a couple of crooks those two were.

      >In 10 years time…which is the minimum time it would take for the first drop of ANWAR or Gulf oil to reach a refinery….we could replace 80% of our gasoline sucking over-sized personal vehicles with plug-in hybrid electric or all electric ones.

      You know, the 10 years is too long thing just amazes me.

      What is this mentality we have developed in this country where everything has to happen tomorrow or it isn’t worth doing. 6 years in Iraq is too long. 10 years to develop oil is too long.

      Look, if we had developed this stuff ten years ago, as some on my side were urging, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

      >Prolong the inevitable or finally get on with what we have been putting off? Is Newt Gingrich our oracle? not likely.

      I vote for prolong the inevitable. If something is 100 years out, 200 years out, 1000 years out, well, that adjusts my rate of concern. Frankly it seems like they keep making new oil finds every day, and the technology improves for finding it every day.

      30 years ago we only had 30 years of oil left. I say at that rate, we have enough oil to last forever.

    • Francis

      The pssemistic left replies.

      The problem with leftist thinking in this country is that it has a European mentality based on European ideals and more importantly European circumstances. None of that exists here in the USA. Our structure is all wrond for a rail system in the USA. You say..”I want to “repeat” and improve upon the high speed passenger train networks of Europe and Japan, which operate on seperate (sic) rails and do not have to wait for freight trains to pass.” It won’t work here. Move to Europe if that’s what you want.

      Funny thing is, the leftists refuse to have Nuclear Power Plants. France uses nothing but. But do you here the rest of the world critizing the socialist elite in France about nuclear enrgy? I think not.

      Simple fact is we need to drill here and drill now…so that in the near futere we will be less dependant on others. We need to build lots of Nuclear Power plants with plans for safe waste removal.

  • Anonymous

    Dean,

    You’re advocating the abolition of the horse and buggy long before the autombolie airrives.

    As do most lefty loons you fail miserably to consider the current widespread dependency on oil, gas and coal while you narrow mindedly and foolishly cling to the convenient notion that most of it’s just wastefull and unneccessary.

    • dean

      I fully account for our dependency on fossil fuels. All the reason to wean ourselves from it, not to feed it further with false hopes. The longer we put off the transition the harder it is going to be.

      I’m not advocating “abolition.” I’m advocating “transition.”

      Driving over sized personal vehicles to buy groceries or commute to work by oneself is both wasteful and unecessary. 2 people living in a 10,000 square foot house is wasteful and unecessary. The list is long. Its past time we grew up and started acting responsibly, which I thought was a conservative, not a looney left value.

      • devietro

        “Driving over sized personal vehicles to buy groceries or commute to work by oneself is both wasteful and unecessary. 2 people living in a 10,000 square foot house is wasteful and unecessary. The list is long. Its past time we grew up and started acting responsibly, which I thought was a conservative, not a looney left value”

        Oh how mistaken you are, as long as I continue to pay my own gas bill I can drive what ever the hell I want, thats call capitalism and freedom get use to it. Also if I CHOOSE to build a 100,000sq Ft. House for me and my theoretical family so be it. Just like I would allow you the freedom to live in your hut with no running water or electricity if you so choose. Freedom is far more important then the theoretical threat of global warming. Sorry its true.

    • John in Oregon

      Alfred Nonymous said > *Dean, You’re advocating the abolition of the horse and buggy long before the autombolie (sic) airrives. (sic)*

      Alfred, Dean is actually advocating a return to the horse and buggy. Just as the Mayor of Portland is advocating returning Portland to the good old days of 1930.

      The future part of Dean’s solution is a genetically modified horse that eats sawdust and doesn’t pass gas. Whoops, scratch that, we can’t cut trees to make sawdust. Double whoops, genetically modified crops are evil, except of course genetically modifying human embryos is just fine.

      Scratch the above, I guess we need to substitute a *Donkey* for the horse, at least they run on Hot Air.

      Alfred, you might try a bit more lucid argument. Lefty Loons doesn’t quite make it, MAN.

