Democrats Attempt to Shut Down Energy Debate Fails

Senator Inhofe voted today against a motion to proceed to final passage of S. 3268, the Energy Speculation Bill saying that he will work with his Republican colleagues to ensure the Senate works to provide real and meaningful solutions to rising energy costs. Senate Democratic leadership had attempted to block all Senators from offering any amendments to the bill.  

"Today's vote shows that Republicans are willing to stand up and fight to ensure the Senate stays focused on providing solutions to rising energy prices," Senator Inhofe said. "When Democrats allow the Senate to reopen for business on the issue of bringing down energy costs, I am ready to put forward amendments to encourage the development of natural gas vehicles, prolong the feasibility and production from our marginal oil and gas wells, address the market distorting subsidization of fuels in other countries, and repeal federal prohibitions on importing fuels from the Canadian oil sands.

"Republicans in the Senate are serious about providing solutions to rising energy costs. I will continue to stand with my Republican colleagues to ensure the Senate holds a fair and open debate on the need to increase energy supplies.  I believe a large majority of Senators will vote in favor of amendments to open responsible access to America's plentiful energy resources.  Democratic leadership knows this as well.  That's why they're blocking a full and open debate."

 

Background Information:

Amendments on S. 3268

The Drive America on Natural Gas Act - This amendment (S. Amdt. 5177) encourages auto manufacturers to produce bi-fuel vehicles, streamlines EPA's emissions certifications, and establishes a natural gas vehicle research program.  It promotes the use of a proven alternative fuel and sends a market signal to manufacturers to consider compressed natural gas as a cost competitive alternative. Natural gas is domestic, plentiful, affordable, and clean. The promise of natural gas as a mainstream transportation fuel is achievable today -- not 15 or 20 years from now.

The Marginal Well Production Preservation and Enhancement Act - This amendment (S. Amdt. 5178) streamlines and clarifies government regulations, prolongs economic feasibility, and enhances production volumes from the nation's 719,000 marginal wells.  In 2006, marginal wells produced more than 335 million barrels of oil.  That's equivalent to more than 61 percent of the oil we currently import from Saudi Arabia.  In my own state of Oklahoma, it is the small independents, basically mom-and-pop operations, producing the majority of oil and natural gas, with 85 percent of Oklahoma's oil coming from marginal wells.  These statistics testify to the importance of America's marginal well production.  With gasoline prices at record highs, Congress must ensure that government policies don't discourage and instead prolong and enhance production from these low volume wells.

The Foreign Removal and Elimination of Energy Subsidies Act - This amendment (S. Amdt. 5176) addresses the global market distorting subsidization of fuels in other countries.  While the current national average of gasoline is $4.02 here at home, in China it's just $2.84 per gallon, in Indonesia it's $2.44, in Mexico it's $2.65, and in Venezuela it's just 20 cents per gallon.  While demand for gasoline has dropped more than 3 percent in the U.S., worldwide demand continues to increase despite record high prices for oil.  This increased demand is largely due to the market distorting policies of foreign government.  My legislation implements an aggressive U.S. foreign policy to investigate and engage foreign governments subsidize the price of their fuels. 

Repeal of Section 526 - This amendment (S. Amdt. 5175), offered with Senator Domenici, repeals Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.  Less than three years ago, in Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Congress found that "United States oil shale, tar sands, and other unconventional fuels are strategically important domestic resources that should be developed to reduce the growing dependence of the United States on politically and economically unstable sources of foreign oil imports."  The Canadian oil sands contain 179.2 billion barrels of proven oil reserves.  Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act prohibits federal agencies from procuring an alternative or synthetic fuel, including a fuel produced from nonconventional petroleum sources, for any mobility-related use, other than for research or testing, unless the contract specifies that the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and combustion of the fuel supplied under the contract must, on an ongoing basis, be less than or equal to such emissions from the equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources.  We need to repeal this section, allow imports from Canada, and not prohibit U.S. military fueling options.  Section 526 also seeks to bar the U.S. Department of Defense from using coal to liquids and natural gas to liquids fuels.  Currently, the U.S. Air Force has certified B-52's, B-1's, and C-17's on these types of alternative fuels.  In fact, B-52 aircraft at Tinker Air Force Base have been tested with natural gas to liquids fuels developed by Tulsa based Syntroleum Corporation.   

Cosponsored

Senator Coleman (S. Amdt. 5137): opening offshore production and encouraging use of hybrid automobiles which are both part of the Republican Gas Price Reduction Act of 2008.    

Senator Craig amendment (S. Amdt. 5153): increases our domestic oil and natural gas production by opening up the Eastern Gulf of Mexico to within 50 miles off Florida's coast.  Conservative estimates done by MMS in 2000 indicate that between 1.57 and 2.78 billion barrels of oil exist in this area.  In 2008, average U.S. production is projected to average 5.1 million barrels of oil a day and average U.S. consumption is projected to be 20 million barrels of oil a day.  We have a long history of successfully drilling for natural gas and oil in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.  Increasing domestic production would stabilize retail gasoline prices.  Today, 7 countries (Vietnam, India, Spain, Norway, Malaysia, Canada and China) are leasing and exploring for oil 45 miles off the coast of Florida in Cuban waters.

Related:

Democrats Turn Out the Lights - July 23, 2008 Excerpt: "As American families continue to suffer from high gas prices, Democrats once again denied Senators the ability to debate and offer amendments addressing our crucial energy need, which proves they are not serious about addressing gasoline prices," Senator Inhofe said. "As the most important issue facing Congress, Democrats are dictating a closed process in an effort to deny votes on real solutions. We need to have votes on off-shore drilling; Rocky Mountain oil shales; promoting domestic natural gas as a transportation fuel; repealing section 526 of 2007's energy bill - which would preserve America's ability to import fuels from Canadian oil sands. America demands more from Congress." Read More...

Inhofe Welcomes Senate Debate on Bringing Down Gas Prices - July 22, 2008 Excerpt: Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, today voted in favor of the motion to proceed to S. 3268, the Energy Speculation Bill, with the understanding that Senators will be allowed to offer and debate amendments to the bill. Through his leadership position on the EPW Committee, Senator Inhofe has been working with his colleagues to find ways to bring down rising energy costs. Last week, Senator Inhofe introduced the "Drive America on Natural Gas Act" as well as a comprehensive energy proposal, the "American Affordable Fuels Act," to address insufficient refining capacity, increase energy supply, and promote the use of future transportation fuels. Read More...

Read More:

Solutions to Skyrocketing Energy Costs

Inhofe Op-Ed: Natural Gas Production Essential To Oklahoma And The Country (The Journal Record)

Inhofe Op-Ed: Filling Up America's Energy Tank (Ada Evening News)

Inhofe Op-Ed: America's Carbon Policy (Tulsa World)

Inhofe Op-Ed Dems Running on Empty (Human Events)

Oklahoma Papers Agree: Time to Drill Offshore

Oklahoman Editorial: Drill Bits: Distortions Keep U.S. Energy On Shelf

Inhofe Speech on Increasing Americas Energy Production

July 22, 2008

WASHINGTON, DC – Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, gave a floor speech on America’s energy policy today.

