What is the Dems Plan to Bring Down gas Prices?

[Rafael]

Originally Posted by Irish flu

The Dem plan in to double efficiency, and soon. That's part of it. Windmills are another part of it. Getting closer to being as cost effective as NG.

We use twice as much energy per capita as France and Japan. This is whack, beyond whack. F and J are not nations of cave dwellers.

Call me pessimistic all you want, but if we continue at our current or, God help, increased energy use rates and try to use coal, shale oil, tar sands, and increased domestic drilling to do so, this nation and world is going be looking like hell in another 50 years, and worse yet, may be heading in hell's direction.

That's it? Cut back? And you call yourselves progressive! You've never met a progress that you liked.

[David]

Libs in control in Wisconsin. The cost of this clean coal plant goes up each year. Political lobbying and litigation by the eco whackos keeps pushing off new energy source answers. What does "Clean Wisconsin" have to offer to bring us new energy outlets? Wait until they see the dead birds from the wind plants. Madison Wi. Capitla Times
SOURCE

Projected cost for new Alliant coal plant soars past $1 billion

Jeff Richgels
June 15, 2008

The cost for Alliant Energy's controversial proposed new coal power plant has soared to a range of $1.1 billion to $1.2 billion, the company stated in a regulatory filing.

Alliant previously said the new plant proposed to be the third unit of the Nelson Dewey Generating Station in Cassville would cost $850 million to $950 million. When initially proposed in 2007, the plant's cost estimate was under $800 million.

The company is facing heavy opposition from environmental groups as it seeks approval from the state Public Service Commission to build the 300-megawatt plant. Cassville is its top site option, while the Columbia Generation Station at Portage is No. 2.

Alliant also said in the filing that its cost estimate for capital expenditures for sulfur dioxide air pollution controls at the two existing coal units at Nelson Dewey would be about $200 million, nearly double the previously disclosed estimate of $116 million.

Company officials said the increases stem from soaring construction costs that include big cost hikes for items such as concrete and steel.

Alliant also announced that it would take several steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if the new plant is approved. The changes would be implemented by the time the proposed new plant would become operational in 2013 and would more than offset the carbon emissions from the new coal plant, the company said.

The company said late Thursday the changes are expected to cost about $500 million to $550 million, if all the necessary regulatory approvals are received.

Changes include the shut down of its oldest coal-fired generation unit, Edgewater Generating Station unit 3; ramping up its wind power segment; doubling its proposed renewable energy investments; and "aggressively" focusing on energy efficiency measures.

Under its new proposal, WPL aims to generate 500 megawatts of new wind power by 2013, compared with a previously announced plan to produce 300 megawatts of new wind power by the end of 2010.

Sites for the wind farms have not yet been determined, but the company said a possible site is southwestern Wisconsin.

Alliant also plans to double the amount of renewable resource fuels -- including switch grass, waste wood, or corn stalks -- to be used at the proposed new coal plant to 20 percent.

The company said analysis by researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison has shown that could create economic development revenues for Wisconsin exceeding an estimated $50 million annually.

"Alliant Energy is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions," Barbara Swan, president of Alliant's state utility unit, Wisconsin Power & Light Co., said in a statement. "We believe our proposal addresses the critical balance of meeting important environmental objectives with the equally important goal of providing reliable and affordable power to our customers."

Alliant said its customers' two main concerns are protecting the environment while keeping the cost of electricity affordable.

Alliant's plans, though, were slammed by Clean Wisconsin, the state's largest environmental advocacy organization.

Clean Wisconsin said even with the moves, the new plant still would be one of the state's dirtiest power facilities.

"Alliant continues to repackage their proposal in an attempt to sell this dirty coal plant as an environmentally friendly option," Katie Nekola, energy program director at Clean Wisconsin, said in a statement. "Replacing a nearly retired coal plant that emitted less than 500,000 tons of carbon dioxide in 2006 with one that would emit more than 2.3 million tons of greenhouse gas annually for at least 50 years is not a solution to global warming."

