GOP reps: Oil independence by 2023

We need oil independence before 2023, and independence should mean the use of electricity and biofuels, not fossil fuels. If Brazil did it, we can do it.

The Democrats and Left keep saying these solutions will do little to lower prices now or in the near future. Perhaps, perhaps not. Economics says that even an official announcement on an energy plan will lower prices NOW. Regardless, you have to start somewhere. What is the Dems plan? The Dems plan is to increase taxes on the oil companies. How will that lower prices today, tomorrow, 30 years from now? If Clinton hadn't vetoed the ANWR bill 10 years ago, we'd be getting oil today.
When it comes to energy, the Dems plan is No, No, No, No, No. Republicans begin offering plans such as this and continually point out the Dems non-plan and opposition to energy independence, the Dems will be booted off the continent come November 2008. That is a win-win. We get an energy plan, and the Democrats go back into the holes they came from.

Watch "Who Killed the Electric Car?" and see how we can save GM and Ford and wean ourselves off big oil war profiteers. 2023--we should have done this ALREADY. We need solar power and wind power producing plants--for small installations on everyone's house--and a recommitment to PUBLICLY OWNED energy suppliers. Energy is a RIGHT not a commodity.
Oil shale production will merely POLLUTE areas that were spared the pollution facing oil producing parts of the country.

These Illinois Wingnuts have actually laid out a DETAILED Energy Plan. Where is Harry Reid's and Nancy Pelosi's plan? Would they support this one? Is there far too much emphasis on Energy Security / National Security for all of the non-interest that they would have in attaining that kind of krazy goal?

democrats generally don't show much interest in real solutions. They are more driven by "hope". And here's the real issue for Reid / Pelosi. How will 'Big Oil' benefit. Where do they do this in Europe. WHERE ARE THE BIG TAX INCREASES? And why is it all about Energy anyway.

I "hope" that the Illinois Wingnuts (they probably have a secret Texas connection) won't be disappointed when their plan is deep-sixed by Team Pelosi.

Wonderful proposal.

There is an extremely dangerous game being played by the White House, Congress, and certain activist organizations that is placing the economy and the security of America at great risk. As a matter of national security and to give a significant boost to the American economy, it makes no sense to not assure and achieve hydrocarbons energy independence.

Dr. Roy Cordato from the conservative think tank John Locke Foundation said. "This is a government driven scarcity," Dr. Cordato added. "It's driven by laws that has kept the United States off the exploration market."

We need a "Manhattan Project" of energy development. We're crazy not to be using our own resources. Much has changed since the 1982 offshore drilling moratorium was enacted. Drilling technology has advanced over the past quarter-century. Oil companies can drill more efficiently in deeper water with significantly less risk to the environment. "Compared to worldwide tanker spill rates, outer continental shelf operations are more than five times safer,'' according to the Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service. Domestic drilling would also create a huge economic boost to America.

A similar detailed plan to fix America's energy crisis and indeed the entire economy is here;

http://www.strategicnine.com/STERLING-AMERICAN-ENERGY-PLAN.htm

Its simple to get new American energy supplies quickly, Appeal to Corporate Greed: If oil companies are given enough financial incentives, they will move much faster than anyone believes and could find and start producing new oil and gas within 2-3 years, then ramp quickly up to produce enough energy to completely replace oil imports within 10-12 years.

Congressmen John Shimkus and Peter Roskam are making a bold move to help families suffering from high oil and gas prices.
In contrast Shimkus and Roskam are offering to put everything on the table not just conservation. They want us to be independent with drilling, refining, alternative fuels, bio-fuels, and wind and solar.
The two Illinois Senators Durbin and Obama offer only rhetoric and conservation and murmur about weaning us off oil and gas.
Talk won't cut it Democrats we need bold and courageous leaders like Shimkus and Roskam to deal with praactical problems like affordable fuels not constrained like Durbin and Obama who are beholden to the environmental radical lobby and trial lawyers to just muck up the economy yet longer.
We can now with new technology have it all and be environmetally safe as well with small footprints for oil produced or refined.
Kudos to Shimkus and Roskam don't be deterred by the loud mouth Democrat majority that refuses to be reasonable. We the people can go over Reid, Pelosi and Durbins head with change real change not Obama do nothing change.The people are with you not for weird environmetalism when are needs are breaking our collective budgets. Durbin, Reid, Pelosi and Obama you fat cats cry crocodile tears and promise only more trouble ahead with jingoism instead of results.You are a do nothing Congress led by Democrats!
Go McCain in 08! Jerry White, Springfield, IL

