From Peter Ferrara at the American Spectator.
Obama Loses His First Debate Lying is not going to rebut Newt Gingrich’s compelling understanding
of America’s energy policy and huge energy reserves.In a speech that the Gingrich campaign has begun broadcasting around the country, and which is posted at Newt.org, Gingrich presents a unique new vision for a booming American economy. I think you will find it pathbreaking. It is so compelling that it drew Obama into a transcontinental debate with the former Speaker, the first exchange that Obama has decisively lost since he appeared on the national stage.
Gingrich began the explanation of his vision like this:
What if we had a program that enabled the American people to develop so much new energy that we were, in fact, no longer reliant on Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran. We didn’t care what the Iranians did in the Strait of Hormuz because we were safe in national security terms.
What if that new energy program created well over a million new jobs, high-paying jobs, jobs that put Americans back to work and kept the money here at home that we had been sending overseas, giving us a dramatic improvement in our balance of payments, strengthening the dollar and giving us a chance to live much freer and more independently?
What if that very idea also meant that we’d also have dramatic increases in federal revenue… without a tax increase but that, in fact, the federal government would have literally an entire new stream of money?
And finally, what if that big new idea meant that you personally were better off because you are buying gasoline for $2.50 a gallon, not for $3.89 or $4 or what some people project by the summer could be could be $5 or more?
How is that possible, you ask? Well, that is what is exciting, and that is one of the reasons I am running for President.
Gingrich begins demonstrating the new vision by pointing to the Bakken geologic formation in North Dakota, which turns out to hold far, far more oil than the U.S. Geological Survey used to think, 25 times as much in fact, or 2,400 percent more. That Bakken breakthrough exists today “because it is on private land, and liberals weren’t able to block us from developing it,” Gingrich explains.
The result is that the official unemployment rate in North Dakota is 3.5 percent, with nearly 20,000 jobs paying $60,000 to $80,000 a year remaining unfilled for lack of sufficiently skilled applicants. Revenue from the booming growth is gushing into the North Dakota state government so fast that after seven consecutive tax cuts, the state enjoys a rainy day fund of several billion dollars, even though the entire state budget is only $2 billion.
Gingrich then projects, “If North Dakota has that much energy, how much do we think we have everywhere else? Turns out, we may have more oil in the United States today, given new science and technology, than we have actually pumped worldwide since 1870. We may, in fact, by one estimate have three times as much oil in the United States as there is in Saudi Arabia.” Or as there ever was in Saudi Arabia.
Then there is a parallel revolution in natural gas. We have long known there was a lot of natural gas in shale, but we did not know how to get it out. As recently as 2000, people thought we had seven years of natural gas supply left in the United States. Investors began committing big funds to building facilities for importation of liquefied natural gas from the Middle East.
But then entrepreneurs began applying to shale rock formations the horizontal drilling techniques that had been developed for deep water ocean drilling, where the most had to be gotten out of one hole by drilling in every direction. Combine that with the long-time technique of fracking, breaking up the shale rock with steam, water and sand (supposedly so scary to “environmentalists”), and the net result, Gingrich elaborates, is that
[W]e now have in shale tremendous amounts of natural gas that is recoverable. In one short decade, we went from 7 years of supply to over a hundred years of supply because science and technology had improved so much. Furthermore, instead of us importing liquefied natural gas from the Middle East, there is now serious talk that we’re going to build facilities in Houston… to ship liquefied natural gas to China.
But this is all just the beginning, because, as Gingrich adds, “in places like the Marcellus Shale in Western Pennsylvania, in eastern Ohio, cutting down along the Appalachians, all the way out to Dallas, Texas, there is formation after formation after formation.”
What that means is what I reported last year in my book, America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb. America has the resources to be the world’s number one oil producer, number one natural gas producer, number one coal producer, number one nuclear energy producer, even the number one alternative energy producer. The reason you never heard about this before, as Gingrich explains, is that “the politicians in Washington, the old-time establishment, the elite news media, the bureaucrats, don’t have a clue what’s possible, or in some cases, they have a clue and they are opposed to it.”
“And the result is not just money for big oil,” Gingrich continues, “but people who own the property, farmers.” Gingrich recounts a conversation with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, “who just had run into a farmer who suddenly discovered that he had natural gas on his farm and he had been given an amazingly big check by the natural gas company.” That same story is being replicated, or will be, from Texas to Tennessee across the Appalachians throughout Pennsylvania, to long impoverished upstate New York (if the liberals get out of the way there).
It means as well big money for our bankrupt federal government. As Gingrich reports, “One of the leading experts on North Dakota has suggested that we might well have over the next generation $18 trillion, not billion, $18 trillion in royalties… for the federal government with no tax increases.” Note, that is more than the national debt.