Even at 20 percent biomass, the Cassville plant would emit more greenhouse gas emissions than other, more efficient, power plants fueled exclusively by coal in Wisconsin, Clean Wisconsin said in a news release.

The organization also noted that the PSC has questioned many details of Alliant's previous commitment to burn even 10 percent biomass in the recent environmental impact statement.

And Clean Wisconsin noted that the announcement comes one month after the PSC released a draft environmental impact statement that said Alliant's proposal was "not the optimal generation choice," and "not the least cost option under any scenario."

"The estimated costs of Alliant's expansion plans are skyrocketing and the construction of the coal plant alone will likely cost over $1 billion," Nekola said. "If this plant is built, Wisconsin energy users will shoulder the burden of the construction costs and future greenhouse gas regulations."

"While Alliant is once again trying to repackage this coal plant, the fact remains that it is a coal plant at heart," Nekola added. "The high costs and substantial greenhouse gas emissions of this plant make it a bad investment for Wisconsin's economy and environment."

Groups opposed to the plant, including the Citizens Utility Board, have called on Alliant to beef up spending on energy efficiency and renewable energy instead of building a more costly coal plant.

Alliant has said that its analysis and analysis by the PSC has shown the need for a new power plant, given the rising demand for energy.

The PSC is expected to vote on the plant proposal by the end of the year.

A week earlier, Alliant-WPL filed an application with the PSC for a new wind farm in Freeborn County, Minnesota, where the company said there are "the strong and persistent prairie winds of southern Minnesota."

The Bent Tree Wind Farm, near Albert Lea just north of the Iowa border, could produce up to 400 megawatts of power for about 100,000 homes. The application seeks approval for a $450 million to $475 million project to develop approximately 200 megawatts of power beginning in 2009.

Assuming approvals by the PSC and the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, the wind farm would be operational by 2010, the company said.

"Developing Bent Tree Wind Farm is the next logical step in WPL's commitment to not only wind energy, but all renewable energy," Swan said in a statement. "We will continue to seek environmentally friendly alternative sources of energy to complement our baseload generation initiatives, which furthers our goal of providing reliable, affordable and environmentally responsible power to our customers."

In April, WPL executed a letter of intent to purchase Bent Tree from Wind Capital Group LLC. WPL currently anticipates the purchase of the site to be complete by October 2008.

Bent Tree would be WPL's second fully owned and operated wind farm. The company's first such project, the Cedar Ridge Wind Farm, a 68-megawatt project in Fond du Lac County, is expected to begin commercial operation later this year.

WPL expects the PSC to rule on its Bent Tree application by the end of the year and the Minnesota PUC to rule by late 2008 or early 2009.

To fulfill its anticipated wind needs, Alliant announced that it will buy 303 wind turbines from Vestas-American Wind Technology Inc. for about $817 million. Deliveries will begin next year and continue through 2010.

The turbines, to be used by WPL and Alliant's Iowa utility unit, Interstate Power and Light Co., will have a total installed capacity of 500 megawatts. IPL is developing a 200-megawatt wind farm in Franklin County, Iowa.

A one-megawatt plant running continuously at full capacity can power 778 households each year, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

"Our company is pleased to partner with Vestas, who is a recognized leader in the wind generation industry," Kim Zuhlke, Alliant Energy vice president of new energy resources. "Vestas will play an important role in our company's next step in expanding its renewable energy supply portfolio. Given our company's aggressive wind generation expansion plans, we believe it is important that we procure the infrastructure necessary to complete the generation build-out on-time and at a reasonable cost to customers."

[David]

Wash Post
SOURCE

McCain Calls for End to Offshore Drilling Ban

By Michael D. Shear
Republican Sen. John McCain today called for an end to the federal ban on offshore oil drilling, a move that would let states decide whether oil rigs would sprout up along the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines.