  • John in Oregon

    Portland’s own favorite liberal congressman Earl Blumenauer appeared on national TV this week spouting 68 million acres. Like a broken record, 68 million acres — click — 68 million acres — click –. He wouldn’t answer a simple question, 68 million acres — click.

    Of course 68 million is just a parlor trick, and Blumenauer is, or should be, totally aware that most of 68 million acres of exploration leases turn up dry holes. And that is the Democrats solution. A bill introduced in Congress this week to *”compel”* oil and natural gas companies to produce from federal lands they are leasing for exploration. Got that? _An act of Congress will do what geology did not._

    The new Democrat motto:
    *D* rill
    *ON* ly
    *K* nown
    *E* mpty
    *Y* ield
    *Donkey*

    I would suggest it might be more effective if the Democrats offered a new bill to _compel_ oil and natural gas companies to _produce new oil from existing end of life wells._ A no drilling instant solution to the price at the pump. And while at it Blumenauer might consider _repealing the law of gravity to make space travel easier._

    Every solution currently under consideration by the Democrats is a future solution. Ethanol, Wind, Solar Photo Voltaic, Solar Thermal, Wave Power, Tide Power, and Geothermal all are still dreams and depend in the best case on massive subsidies.

    Of the two most mature future technologies, Ethanol and Wind, both have major problems. Ethanol in particular is a dead end driving up the price of food world wide. This years global cooling trend with short growing seasons and cold winter storm flooding will result in decreased food production world wide. A problem made worse by the Government demand that we use food to put in the gas tank. A problem made worse because Government KNOWS better than free markets.

    Oil drilling and processing is a *present-day technology* that offers the quickest solution to our short term energy needs. As the other technologies are gradually proven and perfected and _go on-line,_ we can then and *only then* reduce our dependence on oil.

    Yes of course Gov. Bill Crist of Florida changed his position on drilling Florida Oil. From the capitol in Tallahassee to Tampa Bay all Floridians can see China and India drilling Florida Oil. Rigs that will be *pumping OIL in 18 Months!* Just exactly why should Florida see the price at the pumps go up and stand by while China pumps Florida Oil?

    What’s worse is the Democrat energy position is making the United States a laughing stock in Europe and the Middle East. Beginning with the Greek election, then Germany, Canada, France, Italy, and now the UK, all are moving Conservative. Ireland and Czech Republic have turned down the ultra liberal EU constitution for the second time.

    Why should OPEC pump more when the United States won’t drill and pump our own vast oil reserves? Why should Europe care when the United States roadblocks nuclear?

    So the Democrats pursue a 1990 failed European model. Hey Guys, that’s soooo last century!

    • David in Maryland on 2008-06-23

      AMEN, BROTHER!!!!

  • florence Wootten

    Add my name to petition…couldn’t find it. I wrote Senator Milulski some time ago and received the usual arguments: won’t make a difference, harm our environment. I am a environmentalist…grew up on 15 acres of waterfront…how could I not be?

    • sybella
    • dean

      Where to start? “Looney left?” Easy to dismiss any observations or advice from that quarter. Only there are so many people who share the view that an “all deliberate speed’ on conservation and alternative energy is needed now, not later makes the looney left large enough to tip the whole nation over. Have you stopped to consider that you are actually the “lonney right”, making all else merely appear left?

      China drilling for oil off the coast of Florida? Great sound bite for Republicans to keep repeating, only it isn’t actually true. Cuba has leased out some exploratory blocks within 60 miles of Florida, which is their perrogative. But there has been no drilling yet, and none of the blocks have been leased to China. Try a different story.

      “Horse and buggy?” Modern wind turbines, electic-hybrid cars, solar thermal triple paned windows….these are high tech systems. The internal combustion engine is low tech in comparison, dating from 13th century China, rediscovered and put to use by 19th century Europeans.

