Drilling Deeper into Obama's Blockage of the National Petroleum Reserve

Governor Palin re-tweeted two tweets from Jedediah Bila noting the Obama administration's decision to cut off drilling in more half of the over twenty-three million acres in the National Petroleum Reserve (NPR) in Alaska. The entire Alaska delegation and Governor Parnell support development of this area as do the Native groups, contrary to what the Obama administration claims. As Human Events reports:

However, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) that represents the interests of the Iñupiat in Barrow, Alaska, is opposed to the plan and disputes Salazar’s contention it has local support.  

 Richard Glenn, ASRC executive vice president of lands and natural resources, says “despite the department’s statements of working and collaborating with Alaska Native groups we feel that our efforts are rejected.” 

“Salazar’s choice would lock up large swaths of land with little or no additional benefit to wildlife resources found there and elsewhere throughout the petroleum reserve. Waterfowl, fish and caribou do not recognize boxes on a map,” Glenn said. 

Rex A. Rock, Sr., ARSC president, said the plan essentially locks up the most prospective areas for increased domestic energy supply, while proposing lease sales on tracts of land with low oil potential.

To be sure, the Obama administration is to blame, as is Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, both for lying about local support and for blocking development. However, we have to look at who in the Interior department may be responsible for Alaska related Interior issues. In March of 2009, President Obama appointed Kim Elton to be Interior Director for Alaska Affairs. The name Kim Elton may sound familiar to you. Elton rose to fame (or perhaps better said, infamy) when as an Alaskan state senator in 2008, he launched a legislative investigation of Governor Palin. This was known as "Tasergate" (or "Troopergate" as the media called it) and alleged Governor Palin abused her power to pressure Walt Monegan, a state commissioner, to fire Palin's former brother-in-law. Elton even claimed it could be an "October surprise" for Governor Palin. This legislative inquiry ruled that Governor Palin abused her power, but the personnel committee ruled that she did not. As Governor Palin noted in Going Rogue, Kim Elton also allowed Obama adviser and one time interim chief of staff, Pete Rouse to use his address to vote in Alaska despite not living there for 27 years. Suffice it to say, Elton has been a yet another crony both for the Obama campaign and the Obama administration.

Upon taking this Interior position, Elton said:

“The Department of the Interior’s mission is fundamental to Alaska’s future and I look forward to helping the Secretary and the Administration make progress both on stewardship of Alaska’s resources and on the economy of the state and the nation at this critical juncture in our history.”

However, this does not seem to be what he has down while acting as the Interior Director of Alaska Affairs.

The Obama administration has been extremely deceptive when it comes to their energy development plans in Alaska. In May of 2011, the Obama administration said they would hold annual leases for drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve. The next month, President Obama rejected the Alaska Oil and Gas Development bill that would assist in the permitting process. Extending leases while stymieing the permitting process is like allowing home builders to purchase land, but not allowing them to build a house or sell it to a buyer. The Obama administration admits that there has only been exploratory drilling done in the NPR and that there have only been leases extended for only about 6% of the land. To be sure, leases have only been extended since 1999, but with three presidents who have been in office since then, why haven't any of them pushed for further lease sales or a more streamlined permitting process? Why has Kim Elton continued to be nothing more than an Obama stooge--both politically and policy wise--rather than  aiming  to make process both on stewardship of Alaska's resources" and the state's and nation's economy? Again, the Obama administration and his cronies have proven that President Obama's supposed "all of the above" energy approach most definitely does not include above the Arctic circle.

Related--Governor Palin advocates passionately for development in the NPR following a speech in 2010:


 

Crossposted here and here.