The move is a dramatic break with the environmental groups McCain has been courting for months, but is designed to reassure voters angry about rising gas prices. McCain said he would push for new incentives to help convince state officials to allow the drilling once the 27-year-old federal ban is lifted.

"We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gases through the development of alternative energy sources," McCain told reporters this morning. "And, as I said, exploration is a step toward the longer term goal."

Since securing the Republican nomination, McCain has been presenting himself as a friend of the environment by touting his belief in government action on global warming. But pushing for
drilling off the coasts is not likely to be popular with environmental activists who have consistently fought to keep the ban in place.

Congress created a moratorium on new drilling off the coast in 1981 and every president since then has extended it. A House panel last week defeated a Republican bill that would have lifted the moratorium.

McCain did not say how far offshore companies would have to be to drill for oil along the coastline, saying that is one of many things that would be part of a negotiation to lift the federal ban.

McCain's call is also sure to annoy two key Republican allies -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist -- both of whom have said they are opposed to drilling off of their states' coastlines.

If the moratorium were lifted, pressure would quickly mount on both of the governors, who have so far been able to deflect calls for action to allow private oil companies to begin exploration for oil.

Environmental groups say an expansion of drilling is unnecessary because the oil companies have not yet maximized the exploration of current oil fields. Supporters of lifting the ban on drilling assert it would provide new opportunities to wean the country off of foreign oil.

It is not clear whether or how quickly oil drilling would begin once the federal ban were to be lifted. Several states, including Virginia, have debated the issue in the last several years, but those debates have often been overshadowed by the existence of the federal moratorium.

In Virginia, Republicans pushed to get Virginia on the record favoring drilling along the coast, but the legislative measure was vetoed by its Democratic governor, Timothy M. Kaine.

McCain's call for an end to the coastal oil drilling is somewhat at odds with his oft-stated view that drilling should remain off-limits in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Everglades, the
Grand Canyon and other sensitive areas.

Asked by reporters about those places, McCain said Monday that he still believes the refuge is a "pristine" area. But he said the coastline should be open to oil drilling. He did not describe the new incentives to encourage states to agree with him.

McCain is set to give a speech about energy to oil executives in Houston Tuesday, where he is expected to chide the industry for the huge profits they have made during a tough time for gasoline consumers.

[David]

Originally Posted by Rafael

That's it? Cut back? And you call yourselves progressive! You've never met a progress that you liked.

What a bad joke. They don't have any answers. None. Tax oil companies to a greater degree. How will that lower prices or create energy independence? Subsidize alternatives? Tried that with Jimmah. Alternative sources will come to the fore if government gets out of the way. Offers tax incentives. CAFE standards? Already occurring with market reaction to higher gas prices.

Fact remains, they like this situation. The whackos desire a neo luddite existence for all of us. Those on the lower rung of the economic ladder will get clobbered. Little chance of economic mobility. But, if you notice, vast majority of people pushing these changes are upper middle class white folks who worship at the alter of Greenpeace and Rachel Carson.

I am sure glad our ancestors in this country didn't hold these attitudes. US is a can do nation. We will again.

[David]

Wash Times
SOURCE
COMMENTARY: Energy charade
Donald Lambro (Contact)
Monday, June 16, 2008



There's no way to put this politely. Raising taxes on U.S. oil companies and calling it an energy plan is just about the dumbest idea the Democrats have come up with yet.

Democrats call it "a windfall profits" tax, and it is at the heart of their plan to deal with punishing oil prices nearing $140 a barrel and skyrocketing gas prices that have crossed the $4-a-gallon threshold at the pump.

Their proposed tax increase will not produce a drop more oil. In fact, it will reduce supplies. And it will not lower oil prices, either. It will make oil more expensive, because oil company costs would rise as a result of higher taxes.

Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas called the bill that Democratic leaders recently brought to the Senate floor "a pathetic attempt to even call itself an energy plan."

