Tag Archives: American energy independence

Paul Ryan Has Proved to be a Great Addition to the Republican Ticket

The addition of Paul Ryan to the Republican ticket has sure proved to be a great decision by Mitt Romney and his campaign. Since the announcement just six days ago, ‘America’s Comeback Team’ has produced states like these:

‘America’s Comeback Team’ Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan

Online Fundraising
Donations: 124,800+
Amount: $10,157,947
Average Donation: $81
% New Donors: 68%

Site Traffic
Total: 2,000,000
Desktop: 1,560,000
Mobile: 440,000

Mitt Romney Social
Facebook: +510,000 — Now 4,360,000
Twitter: +54,000 — Now 861,000

Paul Ryan Social
Facebook: +860,000
Twitter: +118,500

Volunteers
45,000+ sign up to volunteer online

“Tomorrow marks a week since Mitt Romney announced his choice of Congressman Paul Ryan to join him on America’s Comeback Team and it’s clear that his choice has reshaped the race in a positive way. The Obama team’s increasing vitriol is a sure sign that they’re rattled by the pick,” Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades released in a memo Friday.

 

Follow me on Twitter: @chrisenloe

“progressives” Don’t Care if Americans Suffer at the Pump

There’s widespread consensus in the United States that America needs to become less dependent on foreign oil. America’s growing, ongoing dependence on foreign sources puts her at ever-greater risk in an unstable world. This instability drives the costs higher.

Progressives who feel an overwhelming compulsion to immediately replace America’s existing carbon economy with a green one couldn’t be happier with the higher costs. The current administration and fellow progressives continue to push America towards the green end, come what may. Stiffer regulations on auto makers, stifling EPA regulations on energy producers, refusals by the White House to permit development of domestic resources, quid quo pro government funded paybacks to big “progressive” campaign donors involved in green energy companies litter the landscape.

While such progressive actions may eventually “nudge” America towards green energies, they’re hurting the American economy at exactly the wrong time…the very moment when there’s a tepid turn towards possible recovery from a painfully deep recession that’s led to unacceptably high levels of long term unemployment.

America’s public and industrial infrastructures are based on the use of conventional fuels: petroleum, natural gas, coal and nuclear power. While there are moves to convert more public sector automobiles and mass transportation vehicles to natural gas, the overwhelming majority of Americans drive or ride in vehicles that burns gasoline or diesel fuel. Natural gas and heating oil are used in furnaces to heat homes and places of business. Coal, natural gas and nuclear plants generate electricity which powers countless devices, the uses of which are taken for granted every day. Coal, natural gas and petroleum products power American’s industrial complex, the base of her economic engine. Clearly, America’s economy depends very heavily on these existing sources of power. These methods of providing and consuming energy are all deeply ingrained into America’s businesses, manufacturing and home life.

It’s entirely impractical to expect to change the method of powering an entire society of over 300 million people overnight. It’s going to take a lot of time to finish such a task. More time than most people realize. Indeed, far more than is believed by those who continue living in “progressive” fantasyland. First, before making any such transition becomes practical, green energy alternatives must become economically competitive with conventional fuels. Today, they are not.

In the meantime, what energy’s going to be used in the manufacture, delivery and installation of all those windmills, solar panels, turbines, generators and power grid needed to provide renewable energy to the public, the renewable energy delivery system that has yet to be built? No, sorry. Traditional fuels will generate the energy that’s going to be used.

Why does America continue to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign energy? Why isn’t the United States keeping those billions of dollars at home, in its own economy? At a time when millions of Americans are out of work and the economy is starving for liquid capital, why isn’t the United States taking advantage of its own wealth of natural resources?

Why does this progressive government continuously oppose giving Americans jobs drilling for oil and natural gas or digging for coal? Why does this “progressive” government persistently fight putting people to work building refineries and power plants? What does this progressive government have against giving energy employees jobs delivering oil, coal and natural gas to consumers? How many peripheral jobs will be created in the process? For every new oil well, power plant, refinery or mine built there will be a need to build new roads, restaurants, stores, churches, schools, and housing. All brought to you courtesy of the private sector.

In the interest of national security and job creation, America should put Americans back to work delivering American energy to Americans. This is the only way the United States economy will be able to afford making whatever “investments” in green energy make economic sense.