Selected Excerpts of Inhofe’s Energy Speech 

“I believe that America is not running out of oil and gas or running out of places to look for oil and gas.  America is running out of places where the Democrats in Congress are allowing us to look for oil and gas. Again I ask, why should producing America's own resources be a partisan issue?  It shouldn't be, but it is.  The Democrats in Congress refuse to increase our supply of energy... and gas prices keep rising… I call on the Democrats to act to expand refinery capacity and to open the nation's access to the Outer Continental Shelf, ANWR, and the Rocky Mountain oil shale, and preserve access to Canadian oil sands.  Today's American oil producer operates with the most sophisticated environmental technologies and policies on the planet.  67 percent of the American people recognize the need for development and support action. It’s time to end the Democratic Party’s obstruction. The American public must demand that the Democrats in Congress allow us to produce our own resources.” 

Lowering Gas Prices

“In 2005, I first introduced the Gas PRICE Act which would improve the permitting process for the expansion of existing and construction of new domestic fuels facilities, as well as encourage and fund the development of future fuels including coal-to-liquids and cellulosic biofuels. In addition, the Act would provide for a more stable and certain regulatory environment and it would have numerous economic benefits, including locating refineries in distressed communities…. If we had passed my legislation in 2005, the private sector would be busy expanding refineries today. If we had passed the Democrat alternative, EPA would still be figuring out how design a refinery. Americans are paying more at the pump today because we do not have the domestic capacity to produce domestic fuels that consumers demand. The American public is starving for affordable energy.  We should be producing more fuel at home – it’s good for security, it’s good for jobs, and it’s good for consumers.” 

Americans Demand Expanded Domestic Production 

“Americans are clearly embracing the need for expanded domestic production. Recent polling data from Rasmussen shows that 67 percent of American voters support offshore drilling – only 18 percent oppose.  The same poll also found that 64 percent believe that if offshore drilling is allowed, gas prices will go down. Another poll from The Polling Company Inc. found that 81 percent of Americans support greater use of domestic energy resources.” 

Oil & Gas Exploration Prohibited 

“But even though the American public strongly supports expanded use of American resources, oil and gas exploration and production is currently prohibited on 85 percent of America’s offshore waters.  The Pacific and Atlantic regions of the Outer Continental Shelf which hold an estimated 14 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of gas are off-limits.  14 billion barrels of oil are equivalent to more than 25 years’ worth of our imports from Saudi Arabia. Other countries around the world aggressively explore and rightfully embrace the discovery of new oil finds.  Canada allows offshore drilling in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Great Lakes.  Cuba is also looking to expand exploration, which could occur within 45 miles of parts of Florida and with technology that may be less environmentally sound than that used by American companies.”  

ANWR 

“Looking to Alaska, ANWR is estimated to contain 10 billion barrels of oil – about 15 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia.  If President Clinton hadn’t vetoed legislation allowing environmentally sensitive exploration on the Coastal Plain of ANWR ten years ago, today we would have 1 million additional barrels of oil a day coming from ANWR.   

Oil Shale 

“Turning to oil shale, the potential energy development from these resources is truly massive.  But, once again, Democrats are blocking development.  The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2007 established a one-year moratorium on the necessary funding to complete the final regulations for commercial leasing of oil shale.” 

Democrats Block Access to America’s Resources 

“In an effort to hide their true record of blocking access to America’s own resources, the Democrats are engaged in a campaign of shifting blame claiming that there are 68 million acres in America where oil and gas companies have bought the right to drill and they are sitting on them. Very simply, not all leases contain oil.  Sometimes at the end of the day there is no oil or gas found on a lease.  For example, between 2002 and 2007, 52 percent of all the exploration wells and 8 percent of all development wells were dry.”  

Imports 

“By opening the nation's access to the reserves of the Outer Continental Shelf, ANWR, and Oil Shale, we could cut our nation's trade deficit nearly in half.  According to the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. spent more than $327 billion to import oil in 2007.  These oil imports accounted for 46 percent of the nation's $711 billion trade deficit last year.”  

Full Text of Inhofe’s Floor Remark:

 

The question must be asked: Why should producing America’s own resources be a partisan issue?  It shouldn’t be, but it is.  The Democrats in Congress refuse to increase our supply of energy... and gas prices keep rising. 

Bush Calls on Congress for Action

Last month President Bush called on Congressional Democrat leaders to act on a four-point plan to bring down gasoline prices and increase America’s oil and gas production.  The President’s four points correctly focus on expanding exploration of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), opening ANWR, developing America’s oil shales, and expanding refining capacity.  Barrack Obama is against all 4 of these initiatives.  John McCain is for 3 of the 4.
 

Gas Price Act

In 2005, I first introduced the Gas PRICE Act which would improve the permitting process for the expansion of existing and construction of new domestic fuels facilities, as well as encourage and fund the development of future fuels including coal-to-liquids and cellulosic biofuels. In addition, the Act would provide for a more stable and certain regulatory environment and it would have numerous economic benefits including locating refineries in distressed communities. The Gas PRICE Act received broad bipartisan support from stakeholders including state and local officials.  My legislation recognized that states have the dominant role in permitting through their delegated or authorized federal programs. Therefore, the bill helped participating states by providing them with EPA resources to assist them in pursuing their own objectives as they see them, and it did so, as the EPA career experts confirmed, “without any changes to substantive environmental laws.” In fact, the legislation had a savings clause to safe guard the environmental laws. If we had passed my legislation in 2005, the private sector would be busy expanding refineries today. If we had passed the Democrat alternative, EPA would still be trying to figure out how to design a refinery. Americans are paying more at the pump today because we do not have the domestic capacity to produce domestic fuels consumers demand. The American public is starving for affordable energy and it appears the Democrats' only answer is to tell them to go on a diet. We should be producing more fuel at home – it’s good for security, it’s good for jobs, and it’s good for consumers. Why should producing America’s own resources be a partisan issue?  It shouldn’t be, but it is.  The Democrats in Congress refuse to increase our supply of energy... and gas prices keep rising. 

Polling Shows Strong Support for Utilizing Domestic Energy 

In addition to the need for expanded refinery capacity, Americans are clearly embracing the need for expanded domestic production. Recent polling data from Rasmussen shows that 67 percent of American voters support offshore drilling – only 18 percent oppose.  The same poll also found that 64 percent believe that if offshore drilling is allowed, gas prices will go down. Another poll from the Polling Company, Inc. found that 81 percent of Americans support greater use of domestic energy resources.  By a margin of more than four-to-one, Americans surveyed supported the U.S. tapping into its “own domestic energy reserves, including the oil and coal it already has here in the United States” in order to “combat the rising cost of energy and reduce dependence on foreign energy sources” (81 percent : 16 percent). 

