What's misleading about energy

I ran across an interesting article and comment just before I decided to drop off to sleep. I will share my response with you and you can tell me what you think.

The original post is LET THE ENERGY GAMES BEGIN. The comment was:

Rick Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 2:05 am e
Please give me a reference to the statement that “George Bush’s own Energy Department has said that if we opened up new areas to drilling today, we wouldn’t see a single drop of oil for seven years…”
I want authoritative facts so I can warn others that it is not a quick fix to the high gas prices as republicans want to mislead them to believe.

My response is

Rick,

I did not write this post, but I am very aware of the issues it discusses. And I wanted to take a moment to address what has been said so you have a full understanding of what is before all Americans.

It is a fact that crude oil prices have increased roughly 1000% since 1972. It is a fact that oil usage in the U.S. has increased dramatically over that same time period. And it is also a fact that Democrats have long sought to prevent domestic drilling.

But to say that only Republicans are at fault for the current, and future, dependence on oil would be a lie. Inaction by both Republicans and Democrats since the 1970’s are the cause of the crisis. Neither side has effectively presented a plan of action, nor explained to the general public the cost of failing to seek a new alternative.

Currently America will spend some $700 billion on foreign oil. Part of that reasoning is due to the idea of using up foreign sources of oil while maintaining reserves for the future – ensuring the continuation of the American quality of life. That reasoning was solidly in place 30 years ago, and far less so today.

Another reason has to do with ethanol. The U.S. chose to use corn as the base for ethanol, whereas other nations have chosen and effectively use grass and sugar. All these bases for ethanol result in a fuel that is only 75% as useful as gasoline, thus requiring more fuel to be burned. In addition there is a debate on whether ethanol production is amplifying the dead-zones found in the Gulf of Mexico. Lastly by using corn as the base food prices have been forced higher, which is a core inflation factor.

Oh by the way, there is currently a glut of ethanol, with a mandate from the Government to increase that glut by 60% next year. Ethanol is currently available only in 5 states, of which only 2 allow its sale to the public (those 2 being Illinois and Michigan).

Solar energy, geothermal, wind, biomass, oil shale, and all other alternative sources at this time are either ineffective or inefficient.

Because of these facts, the only options that will effectively provide the energy that America requires to maintain it’s current quality of life and allow for research and development of new energy sources are coal, nuclear, and oil.

Coal is available, and starting to gain greater interest though many ecologically sensitive groups are against its use because even the latest developments create too much carbon dioxide and residue.

Nuclear has long been an energy source that Democrats oppose. Fear, without regard for advances in science and safety, and political preferences have held back the development of any new nuclear plants since the 80’s. This is in the face of significantly greener nations like France that use this as an energy source.

Thus we are back to oil. If we are to maintain current energy usage oil is the only logical and constant source. Since dependency on foreign oil is expensive and unreliable domestic drilling makes sense. The money saved can be used to fund alternative sources of fuel.

But will domestic drilling tomorrow cause oil prices to drop tomorrow? Yes and no.

Crude oil is priced like a stock or more accurately an option. Thus the price reacts in advance of actual events most of the time. When OPEC cuts production the price of oil rises long before the supply is affected. When a nation that produces or ships oil is under strife or war the price fluctuates whether production is affected or not.

So on that basis the knowledge that domestic drilling will decrease the demand by the largest buyer, prices will drop for a period of time until other buyers step in to make up that difference. If OPEC does not just reduce production to maintain current prices.

But more importantly if nothing is done today, as it was not in the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s, and on then you are guaranteed to have higher prices 2 years from now as well as 10. And where will the alternatives be then? As more money, maybe $1 trillion dollars a year or more, goes to foreign nations, where will America get the extra money to fund the 2nd, or 4th, or 7th year of research?

And lastly I want to inform you of something that many Democrats, particularly Speaker Pelosi have not made public. Nancy Pelosi makes money every time alternative energy is funded. She owns a substantial position in alternative energy stocks. It’s to her benefit to not allow domestic drilling. It fills her pockets with money every time that the debate lingers.

How is Nancy Pelosi different than the charges made of Republicans when she is in the pocket of Big Wind?

So to answer your question is oil going to resolve all America’s fuel needs forever? Of course not. Will domestic drilling drop the price of crude oil significantly tomorrow, or short-term? Not overly likely, though some effect will happen. Do Republicans understand this, and the alternative? More than you are giving credit to.