Democrats seem to have a problem with what they deem to be "windfall profits" only when it comes to oil. Farmers are raking in huge profits from corn to make ethanol, with heavy federal subsidies to boot. But there are no demands from Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama to slap corn growers with higher taxes to confiscate their earnings, even though the environmental ethanol craze has been driving up the cost of bread, cereal, meat, poultry and just about everything else we eat.

The legislation Democrats proposed did not pass the laugh test. Besides its windfall profits tax, the bill suggested that the United States sue the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (this is the way litigious lawyers in the world's most deliberative body think) and called for yet another federal commission to look for price gouging.

But as Mrs. Hutchison said, "It does not produce one ounce of energy. Not one ounce." Common sense suggests we need to produce more fuel, but this bill was on empty, and mercifully, the Democrats failed to muster the 60 votes needed to end debate on the bill.

Someone once said the definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. The same could be said of the windfall profit zealots.

Congress passed a windfall profits tax in 1980. Mrs. Hutchison reminded the Senate what happened: "It increased our reliance on foreign oil for our energy needs, it exported jobs overseas," and "it increased the price of oil," she said. It was such a disaster that Congress repealed it.

Ronald Reagan then came into office and changed our energy policy. We deregulated the industry, drilled more oil wells, turned on the oil spigots, lengthened the pipelines and produced our way out of supply shortages. The price of oil fell, and gas was once again plentiful and inexpensive.

Other senators came forward last week to say much the same thing about this terrible bill. Sen. Bob Corker, Tennessee Republican., a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said it would do "nothing to lower energy prices or improve our energy security."

When Mr. Obama or his supporters talk about energy, they never breathe a word about "production," that is, increasing the oil and gas supply to bring down prices. Mr. Corker, applying a little Tennessee horse sense, told his colleagues we need more "oil and gas production" and gasoline "refinery capacity." Exactly.

These were the core elements in the Republican alternative bill offered by New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici: expand oil refineries to boost gas inventories, open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to safe, surgical drilling and give states the option to explore off their outer continental shelf and reap the royalties.

Republicans once passed legislation to drill in ANWR, but President Clinton vetoed it in 1995. Had he signed it, Mrs. Hutchison said, "we would be pumping the same amount of oil that we import from Saudi Arabia every day, and we would not [be paying] $4 a gallon at the pump."

Why are we in this mess? It isn't because liberal Democrats have the support of voters on this. A Gallup poll found 57 percent of Americans support "drilling in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas now off-limits."

We're in this mess because of a dark ideological mindset now controlling the levers of power in Congress that is hostile to the oil companies in particular, and to corporations in general.

Notably, the same poll found fewer Americans now blame the oil companies for higher prices. Over the last year, the percentage blaming them has fallen from 34 percent to 20 percent or less, Gallup said.

In a paper that ought to be read by every lawmaker, Ben Lieberman, a senior energy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, says: "Good energy policy is easy to distinguish from bad energy policy. Good policy leads to more supplies of affordable energy and bad policy leads to less."

The next time you hear some politician talking about the energy crisis and saying nothing about boosting production or supply, that's going to be a very bad policy. It's as simple as that.

[David]

Human Events

Dems Running on Empty
by Sen. James Inhofe
Click Here for Article in Human Events

What a difference three years makes: In 2005, I led the charge against a massive global warming cap-and-trade bill. It was a lonely battle with few GOP members willing to join me on the Senate floor to publicly oppose it.

Fast forward to June 2008: Not only was I joined by dozens of GOP Senators, but nearly 30% of the Democratic Senators rebelled against their leadership and opposed the Boxer Climate Tax Bill. In the end, Senator Boxer only had at most 35 Democratic Senators willing to vote for final passage on the largest tax bill in U.S. history. The Boxer Climate Tax Bill was so thoroughly disowned by Democratic Leadership that proponents of climate taxes will now be forced to start from scratch next year.