Offshore 

But even though the American public strongly supports expanded use of  American resources, oil and gas exploration and production are currently prohibited on 85 percent of America’s offshore waters.  The Pacific and Atlantic regions of the Outer Continental Shelf which hold an estimated 14 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of gas are off-limits.  14 billion barrels of oil are equivalent to more than 25 years’ worth of our imports from Saudi Arabia. Other countries around the world aggressively explore and rightfully embrace the discovery of new oil finds.  Canada allows offshore drilling in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Great Lakes. 

Although they are not currently drilling, Cuba is also looking to expand exploration, which could occur within 45 miles of parts of Florida and with technology that may be less environmentally sound than that used by American companies. With 81 percent of Americans wanting to produce, why should producing America’s own resources be a partisan issue?  It shouldn’t be, but it is. 

The Democrats in Congress refuse to increase our supply of energy... and gas prices keep rising. As described in the Wall Street Journal, Brazil announced last year a major offshore oil discovery in the Santos Basin with potentially billions of barrels in reserves:  When Brazil made this find last November, did its legislature announce that for fear of oil spills hitting Rio's beaches or altering the climate it would forgo exploiting these fields? Of course it didn't. Guilherme Estrella, director of exploration and production for the Brazilian oil company Petrobras said, "It's an extraordinary position for Brazil to be in." Indeed it is. At this point in time, is there another country on the face of the earth that would possess the oil and gas reserves held by the United States and refuse to exploit them? Only technical incompetence... would hold anyone back. – (June 12, 2008 ) 

No country on earth has exploration technology as advanced and environmentally sound as ours.  Even so, Democrats oppose offshore production on very misleading environmental grounds.  Major spills from drilling and production platforms are nearly non-existent.  Both Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which were massive Category 5's, plowed through the heart of Gulf oil production just four weeks apart, yet no major spills occurred. 

In this regard, a July 3, 2006, Investor’s Business Daily Editorial reported: “Perhaps they could explain how it was, if offshore drilling is so dangerous to the environment, that no major spills were recorded as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita roared through nearly 3,000 offshore oil and gas platforms operating in the Gulf of Mexico. Norway and Britain have been operating oil platforms in the North Sea for decades without incident... Brazil has achieved petroleum independence in part from the 1.9 million barrels of oil it gets from offshore drilling.  ... a National Academy of Sciences report shows 63% of the petroleum found in North American waters comes from natural seepage from the ocean floor. According to the Department of the Interior, since 1985 more than 7 billion barrels of oil have been produced in federal waters, with less than .001 percent spilled.  It’s likely that more oil has been leaked by cars, SUVs and motor homes traveling to these pristine beaches, or from the boats and jet skis rented by tourists, than is or will be leaked getting oil to fuel them.” 

Again, why should producing America’s own resources be a partisan issue?  It shouldn’t be, but it is.  The Democrats in Congress refuse to increase our supply energy... and gas prices keep rising.           

ANWR

Looking to Alaska, ANWR is estimated to contain 10 billion barrels of oil – about 15 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia.  If President Clinton hadn’t vetoed legislation allowing environmentally sensitive exploration on the Coastal Plain of ANWR ten years ago, today we would have 1 million additional barrels of oil a day coming from ANWR. The Heritage Foundation describes ANWR’s 19 million acres as the same size as South Carolina. “Of that area, President Bush proposes opening about 1.5 million acres to exploration (roughly 6 percent of ANWR). Of those 1.5 million acres, only 2,000 -- an area the size of Washington's Dulles International Airport -- would be devoted to drilling.” Columnist Jerome Corsi compares its size and impact with Prudhoe Bay:  “Putting together Prudhoe Bay with the coastal area of ANWR that may be opened to oil exploration and you still get an area that is about the size of a postage stamp on a football field. Prudhoe Bay's gravel pads, gathering lines, production facilities, roads and other infrastructures occupy less than 6,000 acres of land, yet Prudhoe Bay remains America's largest oil field.”

Oil Shales

Turning to oil shales, the potential energy development from these resources is truly massive.  But, once again, Democrats are blocking development.  The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2007 established a one-year moratorium on the necessary funding to complete the final regulations for commercial leasing of oil shales.  Without Congressional action, a one-year delay could end up lasting much longer, and, like the Outer Continental Shelf appropriations moratorium, continue year-after-year. The Green River Formation located within Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah contains the equivalent of 6 trillion barrels of oil. The Rand corporation estimates that as many as 1.1 trillion barrels are recoverable and at prices as low as $35 to $48 dollars per barrel, within the first 12 years of commercial scale production.  At current rates of consumption, 1.1 trillion barrels equals more than 145 years of domestic supply.  This number would nearly double assuming the Department of Energy’s estimate of nearly 2 trillion potentially-recoverable barrels. 

Imports 

By opening the nation’s access to the reserves of the Outer Continental Shelf, ANWR, and Oil Shales, we could cut our nation’s trade deficit nearly in half.  According to the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. spent more than $327 billion to import oil in 2007.  These oil imports accounted for 46 percent of the nation’s $711 billion trade deficit last year. In 2008, many experts anticipate that the amount we spend on oil imports will surpass $400 billion.  Assuming a $130 price per barrel of oil, America will trade more than $135 billion to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela for oil imports, when we could be producing these resources here at home.  ANWR, Outer Continental Shelf, and Oil Shales production would help stem this unprecedented transfer of wealth by keeping hundreds of billions of dollars within our economy, creating jobs at home - not overseas. The bill that I introduced with Senator Domenici, the American Energy Production Act of 2008, opens ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf, and the oil shales to production, and repeals Section 526, preserving America’s access to the Canadian oil sands. I believe that America is not running out of oil and gas or running out of places to look for oil and gas.  America is running out of places where the Democrats in Congress are allowing us to look for oil and gas. Again I ask, why should producing America’s own resources be a partisan issue?  It shouldn’t be, but it is.  The Democrats in Congress refuse to increase our supply of energy... and gas prices keep rising. 

The Truth on False and Misleading "68 Million Acres" Claim 

In an effort to hide their true record of blocking access to America’s own resources, the Democrats on the other side of the aisle are engaged in a campaign of shifting blame. Speaker Pelosi recently claimed, “There are 68 million acres in America where oil and gas companies have bought the right to drill ... They are just sitting on them." (Press Conference, 6/10/08) But the Speaker’s comments are based on misleading assumptions.  First and foremost, not all leases contain oil.  Sometimes at the end of the day there is no oil or gas found on a lease.  For example, between 2002 and 2007 52 percent of all the exploration wells and 8 percent of all development wells were dry.  How does the Speaker expect companies to produce oil from an acreage which contains no oil? David Curtiss, the Washington director of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, says, “There’s the misconception that every lease has oil.  A lease is a line on a map. It has nothing to do with the geology of where oil is.” Additionally, it can take years for production to come on line. 

