Romney Releases His Energy Policy (Drill Baby Drill!)

Spread the love

Loading

Jeff Dunetz @ The Lid:

According to President Obama anybody who claims that we can drill our way out of the present high cost of energy is a liar. However a report created by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (published at a time when the Democrats Controlled both houses of Congress) says it is the President who is being less than honest with the American public. Our oil and other energy reserves are much larger than he claims and history shows that just the threat of new drilling serves to depress oil prices pumped up by speculators.

Today, Mitt Romney travels to Hobbs, New Mexico, where he will deliver an address explaining his energy proposed energy policy and unlike his opponent, Romney believes the United States should exploit its vast energy producing natural resources as a path toward energy independence and a way of creating jobs.

Romney’s approach is a true “all of the above” which opens up federal lands, allows for off-shore drilling, streamlines regulation and opens them up to be examined, and encourages private industry to take on the task of developing new energy resources (as opposed to the government picking winners and losers).

The GOP candidate isn’t simply looking to make the United States energy independent, he is looking for the country to once again become a superpower in the energy industry.

The basic elements of his policy include:
Federal Lands-State Driven energy policy:

  • States will be empowered to establish processes to oversee the development and production of all forms of energy on federal lands within their borders, excluding only lands specially designated off-limits.
  • State regulatory processes and permitting programs for all forms of energy development will be deemed to satisfy all requirements of federal law.
  • Federal agencies will certify state processes as adequate, according to established criteria that are sufficiently broad, to afford the states maximum flexibility to ascertain what is most appropriate;
  • The federal government will encourage the formation of a State Energy Development Council, where states can work together along with existing organizations such as STRONGER and the IOGCC to share expertise and best management practices.

Open Offshore Areas For Energy Development

  • Establish a new five-year offshore leasing plan that aggressively opens new areas for development beginning with those off the coast of Virginia and the Carolinas;
  • Set minimum production targets for each five-year leasing plan, requiring annual reports to Congress on progress in reaching goals and implementation of new policies to  compensate for any shortfall.
  • Guarantee that state-of-the-art processes and safeguards for offshore drilling are implemented in a manner designed to support rather than block exploration and production.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

13 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Almost anything is better than Obama’s “crony capitalism” efforts to pay off campaign supporters and fundraisers.

Right. This will also give us time to develop usable alternative energy sources, rather than the patchwork of unproven money pits that the current administration is embracing, to our cost and his supporters’ profit.
With time, alternative energy can be a viable alternative to fossil fuels, but we must have time for the new technologies to mature.

The left will claim that Romney will halt alternative energy research. The full release belies that claim:

Facilitate Private-Sector-Led Development Of New Energy Technologies

* Focus government investment on research across the full spectrum of energy-related technologies, not on picking winners in the market.

* Support increased market penetration and competition among energy sources by maintaining the RFS and eliminating regulatory barriers to a diversification of the electrical grid, fuel system, or vehicle fleet.

* Ensure that policies for expanding energy development apply broadly to energy sources, from oil and gas exploration, to coal mining, to the siting of wind, solar, hydroelectric, and other renewable energy facilities.

* Revitalize nuclear power by equipping the NRC to approve new designs and to license approved reactor designs on approved sites within two years.

I am curious whether he will continue to subsidize Ethanol (I’m not a fan).

Why should control of resources on federal land that are of national importance be turned over to state officials? Such resources are not property of a particular state and its residents. They’re property of the nation and all of its people.

Further, pollution and environmental damage that results from irresponsible activities within a state’s borders don’t automatically stop at the state line. That hasn’t changed. It’s the reason Nixon established the EPA to begin with.