Republicans were prepared to debate the bill and were ready to offer amendments. But the Democrats did not want to debate, much less vote, on our amendments that were aimed at protecting American families and workers from the devastating economic impacts of this bill. When faced with the inconvenient truth of the bill’s impact on skyrocketing gas prices, it was Democratic Senators who wanted to see this bill die a quick death.

The Wall Street Journal aptly noted that environmentalists are “stunned that their global warming agenda is in collapse.” The paper added, “The green groups now look as politically intimidating as the skinny kid on the beach who gets sand kicked in his face.” The paper quoted a political analyst, noting that “this issue is starting to feel like the Hillary health care plan.”

Despite claims that we must “act now” to prevent a climate “crisis,” the Boxer Climate Tax Bill would not have resulted in any “action” whatsoever. The bill, often touted as an "insurance policy" against global warming, would instead have been all economic pain for no climate gain.

And Americans are suspicious of the need for “solutions” to global warming. A Gallup Poll released on Earth Day 2008 revealed that the American public’s concern about man-made global warming has remained unchanged since 1989. According to Gallup, “Despite the enormous attention paid to global warming over the past several years, the average American is in some ways no more worried about it than in years past.”

Just a few days after the embarrassing defeat of the climate bill, the Democrats were at it again. As the price of gas at the pump continued to climb, Democrats were proposing yet another energy tax as part of their “solution” to our energy challenges. The Democrats’ “no” energy bill would increase taxes by $17 billion for America’s oil and gas producers and increase government bureaucracy. Their bill does nothing to increase access to America’s extensive oil and natural gas reserves, does nothing for the promotion of nuclear energy, does nothing to increase refinery capacity, does nothing for electricity generation or transmission, and does nothing for the utilization of clean coal. They are attempting to ignore the basic concepts of supply and demand.

A major component of the Democrats’ “no” energy bill would reinstate the Windfall Profits Tax. Democrats want to impose the tax despite the fact that we tried this almost 30 years ago, with disastrous results. In 1980, under President Jimmy Carter, Congress imposed an excise levy on domestic oil production. According to a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the results of Carter’s Windfalls Profits Tax “made the U.S. more dependent upon imported oil.” If the Democrats are successful in enacting their “no” energy bill, they will decrease domestic production and increase America’s oil imports -- the exact opposite of what we need to do

Until we explore and develop domestic energy resources and increase domestic refining capacity, the cost of gas at the pump will increase. As America faces mounting energy challenges, now is not the time for politics as usual -- now is the time for common sense solutions.

Oil and gas exploration and production are currently prohibited on 85 percent of America’s offshore waters. Among industrialized nations with shorelines, the United States is the only one not actively seeking new offshore oil and gas deposits. Canada allows offshore drilling in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Great Lakes. Additionally, Cuba is also looking to expand drilling to within 45 miles of parts of Florida and with technology that may be much less environmentally sound than that used by American companies. Exploration and production activities are currently prohibited in the Pacific and Atlantic regions of the Outer Continental Shelf, which hold an estimated 14 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of gas. This is equivalent to more than 25 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia.

If President Clinton hadn’t vetoed legislation allowing environmentally sensitive exploration on the Coastal Plain of ANWR ten years ago, today we would have one million additional barrels of oil coming from ANWR each day, which would mean lower gas prices for consumers and more energy security right now. ANWR is estimated to contain 10 billion barrels of oil -- about 15 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia.

The climate tax debate and the Democrats’ “no” energy bill provide a stark contrast between those who believe the answer to solving our nation’s energy crisis is to raise taxes, regulate more, and drastically increase the size of the federal bureaucracy, and those of us who believe the path forward should develop and expand America’s domestic resources. Congress must reject the Democrats’ attempts to increase taxes and implement back door price controls.

As my home state of Oklahoma shows, tomorrow's energy mix must include more natural gas, wind, geothermal and renewable energy, but oil, coal, and nuclear energy -- the world's largest source of emission-free energy -- must also be included. Developing and expanding domestic energy will translate into energy security and will ensure stable sources of supply and well-paying jobs for Americans.

