Today on Blogcritics
Home » House Republicans Address Energy Issue

House Republicans Address Energy Issue

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The House Republicans are beginning to see sense on Energy issues for America. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have been a vital wake up call for most Americans used to cheap gas. When Hurricane Katrina first hit, gas prices soared to well over $3.35/gallon nationwide. This is more than double the price a few years ago.

Republicans seek to remove many of the regulatory and environmental hurdles that killed any refineries for the last 3 decades. This makes perfect sense; we need to start protecting the humans in this country and stop worrying so much about spotted frogs or rare weeds. You can put the blame for high gas prices and the destruction of the airline industry squarely on the groups like NDRC, the Sierra Club, and Greenpeace. These people drive cars too, but I guess they think some magic fairy makes it for them, so we don’t need any production capability.

Critics are deriding this effort by the House Republicans as a new give away to an already filthy rich industry. I would certainly agree with them on this point. Exxon and Shell don’t need any subsides, but we do need to clear the way for them. One way this is being discussed is “risk insurance” by the federal government. If a company decides to spend $3 billion building a new refinery, they can’t afford to be tied up in court by state and local governments for years. Can you imagine if when you went to fill up your car with gas that first you paid; then you had to go through a five year legal battle just to pump your gas?

There also is another Bill in the House to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Here again is the perfect example of ignorant environmentalists destroying America. There is absolutely no substitute for gasoline currently in the world. Hybrids still need gas. There are no solar powered cars. Conserving won’t produce one drop of oil. Only more drilling and oil exploration is going to solve the problem. I’d rather have an oil well on American soil any day than pay some sheik in the Middle East. Keep American wealth in America.

The Environmentalists say stuff like “Alaska won’t solve our oil problems”. That’s true, but it would damm sure help. The same argument is used anywhere somebody wants to drill for oil or gas. Over the years we have literally thousands of potential site sitting fallow because of these environmentalists Luddites. Taken together that’s one hell of a lot of oil and gas.

The next time you go to the pump, or this winter when your heating bills are $300/ month; remember to thank the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and the NDRC.

Edited: GS

Powered by

About John Bill

  • http://swingbatterbatter.blogspot.com Greg Smyth

    Surely you mean “Keep Arabian wealth in America” given the $1 trillion [IIRC] of their money invested in your economy?

  • http://www.zerohq.com Rich Powers

    Trust me, I’m no fan of over-zealous environmentalists; like any extremist group, they’re bad news.

    But I think you’re missing a key reason as to why new refineries haven’t been constructed in years. Environmental regulations sure don’t help, but I think the NIMBY (not if my backyard) factor plays a greater role.

    We want to have our cake and eat it too; we all want cheap gas, but no one wants a gigantic oil refinery is their community. Keep in mind the refineries must be built along coastlines and large rivers if they’re too be efficient. In the last 20 years, these areas have seen tremendous growth and water-front property is definitely worth something.

    A refinery can bring jobs and industry to a city, but will these benefits offset the reduction in property values?

    So I think it’s unfair to pin this squarely on environmentalists.

  • cosmos

    Refiners prefer to operate at near 100% capacity, because it helps maximize profits. Read the company memos

    **”Conserving won’t produce one drop of oil. Only more drilling and oil exploration is going to solve the problem.”

    Conserving does not eliminate the need for oil. But it does reduce “demand”, and that makes it a “supply”. Or do you want to argue that if our vehicles got much lower mpg, our oil consumption would NOT increase?

    If our cars and light trucks became only 0.4 mpg more efficient, over a 30-year period that would “produce” 3.2 billion barrels of oil.

    Oil “produced” by higher fuel efficiency has many advantages over Arctic Refuge oil. It’s,
    * Cheaper, requiring about a $12 investment for each barrel saved.
    * Helps eliminate the need for new refineries (costing $3 billion each?)
    * More secure and reliable — you can’t disrupt it
    * Guaranteed (proven in early 1980’s) doesn’t depend on luck, and unknown oil geologies
    * Sooner, doesn’t require many years to explore, drill, etc
    * Faster, and can “produce” many times more than the Refuge
    * Doesn’t run dry like Refuge oil will
    * More efficient, eliminates all the energy required to explore, drill, pump, refine, etc
    * Cleaner and healthier, eliminates pollution in Alaska, at refineries, and everywhere.
    * Helps reduces the threat of future global warming

    Arctic Refuge oil might (with luck, and high future oil prices) help replace other declining domestic sources. But U.S. oil consumption, and imported oil, will continue to rise.

    Higher efficiency and other solutions are needed to reduce future consumption. For examples of what we could do, see Figure 38, page 253 of 332

  • http://www.iamcorrect.com Lono

    John,

    Resectfully, you are a retard. This current Bush crisis we are in (#10, I think) shows how we need to be LESS dependant on anyone’s oil. Not to mention bankrolling cultures who hate us for said oil.

    On what level hasn’tthis administration not failed us?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    And don’t forget the recent energy bill which appropriates more money for alternative fuel development, incentives for hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles, and generation of renewable energy. Everyone talks about how the bill helps out oil refiners and overlooks the enormous amount the bill does for alternative and renewable energy.

    Dave

  • http://jmaximus.blogspot.com John Bil

    Sorry Cosmos, higher mileage cars may reduce the increase in total demand for oil but that still doesn’t actually produce any oil. It only slows down the rate of increase, but the bottom line is we still need more reliable sources. Every day we invent new things that everybody must have, like computers. These things run on power or require power to be made. Demand for power will continue to skyrocket no matter what; the only thing that will change is how we supply it and where it comes from.