That's great....What are we supposed to do until then??We need immediate relief at the pumps...Citizens are already having to forego even some of their medication and not run their a/c just to put enough gas in their car to get to work..Why can't Bush release some of the stockpiled resources we already have to combat the short fix??Meanwhile both the Dems and Reps are spending millions and millions on the election when children are going hungry in our own Country because the parents can't buy enough food adn have money to buy gas and get to their jobs...Maybe both candidates should give 1/2 of what they spend on the election towards lowering barrels of gas PRICES. It could at least help the people making 35K or less to exist.....THAT WOULD BE PATRIOTIC!!!!....LOTS MORE THAN DECORATING A STADIUM and delivering empty sppeches...

I see two eventual possible outcomes for this world. Either we find some alternative source of renewable energy, or eventually wind up fighting each other for the remaining fossil fuels. Either way, wouldn't you like to see a robust US, able to lead and dominate in either circumstance? If we are still getting 1/3 of our energy from the countries that hate us and bolstering them with a significant fraction of our GDP, we will be sitting ducks. And we won't have the economic structure to devleop alternative energies into viable solutions. True, it won't change the supply of oil now, but natural gas will be available almost immediately. Wouldn't you like to heat your house with American natural gas this winter? And for those of you who hate speculators, wouldn't you like to hurt them by increasing the supply of oil?

Wish them luck-great idea-
But the oil companies won't like it-

Reader Sugestion-
Follow the political donations-

The Pickens Plan is worth a look.
http://www.pickensplan.com/

Posted by: Peter Sterling | July 8, 2008 9:40 AM

Why should we give financial incentives to massively profitable corporations to become even more profitable? Aren't their billions in profits incentive enough?

Kaye, releaasing some of the U.S. oil reserves or even McCain and Obama giving some of their campaign money will not lower the price of oil, and hence, gaslone, one penny. What will lower the price of oil now, is an announcement from the White House and Congress that ANWR and off-shore drilling will begin. While the oil from those places would still be 2-5 years away, it would have an immediate impact on the price of oil.
By getting our own resources, we automatically lower the trade deficit and strenghen the dollar. High-paying jobs are created the U.S. economy begins to roll -- BIG TIME! But the Democrats and environmentalist whackos will have none of that. Hence, you, I and everyone else suffers with sky-high gas prices and sky-high utility prices.
And Grndblvd, you still need something to get the electricity you speak of, whether's it's nuclear, coal, natural gas, etc. And biofuels have proven to be bad. All biofuels do is jack up the price of food and cause food shortages. Oh, they also pollute!

While the oil from those places would still be 2-5 years away, it would have an immediate impact on the price of oil.
Posted by: Green Trees | July 8, 2008 11:07 AM

What a crock of bird dung. You can't have it both ways Trees. If it is supply and demand then this does nothing for the 2-5 (low estimate) years you claim. Now if you are saying that the speculators in the market will find this a reason to lower the price...1) Then speculators play a "big" part in the problem.
2) You don't understand speculators.

Brown Dead Trees-

The Saudis announced last month that they would increase oil production immediately, and long term increases in production. However since then the price of oil has risen roughly 6%. What makes you believe that announcing increased production 2-5 years off would be any more effective in immediately bring the price down?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121538739112131075.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I love all of the Republican double-speak on this topic, enriching, even more, the Oil Corps!! No mention of the environment, no mention of the 123 BILLION DOLLARS in PROFITS, for LAST YEAR, according to their books!! It's the old Republican, stand-by strategy: Let's give the Oil Corps more of our money and hope that they will continue to finance our Party, the Republican Party!! !! Senator "Questionable Conduct " McCain, like President Bush and Vice-President Cheney, will benefit immensely from these Oil Barons, if allowed !!
The Democrats, since our good, former President Carter, who heralded the problem and offered some solutions, to Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi have tried to offer alternatives to fossil fuels, but the Republicans obstruct and filibuster, in the names of the Oil Corps. So far they have succeeded in stymying the Democrats proposals, without offering any thing but their tired saw: Drill, Drill, Drill !! It's reminiscent of Senator McCain's little ditty: Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran. Those Republicans are sure a strange group of people, aren't they !!?
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

That's great....What are we supposed to do until then??We need immediate relief at the pumps...
Posted by: kaye c. | July 8, 2008 9:49 AM

Till then, we pay the price, because that is the market and the market is the Republican mantra, is it not? Everywhere else in the world they are paying $8-12 a gallon. So, cut out the daily trip to Walmart, walk a few steps, and do with a little less.