But the real question should be this, what alternative is being proposed by Democrats that will ensure the energy needs of America now, and provide any hope of reduced cost and increased energy in the next 2 years? Or 4? Unless you don’t mind not heating your home during the winter, or being unable to use the internet when you wish.

Oil is not the answer, we can all agree on that. But by using oil, particularly domestic oil, we improve our ability to create new sources of energy.

Full Senator Obama interview from O’Reilly Factor

The following is the full interview between Bill O’Reilly and Senator Obama as first seen on the O’Reilly Factor. For commentary on each part of the interview please check out Black Entertainment USA

Part 1 Iraq



Part 2 The Economy



Part 3 Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright



Part 4 Alternative Energy and Domestic Drilling

Nancy Pelosi at the DNC - strike 2

Recently I mentioned how I felt that having Speaker Nancy Pelosi speak on the first night of the Democratic National Convention was a mistake. I felt it was a massive strike against Senator Obama.

“Speaker Nancy Pelosi may look good to the women that only care about having a woman’s face in a leadership position; but anyone that has followed what the Democrats said in the 2006 mid-term elections may have a different opinion. The 110th Congress is a complete failure. The Democrats have failed to do any of the things they promised in their 2006 campaigns. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi led the charge to stalemate.”

I continue to feel that way, and I believe that strike 2 has just been dealt.

“Which brings us to Madame Speaker’s 2007 financial disclosure form. Schedule III lists “assets and ‘unearned income’” of between $100,001-$250,000 from Clean Energy Fuels Corp. - Public Common Stock.” Clean Energy Fuels Corp. is a natural gas provider founded by T. Boone Pickens.

“She, and other investors, stand to gain a substantial return on their investment if gasoline prices stay high and municipal, state and even the Federal governments start using natural gas as their primary fuel source. If gasoline prices fall? Alternative fuels and the cost to convert fleets over to them becomes less and less attractive.”

CLNE also happens to be the sponsor of Proposition 10, a ballot initiative in Pelosi’s home state of California to dole out a combined $10 billion in state and federal funds for renewable energy incentives. Namely: Natural gas and wind.”

So effectively we see that Nancy Pelosi is in the pocket of alternative energy companies. It’s basically the same claim being made by Pelosi and other Democrats against Republicans. And it’s just as bad as what they say the result is with Republicans.

Speaker Pelosi has walled-off any discussion of domestic drilling for oil. She has refused to allow any votes on the subject. And according to her most recent comments on Larry King she will only consider possibly allowing a vote on domestic drilling IF it also includes alternative energy incentives.

Effectively that means that Speaker Pelosi wants alternative energy to get more money to earn more money for herself. The higher the cost for oil, the better her alternative energy stocks will do. And the American public be damned.

Of course many other Democrats believe in this same style of system as well. Senator Obama wants to increase electricity costs, is against domestic drilling (though he has suggested he might be open to drilling in recent speeches – campaign speeches designed to get him elected), and has stated that higher oil costs is good because it will force people to use less oil. Don’t mind the fact that higher energy costs mean more Americans will lose their homes and businesses, and will force a slow down in the economy that makes unemployment higher.

But look at it from a different point of view. Senator McCain stated at 4:33pm on Aug 13, 2008 in a news conference that creating nuclear energy plants would create 700,000 jobs. McCain is also more in favor of domestic drilling.

If there was a move in the nation to do domestic drilling, building nuclear plants, and alternative energy – and each of these ideas would employ 500,000 Americans – there would be a boost to the economy and a reduction in the cost of oil and energy. Speaker Pelosi would make money on her stocks (though not as much) and so would oil companies, utilities, 401K’s, and the average American (via energy cost savings).

But according to Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats, domestic oil is a bad thing since it means oil prices would drop. Also nuclear energy is opposed as well. That’s 1,000,000 American jobs they don’t want to create, at least. That means that unemployment will go higher since businesses of all sizes will not be able to afford the higher cost.

Of course Nancy Pelosi will make more money though.

So I will return to my original thought. Is having Speaker Pelosi speak at the DNC a positive? Especially since she represents a Democrat-led Congress that not only has done nothing they promised in 2006, but is also actively looking to hurt American families. While lining her own pockets with more money.

Strike 2.