SOURCE

[David]

Here, finally, is a Dem with a plan. Don't drive as much. Don't drive on Thursdays. Can you imagine the chaos in mass transit if on Thursdays everyone ditched their car? This is what passes for policy from Dems.

Updated: Today at 6:08 AM

Kanjorski pushes ‘dump the pump’
He backs not pumping gas or driving Thursday to send message to OPEC, oil firms.

By Steve Mocarskysmocarsky@timesleader.com
Staff Writer

WILKES-BARRE – U.S. Rep. Paul Kanjorski on Monday blasted members of OPEC and the U.S. petroleum industry and asked the public to “dump the pump” and refrain from pumping gas and driving on Thursday unless absolutely necessary.

LCTA Director Stanley Strelish talks about federal funding for public mass transportation Monday on Public Square. U.S. Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Nanticoke, also spoke.

Clark Van Orden/The Times Leader

Times Leader Photo Store
Related headlines


Kanjorski said that by cutting down the consumption of petroleum products by a few percentage points, Americans would send a message that “we’re aware of the fact that we’re being taken advantage of, and that this $135-a-barrel oil and $4-plus gasoline has to cease.”

Joined by Luzerne County Transportation Authority Director Stan Strelish at a press conference on Public Square, Kanjorski promoted public transportation and legislation he said would help reduce energy prices.

He asks that Americans use public transportation and refrain from pumping gasoline on Thursday as part of a nationwide initiative.

Strelish said anyone who drops $1 in a bus fare box on Thursday will receive a pass allowing him or her to ride any LCTA bus any time and anywhere for the entire day.

Kanjorski said those who must drive should try to carpool, and teens and adolescents should refrain from “cruising.”

The congressman said a message also must be sent to oil companies in the United States that, “rather than being satisfied with good profits, have gone on to celebrate enormous profits.”

“If we send a message that we’ve had enough, and damn it, we won’t take it anymore,” Kanjorski said, pounding his fist on a podium, “even the American oil companies will begin to realize that they should be satisfied with a reasonable profit, not the gigantic profit they’re getting now.”

Strelish said people learned the importance of mass transportation when gas prices doubled in the 1970s, but until recently, it has been underused. He expects that will change, given gas prices recently hitting $4 per gallon.

Kanjorski said he supports legislation he said can reduce energy costs, including House Bill 6052 – the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act. At the LCTA’s request, he plans to sponsor the bill, which would authorize $1.7 billion in grants for mass transit authorities for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 to help lower fares and expand transit services.

Steve Mocarsky, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 459-2005.



Find this article at:
http://www.timesleader.com/news/Kanj...6-16-2008.html

[David]

Other than don't drive on Thursdays what do Dems offer? Will they go along with off shore drilling? Poll shows 67% of Americans favor off shore drilling.

Bush looks offshore for remedy to high oil prices
WASHINGTON (AP) — For a quarter-century, drilling for oil and gas off nearly all the American coastline has been banned in part to protect tourism and to lessen the chances of beach-blackening spills.

Then gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon this summer. Drivers and others began clamoring for federal lawmakers to do something about the record price of oil, much of it produced in foreign countries.

In response, President Bush is renewing his call to open U.S. coastal waters to oil and gas development, arguing that it's high time to battle high prices with increased domestic production. He is planning to ask Congress on Wednesday to lift the drilling moratoria that have been in effect since 1981 in more than 80% of the country's Outer Continental Shelf and to let states help to decide where to allow drilling.

"The president believes Congress shouldn't waste any more time," White House press secretary Dana Perino told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "He will explicitly call on Congress to ... pass legislation lifting the congressional ban on safe, environmentally friendly offshore oil drilling."

For their part, some lawmakers have their own plan: Legislation that would continue the ban into late 2009 was scheduled to be considered Wednesday by the House Appropriations Committee.