Meanwhile, the very people who argue that they’re the ones who care about the little guy will force those little guys to pay increasingly higher gas prices until they’ve submitted to the prescribed “change”. Demonstrably, progressives don’t care if Americans suffer at the pump.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/progressives-dont-care-if-americans-suffer-at-the-pump/

U.S Oil Production to Shut Down Completely? Is That the Goal?

Note: Article revised to include recent decision to allow the bridge to be built, with conditions yet to be named.

In the great state of Alaska there is a region that is designated as the National Petroleum Reserve. (NPR, and no, this is not about the National Propaganda Radio, which also goes by NPR) The NPR consists of 23 million acres of Alaska’s North Slope wilderness that was originally established in 1923 by President Harding to supply the oil needed to keep the U.S. Navy fueled. Since it’s establishment, the National Petroleum Reserve has sat idle, and today there is not one single production well in operation there. Access is difficult, to say the least, and with no current roads, all equipment would have to be flown in, making it increasingly expensive to extract the oil and distribute it to refineries or transportation hubs.

So just why has there been exactly no oil or gas production from the designated National Petroleum Reserves in question? It was designated almost 90 years ago, and with America trying to reduce her independence on foreign oil, it only seems logical to carefully open it up for production. As a matter of fact, 4 million carefully studied acres were opened up back in the 80’s, as the federal government sold several leases in the area, but none were developed, and then they expired. The same thing happened in the 90’s, as the federal government again sold another $150 million dollars worth of drilling rights in NPR-Alaska. The history behind NPR-A, and the reasons as to why there has never been a drop of oil or a cubic meter of gas production is well documented here, from the Government Affairs Program-American Geological Institute. Here is the final report summary listed in the above linked page:

“The final report was issued on August 7, 1998. It states that 4 million acres (87 percent) of the area studied will be available for leasing. Development in 20 percent of that area will be limited by prohibiting oil and gas surface pipelines but can be accessed by directional drilling. The areas where leasing is prohibited or restricted fall mainly around the Teshekpuk Lake and Colville River, which provide habitats for molting geese, caribou, raptors and passerine. The plan also prohibits oil and gas facilities in riparian areas identified by the North Slope residents and governments as areas important for subsistence and forms a Subsistence Advisory Panel”

That was back in 1998, and after decades of studies and input from local citizens,s state agencies, and a slew of environmental groups, there was a firm plan put into place to allow the extraction of oil and gas deposits from the NPR-A designated areas. Note in the above final report, that it specifically mentions the Colville River area. This is at the center of the latest roadblock that has been put in the way of any production from NPR-A. From an article at FoxNews.com, dated Nov. 28, 2011, we see the following headline: Energy in America: No Bridge to Oil. The bridge that is now being denied in that article is in fact a proposed bridge over the Colville River that is mentioned in the above paragraph. 30 years of exhaustive studies, research and planning in the designated National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska, along with millions of dollars in the sale of leases and drilling rights, were once again poised to be all for nothing, because of a fight over a bridge. How do the locals feel about this bridge? The mayor of the town Nuiqsuit, Thomas Napageak says the bridge would make his town a hub for the oil industry and help lower the current 38% unemployment.

Conoco Phillips wants to build a road bridge and pipeline over the river to connect to the nearby Alpine development, which sits just outside the NPR. But the Army Corps of Engineers and related EPA and Fish and Wildlife agencies originally rejected the plan telling the oil company it had to go under the river. Update 12/11/2011: From the Petroleum News we see the following headline: Agencies Agree on Bridge, Corps of Engineers decision this year.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Environmental Protection Agency, which had opposed the company’s plan to put the crude oil pipeline from CD-5 to the company’s Alpine production facilities on a bridge to be built across the Nigliq Channel of the Colville River, have reached “an agreement in principle” with the company on the proposal.

While this looks like marvelous news at the onset, ConocPhillips Alaska spokeswoman Natalie Lowman said in a Dec 5th email, “We have not yet seen the permit nor it’s conditions, but we are encouraged by today’s announcement.”

Alaska Congressman Don Young added that while he welcomed this most recent announcement, “The fact of the matter is that this should have happened sooner.” He noted the importance of the CD-5 project not only for Alaska jobs, “but also because it will put this nation on a path towards becoming energy independent.”

This is a very welcome development in moving America forward towards energy independence in the future. The only question left to ask is, “Why did it take almost 90 years to do it?