I'm putting my money on hydrogen...

Lois, the Saudi increase was 300,000 barrels. The daily amount that can come out of ANWR is 1 million barrels. Furthermore, there are billions of barrels of oil waiting to be gotten in North Dakota, off the U.S. coasts, other places in Alaska. Furthermore, you build more nuclear power plants, so homeowners who depend on oil for their heating, don't need to. And, you continue development of alternatives, whether it's wind farms in Ted Kennedy's backyard or solar. ALL of that combined will bring down oil immediately. Furthermore, 2 to 5 years is not the low end (quick) estimates of getting oil, it's the FACTUAL amount of time.

Gosh, darn it, " DD ", it sounds like you read a few of former President Carter's suggestions. Now, if we could just get the Republicans to cut there buddies loose, the Oily Barons, and get them to support more of President Carter's suggestions, like solar and wind and water, we might be able to solve this problem. That is, if the OIl Barons let us !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Green Trees,
Petroleum industry analysts and experts don't believe that additional drilling would lower prices, so why do you?

To: DD...Your glib suggestion is fine for those of us that can still pay the price. There are lots of families that can't. Nor can they take a trip to Wal Mart...Oversimplification is certainly not the answer for the poor...Regardless what other countries pay is not relevent to the poor in our present crisis situation...While Versache is naming a line of clothing after Obama and McCain is sitting in one of their eight homes I see neither of them offering any solution personally and as I mentioned in a previous post they could donate 1/2 of their millions for just those that are the poorest...Sure..It is an elementary suggestion but it would be like the people that get immediate on their utility bill if they JUST CANNOT pay it...Obama talks of we should all get involved..As a life long Democrat I agree...If you have a suggestion throw it out there. Who knows..??Someone out there might come up with an idea that could assist those that are in dire strights from this...I see more and more people on side of road stalled and walking for gas now. Perhaps you all are seeing same in your area...Thanks for your input...GOD BLESS AMERICA.....BRING OUR SOLDIERS HOME NOW.....

To: Don Fitzgerald...I always enjoy your informative posts..Keep up the good works..BRING OUR SOLDIERS HOME ALIVE AND NOW....No flip flopping should be tolerated on this subject!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Green Trees,
You do understand that Petroleum is a world commodity, right? This means the oil extracted from CA, AK, or FL goes to the highets bidder, not directly to the US. Unless we nationalize the oil fields, that is. We can save more oil that can ever be pulled out of the Gulf and AK just by raising fuel standards.

Dead Brown Trees-

That fact remains that the Saudi announcement of actual oil hitting the market did not bring down prices at all. That you believe an announcement of potential energy 2-5 years down the road ( How are we going to get off shore oil in 2 years if the exploration rigs are all booked for the next 5 years?) would instantly drive down prices is pure fantasy born from lack of knowledge.

By the way, who is going to pay for all the houses currently being heated by fuel oil, natural gas and propane to be converted to an all electric heating system to use the nuclear power that you believe, again wrongly, could be coming on line in 2-5 years?

T. Boone Pickens knows more about this subject than Green Trees. Listen to his interview this morning on NPR.

Employing democrat logic here: More oil will not solve anything
- because it would not be enough,
- because it would go to some other part of the World,
- because the oil companies (that would be "Big Oil") will not refine it.
Therefore, the amount of available oil is already too much or it is somehow just the right amount, but please don't be looking / makin' any more of it.

If some country, China maybe, India maybe, is willing to pay MORE for this fixed supply commodity, for which there is no readily available substitute, then does that not tend to make it more valuable at least to them, if not to you.

If the price of Arabian Light goes up, what would keep the price of Nigerian Bonny Light, or North Sea Brent, or West Texas Intermediate from also going up? Different crudes of different quantities from different countries, but still essentially refine-able crudes.

If all of the crudes that are available for world use are exclusively from foreign countries, then who would set the price other than that collection of foreign countries, or a commodities market, but only if they, the foreign crude CAPITALISTS, choose to be market players? We have no authoritative right to MAKE them play, so it would have to be their decision. What other options would there be?