The Wall Street Journal recently explained,  “Companies don’t know how much oil is under the lands they lease, so they buy up large swaths in hope that a fraction will work out. Much of the area that isn’t producing, they say, doesn’t have oil or gas in commercially viable quantities. Moreover, bringing a new field into production can require years of mapping, testing, drilling and construction – during which time the land would show up in statistics as being ‘not in production,’ even as companies spend millions or even billions of dollars to bring it on line.” (6/16/08) 

Simple answer:  they are not drilling on 68 million acres because there isn’t any oil there.

In conclusion, I call on the Democrats to act on the President's call to expand refinery capacity and to open the nation's access to the Outer Continental Shelf, ANWR, and the oil shales. Today's American oil producer operates with the most sophisticated environmental technologies and policies on the planet. 67 percent of the American people recognize the need for development and are supporting action. The time for the Democratic party’s obstruction is over. Again, why should producing America’s own resources be a partisan issue?  It shouldn’t be, but it is.  The Democrats in Congress refuse to increase our supply of energy... and gas prices keep rising. The American public must demand that the Democrats in Congress allow us to produce our own resources.

Hearing Statement: Business Meeting to Consider Subpoena Request to EPA Administrator on Endangerment Finding

Thursday, July 24, 2008

 Madame Chairman, I am very disappointed with the actions of this Committee today.  It is my view that the calling of this Business Meeting to consider a Committee Resolution to issue a subpoena to EPA Administrator Johnson is unwarranted and not focused on true oversight.   Rather, this is a political exercise that is intended to score more political points to help keep this issue of alleged Administration interference alive in the press as long as possible. The document in question today has been offered to the Committee for review, and was in fact reviewed by staff yesterday evening.  This same offer was accepted by Congressman Markey and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, but had been rejected by my Democratic colleagues.  

I assure you that I take this Committee’s responsibility in legitimate Executive branch oversight very seriously.  When I was Chairman of this Committee I assisted Ranking Member Jeffords in obtaining legitimate oversight documents from this same Administration.  At the time I thought the Bush Administration was denying Senator Jeffords access to documents that he had every right to obtain.  However, this case is different, and I believe once all the facts are given surrounding this investigation, it becomes clear that the issuance of this subpoena is both unwarranted and potentially disruptive to future deliberative processes within any Administration. 

It is my view that regardless of Administration, the President acting through the entire executive branch is fully entitled to express his policy judgments to the EPA Administrator, and to expect this subordinate to carry out the judgment of what the law requires and permits.   It can be argued that the “unitary Executive concept” promotes more effective rulemaking by bringing a broader perspective to bear on important regulatory decisions.  It also enhances democratic accountability for regulatory decision-making by pinning responsibility on the President to answer to the public for the regulatory actions taken by his Administration.  

Therefore, I consider this debate over censorship within the Administration to be a non-issue.  All administrations edit testimony and all documents go through interagency review before any final agency action. The document that is the subject of this subpoena was a product of that same process. It had not yet gone through the interagency review process and was not considered to be final agency action.  It did not trigger any Executive Order or Clean Air Act sunshine requirements.   

I cannot support any investigations that could have a chilling effect within the deliberative process of the Administration, and cause future career and political employees from refraining from an open and honest dialogue. This is not a new position for me. In fact, during the Clinton Administration, although I requested and received numerous documents involving the ozone and particulate matter NAAQS decisions, New Source Review Documents, and Clean Air Act Section 114 enforcement documents, I always honored the claims by the Clinton Administration involving deliberative documents.  Once we were told by the Clinton Administration that documents were deliberative in nature, we did not continue to press for them, recognizing the right of executive privilege and the sanctity of internal deliberations.  

In addition to these fundamental principles on the internal deliberative process, it is my understanding that the Bush Administration on Friday, July 18, 2008 offered to allow Senator Boxer and Members of the Committee’s staff the opportunity to review the endangerment finding document that is the subject of this request in the same manner as was offered to the House and Congressman Markey’s staff in a previous investigation. This offer involved allowing staff to review the document and take notes for as long as they need, but not take possession of the document. The majority accepted this offer late yesterday evening, however the Majority has still insisted on calling this Business Meeting today. It is worth noting that the resulting review in the House was able to satisfy the House staff.  Instead, this Committee insists on going forward with this subpoena request, which simply confirms that this investigation is not about true oversight, but to score  political points and to keep the issue alive as long as possible.    

In talking to my Republican colleagues, the concern is the chilling affect such a subpoena would have on both political and career executive branch employees in future Administrations.  If employees become concerned that their unfettered advice to the President could be made public and also subject them personally to congressional oversight then they may become more guarded in their advice to the President during internal deliberations.  This could deny future Presidents the advice they need to make informed decisions. 

Madame Chairman, if this Committee were serious in undertaking efforts to draft climate change policy rather than score political points, it should be focusing its efforts in a much more methodical and deliberative manner that acknowledges the complexity of the issues surrounding any mandatory emission  reduction policy.  Regardless of my own position on this topic, the Committee should be exploring issues to help build a record on how to draft a cap and trade system, the level of technology currently available to achieve reductions, how to allocate credits, how to design an auction system, how to create a domestic offset program, what the international impacts will be on trade and particularly exports, how to effectively contain costs through a transparent mechanism, and the list could go on. Instead, we are forced here today to object and not participate in this largely political exercise. 

Hearing Statement: Midwest Floods: What Happened and What Might be Improved for Managing Risk and Responses in the Future

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Thank you, Chairman Boxer.  I’d like to welcome our colleagues who are here today to give us their observations on the impacts of the flooding and what their communities might now need.  Also, welcome to Secretary Woodley and General Walsh, who will provide us with specific details on the emergency preparedness and response activities of the Corps of Engineers and whether their efforts were at all hampered by existing authorities, as well as the impacts of the flooding across all Corps mission areas.           

 

The Corps of Engineers can play a critical role during excessive rain events.  Last year, my home state of Oklahoma experienced record-breaking floods, but the Corps was right there to help lessen the impacts.  The Tulsa District did an excellent job of, in particular, managing water levels at the reservoirs in order to prevent hundreds of millions of dollars in additional damages.  Unfortunately, these floods caused a fair amount of damage at our recreation areas, leading to reduced services this year.  Heavy rains again this year in the region have had impacts for the navigation industry as well.            

 The flooded region today’s hearing is focused on is facing a similarly broad range of water resources issues.  It is not simply a question of whether the levees performed as intended and if so, whether we need more or larger levees or if not, why not.  The questions we need to discuss involve how to balance all the needs and benefits of the Mississippi River and its tributaries.   

These waterways are used for navigation, recreation, hydropower, fish and wildlife habitat, and other water resources needs.  Sometimes these uses seem to be in conflict with one another.  It is our job as policymakers to provide the technical experts at the Corps of Engineers with enough guidance and the proper tools to promote the national interest in the use of the waterways.  Today we get a chance to hear a status update on this particular flooding incident, as well as any recommendations for future improvements.