April 2002: Drilling in ANWR Would Take 10 Years to Produce: The Consequences of Inaction

Senate Republicans have release the following video noting Senate floor discussion from ten years ago this week when Democrats were claiming that we can't drill in ANWR because it would take 10 years for the oil to be produced (H/T the Heritage Foundation):

Here we are ten years later, and ANWR is still closed to production, yet the obstruction of liberals who would rather invest taxpayer dollars in solar companies that inevitably fail than reap the tax revenue from a proven source of energy that would also create jobs and provide economic and national security. ANWR is overwhelmingly abundant with both oil and natural gas. ANWR has the potential to produce 1 million barrels of oil a day, which would replace the amount that we import from Iraq. It is slightly larger than the state of Delaware, but would leave a footprint roughly equivalent to LAX (2000 acres). In other words, less than 0.5% of the geographic area in ANWR would be used for development, yet it has the capacity to replace the amount of oil in the 7th largest import nation.

Governor Palin noted in highlighted in her Facebook note yesterday how much energy independence is interrelated with all components of public policy and daily life:

 He fails to understand the fundamental truth that there is an inherent link between energy and prosperity, and energy and security. Oil prices affect everything in our lives, including where we send our sons and daughters in war. Developing resources here grows our economy, decreases our trade imbalance, creates hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs, and secures our union by eliminating our dependence on dangerous foreign regimes who use our energy insecurity as a weapon against us. Access to secure domestic energy will make us a more peaceful and prosperous nation. 

Obama doesn’t understand this—just as he doesn’t understand the dangers of his wasteful spending. Our energy policy is also linked with our fiscal and monetary policies. In light of America’s unsustainable $16 trillion debt, there’s more talk about dumping the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency, which is the currency used to buy and sell oil. If that happens, we’ll feel the pain of inflation everywhere—especially at the pump. That, in turn, will trickle down to everything in our economy. Those living on fixed incomes and retirement pensions and annuities will feel the pain especially hard. So, this is one more reason to get government debt under control with sound monetary policy that doesn’t try to “inflate away” our debt with currency manipulation and gimmicks like quantitative easing.

There is an interelatedness between our national security and energy security. The 4th largest importing nation is Venezuela--a nation controlled by a dictator closely allied with Iran, who has threatened multiple times recently to block the Strait of Hurmuz where 20% of the world's oil passes through daily. Oil from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait all are transported through this area, and these three countries are among the top ten importing sources of oil. Drilling here instead of relying on foreign nations has the potential to create a million jobs by 2018. Plus, what could be secure our nation more than to make America our own greatest source of energy.

One thing that Governor Palin understands that very few people mention is the relationship between monetary policy and energy. In fact, Governor Palin warned about how a devalued dollar may lead to the the dollar being dropped as the reserve currency and the relationship of that sobering possibility to both inflation and the debt  two and a half years ago in October of 2009.  This is a point she later echoed when she called out Ben Bernanke on his quantitative easing implementation in November 2010:

 All this pump priming will come at a serious price. And I mean that literally: everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher. And it’s not just groceries. Oil recently hit a six month high, at more than $87 a barrel. The weak dollar – a direct result of the Fed’s decision to dump more dollars onto the market – is pushing oil prices upwards. That’s like an extra tax on earnings. And the worst part of it: because the Obama White House refuses to open up our offshore and onshore oil reserves for exploration, most of that money will go directly to foreign regimes who don’t have America’s best interests at heart.

Now, nearly a year and a half later, and oil is over $100 a barrel. This, of course, makes the price of everything higher. Not only is inflation by itself causing consumer items to be more expensive, but high fuel prices (also raised by inflation) are contributing to increased consumer prices as well. But, oh no, we were supposed to listen to our betters who told us ten year ago that ANWR would take too long to develop.

Crossposted here.

Green Energy Jobs vs. An Energy Jobs Plan that Makes Opponents Green with Envy

Governor Palin recently highlighted the crony capitalism surrounding the Solyndra solar panel company. This solar panel company with ties to Obama fundraisers has received more than half a billion dollars in stimulus money devoted to green energy projects. In spite of this, the company declared bankruptcy in August and laid off more than a thousand employees. As Governor Palin noted on Hannity on Tuesday, Solyndra received more stimulus money than 35 states received for infrastructure and roads. Governor Palin has been at the forefront of the discussion of crony capitalism, such as that of Solyndra’s, on both sides of the aisle, especially in recent weeks. However, considering Solyndra went bankrupt despite receiving hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and despite spending more than a million dollars on lobbying since 2008, it is important also to remember Governor Palin’s words of warning on the economic futility of green energy projects.