The point, here, is that as we choose to sit on the sidelines, doing nothing, then that is what we need to expect. Someone is going to set the price. The less crude available to the world's consumers, the easier it will be for the price to move increasingly higher. You can "hope" not, I suppose, but it will. Why is this such a difficult concept.

How many barrels per day, for the world's use, would be the exact right number, a magical number that democrats seem to think exists. Who would manage this number?

How the Sox doing today. What about them Cubbies. I'm checking with Chrysler for a sail mast, or a windmill, either one, to mount on my Sebring. I really like that car but this is going to put some ugly on it.

Yes, Jethro, T Boone Pickens does know much. Here from CNBC is what he said this morning:

Pickens Sticks with $150 Oil; Could Fall to $100

OIL, ENERGY, FUEL, GASOLINE, WIND, BOONE PICKENS, IRAQ, POLITICS, GOVERNMENT
By CNBC.comCNBC.com
| 08 Jul 2008 | 08:51 AM ET
Legendary oil investor Boone Pickens stood by his forecast that oil prices will hover around $150 a barrel now and told CNBC that they may fall to about $100 in two years.

"I'll stick with $150 (per barrel)," Pickens, who is also CEO of BP Capital, told "Squawk Box". "Demand going down, that's what will bring this thing in better balance".

Asked where he saw the price of oil going in the next two years, he said: "You could get it back down to about 100."

The high oil prices are not determined by speculators and the weak dollar but by supply and demand, Pickens also said.

"It (the price of oil) isn't driven by speculation," Pickens said, adding that for 85 million barrels of oil production, demand is around 86 million barrels.

Also on Tuesday, JP Morgan said U.S. crude futures may hit $150 later this month, while Lehman Brothers raised its oil price forecast to an average $127 a barrel for 2008 from its previous assumption of $105.

Pickens also said the U.S. should have a call -- an option to buy at a certain price -- on oil coming from Iraq.

"What's happened now is we've paid billions and billions of dollars for the Iraqi situation and we've lost 4,000 lives," Pickens said. "We should at least come out of there with a call on their oil at market price."

Cutting Imports
Building new wind generation facilities to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil is essential for the country's economy, he added, unveiling a plan to boost the use of alternative energy.

The U.S. is currently importing 70 percent of the oil it needs compared with 42 percent in 1990 and 24 percent in the 70s, and this is costing the country $700 billion, Pickens said.

"We are very close to a disaster for the country," he told "Squawk Box." Importing oil "is expensive now, it's gonna get more expensive," he added.

Asked whether drilling for oil should be allowed everywhere, Pickens answered "I say yeah, let's go ahead and do it."

The Department of Energy estimated that 20 percent of America's energy needs can be covered by wind energy, but Pickens, who already invested in the field, says it can cover as much as 40 or even 60 percent.

There is a "perfect spot" in the interior of the country, a corridor stretching from West Texas to the Canadian border, for wind turbines, said Pickens, who dubbed America "the Saudi Arabia of wind."

Jethro and other Anti-Good economy Lefties, please notice how he says we need to drill everywhere we can (and we can do so while keeping environmentally sensitive areas environmentall sensitive). Notice how he also says the price is being driven by supply and demand. Notice how supply falls short of demand by a million barrels.
Notice how he says importing all that oil costs us $700 Billion a year.
Yes, let's keep working on alternatives. Alternative can be very, very good. But also, like Pickens recommends, DRILL HERE!!

That fact remains that the Saudi announcement of actual oil hitting the market did not bring down prices at all.

Posted by: Lois | July 8, 2008 2:54 PM

Oil is down $9 in the last two days...

"...then you said..
By the way, who is going to pay for all the houses currently being heated by fuel oil, natural gas and propane to be converted to an all electric heating system to use the nuclear power that you believe, again wrongly, could be coming on line in 2-5 years?..."

Why do you ask for this- the role of nukes would be to power electric plants that are now powered by fossil fuels- this would then create more ( cheaper) fossil fuels for industry and homes that will still use fossil fuels- there would be no requirement to change homes to electric.

Jo said-
You do understand that Petroleum is a world commodity, right? This means the oil extracted from CA, AK, or FL goes to the highets bidder, not directly to the US. Unless we nationalize the oil fields, that is. We can save more oil that can ever be pulled out of the Gulf and AK just by raising fuel standards.

Posted by: jo | July 8, 2008 1:23 PM

Sure bring in the government and its proven ability to deliver macro programs to consumers- medicare, soc security, and tax code are excellent examples to support the idea of allowing the gov to supply the lifeblood of our economy to consumers..

