Joe Wilson just sent out this release:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 9, 2008Wilson: “House Republicans will continue to fight for an all-of-the-above energy plan.”
*To View a Video of Congressman Wilson’s Floor Speech Click Here*
WASHINGTON – Congressman Joe Wilson (SC-02) delivered the following remarks today on the floor of the House of Representatives.“Mr. Speaker, here are a few facts on energy I would like to share:
- America currently has an estimated 175 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 1.1 trillion barrels of oil that is off-limits to exploration.
- In ANWR alone, there is an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil.
- Currently, 85 percent of the Lower 48 Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) energy resources remain under the lock and key of the federal government.
- Only 6 percent of the 700 million acres of federally owned sub-surface mineral estate has been leased for oil and gas exploration.
- The estimated federal revenue that would be generated by opening up these lands that are currently off-limits to leasing is upwards of $60 trillion.
“Americans support exploring for these resources and breaking America’s dependence on foreign oil.
“The American people are demanding Congress take action. That is why House Republicans will continue to fight for an all-of-the-above energy plan that will produce more American-made energy while investing in alternative fuels and promoting conservation.
“In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget September 11th.”###
As usual, Joe is playing the Party Game. His "all-of-the-above" plan has only one item: Drill. Standard GOP boilerplate.
By contrast, the Energy Party has a real "all of the above" plan. Drilling is only a small piece of the solution, folks.
The “Energy Party” doesn’t exist. It is fantasy, just like its “platform”. It will never exist, because the notions are ignorant and foolish.
Blogging with Lee, take 26: Because anything that Lee doesn’t agree with is ignorant and foolish! Duh!
—
Ok, back on topic with two more serious questions.
If there are 1.1 trillion barrels of oil and 175 trillion cu.ft. of natural gas that are off limits, why is so much attention being paid to the (relatively) paltry 10.4 billion in ANWR? Is most of that 1.1 trillion in forms or places that make it (still) prohibitively expensive to get to?
And a thought on the off-shore drilling where the states get lots of the profits if they decide to risk their coast lines. What if we made it so that the states selling the rights were legally on the hook to clean up any environmental messes caused by possible spills? If the states think the drilling, extraction, and shipping out (including terrorist protection) is really that safe, then they have no reason to worry about being on the hook for potentially billions of clean-up costs, should they? Or, at worst, the oil companies they hire for the extraction should be willing to have something akin to reinsurance to cover it, right? Would they still want to do it? What percent of the anti-drilling folks would that mollify, if any?
The problem as I see it, is that we can put the money into drilling, and 10 years down the road discover that China and India are still willing to outbid us for the oil (and requiring the oil companies to sell the oil to us at a reduced price would be downright communistic!). Meanwhile, we’d still be hooked on oil (Save your SUV’s boys, the gas hogs shall rise again!), and we’d have less money to devote to developing alternative means of energy. We (that’s the US citizenry minus Lee) need to develop a means of renewable energy that will free us from the necessity of going hat in hand to any other country. We’ve tamed the West, we’ve split the atom, and we’re in the process of exploring space. We can do this. And then we can market our leftovers to China and India, who will, by that time, have discovered that too much petroleum leaves the air unbreathable.
Basically, the way this blog works is:
— I post something.
— Lee says something uttlerly dismissive about it.
— One of two things happens: Folks let Lee distract them, or they ignore him and proceed to discuss the subject of the post.
I think we need to drill in ANWR because of the reasons offered not to. Folks who are opposed to increasing domestic production (or opposed to it unless it costs us nothing) have drawn a line. That line separates the “left” and “right” takes on energy. That line — for which they offer insufficient reasoning — needs to be breached, erased, trampled upon, so that we can get on with approaching our energy problems pragmatically rather than ideologically.
Meanwhile, there are people on the RIGHT for whom that line is just as important. They are going to hold their breaths until they turn blue, and make loud noises and refuse to listen to ANYTHING ELSE until we drill in ANWR. To which I say, fine — drill the every-lovin’ permafrost out of it. NOW can we talk about all the other things we ALSO need to do…?
That’s why we need to drill in ANWR. To erase the stupid, ideological line, and move forward.
I guess I’d still like to know where the other 90%+ of the untapped oil is first… but say we do go with ANWR just to move on. Would the oil companies still be interested if they had to have insurance of some sort to cover any environmental disasters that might occur due to drilling, extracting, and transporting the oil from up there (including “acts of god” and terrorism)?
And what about global warming, Brad? Are we to continue that as well? Nothing like having plenty of oil, but having no ozone layer to protect us from killing radiation.
Read the platform. It’s all in there. The drilling part is just part of the transitional phase. While we pour strenuous efforts into moving beyond oil, there will be an unavoidable period in which we’re still using the stuff. Drilling in ANWR and off the coast won’t be enough to replace all the foreign oil during that period before we move beyond it, but it will at least reduce the percentage of foreign oil we have to buy.
Yes, oil companies should have to indemnify themselves against environmental damage. If we take a certain risk as a society, we should be prepared to pay the price of minimizing that risk.
That will go into the oil price, but so will a gas tax increase to pay for research into the alternatives. Some of those lines of inquiry will be dead ends, like ethanol. But once we it the right solution, the market will grab onto it and off we go. Eventually, there will be no market for the oil for transportation purposes, so there will be no point in pumping it any more.
Brad, for once, I would like to see any pol mention the very real issue that the heavy sour crude will not yield that gas bonanza that they are promising.
Furthermore, is there some compelling reason that those who hold leases to drill in the Gulf of Mexico (i.e. beyond the continental shelf) are currently prevented from doing so?
Finally, drilling alone without some kind of equivalent conservation measure is a bad idea. Without it, we will only squander what we have left.