      Do I want to “repeat Amtrack?” No…I want to “repeat” and improve upon the high speed passenger train networks of Europe and Japan, which operate on seperate rails and do not have to wait for freight trains to pass. Why the hell should people be flying between Portland and Seattle? It makes zero sense in this day and age.

      Yes…I dimly remember the Clinton presidency. I also remember the Republican Congress he had to work with, led by Newt. What was Newt’s energy policy back then? I recall him ridiculing Democratic proposals to raise gas taxes and CAFE standards.

      10 years is not “too long” to develop our last remaining domestic reserves of oil. 10 years is too long to bring down oil prices today or tomorrow, which is what Newt, Bush and McCain advocate. An alternative energy policy and conservation could produce better results over the same time period, and have the added benefit of lowering pollution.

      Ask yourself….if we follow Newt and Ruperts advice, what then? The United States uses 21 million barels of oil PER DAY. We have 21 billion barrels of proven domestic reserves. That is about 3 years supply. Our domestic oil production peaked in 1970, and we have drilled over 2 million wells since that time. ANWR has between 4 and 11 billion recoverable barrels. McCain claims we have another 21 billion barrels in “proven reserves” off shore. Maybe. If so that adds another 3-4 years at present consumption rates. Whoop dee doo.

      Its not “100 years out” Rupert. Its today, tomorrow, and yesterday. Get your head out of the sand.

      Yes divietro…you should be free to drive whatever the hell you want (as long as it meets federal safety, pollution, and other standards right? Not so free after all.) And go ahead and build that 100,000 square foot fantasy house, high on a hill and as ugly as you can make it, like the guy in Lake Oswego. I just want you and me and everyone else to have to pay for the privledge of polluting the air. And I want public energy policy to allow the rest of us to move forward while you waste away and wax nostalic about the good old days to your hearts content.

      John…you can’t be serious about:
      “the Democrat energy position is making the United States a laughing stock in Europe and the Middle East.”

      You believe the rest of the developed world is “moving conservative?” “Conservatives” in Europe are to the left of Democrats in the US on most issues, including energy, health care. and international relations. They might be “moving more conservative” within their own context, but it has nothing to do with our political situation. We are the outlyer, and everyone else knows it.

      “Europe” has already roadblocked nuclear..at least in Germany. Denmark gets 20% of its electricity from wind. Germany leads in solar. Europeans already use 1/2 the fossil fuel energy per capita as the United States. They are begging us to get with the program while we remain stubborn, spoiled and stupid.

  • Anonymous

    dean said”
    “I’m not advocating “abolition.” I’m advocating “transition.””

    What an idiot you are.

    So Ok you’re advocating the “transition” away from the horse and buggy long before the automobile airrives.

    Insisting ped bike and transit are ready to replace the automobile trucks and buses.

    You loons do fail miserably to consider the current widespread dependency on oil, gas and coal.

    You’ve foolishly narrowed the dependency down to “Diving over sized personal vehicles to buy groceries or commute to work by oneself”.

    Whereas in reality the dependency runs through all sectors of our economy from industry and manufacturing to providing goverment services.
    But you have it all reduced to simply weaning ourselves from it.

    You are irrational.

    The false hope is that we need to prematurely transition becasue of AGW.

    The longer we put off the transition the EASIER it is going to be for new technology and energy to EASILY replace the current mess your fanatic agenda has created.

    Your declaration that our current system is “wasteful, unecessary and easily “transitioned”. is the stuff of immature loons who know nothing about acting responsibly.

    That’s your looney left jibberish.

    • dean

      70% of the oil used is for transportation. Driving over sized personal vehicles is an example I used to illustrate waste. Hauling freight is economically necessary. Hauling one’s fat arse in an oversized SUV 5 or 20 miles to work at 10 miles per gallon is not necessary. Flying to Seattle for a business meeting is only necessary because we have failed to invest in a high speed rail network.

      We already have more efficient personal vehicles on the market. The “more efficient horse and buggy” is thus already here, no need to wait for delivery. Solar energy is already here. Wind energy is already here. Insulation and triple glazed windows are already here. More and better solutions are on the near horizon, including a plug-in hybrid that may get the equivlent of 100 MPG.