Romney’s supporters are once again citing the 2010 CRS report–U.S. Fossil Fuel Resources: Terminology, Reporting, and Summary–that republicans rolled out previously, and are once again building their pitch on the same seriously flawed interpretations of what the charts, graphs, and figures presented therein actually mean. Unfortunately the labels reading Undiscovered technically recoverable resources and Discovered and undiscovered sub-economic resources still mean exactly what they meant 2 years ago: resources that you might hope to figure out how to economically get at, and resources that cost more energy and/or money to recover than what is recovered could be made to pay for. The report does not disprove Obama’s observation that we cannot drill our way out of our problem. It didn’t before, and it doesn’t now.

I can only hope after Romney wins he puts some competent people in the DOJ and starts to put the current administration cronies in a jail cell where they belong for the plunder and self dealing that is going on. That alone would eliminate any possible lay offs of correction officers.

@Greg: Understood, but it seems that Romney’s plan is truly “all of the above.” Oil, Gas, Nuclear, Solar, Wind, it’s all there. The media was quick to cast Romney as an evil oil guy, but that’s not true. The “this or that” mentality needs to go away, and I’m concerned about how much the dems need that thinking to form their platform.

The private sector can and will do a great job of developing innovations and allowing for free market capitalism to drive it– that is what many want to see. I see lots of solar panel banks on houses here in Denver, and that’s a good thing.

Obama’s error was to bypass free-market capitalism with state capitalism (what China employs).

CURT
GOOD FOR JOBS AND MORE JOBS BESIDE THEM JOBS AND MORE JOBS BECAUSE OF THE JOBS AND THE JOBS BESIDE THEM JOBS AND MORE JOBS BESIDE THOSE BECAUSE OF THE JOBS AND THE JOBS BESIDE THEM JOBS, AND MORE JOBS ON SECURITY TO PROTECT ALL OF THEM
WOW THAT IS IS NEEDED,
BYE

@Nathan Blue:

I also support a broad approach. Unfortunately, I fear that Mr. Romney’s endorsement of a broad approach is actually cover for sweeping industry deregulation, that would allow the most easily accessible domestic oil reserves to be pumped as rapidly as possible and sold as quickly as possible in the international marketplace. The nation would rapidly lose it’s most accessible domestic petroleum reserves in exchange for a few years of greatly inflated private sector profits, while American consumers would see no significant decrease in gasoline prices. China would essentially be using their huge dollar holdings to buy our most easily recovered oil.

One would hope we’re not that stupid. If we want to sell them a national energy resource, maybe we should sell them coal and keep the oil and natural gas for ourselves. Apparently no one is going to worry about the long-term consequences of CO2 emissions anyway.

GREG
don’t ever think that MITT ROMNEY IS STUPID ENOUGH TO FALL FOR SCAM LIKE OBAMA DOES,
MITT ROMNEY IS VERY SMART AND HIS SUCCESS TALK FOR ITSELF,
ALTHOUGH HE DOESN’T DO THE SAME OUTRAGEOUS TALK BACK TO OBAMA’S ATTACKS,
HE HAS MORE CLASS THAN THAT.

@Greg:

I also support a broad approach.

Except for when you don’t. Such as when you continue to defend Obama’s record regarding energy.

I have no problem with Obama’s record regarding energy. So far we’ve kept our national petroleum reserves for our nation’s own future use. There haven’t been any major new drilling disasters. Alternative energy has received funding and the technological advances that resulted remain, even if a few of the companies that made them don’t. Someone will continue their development. Biofuel development is further along than it was. Gas prices are high, but that’s got nothing to do with the Obama administration.

I don’t see anything in Mitt’s Master Plan concerning the deteriorating national electrical grid.

@Greg:

Alternative energy has received funding and the technological advances that resulted remain, even if a few of the companies that made them don’t

A “few”? Raser Technologies, ECOtality, Nevada Geothermal Power, First Solar, Abound Solar, Beacon Power, SunPower and Brightsource, not to mention Solyndra, ALL received federal loans(how many were paid back?) steered to them by Obama, or people within his administration. And what do they all have in common? The owners, or company officers, were (and probably still are) fundraisers for the Democratic party in general, and Obama specifically.