In her speech at the India Today Conclave in March, Governor Palin warned of the economic woes of countries who emphasized green energy, noting the effects such policies had on the United Kingdom and Spain, and also referred to such policies as “social engineering” :

This push for 'green' at the expense of 'conventional, reliable' sources is not a credible energy policy or economic policy. It's "Social Engineering" by Central Government Planners. And it leads to nothing but more debt & more job loss. And taxpayers will be stuck subsidizing the failure and paying more for energy.

Later, in her speech at the Madison Tea Party in April, Governor Palin noted solar panels specifically (emphasis added):

Less than 90 days after the election, in his State of the Union address, President Obama told us, nah, the era of big government is here to stay, and we’re going to pay for it whether we want to or not. Instead of reducing spending, they’re going to “Win The Future” by “investing” more of your hard-earned money in some cockamamie harebrained ideas like more solar shingles, more really fast trains – some things that venture capitalists will tell you are non-starters. We’re flat broke, but he thinks these solar shingles and really fast trains will magically save us. So now he’s shouting “all aboard” his bullet train to bankruptcy. “Win The Future”? W.T.F. is about right.

In both speeches, Governor Palin was right. Taxpayers have been stuck subsidizing failure, and companies like Solyndra have indeed been non-starters. That is part of the reason Governor Palin emphasized energy development as part of the plan she laid out in Iowa earlier this month:

Fourth, it is time for America to become the energy superpower. The real stimulus that we’ve been waiting for is robust and responsible domestic energy production. We have the resources. Affordable and secure energy is the key to any thriving economy, and it must be our foundation. So, I would do the opposite of Obama’s manipulation of U.S. supplies of energy. Drill here, drill now. Let the refineries and the pipelines be built. Stop kowtowing to foreign countries and dictators asking them to ramp up production and industry for us, promising them that we’ll be their greatest customer. No, not when we have the resources here. We need to move on tapping our own God-given natural resources. I promise you that this will bring real job growth, not the politicians’ phony “green jobs” fairy dust sprinkled with wishes and glitter… No, a hardcore all-of-the-above energy policy that builds this indestructible link between made-in-America energy and our prosperity and our security. You know, there are enough large conventional natural resource development projects waiting for government approval that could potentially create more than a million high-paying jobs all across the country. And this is true stimulus. It wouldn’t cost government a dime to allow the private sector to do these. In fact, these projects will generate billions of dollars in revenue. Can you imagine that: a stimulus project that actually helps dig us out of debt instead of digging us further into it! And these are good-paying jobs, and I know that from experience. For years my own family was supported (as Todd worked up on the North Slope) by a good energy sector job. America’s economic revival starts with America’s energy revival.

Rather than emphasizing green energy projects funded by taxpayer “stimulus” dollars, Governor Palin noted that America needs to become the energy power by developing God given resources. To be sure, energy has been one of Governor Palin’s signature issues for years, so this is not a new statement. However, Governor Palin’s record of fighting against crony capitalism and for domestic energy development uniquely positions her above other potential presidential rivals. A report released last week by the Department of Energy’s National Petroleum Council notes that America has more oil and gas resources than previously thought and has the potential to be the world’s largest producer of oil by 2017 if regulations were appropriately lifted. Also, as Governor Palin noted in her speech, more than a million jobs could be created if government got out of the way.