      Your logic…putting things off as long as possible…is illogical. If your teenager explained to you they were putting off doing their homework because at some point computers will allow direct transfer of all necessary information into their brain…what would you say to them? “Okay honey…go ahead and play another computer game instead.” I doubt it.

      We are the world’s energy gluttons. We are spoiled rotten. Deal with reality. We are not going to solve our energy problems by continuing to waste what we have left, or by engaging in one last futile effort to suck out any remaining oil, no matter how remote, how deep, or how expensive to get at.

      “Conservatives”have been wrong about “conservation” for decades. The chickens have come home to roost.

  • Anonymous

    dean
    You’re a nit wit who never gets any point made.

    So what if 70% of the oil used is for transportation? It’s much smaller as a portion of total fossil fuel use.

    Your demon SUV is not the waste you imagine. Yet you would surely like to decide what driving is necessary. Your high speed rail network would not be the net savings you imagine either.

    Yes there are more efficient personal vehicles on the market. More coming. But the replacement for fossil fuel use is decades away and your farce of AGW and your cult’s blockade against our own resources is making the transition a disaster.

    So no the “more efficient horse and buggy” is not already here as you pretend.
    Needlessly starving our country and economy for oil, gas and coal is loony.
    Despite your elementary mention of Solar energy, wind energy and conservation.
    All together they are NOT a subsitute for our current fossil fuel needs.

    But you can’t understand my logic. Chosing instead to cast it as simply “putting things off as long as possible”. Nonsense.

    There is no legitimate reason to NOT take advantage of our own oil, coal and nat gas resourses.
    You’re just a kook who thinks it is warming the planet.

    So you yammer on about We the world’s energy gluttons, We the spoiled rotten, We are to waste what we have left etc.

    Your phony concern about cost never surfaces when advocating rail transit, smart growth and other boondoggles.

    Our resources are not so remote, not so deep and not so costly to get. Those are the excuses your cult uses for your standing in the way of using them.

    You have been blocking our own energy for decades and now the chickens have come home to roost.

    • dean

      Outer continental shelf is not remote? Not deep? ANWR is not remote?

      The estimate is that there are 8.5 billion barrels of oil to be found on this outer shelf. A bit over 1 year of consumption. There may be more, there may not. No one knows. ANWR estimate is what…2-4 billion barrels. We are not drilling our way out of this pickle. No way no how. Its fantasy island.

      Oil represents 35% of total fossil fuel consumption world wide. Coal is 25%, and natural gas 20%. If you limit the discussion to electricity generation you get:
      Coal = 40%
      Gas = 20%
      Hydro = 16%
      Nuclear = 16%
      Oil = 7%
      Solar & wind = 1%

      Solar and wind are the fastest growing. They are both near parity with fossil fuels in terms of cost. They would be at parity but for existing subsidies for fossil fuels, particularly oil. Because of the massive investment already made in existing gnerating stations, transition to a more renewable future is bound to be slow. Thus there is a need to continue using fossil fuels for many years. The question we should be asking ourselves is: can and should we speed the transition that we have to make. We could keep burning coal for a long time if we don’t care about the climate. Unfortunately for you enough people do care about the climate, including both major party candidates for president and the majority in Congress.

      No…I don’t want to “decide” what driving is necessary. I want those who decide to drive in over sized, gas guzzling vehicles to pay for their pollution. And that includes me if I decide to drive that sort of vehicle. Free choice plus personal responsibility.

      Signed…Dean the idiot nitwit left-wing looney.