Congressional Democrats, joined by some GOP lawmakers from coastal states, have opposed lifting the prohibition that has barred energy companies from waters along both the East and West coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico for 27 years.

On Monday, GOP presidential candidate John McCain, the senator from Arizona, made lifting the federal ban on offshore oil and gas development a key part of his energy plan. McCain said states should be allowed to pursue energy exploration in waters near their coasts and get some of the royalty revenue.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democratic candidate for president, opposes lifting the ban on offshore drilling and says that allowing exploration now wouldn't affect gasoline prices for at least five years.

McCain called for reform of the laws governing the oil futures trading market, and drew a standing ovation from his audience Wednesday when he repeated his day-old support for an end to the federal moratorium on offshore oil drilling. He favors allowing states to decide whether to explore offshore waters.

That drew a rebuttal from Obama, who said his opponent had switched positions from when he first ran for president in 2000. "I think he continues to find himself being pushed further and further to the right in ways that in my mind don't show a lot of leadership," he said.

Obama also said there is "no way that allowing offshore drilling would lower gas prices right now. At best you are looking at five years or more down the road."

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, energy secretary during the Clinton administration, called it "another bad idea."

"It's going to take 10 years to fully get that oil out of the ocean. It's a fragile ecosystem," he said on CBS's The Early Show.

"You know this president, all he wants to do is drill, drill, drill. There is very little on conservation, on fuel efficiency for vehicles. Just last week the Congress failed to pass a solar tax credit — give more incentives to renewable energy, solar and wind. A one track mind — drill drill drill — that's not going to work," Richardson said.

The 574 million acres of federal coastal water that are off-limits are believed to hold nearly 18 billion barrels of undiscovered, recoverable oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to the Interior Department. The country each year uses about 7.6 billion barrels of oil and 21 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Perino said Bush also would reiterate his call for giving companies access to oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. McCain has opposed drilling in the refuge, maintaining that the pristine areas in northeastern Alaska should be protected from energy development.

When Republicans held the majority, the House twice voted to lift the ban, only to have the legislation die in the Senate. The Senate last month by a 56-42 vote rejected a GOP energy plan that would have allowed states to avoid the federal ban if they wanted energy development off their coast.

Congress imposed the drilling moratorium in 1981 and has extended it each year since, by prohibiting the Interior Department from spending money on offshore oil or gas leases in virtually all coastal waters outside the western Gulf of Mexico and in some areas off Alaska.

The elder, former President Bush issued a parallel executive drilling ban in 1990, which was extended by President Clinton and then by the current president until 2012.

Bush has been considering lifting the executive ban as a symbolic move to get Congress to take action, but he decided against doing so for the time being, said an official who spoke on condition of anonymity because internal deliberations were involved.

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...bush-oil_N.htm

[joe]

I am surprised the Dems are not introducing new laws to force companies to offer a four-day work week to employees over xx miles from the office.

[David]

Just saw Bush challenge "Democratic Congress" to reconsider their opposition to ANWR and off shore drilling. Balls in their court.

[kestrel]

It's time to give up the ghost.

This time I believe republicans are right for the wrong reasons. The general public, not very well informed, thinks that gas prices are going to go down if we tap these sources. They are deluded.

However, since I firmly believe that global oil supply will be in constrained even more within 1-3 years, we as an importing nation need to have some fallback in place. If we start now, at the most optimistic estimate we could see a bump in domestic supply by 2013-2015, well after peak oil but it could be just enough to make a difference if our imports start to fall off a cliff.


I can tell you right now exactly what opening up ANWR and offshore drilling will due to gas prices: absolutely nothing. The timeframe is too long for too little oil.

[joe]

I am glad Bush is challenging the Democratic Congress to do something. Lift the road blocks.

[mphare]

Even if it takes 5 to 10 years to see a bump from ANWAR, so what? If we do nothing, then in 5 or 10 years we'll still be saying ANWAR won't help for another 5 or 10 years.