While Governor Romney and Governor Perry are quibbling over whose administration has a better job creation record, Governor Palin is noting that government cannot create jobs, but they can certainly do a lot to destroy them through overregulation. That isn’t to say that there isn’t job growth or destruction on a politician’s watch, but that Governor Palin’s small government rhetoric matches her ideology. At the same time, Governor Palin's removal of the cronyism of the Murkowski administration’s oil tax structure helped double the number of oil companies investing in drilling in Alaska and brought a record number of oil jobs in each year from 2007-2009. Natural resource and logging jobs increased 13.7% during her tenure according to Alaska Department of Labor and Resource Development data. During that same timeframe, Perry’s Texas, another energy rich state, had a 0.5% decrease in energy development jobs (from mining, logging, and oil and gas production) according to calculation of Texas Workforce Commission data. Governor Palin never has claimed that government can create jobs, noting in one of her State of the state speeches that government can only “provide the tools” for jobs to be created. Governor Perry tried to claim that his administration actually “created jobs” while sparring with Governor Romney earlier this month. Meanwhile, as with many policy issues, Governor Romney’s record likewise does not match his current rhetoric. As Governor of Massachusetts, Romney created a $15 billion Green Energy Fund that went to subsidize solar panel companies, yet his recently released jobs plan states that such initiatives make “little sense”.

Additionally, Governor Palin rightfully notes that energy development and subsequent job growth is more than just expanding drilling. It also involves taking forward-focused action such as encouraging the building of refineries. Governor Romney makes no mention of the need to build refineries even in the 16-page energy policy component of his 160-page economic plan, and Governor Perry has yet to lay out a plan of any specificity. However, if America has the potential to become the largest energy producer in the world, should not America be prepared to refine these resources? America has not built any new refineries since 1976. Over the last 35 years, oil refineries have become more modern and more efficient in their refining capacity enabling them to refine more oil, but they have also decreased in number. If energy development is going to increase, would not it behoove a president to promote increased refineries to keep pace with the increased production? Drilling in ANWR alone has the potential to increase production by 1.5 million barrels per day, which would require the work of about 12 refineries working at the current capacity of about 123,627.9 barrels per day (the rate of the current operating refineries per calendar day). If energy development is no longer handcuffed by over-regulation, expanding refining capabilities to meet the increased development would be needed.

Governor Palin is the only declared or potential candidate whose record truly matches their rhetoric. Investing in socially-engineered green energy projects is not good economics, especially when it is simply a trade of political favors. Instead, energy development that unshackles the private sector and provides forward-focused objectives is what America needs for her national, economic and energy security. She is uniquely positioned to address the issue of energy, leaving her political opponents green with envy.

Crossposted here and here.

Governor Palin ahead of the Curve on Rare Earth Metals

Ed Morrissey has a post up at HotAir today discussing China’s hoarding of rare earth metals. Rare earth metals are needed for green energies such as the batteries in electric cars and in CFL light bulbs that will be mandated in the coming years, as well as in the cell phones and other technologies. Morrissey writes:

Elements required for critical components such as lithium batteries for electric cars cannot be found in massive quantities within the US, and a number of the rare-earth elements needed for these components are mainly found in China — which can be fairly described as an economic competitor of the US at the very least. Today’s report from the Financial Times should drive that point home and send up red flags on “green” mandates, both literally and figuratively:

EPrices of some rare earth metals have doubled in just three weeks amid heavy stockpiling in China that has raised fears over global supplies.

China produces more than 90 per cent of the world’s rare earths, 17 elements used in hybrid cars, fluorescent lights and many high-tech applications. …

Japan and the US, the world’s biggest importers of rare earths, have repeatedly voiced concerns to China, while complaints from industrial users of rare earths have been growing. Last year, China cut their exports by 40 per cent and temporarily banned exports to Japan during a political dispute.

This news is something that Governor Palin warned about in October 2010 Facebook post where she wrote (emphasis mine):

Some of the countries we’re now reliant upon and will soon be beholden to can easily use energy and mineral supplies as a weapon against us.

The solution? Simply, please don’t elect politicians who cast votes that lock up our plentiful supplies. Please consider the case of China bending us over a barrel as it develops rare earth minerals while we ban mining. Please consider Venezuela and Russia and Saudi Arabia and Brazil (as we subsidize their off-shore drilling) and all other energy-producing countries as the Left locks up ANWR, NPR-A, and other American lands that are teeming with our own needed energy supplies.