    • John in Oregon

      Dean you said > * China drilling for oil off the coast of Florida? Great sound bite for Republicans to keep repeating, _only it isn’t actually true._ Cuba has leased out some exploratory blocks within 60 miles of Florida, which is their perrogative. (sic) _But there has been no drilling yet,_ and _none of the blocks have been leased to China._ Try a different story.*

      Investors Business Daily
      Monday, June 09, 2008

      The U.S. Congress has voted consistently to keep 85% of America’s offshore oil and gas off-limits, while *China and Cuba drill 60 miles from Key West, Fla.* The *U.S. Minerals Management Service says that the restricted areas contain 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.*

      Cuba drills for oil off Florida
      The Washington Times
      July 24, 2006

      Cuba is drilling for oil 60 miles off the coast of Florida with help from *China,* Canada and Spain even as Congress struggles to end years of deadlock over drilling for what could be a treasure trove of offshore oil and gas….

      Canadian companies Sherritt International Co. and Pebercan Inc. *already are pumping more than 19,000 barrels of crude each day from the Santa Cruz, Puerto Escondido, Canasi and other offshore fields in the straits* about 90 miles from Key West, and *Spain’s Repsol oil company has announced the discovery of “quality oil” in deep-water areas* of the same region, the National Ocean Industries Association said.

      Investors Business Daily
      Wednesday, June 11, 2008

      Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., prefers a rapid increase in domestic oil supply. He says he will push for an amendment to an upcoming spending bill that would open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles offshore. *Fifty miles is how far off the Florida coast China and Cuba are drilling for oil.*

      Dean I know you don’t believe “rags” like Investors Business Daily and The Washington Times so feel free to confirm via Cuba’s national Granma news agency. But then I suppose you do believe the CBS news article linking earthquakes and global warming. Ohhh Well.

      Dean you contend > *Do I want to “repeat Amtrack?” No…I want to “repeat” and improve upon the high speed passenger train networks of Europe and Japan, which operate on seperate (sic) rails and do not have to wait for freight trains to pass. Why the hell should people be flying between Portland and Seattle? It makes zero sense in this day and age.*

      Short hop commuter flights make all the sense in the world. For exactly the same reason that the rubber tire diesel transit bus makes sense. Sure there are routes that make sense for the Shinkansen in Japan and high speed rail in Europe. There may even be some routs like that in the United States. I would bet Portland — Seattle isnt one of them.

      From Portland by commuter air its possible to create, change, and expand service as needed to Boise, Seattle, Pendelton, Eugene, Bend, Pullman, all points between. That’s impossible for rail.

      The major limitations of Rail are;
      ] Fixed inflexible rout.
      ] Huge capitol constructions costs.
      ] Limited capacity.
      ] The fastest car is no faster than the slowest car.

      The Shinkansen lines in _high density_ Japan with line ridership around 33 Million per year would have to be the poster child of high speed rail success. Dean ask your self this, if high speed rail is the answer then why are the Japanese Shinkansen lines that were proposed during the early 1970s yet to be constructed?

      Dean you said > *Only there are so many people who share the view that an “all deliberate speed’ on conservation and alternative energy is needed now, not later…”*

      Sooo Dean if you think “alternate energy” is the solution, then please answer;
      1] What is the energy source?
      2] How much will it cost to build?
      3] How long will it take to build?
      4] What will be the cost of energy produced?
      5] How will the energy be transported?
      6] How much energy will the source provide?

      Dean if you can’t answer these questions your alternate energy solution is a hope also known as, AKA, a mirage..

      The idea of implementing alternative energy today is a politicians pipe dream. Every major forecast of future oil use through the middle of this century — including those of the _Energy Department_ and the _International Energy Agency_ — expect crude oil to make up at least *75% of energy supplies.*

      Dean you state categorically > *In 10 years time…which is the minimum time it would take for the first drop of ANWAR or Gulf oil to reach a refinery….*

      Why is that exactly? Please explain and be specific and accurate. Provide real figures and data not wild claims.

      We need 50 miles of pipeline from ANWAR to Prudhoe Bay, the north end of the Alaska Pipeline. If I order pipe today it will take 6 months to start taking delivery. If I build only 10 miles a month that’s an additional 5 months or 11 months total. During those 11 months the first few wells can be drilled. If we include super tanker sea time that’s a year for the first drop.

      Double that for a fudge factor, thats still only 2 years. So where exactly does 10 years come from???