Democrats Turn Lights Out on Energy Debate: Inhofe Statement

Posted 7/23/2008

WASHINGTON, DC – Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, commented on the Senate Democrats denial of amendments on the current energy bill.

 

EPW Fact of the Day: Democrats Energy Bill Does Nothing to Address Gas Prices - Could Make Worse Excerpt:

Posted 7/23/2008

"But I do know this is something we can do and have an immediate impact on the price of gasoline at the pump, and that's what my constituents are asking us to do." Senator Cardin (D, MD) Senate Floor, July 21, 2008.

"First, address speculation with the democratic bill. We have said to the republicans, offer your version. If you don't want to offer a bill, vote against ours if you wish but we offer you this opportunity to put your amendment on the floor on speculation, whatever it happens to be. We will go head to head, one on one against the other." Senator Durbin (D, IL), Senate Floor, July 21, 2008.

FACT: Near universal agreement dictates that something should be done to increase transparency and ensure integrity in commodities’ markets. But while Senate Democrats claim compassion for the average American, they consistently fail to address the disastrous supply problem. The effect of yet another Democratic "no energy" bill could actually be higher gas prices.

In a response to a request from Senator Chambliss (R, GA), Presidential Working Group members Treasury Secretary Paulson, Federal Chairman Bernanke, SEC Chairman Cox, and CFTC Chairman Lukken gave their analysis of S. 3268, "The Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008."

The response letter expressed concern for the current market condition of high commodity prices, especially oil. However, these four experts concluded this bill could actually have harmful repercussions for U.S. energy markets.

"(T)he PWG believes that bill S. 3268, as introduced, would significantly harm U.S. energy markets without evidence that it would lower crude oil prices."

"(P)rices appear to be reflecting tight global supplies and the growing world demand for oil, particularly in emerging economies."

"Provisions in the bill may also harm U.S. competitiveness by driving some trading to overseas markets or to more opaque trading systems at a time when policymakers are trying to encourage greater transparency."

"To date, the PWG has not found valid evidence to suggest that high crude prices over time are a direct result of speculation or systematic manipulation by traders."

A Wall Street Journal editorial explains just how ridiculous the Democrats’ energy plan is:

"Even the title of the Senate's bill -- the ‘Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act’ -- is idiotic. True, the volume of trading has increased by about sixfold since 2000, but it can't be ‘excessive.’ The inviolable law of futures markets is that someone has to take the other side of any option. That is, the value of contracts agreed to by sellers anticipating that prices will fall must equal the value of contracts agreed to by buyers anticipating prices will rise. The overall size of the market is irrelevant." Wall Street Journal, An Energy Sarbox, July 22, 2008

# # #

Inhofe Blog Post On Increasing American Energy Production (The Hill, July 24, 2008)

THE HILL BLOG

By Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.),

July 24, 2008

Link to Blog 

America is not running out of oil and gas, or running out of places to look for oil and gas.  America is running out of places where the Democratic Congress will allow us to look for oil and gas.

Producing America's own resources should not be a partisan issue. The Democrats’ refusal to increase our supply of energy keeps prices on the rise. 

Recent polling data from Rasmussen shows that 67 % of Americans support offshore drilling, and only 18 % oppose. The same poll also found that 64 % believe that if offshore drilling is allowed, gas prices will go down. Another poll from The Polling Company Inc. found that 81 % of Americans support greater use of domestic energy resources.

Even though the American public strongly supports expanded use of American resources, new oil and gas exploration and production is currently prohibited on 85 % of America’s offshore waters.  The Pacific and Atlantic regions of the Outer Continental Shelf, which hold an estimated 14 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of gas, are off-limits.  Fourteen billion barrels of oil is equivalent to more than 25 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia. Other countries around the world aggressively explore and embrace the discovery of new oil fields. Canada allows offshore drilling in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Great Lakes. 

 No other country on earth has exploration technology as advanced and environmentally sound as the U.S. Still, Democrats oppose offshore production based on highly misleading environmental arguments.  Major spills from drilling and production platforms are nearly non-existent.  Both Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which were massive Category 5's, plowed through the heart of Gulf oil production just four weeks apart, yet no major spills occurred.   

Looking to Alaska, ANWR is estimated to contain 10 billion barrels of oil – about 15 years worth of imports from Saudi Arabia.  If President Clinton hadn’t vetoed legislation allowing environmentally sensitive exploration on the Coastal Plain of ANWR ten years ago, currently we would have one million additional barrels of oil a day coming from ANWR.   

Turning to oil shale, the potential energy development from these resources is massive.  Once again, Democrats are blocking development.  The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2007 established a one-year moratorium on the necessary funding to complete the final regulations for commercial leasing of oil shale.

In an effort to hide their true record of blocking access to America’s own resources, the Democrats are engaged in a campaign of shifting blame claiming that there are 68 million acres in America where oil and gas companies have bought the right to drill and they are sitting on them. Very simply, not all leases contain oil.  Sometimes at the end of the day there is no oil or gas found on a lease.  For example, between 2002 and 2007, 52 % of all the exploration wells and 8 % of all development wells were dry.

I continue to call on the Democrats to act to expand refinery capacity and to open the nation's access to the Outer Continental Shelf, ANWR, and the Rocky Mountain oil shales, as well as preserve access to Canadian oil sands.  

Today's American oil producer operates with the most sophisticated environmental technologies and policies on the planet.  Sixty-seven percent of the American people recognize the need for development and support action. It’s time to end the Democratic Party’s obstruction. The American public must demand that the Democrats in Congress allow us to utilize our own resources.

For more information on Senator Inhofe’s Comprehensive Energy plan See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=4cd3c4c2-802a-23ad-43e5-e13174960667

Inhofe Welcomes Senate Debate on Bringing Down Energy Prices

Posted 7/22/2008

WASHINGTON, DC – Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, today voted in favor of the motion to proceed to S. 3268, the Energy Speculation Bill, with the understanding that Senators will be allowed to offer and debate amendments to the bill. Through his leadership position on the EPW Committee, Senator Inhofe has been working with his colleagues to find ways to bring down rising energy costs. Last week, Senator Inhofe introduced the “Drive America on Natural Gas Act” as well as a comprehensive energy proposal, the “American Affordable Fuels Act,” to address insufficient refining capacity, increase energy supply, and promote the use of future transportation fuels.

 

"As American families face skyrocketing gas prices, they are looking to Washington to provide solutions to our nation's energy challenge,” Senator Inhofe said. “After months of inaction in Congress, I look forward to the Senate taking up energy legislation that allows for a full and open debate on the best way to address skyrocketing energy prices. I am hopeful that the Senate will debate amendments allowing us to increase American energy production.