  • http://jmaximus.blogspot.com John Bil

    Lono, youre the retard. Being less dependant on foreign oil doesn’t mean we invent solar cars. It simply means we IMPORT less foriegn oil; or better yet none at all. You and your ilk of eco-ignoramuses just don’t get it. You think that when go to store that fairies have stocked the shelves. You probably think that the electricity that you use to type your lame comment comes from lepricons. You have no concept of what is required for a society to function.

    ###POST 6 with typos fixed

  • cosmos

    * “higher mileage cars may reduce the increase in total demand for oil but that still doesn’t actually produce any oil.”

    You don’t seem to understand how supply vs demand works. The U.S. has only about 2% of the worlds’ oil reserves, but consumes 25% of the world oil supply. It’s impossible to drill ourselves to oil independence. Even if we could, world oil prices would still affect our economy.

    Higher fuel efficiency could reduce our oil consumption by 7 or 8 million barrels/day in 2025. That sure sounds like “production”.

    * “but the bottom line is we still need more reliable sources.”

    Do you know that the U.S Army said the 800-mile Alaskan pipeline is “indefensible”?
    And that if the pipeline shuts down for too long in mid-winter, the heated oil congeals, making restart impossible until the next summer. A drunk shut it down with a hunting rifle in October 2001, during heightened security.

    And the complex, unknown geology in the Refuge may be similar to the nearby Badami oil field, so that little, or even no oil can be profitably produced.

    Considering the facts, why would you consider Arctic Refuge oil a “reliable source”? Higher efficiency is a 100% reliable, and guaranteed “source”.

    * “the only thing that will change is how we supply it and where it comes from.”

    Correct, like the 100% solar (not lepricon) powered web hosting site. As OilEndGame (and others) point out, the solutions are higher energy efficiency, renewables, and eventually hydrogen.

  • http://jmaximus.blogspot.com John Bil

    I am all for higher energy efficiency, but that is not, and will not ever solve our energy problems alone. BTW we have enough coal to last several hundred years, which can be turned into oil. So obviously we can drill our way out of it so to speak. Coal is not the only energy source we have either, bio-energy can play a huge part. So once again I say you are 100% wrong and off base.

  • JR

    John Bil: we need to start protecting the humans in this country and stop worrying so much about spotted frogs or rare weeds.

    If the humans in this country are 300,000,000 strong and spotted frogs and rare weeds are, well, rare; then it would appear you’ve got it backwards.

  • cosmos

    John, no one here said that higher energy efficiency would “solve our energy problems alone“.

    In comment 3, I wrote, “Higher efficiency and other solutions are needed to reduce future [oil] consumption,” — and referred you to “Figure 38, page 253 of 332, at, http://www.oilendgame.com

    Figure 38 shows the results of end-use efficiency, supply substitution (biofuels…), and hydrogen.

    In comment 8, I wrote “100% solar (not lepricon) powered web hosting site“, and “the solutions are higher energy efficiency, renewables, and eventually hydrogen.

    For biofuels to succeed, we have to reduce demand with higher efficiency. Otherwise, biofuels will have supply problems, high prices, compete with food supplies, and cause shortages of land and water.

    John Bil: BTW we have enough coal to last several hundred years, which can be turned into oil. So obviously we can drill our way out of it so to speak.

    Coal to oil? Bad idea, unless there’s a way to keep the carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the atmosphere when it’s burned.
    But as OilEndGame points out, coal could be used to cheaply make bulk hydrogen fuel… if research finds a way to sequester the CO2.

  • http://jmaximus.blogspot.com John Bil

    Why the hell do environmentalists hate humanity so much? Just because there are 290,000,000 people in this country doesn’t mean that thousands or millions can’t be killed, I guess that doesn’t concern you. Your caviler attitude towards all those who lost there lives in hurricane Katrina and Rita is appalling. Mankind’s place on this planet is anything but certain. 20,000 years ago we were still hiding in caves from Saber Tooth Tigers and Bears. After 1000 years of rule by Rome, Europe and the Mediterranean fell into a dark age. Is that what you want, for our modern society to collapse so we can live in some Mad Max type world? You make me sick.

  • cosmos

    John, perhaps your intense hatred of environmentalists is blinding you from the facts?

    The report at OilEndGame is written by respected energy and economic experts. Many of their ideas have already been proven to work worldwide.
    RMI’s page, ‘General Energy Policy’ has real-world examples proving that their suggestions work. RMI’s books, such as ‘Natural Capitalism’, provide more proof — energy costs drop, quality of life improves, business profits go up, etc.

    So explain how their recommendations will cause “our modern society to collapse so we can live in some Mad Max type world”.

    Explain how our society would be damaged if we made our vehicles more fuel efficient and safer.

    Explain how a gradual transition from oil to renewable and hydrogen energy would cause “some Mad Max type world“.

    The recent hurricanes? Try to imagine the loss of life and suffering that global warming could cause. Severe weather events happening more often, rising sea levels flooding coastal cities and land, famines due to droughts or floods, etc.

  • JR

    John Bil: Just because there are 290,000,000 people in this country doesn’t mean that thousands or millions can’t be killed…

    By environmental regulations? That’s a stretch.

    Have you considered that many of the pollutants that put wildlife at risk also put humans at risk?