Say it with me, Greg. CRONY CAPITALISM.

And what about the attempted destruction of a segment of the electrical generation industry? Coal plants are threatened by the hundreds with not being able to operate and still make a profit, either for shareholders in the companies, or in reduced rates for the co-ops, because of increased regulation from the EPA threatening to shut them down, many of them for good.

It won’t matter much about the electrical grid itself, if their isn’t anywhere near enough power to keep the lights on.

It would be humorous, if it wasn’t so sad, seeing someone approve of Obama’s raping of both industry, and the green movement, in order to enrich himself and his friends. Obama’s getting a twofer and you are cheering him on.

The truth behind high gas prices:

Publicly “accepted” explanations

We first reviewed the “official” explanations offered for high gasoline prices that can readily be found in the statements by political leaders and from the media. They currently include Iran’s threats to block oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, unrest in the Middle East, and even problems in Africa, although the reasons offered through recent history seem to change with events of the day. Although these reasons sound plausible, our investigation determined the actual reasons for high prices at the pump lie closer to home, and not for the reasons alleged by the government and repeated by the media. Whether it is due to simple ignorance or for the purpose of advancing a particular agenda, the talking heads on the far left, the conservative pundits of the right and the reporters in the middle have got it all wrong.

Finding #1: It’s the value of the U.S. dollar

By far, the devaluation of the U.S. dollar is the most important and significant contributing factor that explains why we are all paying more at the gas pump.

At the core of this problem is the Federal Reserve, the producer of our “fiat currency,” and the criminally scandalous relationship that exists between elected officials and the financial community. Much like the matter of constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama, this is perhaps the most underreported and least understood issue in America. Nonetheless, it is this devaluation, coupled with the fact that we pay for oil in U.S. dollars, that we found to be primarily responsible for the price of gasoline at the pump.

Finding #2: The current administration is hiding evidence

Our investigation required us to research the historical price of oil, initially leading us to the Energy Information Administration(EIA) website maintained by the U.S. Department of Energy. When we accessed that site, we learned that the current data, as well as all of the historical data was scrubbed from the site …

That, in turn, led us to the writings of author and industry expert analyst Seldon B. Graham, Jr.(2) who disclosed that the data was removed by the U.S. government on 11 November 2011 – Veteran’s Day, no less. Mr. Graham stated that at the time the data was removed, it showed the price disparity between U.S. (domestic) oil and OPEC oil. The reason the data was removed, according to Mr. Graham (and we concur) is that it clearly showed that U.S. consumers would save over $21 billion per year by using oil from the U.S. rather than buying it from OPEC.

Finding #3: Media ignorance & lies

All of the media pundits on the “left” without exception, and many on the “right,” including and especially Bill O’Reilly in the latter category misinform the American public by misrepresenting two important factors: the availability of domestically produced oil and the method that U.S. oil producers sell their product.

First, oil from wells currently operating in the U.S. is not “plentiful.” U.S. wells currently produces 5.7 million barrels of crude oil per day, but the U.S. consumes about 19.6 million barrels per day. That’s a difference of almost 14 million barrels per day. U.S. oil companies export less than one percent of what they obtain domestically, mostly for geographical reasons.

Secondly, there is a myth about U.S. oil companies that they “price gouge” the public by raising the price of their product based on demand. Our investigation confirmed what Mr. Graham contends: domestic oil producers do not sell their product to the highest bidder. Instead, oil producers and refineries use well established avenues to move their product, accepting what is known as the “posted price” (the price U.S. refineries will pay for a barrel of oil). This process actually removes the expense that would otherwise be incurred to establish a new or alternate “gathering line.

The reason these two facts are critically important is that the deliberate demonization of domestic oil producers advances the political agenda of the Progressives, the green movement, and all elected officials lobbied by foreign oil interests.