“With skyrocketing energy prices, now is not the time for politics as usual -- now is the time for common sense solutions. That’s why last week I introduced legislation that allows Americans to take advantage of our abundant domestic supply of natural gas for use as a transportation fuel. To help make Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) a reality, I have introduced legislation, the ‘Drive America on Natural Gas Act,’ to encourage the use of natural gas as a transportation fuel and send a signal to auto manufacturers to produce and sell these vehicles domestically. Natural gas is domestic, plentiful, affordable, and clean. The promise of natural gas as a mainstream transportation fuel is achievable today -- not 15 or 20 years from now. 

“Additionally, I introduced energy legislation last week that opens America’s access to the Outer Continental Shelf, ANWR, and Rocky Mountain Oil Shales and preserves access to Canadian oil sands. This comprehensive bill, which also includes my ‘Drive America on Natural Gas Act’ and my previously introduced Gas PRICE Act, increases domestic supply and refining capacity. This bill not only encourages alternatives such as cellulosic biofuels, but also enhances and preserves our nation’s production from marginal wells, those that produce 15 barrels a day or less. The American Affordable Fuels Act establishes the framework to address our nation’s short, mid, and long-term fuels challenges.” 

Read More:  

Solutions to Skyrocketing Energy Costs

Inhofe Op-Ed: Natural Gas Production Essential To Oklahoma And The Country (The Journal Record)

Inhofe Op-Ed: Filling Up America's Energy Tank (Ada Evening News)

Inhofe Op-Ed: America's Carbon Policy (Tulsa World)

Inhofe Op-Ed Dems Running on Empty (Human Events)

Oklahoma Papers Agree: Time to Drill OffshoreOklahoman Editorial: Drill Bits: Distortions Keep U.S. Energy On Shelf  

###

Boxers Erroneous Assertions on Defeated Global Warming Bill

Posted 7/22/2008

 

Senator Barbara Boxer implied that the money raised by the now defunct Lieberman-Warner global warming cap-and-trade bill would have gone back to American consumers and Boxer further claimed that 54 Senators were prepared to move the global warming bill forward in June 2008.   

FACT: Proponents of the Lieberman-Warner bill alleged that Americans would get $800 billion in tax relief over the next 40 years.  The trouble is, the bill would have taken $6.7 trillion in order to fund the $800 billion.  That’s one dollar back for every $8 put in.  Only in Washington DC would that be considered a good return on investment.

 

Press Round-Up "Will To Drill is Strong" - Gore "Afraid of Discussing Nuclear Power" - Nothing Wrong with $5 Gas?

Posted 7/21/2008

Sampling of articles in past week:  

 

Investor’s Business Daily: Will To Drill Is Strong, Poll Finds; Climate Change Pales As Concern- July 15, 2008

Excerpt: Contrary to claims by Al Gore and others that global warming is the greatest challenge of our time, Americans by better than 3-to-1 say the price of gasoline is a bigger problem now, according to the latest IBD/TIPP Poll.Moreover, they stand willing to do something about it, including and especially drilling for oil in the Outer Continental Shelf and in federal shale reserves in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah.Even drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is backed by a plurality of Americans. The poll of 920 adults taken last week shows that 73% think "fuel prices at the pump" are a bigger problem for the country than climate change, the new term for global warming.

 

NY Times Blog: Three Questions for Al Gore - John Tierney - July 17, 2008

Excerpt: Why is Mr. Gore still afraid of discussing nuclear power? He tries to sound Kennedyesque in setting his decade-long quest and inveighs against “the defenders of the status quo.” But he’s still reluctant to use his stature among greens to get them to reconsider the largest carbon-free source of electricity in America today, nuclear power. Is this a profile in courage? 3) Why hasn’t his one-year plan for energy worked at his own home? A year ago, after the embarrassing revelation that his home in Tennessee used 20 times as much electricity as the average home, he renovated his home to make it more energy-efficient. But a year later, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research reports that his home electricity usage has increased by 10 percent — an additional 1,638 kilowatts per month — since the renovations, which included solar panels, a geothermal system and a variety of conservation measures. Does this inspire confidence in his 10-year plan for the rest of America?

RealClearPolitics.com: - ‘Liberals basically don't see much wrong with $5 gas’ - July 16, 2008 

Excerpt: The truth is that the Democrats put the need to mitigate climate change ahead of the imperative of holding down gasoline prices at the pump. If there was ever a fault line between elitist and populist approaches to a problem, this is it. In fact, liberals basically don't see much wrong with $5 gas. Many have been urging a tax to achieve precisely this level, just like Europe has done for decades. Obama said that he was unhappy that there was not a period of "gradual adjustment" to the high prices, but seems to shed few tears over the current levels. After all, if your imperative is climate change, a high gas price is worth 10 times a ratified Kyoto treaty in bringing about change.

 

CNBC.com’s Larry Kudlow: Bush Says Drill, Drill, Drill — And Oil Drops $9! – July 15, 2008

Excerpt: 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. […]  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.

 

The Journal Record: Energy leaders applaud president’s lifting of offshore ban- July 15, 2008

Excerpt: U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., said the country needs to add to its reserves by putting the areas in play. “Congress should follow the president’s lead and lift the moratoriums on domestic energy exploration,” Inhofe said. He said 85 percent of the OCS, or an estimated 19 billion barrels of recoverable oil – is off limits. Bush’s actions were not welcome by all.

 

Spiegel Online: Germany: Bureaucrats Killing Jobs to "Save" the Climate – July 17, 2008

Excerpt: The EU's Carbon Trading Scheme: Killing Jobs to Save the Climate - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - NewsThe price of European emission permits is rising so rapidly that German companies are threatening to leave the country. Thousands of jobs could be lost. And the environment may, in the end, be no better off. 

Thewest.comau: Australia: "wasting electricity could become a criminal offence in the foreseeable future." –July 18,  2008

Excerpt: Meanwhile, prominent human rights lawyer Julian Burnside says wasting electricity could become a criminal offence in the foreseeable future. Wasteful large companies in particular could be targeted, he said. "If we come to general agreement that part of the problem is that people are using too much electricity, then you have to create a regime that encourages people to use less electricity, you might make it an offence to waste electricity," Mr Burnside told ABC Radio. There were obvious difficulties enforcing such a regime. 

PressZoom: INHOFE PRAISES PICKENS’ CALL FOR INCREASING USE OF NATURAL GAS, WIND POWER- July 21, 2008

Excerpt: U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe ( R-Okla. ) today praised T. Boone Pickens for bringing forward a common-sense energy plan for America’s energy future. Senator Inhofe met with T. Boone Pickens last week and discussed Pickens’ call for increasing natural gas and wind energy production. Through his leadership position on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe has a long record in supporting not only increasing natural gas and wind energy production, but a strong record of supporting a domestic, diverse, and affordable energy supply.