      If you disagree then be very specific about what the delays are! But, just remember the Canadian companies Sherritt International Co. and Pebercan Inc. *already are pumping more than 19,000 barrels of crude each day from the Santa Cruz, Puerto Escondido, Canasi and other offshore fields in the straits of Florida.*

      > *In 10 years time…which is the minimum time it would take for the first drop of ANWAR or Gulf oil to reach a refinery….we could replace 80% of our gasoline sucking over-sized personal vehicles with plug-in hybrid electric or all electric ones.*

      Ignoring the demonizing language (we already know full well you hate family sized vehicles). There are two problems to deal with for plug in electric vehicles.

      1] Existing hybird battery only range is 60 miles at best. Not near good enough. Improved battery technology is needed. What battery technology do you suggest? When will it be available? How much does it cost?
      2] If we replace only half the gasoline or about 20 – 25 % of motor fuel we will need roughly 200 million gallons gasoline equivalent. That’s 6,690 MegaWatthours at 100% efficiency. Where does this power come from? How much does it cost? When will it be available?

      > *You believe the rest of the developed world is “moving conservative?” “Conservatives” in Europe are to the left of Democrats in the US on most issues, including energy, health care. and international relations. They might be “moving more conservative” within their own context, but it has nothing to do with our political situation. We are the outlyer, and everyone else knows it.*

      Investors Business Daily
      Friday, June 20, 2008

      …[K]ey allies like the *conservative French, German and Italian governments* — unlike the days of rage in 2003 — *now embrace pretty much the same policies that we do*. Britain and the European Union just called for imposing tougher sanctions on Iran, while both France and Britain promise to send more troops to Afghanistan.

      > *”Europe” has already roadblocked nuclear..at least in Germany. Denmark gets 20% of its electricity from wind. Germany leads in solar.*

      Funny you should mention Denmark. After the Oil Embargo what did Denmark do to strive for energy independence??? Come on Dean you can say it. By D… D… Drilling.

      Dean you say > *Europeans already use 1/2 the fossil fuel energy per capita as the United States. They are begging us to get with the program while we remain stubborn, spoiled and stupid.*

      Dean, like it or not, the United States is the largest industrial economy in the world. Which is why you refuse to consider CO2 emissions per unit of economic output.

      Now I know you are going to say that China is coming on strong, and they are. And how are they doing it? Come on Dean you can say it. By U… Us… Using Energy.

      Sooo as you say the Europeans are cutting energy. How are they doing that Dean? By Out-Locating industrial capacity to non-Kyoto countries! And even then take a look at what is happening;

      *German minister says car tax plan looks doomed*
      Reuters Wed May 28, 2008
      BERLIN, May 28 (Reuters) – Members of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition remain “miles apart” on a plan to link car taxes to emissions and are unlikely to introduce the change in 2009 as planned, Transport Minister Wolfgang Tiefensee said.

      *Climate Be Damned
      E.U. plows ahead with coal*
      Grist 23 Apr 2008
      Even as it makes plans to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, the European Union is gearing up to put some 50 coal plants on line in the next five years. Europeans’ distaste for nuclear energy and the relative cheap cost of coal — even when carbon permits are factored in — have made the black rock attractive for meeting rising demand. E.U

      *Flight International*
      Lufthansa chief executive Wolfgang Mayrhuber has reacted strongly to this imposition of extra costs, even threatening to move some hub operations to Zurich, Switzerland, which is not an EU member, and which is geographically close to Lufthansa’s second largest hub at Munich’s Franz Josef Strauss International Airport. Flight International quotes him as saying,

      *Nick Clegg, The Daily Telegraph, 28 May 2008*
      The fuel protests hammer home a clear message. After the 10p tax rebellion, the local elections, and the Crewe by-election, no one can doubt the mood of the country any more. There is insurrection in the air. The British people are ready for change and they don’t believe Labour can deliver it.

      So Dean, of course the EU would like the United States to commit economic Kyoto suicide. Misery loves company!