…continue reading the Obama take down here
What I don’t understand is the obsessive “need” over the last several years, in this terrible economy, to spend [and as it turns out ‘waste’] the kind of [tax payer] money our Government has…. by going down “paths unknown” with this push for alternative energy. We are in a serious “wreck” financially as a Nation….and, the [ insistence ] is to pour money into the extremely [expensive] “green” technology. Why???
And, the Obumbles Algae as alternative energy speech…to the average dull American…who would jump on the Obama alternative energy band wagon….because why ??? Doesn’t know how extremely expensive this is. Again this is not the time to jump into territory unknown…without an infrastructure, OR the finances to accommodate such “experimental” technology….
This is fine if the country is financially ‘stable’ the fact remains, we are not. Has any average middle class American [in the last 3 years] been so financially stable in their own personal finances to just go out and purchase a new “green” car knowing the ‘pricey’ price is approx $40,000???? Let me give you an answer…Sales are dismal…
And, isn’t this [$40,000] the figure put out there which every man, woman, child and children yet to be born “owes the government” via the National Debt???? I mean Seriously folks… Where is the critical thinking here ??????? Where is the rationale??? Where exactly is the perspective here? Where is the so called disposable income??
Umm… Also, the amount of Americans actually “paying taxes” [which pays for this expensive stuff], in case you did not know, is Shrinking… The amount of fraud, dependence and sucking off the Government [gap] is [Increasing]…. so! exactly where is all this ‘extra’ money going to come from??? [Answer there is none – we are turning into Greece] Again where is the perspective here?
We have new technology. Technology which is safe, effective, and is environmentally friendly toward extracting fossil fuels [umm…this isn’t the 1800’s anymore]. Technology we know will work and ‘really, really, really create jobs’, not line the pockets of executives in pseudo alternative energy companies that fail miserably… I am all for putting our [tax] money into using what we have available to us here at home, oil, natural gas, coal and other fossil fuels [tried and true] now.
I am right behind Newt on this one!
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Obama probably got a big campaign contribution from an algae farmer (aka a leftist environmentalist with a pond that is choke with algae because he wont chemically treat it), who wants a Solyndra deal so he can:
(1) Spend way to much more than the plant matter is worth to remove it by hand scraping.
(2) Dry all that muck.
(3) Use it to power a steam engine to drive a generator and use it to power the lights in his out-house.
(4) Ta-daa! Another Obama alternative energy success! and it will only cost 10000% more per watt than one of those nasty yucky coal powered electric generators.
@Mata
Absolutely agree with Gingrich on this. Countries should try to be as self-reliant as possible when it comes to energy. Why can’t conservatives like Gingrich keep focused on these sorts of issues?
Funny, but I don’t remember Obama attending. Doesn’t it take more than one to have a debate? Not with conservatives, I guess.
@Liberal1 (objectivity): There does not have to be a face to face to have a debate! I have never met you and have debated you ignorant post many times!
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
So we are excusing Obama because of a technicality? At one point in our history, Lib1, opposing voices entered debates entirely within the printed media. In fact, that still goes on today and has spread to other media sources where an audience of people can witness a back and forth exchange.
Newt fired the first “shot” in comments at a speech, Obama clearly responded to Newt’s words, and Newt then responded to Obama’s. We use the term debate loosely in society, applying it to countering arguments within the media on such issues as AGW theory, abortion, gun control, military action, the economy, taxation, etc. Are you excusing Obama simply because the substance of the issue being discussed doesn’t favor him?
MATA
WOW GINGRICH is in fire again, he is going to the top, I believe in his words,
GO NEWT, we found you again, we are not giving up on you, we where just resting when you decide to take a break,
no more break from now on.
now let’s go and get them all.
MISSY
how are you making out in there, let us know that you and love ones are okay,
thinking of you when that destructive wind hit in there, as we see in FOX NEWS.
bye
@GaffaUK, not sure where you’ve been, but Newt has stayed focused on these issues, and others like a judiciary branch run amok. It’s been the Romney $20 mil in tangent attacks that has sidelined the genuine debate. That, of course, was Romney’s intent… to destroy Newt (and now Santorum) personally since he’s ill equipped to compete on solutions.
@johngalt, of course libzero is making excuses. Most interesting is that Obama chose to tackle the “road kill” candidate’s issue points… indicating his revelation of the POTUS Achilles heel.
Obama has clearly lost this debate of energy policy. Significant changes proposed by Newt is the way to not only put the US economy back on the mend in the quickest way possible, but also ensure the country’s national security by not putting our energy needs at the whims and control of a volatile Middle East.
Love the article. Little N Dakota leads the way and Newt knows he’s got a winner.
I can’t believe the amount of left wing garbage that is thrown out to the MSM, who of course, projects it out to the ignorant and misinformed. Case in point, fracking in the Bakken Formation is dangerous. An uncontrolled blowout in the Bakken Formation is impossible. One cannot proceed without proper pressure tests, and there are no outcrops for the aforementioned formation. Remember, your MSM is 90% in the tank for the most dishonest and incompetent precedent in your history. Baggage and all, Newt is very effective. Time to check Newt.Org.