 

Tulsa World: Reaction to Bush's oil ban lift mixed- July 15, 2008

Excerpt: Congress would need to remove its own restriction before exploration and production can resume. Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, imposed the ban in 1990, but gasoline prices nearing $5 in some regions — closer to $4 in Tulsa — have pushed some leaders to join the call for renewed domestic drilling efforts. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., said, "President Bush is to be commended for taking a critical step to ensure increased domestic energy supply for America." 

 

Investor's Business Daily: Answer To Energy Is 'All Of The Above'-July 15, 2008

Excerpt: Republicans are offering a clean break from the failed policies of the past in the form of an "all of the above" approach that employs cutting-edge, 21st century technologies and appeals to the same do-it-yourself ethos that brought leaders of foresight and purpose to Philadelphia 232 years ago this month. Through this agenda, we will increase production of American-made energy — including renewable and alternative forms, next-generation oil, natural gas and clean coal — while protecting our nation's natural resources.

 

Wash. Journal: Let's Have Some Love for Nuclear Power- July 21, 2008

Excerpt: All over the world, nuclear power is making a comeback. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has just commissioned eight new reactors, and says there's "no upper limit" to the number Britain will build in the future. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has challenged her country's program to phase out 17 nuclear reactors by 2020, saying it will be impossible to deal with climate change without them. China and India are building nuclear power plants; France and Russia, both of whom have embraced the technology, are fiercely competing to sell them the hardware. And just last month John McCain called for the construction of 45 new reactors by 2030. Barack Obama is less enthusiastic about nuclear energy, but he seems to be moving toward tacit approval.

 

Wash. Post oped: Will the environment survive the environmentalists? - No Friends of the Ice Bears – By Michael Gerson – July 18, 2008

Excerpt: Once, the main threat to these creatures came from hunters who lived in lonely shacks and set traps along the ocean shore. Now a threat comes from an unexpected source: elements of the environmental movement, whose political blindness and ideological baggage may undermine efforts to reduce the role of carbon in the global economy. Americans (appropriately) love furry things in distant places, but political leaders make decisions (appropriately) based on national interest and future risk. […]  Yet many environmental leaders seem unpracticed at coalition-building. They tend to be conventionally, if not radically, liberal. They sometimes express a deep distrust for capitalism and hostility to the extractive industries. Their political strategy consists mainly of the election of Democrats. Most Republican environmental efforts are quickly pronounced "too little, too late." Even worse, a disturbing minority of the environmental movement seems to view an excess of human beings, not an excess of carbon emissions, as the world's main problem. In two recent settings, I have heard China's one-child policy praised as an answer to the environmental crisis -- a kind of totalitarianism involving coerced birth control or abortion. I have no objection to responsible family planning. But no movement will succeed with this argument: Because we in the West have emitted so much carbon, there needs to be fewer people who don't look like us. Human beings are not the enemy of sound environmental policy; they are the primary reason sound environmental policy is necessary. If the movement to confront climate change is perceived as partisan, anti-capitalist and hostile to human life, it is likely to fail, causing suffering for many, including the ice bears. And so the question arises: Will the environment survive the environmentalists?

 

The Hill: Boehner says majority of Congress wants to drill – July 19, 2008

Excerpt: House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Congress is ready to lift the ban on offshore drilling but is being blocked by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). “Nancy Pelosi and the liberals here in the Congress, they worship at the altar radical environmentalism. The last thing that that group wants is more drilling,” said Boehner in an interview with Bloomberg TV Saturday. The Ohio Republican argued that lawmakers are ready to sign off on lifting the ban in order to increase fuel supplies to lower record high gas prices.   “There’s a majority of the House and Senate who are for more drilling. We have to produce more supply if we’re going to bring down the price,” Boehner said.  Pelosi’s office, however, sought to depict the GOP as unresponsive to Americans’ energy concerns.

 

Investor’s Business Daily: Does It Have To Take A Decade To Bring New Crude To Market?- July 18,2008

Excerpt: With oil prices hitting record highs, the question arises: Why aren't we drilling for more oil?It seems simple. And yet, a Democrat-led Congress still opposes opening any new lands to drilling. "We can't drill our way out of our problems" is a common mantra. Polls show most Americans favoring opening federal lands and offshore areas to energy production. As it stands, 97% of our offshore areas and 94% of our federal lands are off limits.President Bush raised the likelihood that that could change with his lifting of the federal moratorium on offshore drilling. But he's been opposed by Congress, which argues it will simply take too long — as much as 10 years or more — for the new oil to come to market to do any good.That doesn't appear to be true.To begin with, industry analysts note, much of the drilling delay is self-inflicted — a result of excessively stringent environmental and land-use regulations. Scrap those, or modify them, and new oil can be produced in far less than 10 years. Producing oil from new sources has three stages, which can take years, notes Marilyn Crockett, executive director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association in Anchorage. First, comes an environmental impact report, then bidding on leases and, finally, drilling.

 

Tom Nelson: Natural Oil Seepage- July 21, 2008

Excerpt: Natural oil seepage from the ocean floor accounts for far greater petroleum contamination than man-made sources in the United States.

 

Heritage Foundation: Opposition to ANWR Drilling Is No Laughing Matter- May 2, 2008

Excerpt: Echoing the sentiments of conservatives, Jay Leno last night on “The Tonight Show” chided Democrats for their repeated opposition to oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Leno’s punchline: Democrats say drilling in ANWR wouldn’t produce any oil for 10 years — the same point they’ve been making for more than 10 years now. President Bill Clinton vetoed legislation in 1995 that would have opened ANWR to oil exploration.

 

American Thinker- Republicans Could Tap a Gusher of Support Off the California Coast-July 21, 2008

Excerpt:  However, Speaker Pelosi is not alone in making her opposition clear. California's 's senior Senator Dianne Feinstein has joined the battle by writing an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times opposing efforts to increase offshore oil production. This effort would almost certainly and immediately help to bring down oil prices -- a fact that she seems unwilling to recognize or appreciate.

 

Journal Sentinel- Yes, we can drill our way out — and should- July 19, 2008

Excerpt: We can drive down oil prices tremendously if we get supply to outstrip demand. There are about 29 billion barrels of proven reserves in U.S. territories. There’s more that’s unproven because what is five miles below the Gulf of Mexico, including a few miles of rock, is difficult to estimate, let alone prove. That 29 billion doesn’t include a recent enormous find 175 miles south of New Orleans. It’s estimated to be between 3 billion and 15 billion barrels. If it’s 15 billion, that single discovery would increase the proven domestic reserves by 50%.Also, the 29 billion barrels only counts traditional crude. There are untold billions of barrels worth of oil in shale in the United States. This is difficult to extract but still worth going after

 

NRO: Dems’ Doublethink on Drilling-July 17, 2008

Excerpt: In the novel 1984, George Orwell used the word “doublethink” to describe the process of believing two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The concept invites an appropriate but superficial comparison to congressional Democrats’ current approach to gasoline prices. Idea Number One: High gasoline prices are good. A high price, imposed through federal carbon taxes or carbon caps, is precisely the mechanism by which Democrats hope to curb carbon emissions. We know that this mechanism works because it is already working: As gas prices rise, American consumption is down right now, year over year (a historical rarity). CO2 emissions from gasoline are down from 2007 by a modest 84,000 tons, or roughly 2 percent. Idea Number Two: High gasoline prices are bad. With constituents irate over gasoline prices that are pushing $5 a gallon, Democrats complain that high prices are a bad thing. They have dreamed up a number of boogie men responsible for high prices and drafted silver-bullet bills to kill them off.