Your wrong about the US not enjoying direct benefits of the increased supply- US consumers and industry buy oil on the world market just like everyone else. The highest bid- with increased supply will get substantially lower with increasing supply.

Django,

Are you suggesting that we pass laws requiring all oil drilled in the US and by US companies be kept within the United States? Are you siuggesting that we should only allow US companies to drill here, eliminating BP-Amoco, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron and all other foreign companies?

Because if you're not, your whole arguement falls to pieces. It is a world market. So unless you're willing to institute those kind of controls, further drilling in the US really won't give the US any further leverage on the market. The power will stay where it is right now: with the large multi-national oil companies.

Green Trees,
Did you notice he acknowledges we CANNOT drill our way out of the problem. Only investment in Wind Turbines and other RENEWABLE energy sources are going to help in the future. He calls drilling a BAND AID. Man your dumb, Green Trees, I mean Terry.

Jen, the more oil the U.S. produces, the lower our trade deficit becomes. It becomes lower becuase some of that oil will remain here and we will be exporting it. Either way you look at it, the U.S. benefits from it, just like the countries in the Middle East and Venezuala benefit from the oil leaving thier shores. Also, it creates good, high-paying jobs. And the dollar becomes stronger too. No matter how one looks at it, drilling for more oil in and around the U.S is good for the American people and good for the American economy. Just like the economy around O'Hare Airport grew, the economy due to expanded energy opportunities helps the U.S. as a hole. And speaking of airports, more energy brings the price down, which helps the airlines, the hotel industry, the restaurants, the retail stores and ALL the workers who work at them,
Lefties, please explain why you are against a good economy, jobs, wages and happy, successful people?

Jen @ 3:58 p.m.,

I am just trying, like heck, to understand the logic of democrats with respect to Energy. That is, more is just not better. To answer your direct question, I am copying heartburn's response to jo, one minute before your comment. It is the same answer that I would offer.

" US consumers and industry buy oil on the world market just like everyone else. The highest bid- with increased supply will get substantially lower with increasing supply."

Posted by: heartburn | July 8, 2008 3:57 PM

I personally think that it would be wonderful, if American produced oil could benefit Americans. Unfortunately, if oil companies were forced to do that, it would probably just continue to distort market / world realities with respect to supply, demand, price, the true value of a limited commodity. So, I would not be for that and I would have to refer back to heartburn's comment.

I personally think that we should work to develop the alternatives, look for ways to consume less (somewhat limited, in my opinion), but for sure, do not just absolutely take off the table more production in places that 99.99% of us will never see, or for sure know exist, like ANWR, like 50 - 200 miles out in the Gulf, off the Continental Shelf, etc. Use oil to buy some valuable time as we transition to alternate forms. Keep in mind that transportation forms of energy are different from energy for heating a building.

I would not consider Chevron to be a foreign company. They have foreign interests, as does every one else, but they are still a California based company. I have an ex-college mate that is now a Chevron V.P. I have worked for BP p.l.c. and with ExxonMobil in the last 5 years. I am sorry that I don't see oil companies as out of control, inherently evil monopolies, doing what they can to totally destroy the environment. There are a world of regulations that they have to adhere to. The last thing that they generally want is negative publicity over environmental issues. Right now, they probably would just like to be invisible. Have to tell you too, that no one else does it better than "Big Oil". Appologies to Carly Simon. Be glad that they are American, British, or Dutch.

As always, thanks for not attacking.

Jethro, you and I both know that wind turbines aren't there yet ESPECIALLY when so-called environmentalists like Robert Kennedy, Jr. fight them tooth and nail because they want a nice view of their massive estates on the Cape.
If you democrats are REALLY serious about energy independence then why, why, do you ALWAYS fight clean, developed, working nuclear technology? We won't have to wait 20 years for nuclear to be ready to power our homes like we will with wind. Why are you guys all so almost religiously opposed to allowing a technology that supplies nearly 90% of France's power today and a huge portion of Russia's, too, to help the US break its addiction to a fossil fuel, dirty coal? You guys never seem to be able to answer me when I ask that.

Jeff, I have a great place for you to move to. It's real close to all that great Russian nuclear power, and the land is dirt cheap. I'm sure you'll be very happy there.

http://www.chernobyl.info/

It will be safe in a mere 24,000 years.