I plan on still using energy in 5 or 10 years, how 'bout you?

[kestrel]

I plan on still using energy in 5 or 10 years, how 'bout you?

The question is, will you be able to afford it?
Oil prices are not going down as a result of lifting US drilling bans. Adding 1-2% to global supply over a 10 year time span when global demand is expected to rise 2-3% per year will not dent prices.

What I'm worried about is the physical supply available to the US. In the event that oil imports go up in price, the domestic supply available is our insurance against shortage. I'd rather have a shortfall of 12 million barrels/day of oil instead of 14 million barrels/day of oil if exports ever become cut off. And for that reason I would drill in ANWR and off the coast.

[mphare]

Good.. let's do it!

[David]

It will send a signal to producers in not too friendly venues they may need an attitude adjustment. It may alert speculators that we are serious.

How can Chuck Schumer decry the Saudis pumping out another million barrels a day to bring down prices and then say another million barrels from ANWR pumped daily isn't worth the time and effort?

[kestrel]

The Saudi announcement has yet to lower the price of oil, even in the forward price curves.

[speaktothesky]

Because chuck doesn't give a chuck about the rest of us.

[David]

Saudis only announced an increase of 200 K barrels a day. Meanwhile, serious talk of Israeli strike on Iran and new unrest in the Niger Delta.

McCain nails this one.

McCain says wants 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030
Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:30pm EDT

SPRINGFIELD, Missouri (Reuters) - Republican John McCain would put the United States on course to build 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 if elected president, the Arizona senator said on Wednesday.

McCain, his party's presumptive nominee in this fall's presidential election, is laying out his plan to make the country energy independent.

"If I am elected president, I will set this nation on a course to building 45 new reactors by the year 2030, with the ultimate goal of 100 new plants to power the homes and factories and cities of America," he said.

There are 104 operating nuclear reactors nationwide at present, which generate about 20 percent of the nation's power supply.

McCain has argued forcefully for further nuclear plants, seeing them as part of a solution to fighting climate change and establishing U.S. energy independence.

Sen. Barack Obama, McCain's presumptive Democratic opponent, has issued supportive statements about nuclear power but has set no outright goal for building plants.

Though nuclear energy is key to meeting U.S. climate concerns, the issue of disposing of nuclear waste from U.S. plants and solving nuclear proliferation concerns are also paramount, Obama's campaign said on its website.

The key roadblock to new U.S. nuclear plants has been finding a home for nuclear waste. Congress designated Yucca Mountain, 90 miles from Las Vegas, to be the nation's waste repository, but the site is years behind schedule and may never open because of powerful opponents like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not issued a new nuclear plant license since the mid 1970s and utility companies have balked for years at constructing new sites because of concerns about plant safety and cost overruns.

McCain, speaking at a campaign event on energy in the electoral battleground state of Missouri, added he would set aside $2 billion a year for research and development into clean coal technology.

[David]

Meanwhile. This is what passes for Dem gas policy. Increase taxes on oil. Have government search (with tax dollars) for alternative energy sources. Tell automakers to produce vehicles that get better mileage. As if they aren't pointed in that direction already. AND DRUMROLL PLEASE-DON"T DRIVE ON SATURDAY.

Obama says he would impose oil windfall profits tax
Mon Jun 9, 2008 1:35pm EDT

RALEIGH, North Carolina (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Monday he would impose a windfall profits tax on U.S. oil companies as he sought political gain from Americans' pain over high gasoline prices.

Launching a two-week focus on the economy after clinching the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama drew a sharp contrast between his economic policies and those of John McCain, his Republican rival in the November election.

"I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills," the Illinois senator said.

Obama charged that McCain's support for extending President George W. Bush's tax cuts means he is in favor of $2 trillion in corporate tax breaks, including $1.2 billion for Exxon Mobil Corp.

"If John McCain's policies were implemented, they would add $5.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. That isn't fiscal conservatism, that's what George Bush has done over the last eight years," Obama said.