 

NRO: The Congressional Drilling Showdown-July 17, 2008

Excerpt: President Bush’s lifting of the executive ban on offshore drilling this week is more than a symbolic gesture. It means the only thing preventing expanded offshore oil-and-gas development is a temporary, one-year congressional ban set to expire on September 30. While Congress has a habit of re-imposing this ban each year, it has never gotten around to writing it into permanent law. This creates a key opportunity for supporters of domestic energy production, including the president, to force a showdown. 

JunkScience.com: Conservation Nation?- July 17, 2008

Excerpt: Not only does the U.S. have vast reserves of oil offshore and on public lands, our Western state oil shale holds twice the oil as the Mideast. Although Canadian oil counts as "foreign oil," our neighbor to the north is the Saudi Arabia of oil from tar sands. There is plenty of oil at home and nearby that we can access to fuel vital economic growth -- but the Greens won't let us. But shouldn’t we conserve our oil resources for future generations? Well, as Barack Obama might say -- that is, if he could break away from the maximum security prison of Green-think -- "We are the generation that we’ve been waiting for." First, if the Greens won't let us use our oil now, why would they in the future? Won't they always tell people to conserve or to wait for some fantasy alternative fuel or magical car battery? Next, future generations are very likely to have improved energy technologies that are less, or even not at all dependent on oil. Finally, if you think that conservation will lead to less oil being used worldwide, think again. China, India and other rapidly developing countries plan to use all the oil they can get. If we don't buy Canadian tar sands oil, India will buy it to fuel their $2,500 Tata cars. If we don't drill off the coast of Florida, others will, like the foreign oil companies working with Cuba right now.  CEI

Open Market: Gore’s 10-Year Plan to Save the Planet – July 17, 2008

Excerpt: Meeting all new demand in the next few decades just with renewables would be extremely difficult and expensive. Doing that and replacing all current coal and gas power plants in ten years is preposterous. 

Investor’s Business Daily: Last But Not Leased-July 18, 2008

Excerpt: Energy Policy: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pushing the "Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands Act" to block offshore drilling. The fact is, these offshore rigs may be the ticket to saving both our coasts and our economy. The act would deny oil companies any new leases unless they can show that they're diligently exploring and drilling in existing holdings. It's designed to con the public into thinking the Democrats actually support drilling and the oil companies are restricting supply to drive up prices and profits.

 

The Foundry: She’s Afraid … She’s Very Afraid- July 18, 2008

Excerpt: The reason why Pelosi is deathly afraid of allowing members of her own caucus the freedom to vote on offshore drilling, is because she know the facts are not on her side. Under current law, the U.S. has about 22 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. It is estimated that the areas Pelosi wants to keep off limits from production in just the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) have another 19.1 billion barrels. The mean estimate for the areas Pelosi wants to keep off limits from production in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is 10.4 billion barrels. In other words, the U.S. could more than double our oil reserves with a stroke of a pen. Just imagine what a huge effect such a signal would have on world oil prices. But Pelosi and her liberal allies refuse to even allow a vote on the issue.

 

# # #

Oil Shale - Correcting the Record

A Senate Democrat wrote an op-ed this week in the Washington Post asking “How is a federal agency to establish regulations, lease land and then manage oil shale development without knowing whether the technology is commercially viable, how much water the technology would need (no small question in the arid West), how much carbon would be emitted, the source of the electricity to power the projects, or what the effects would be on Western landscapes?”  OP-ED

Current high gas prices have renewed interest in oil shale as an alternative energy resource.  Since taking control of Congress in 2006, Democrats have blocked efforts toward the development of oil shale in the Western United States. Although the U.S. controls 72% of the world’s oil shale reserves, Democratic leaders refuse to move forward on oil shale development to reduce dependence on foreign oil. 

Claim: Some Democrats question the commercial viability of oil shale production.

FACT: The Rand corporation estimates that as many as 1.1 trillion barrels are recoverable and at prices as low as $35 to $48 dollars per barrel, within the first 12 years of commercial scale production.  At current rates of consumption, 1.1 trillion barrels equals more than 145 years of domestic supply.  This number would nearly double assuming the Department of Energy’s estimate of nearly 2 trillion potentially-recoverable barrels. Link    

Claim: Some Democrats argue that the shale production process uses massive amounts of water. 

FACT:  Oil Shale uses less water than ethanol and about the same amount as gasoline. According the Department of Energy Office of Strategic Fuels, it takes 3 barrels of water for 1 barrel of oil. Link. 

Claim: Some Democrats are concerned about wildlife habitat and land usage.

FACT:  One acre of oil shale can produce from 100,000 to 1 million barrels of oil.  In contrast – one acre of corn produces only 7-10 barrels of ethanol. Link. 

Senator Inhofe’s American Affordable Fuels Act includes language to promote the use of oil shale by removing the prohibition of final regulations for the commercial leasing program of oil shale resources on public lands. (Repeals Sec. 433 of Dept. of Interior Appropriations Act of 2008).

In Case You Missed It...Democrats Against Drilling (Wall Street Journal, July 24, 2008)

WALL STREET JOURNAL:

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

 

Link to Article

 
July 24, 2008

 

Link to Article

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and other liberal leaders on Capitol Hill are gripped by cold-sweat terror. If they permit a vote on offshore drilling, they know they will lose when Blue Dogs and oil-patch Democrats defect to the GOP position of increasing domestic energy production. So the last failsafe is to shut down Congress.

Majority Leader Reid has decided that deliberation is too taxing for "the world's greatest deliberative body." This week he cut off serious energy amendments to his antispeculation bill. Then Senate Appropriations baron Robert Byrd abruptly canceled a bill markup planned for today where Republicans intended to press the issue. Mr. Byrd's counterpart in the House, David Obey, is enforcing a similar lockdown. Speaker Pelosi says she won't allow even a debate before Congress's August recess begins in eight days.

She and Mr. Reid are cornered by substance. The upward pressure on oil prices is caused by rising world-wide consumption and limited growth in supplies. Yet at least 65% of America's undiscovered, recoverable oil, and 40% of its natural gas, is hostage to the Congressional drilling moratorium.

The Democratic leadership is trying to smother any awareness of their responsibility for high prices. They are also trying to quash a revolt among Democrats who realize that the country is still dependent on fossil fuels, no matter how loudly quasimystical environmentalists like Al Gore claim otherwise.