      > *Its not “100 years out” Rupert. Its today, tomorrow, and yesterday. Get your head out of the sand.*

      Dean I’m sorry to see you buy off on the old saw of peek-energy, end of resources, and all that old drivel. As Wired said. “This is the litany: Our resources are running out. The air is bad, the water worse. The planet’s species are dying off – more exactly, we’re killing them -at the staggering rate of 100,000 per year…We’re trashing the planet, washing away the topsoil, paving over our farmlands, systematically deforesting our wildernesses, decimating the biota, and ultimately killing ourselves.

      Dean I hope you know better than to buy that BS.

      Dean you commented > *John…you can’t be serious about: “the Democrat energy position is making the United States a laughing stock in Europe and the Middle East.”*

      Yes Dean, I am.

      *Oil-drill foes ‘screaming’ for Saudi aid*
      SHARM EL SHEIKH, Egypt

      *Rising oil prices are on a slippery slope to disaster*

      UK Times June 13, 2008
      When hauliers blocked the streets of London, Gordon Brown flew to Aberdeen to talk to Britain’s oil bosses. Less than a month later, tanker drivers are threatening further chaos and the Prime Minister wants to fly to Saudi Arabia to talk to Opec.

      Investors Business Daily
      Friday, June 20, 2008

      Gas prices are soaring. Americans are frustrated (and a bit ashamed) that we continue to beg the Saudis to pump another half-million barrels a day on their soil and off their shores to ease global tight supplies, when we could pump much more than that in Alaska, off our coasts and on the continental shelf — and thus save hundreds of billions of dollars.

      And Dean all of the above means what? The Europeans are happy the United States is holding our resources off the market driving up the world price? Do you think they appreciate our holding back our resources? Or might it be they think we are masochistic?

      *BTW* there was an exciting new development in solar voltaic this last week. Why don’t you tell us about it?

      • dean

        John…none other than Dick Cheney himself admitted he erred in citing a George Will column that told the false story about Chinese oil drilling off florida. Its unfortunately becoming a right-wing urban legend, as if you needed another:
        http://www.adn.com/oil/story/434045.html

        Short hop commuter flights make sense ina world with abundant, cheap oil. That world is ending John. Cities are fixed geographically, so fixed intra city rail lines make at least as much sense as fixed airport locations. Commercial planes may be able to fly anywhere, but they can’t land anywhere.

        Much of our energy future will be electricity based, and fortunately we can generate electricity in lots of non-polluting ways. Wind and solar are nearing parity with fossil fuels. All they ned is a nudge to gain enough manufacturing capacity for prices to come down much further.
        http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11565685

        A plug in hybrid car will have 80-100 miles capacity, but even at only 40 or 60 that is good enough for 90% of daily commutes.

        Time…cost….depends on us. If we bump up the price of carbon based fuels now, we get solar, wind, and other renewable power sooner. If we wait we get it later. The pace will be market driven, influenced by government policies.

        Yes, we are the largest post-industrial economy. But we don’t manufacture all that much anymore. We drive around and sell services to each other. we don’t need gas guzllers for most purposes.

        I agree with you on one point. If any European nation had our oil reserves off shore or in Alaska they would probably drill for it. And I don;t disagree. I think we should drill for it. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking this is going to lower current prices or help us acheive “energy independence.” There is not enough out there and we use far too much. Its basic math. Not complicated.

        By the way…I do not “hate family sized vehicles.” I have an 85 VW pop top camper van, which is “family sized.” I also have an American made pickup truck for farm use. But if I were a commuter, which I am not, I would use mass transit, bike, or buy a more fuel efficient vehicle. I would not commute in my van or another large hog.

  • Anonymous

    dean,

    Your cult is also blocking clean burning Nat gas. We can keep burning coal, oil and nat gas for a long time because there is no effect on our climate at all.

    And as technology advances more efficient uses of them and the adoption of other energy sources grow we have no reason but insanity to adopt your lunatic agenda.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)