Finding #4: the Obama administration is not telling the truth about U.S. oil production

The current claim by this administration is that U.S. oil production has risen under his administration. This assertion is disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at worst. The truth is that oil production on federal land actually fell by 14%, but increased on land privately owned or controlled by the states. The rise of oil production in that sector is completely unrelated to this administration or its policies, or is in spite of those policies.

Finding #5: the Obama administration’s war on domestic oil

When not being actively and openly hostile to U.S. oil companies and domestic oil production, the Obama administration is at least passive-aggressive. Our investigation found that Obama and his energy “czars” are employing tactics and creating policies that are forcing U.S. oil companies out of business – or at least restraining their ability to operate. Meanwhile, thy present an entirely different account to the American public, which is never questioned by a sympathetic media.

To be certain, we did not arrive at this point overnight. Our investigation found ample evidence that Democrats and Republicans, Progressives and Conservatives are responsible for our currently flawed energy policies that are directly responsible for our pain at the pump.

So yes, it is not only Obama’s policies but also politicians of the past.

Finding #6: Corn, growing gold

Deserving an exclusive section of this report is the nonsensical but mandated use of biofuels in America. Ethanol, derived from corn, fueled Henry Ford’s first automobile. It was replaced by gasoline due to a number of factors, including better efficiency of the latter…

Domestic oil refineries are required by the EPA to use cellulosic ethanol (ethanol made from wood, various grasses and the non-edible parts of plants) in their final gasoline product. The problem, however, is that cellulosic ethanol is not in production and unavailable to refineries. Consequently, domestic oil companies are forced to spend millions of dollars to purchase waivers from the government – waivers for an unavailable product.

…As a result, we, the taxpayers, are paying more for corn due to its use as a fuel, more for gas, while getting less engine efficiency and actually polluting the environment even more. Furthermore, as a result of the recent drought that has affected our nation’s corn crop, expect the cost of gasoline and all products to increase sharply in the near future.

Obama’s “double-tap” to domestic oil production

Whereas our investigation found that nearly all previous administrations have had a hand in the systematic destruction of our domestic oil industry, the Obama administration is undoubtedly responsible for the “double tap” to its head. This metaphor is accurate as it implies a professional “hit” or assassination, and the obvious victim is the U.S. oil industry. The ultimate victims, however, are the citizens of the U.S., who are being forced to pay more for everything due to high gasoline prices.

This administration deserves such a designation, not only for the overt hostility toward the U.S. oil industry, but for the incestuous insider deals that have been made with alternative energy companies. Over $7 billion has been given by Obama’s Department of Energy to a half-dozen groups in the U.S., including the now defunct Solyndra, to fund their projects. That $7 billion of our tax dollars…

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico opened the door to an offshore drilling moratorium. The federal agency on point for the moratorium is the U.S. Department of the Interior, headed by Ken Salazar. Salazar, a former Democratic senator from Colorado, recently made headlines by being cited for contempt charges in federal court over his conduct in pushing the administration’s moratorium against the ruling of a federal court. The Holder Department of Justice, however, refused to pursue contempt charges.

Investigative Summary

In summary, our findings indicate that the most significant cause for high prices we are paying at the pump is the devaluation of the U.S. dollar. Other factors that are closely tied to high gasoline costs are the energy policies of Barack Obama, in conjunction with over four decades of EPA regulations that do more to line the pockets of elected officials than to protect our environment.

Contrary to popular belief and media propaganda, it is not the domestic oil producers who are profiting from high prices at the gas pump. Those who are profiting the most are the producers of biofuels, alternative energy companies, and the U.S. government, which has been requiring domestic oil producers to pay for waivers for a non-existent product. Also profiting are the elected lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle, who are heavily involved with energy lobbyists.

Like all matters of importance, the truth can be found by the old investigative adage, “follow the money.”

(Ditto – For brevity I condensed the article to the main points. it may be read in it’s entirety here): Source: Investigation: The Truth Behind High Gas Prices