@Oil guy from Alberta: We had a meeting in San Antonio this week. On Monday night, we (7 conservatives) went out to eat at a place on the River Walk. There was a moderately attractive 40ish lady who was planning on eating by herself. We scooped her up and asked her to join us for dinner. Toward the end of the meal after several drinks, we inevitably got into world events.
The lady from Ventura County CA asked us what we thought was the biggest threat to the world today. We all looked at each other and thought we were being set up by a liberal. Before most of us could respond, a mild manner lady blurted out: “Democrats!”. The rest of us quickly corrected her reply to “Liberals” after we nearly fell off of our chairs. We then proceeded to provide her with an education on the KeystoneXL pipeline, AGW, water quality, radon, DDT and many other areas. She did everything but stick her fingers in her ears to avoid listening to us.
Oil guy from Alberta
hi
I mentioned before that, Obama agreed with the KEYSTONE, and it’s not the same one, I just read
on my own news it is another TRANSCANADA CORP to build the southern most portion of
the KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE AS A STAND ALONE PROJECT THAT does not need
US STATE DEPARTMENT approval, the PRESIDENT welcome it to bring crude oil from CUSHING,
OKLAHOMA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, the plan will help adress the bottelneck of oil in the US MIDWEST,
THAT HAS RESULTED FROM INCREASED domestic production in areas like THE BAKKEN OILFIELDS
OF NORTH DAKOTA , THE WHITE HOUSE STAMP OF APPROVAL MARKS A SIGNIFICANT VICTORY
for TRANSCANADA, COMING JUST A MONTH after OBAMA and the state department denied
a presidential permitfor the COMPANY TO BUILD THE FULL 7 BILLION KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE
FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA TO THE GULF COAST OF MEXICO;
under TRANSCANADA’S NEW PLAN, THE COMPANY informed the STATE DEPARTMENT THAT it will go ahead with construction of the section of KEYSTONE XL RUNNING FROM AN OIL HUB IN CUSHING
OKLAHOMA TO REFINERIES IN PORT ARTHUR TEXAS. DUBBED THE GULF COAST PROJECT,
It will aim to ease a supply glut at CUSHING. SOME OF THE OIL MAY COME FROM THE ORIGINAL
KEYSTONE PIPELINE WHICH HAS been in operation since JUNE 2010 AND TERMINATED
IN CUSHING, THERE’LL BE SOME OIL, potentially coming from base KEYSTONE , BUT A LOT OF THIS INTEREST and the commercial support for this project relatesto a desire of SHIPPERS TO JUST GET OIL
FROM THAT CUSHING region down to the GULF COAST, SAID ALEX POURBAIX PRESIDENT OF TRANSCANADA’S PIPELINE DIVISION; BECAUSE IT WILL NOW BE A STAND ALONE PROJECT
THE SOUTHERN LEG DOES NOT NEED A PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT REQUIRED FOR PIPELINES
that cross an international border it is subject to regulatory approval
by the US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT ;
THE COMPANYSAID IT WOULD BE OPERATIONAL BY MID 2013,
THE MOVE COMES AS THE COMPANY PREPARE TO REAPPLY FOR A PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT
for the NORTHEN SECTION OF THE KEYSTONE XL, RUNNING FROM HARDISTY ALBERTA
TO STEELE CITY NEBRASKA
OBAMA HAD DENIED TRANSCANADA’S KEYSTONE XL PERMIT AMID A RULING BY
THE STATE DEPARTMENT THAT the COMPANY must find an alternate route that avoid
the ecologically fragile SAND HILLS REGION OF NEBRASKA; THE WHITE HOUSE IN IT’S STATE MENT YESTERDAY, blamed that decisionon a republican-backed bill that forces him to make an early decision
on KEYSTONE XL. THE LEGISLATION DID NOT ALLOW SUFFICIENT TIME FOR IMPORTANT REVIEW OR EVEN IDENTIFICATION OF COMPLETE PIPELINE ROUTE.
OBAMA ‘S DECISION TO WELCOME planned construction of the SOUTHERN LEG OF KEYSTONE XL
COULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT POLITICAL IMPLICATIONAS HE PREPARE FOR REELECTION CAMPAIGN
SINCE HE DENIED TRANSCANADA’S PERMIT IN JANUARY,
REPUBLCANS IN CONGRESS AND GOP PRESIDENTIAL PRESIDENT HAVE VOWED TO MAKE THE DECISION AN ISSUE HEADING TOWARD THE NOVEMBER 6 ELECTION.
BYE, SORRY BUT i THOUGHT ALL THE TEXT WAS NEEDED TO BE INCLUDED
@Mata
Of course Newt never brings up abortion, contraception or gay marriage. These issues are the Achilles heel of social conservatives. As I say I wish they concentrate on economics – that is where the Right is strongest.