“Drill, baby, drill and mine, baby, mine.” Yep, the mantra may be mocked by the Democrats, but serious consequences ensue when we let the Left make us rely on foreign countries to feed us energy. The joke is on us if they win.

America is already beholden to China due to our massive debt. Now, we are beholden to them because of our self-imposed green initiatives that have handcuffed us on multiple levels. President Obama’s plans to make us energy independent using green technologies cannot even be achieved when China is our main source of rare earth metals. We have the opportunity to drill for traditional and proven sources of energy that are just below our feet, yet the federal government is handcuffing oil and gas rich states and coastal areas. Just last week, the Obama administration expressed opposition to a bill that would increase oil and gas development in Alaska. This only makes us more dependent on foreign countries to provide needed resources for both green and traditional energies, not to mention material needed for communication technology such as cell phones. Governor Palin is both right and prescient once again.

Update: The Alaska Dispatch reports that Alaska has large quantities of rare earth elements, and the US House is proposing legislation aimed at developing these resources:

The cost of dysprosium oxide, used in magnets, lasers and nuclear reactors, for example, has risen to about $1,470 a kilogram from $700 to $740 at the start of the month.

Enter Alaska. A mine at Bokan Mountain near Ketchikan, to name just one, is thought to be one of the three largest sources of REEs [rare earth elements] in the U.S., probably the largest for dysprosium.

All told, Bokan Mountain is thought to hold about 3.8 million tons of REEs. As U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski put it, "more than enough to break China's stranglehold on the market and protect America's access to the rare earths that are vital to the production of cutting-edge technologies in this country."

Alaska Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Dan Sullivan recently delivered to a U.S. House subcommittee last week in testimony on a couple of pieces of legislation aimed at finding and developing REEs. Read Alaska Dispatch coverage of his testimony here. And more coverage on REEs here, and here.

Crossposted here, here, and here.

Governor Palin's Prescience Proven on the Effect of a Weakened Dollar on Energy Prices

Governor Palin has been very outspoken about the need to become energy independence by opening up drilling both on and offshore in Alaska and through the country. Energy independence is interrelated with multiple levels of security. Producing more of our own energy helps protect us from the threats of dangerous regimes who are also energy producers and helps shields us from higher prices of oil when their is instability in those countries. Energy independence also produces American jobs providing economic security. Additionally, there is an interrelatedness between energy independence and monetary security. This is yet another issue that Governor Palin has been prescient on. On October 9, 2009, Governor Palin wrote a Facebook post in response to discussion that an international currency should replace the American dollar as the global currency. She discussed how the devalued dollar, energy independence, and the national debt are all connected:

The British newspaper The Independent reported today that Gulf oil producers were negotiating with Russia, China, Japan and France to replace the dollar in pricing oil with a basket of currencies.[1] According to the Wall Street Journal, Arab oil officials have denied the story, but even the possibility of such a talk weakens the dollar and renews fears about its continued viability as an international reserve currency.[2] In fact, today a United Nations official called for a new global reserve currency to replace the dollar and end our “privilege” to run up huge deficits.[3] We can see the effect of this in the price of gold, which hit a record high today in response to fears about the weakened dollar.[4]

All of this is a result of our out-of-control debt. This is why we need to rein in spending, and this is also why we need energy independence. A weakened dollar means higher commodity prices. This will make it more difficult to pay our bills – including the bill to import oil.

In his book Architects of Ruin, Peter Schweizer points out that the Obama administration is focusing primarily on “green energy," while ignoring our need to develop our domestic conventional energy resources.[5] We’re ignoring the looming crisis caused by our dependence on foreign oil. Because we’re dependent on foreign nations for our oil, we’re also at their mercy if they decide to dump the dollar as their trade currency. We can’t allow ourselves to be so vulnerable to the whims of foreign nations. That’s why we must develop our own domestic supplies of oil and gas.

Governor Palin recognized that there is a relationship between a devalued dollar and higher energy prices. At the time that note was posted, oil was around $70 a barrel and gas prices were at about $2.46 a gallon nationwide. More than a year later, in November of 2010, following the Fed's decision to engage in a second round of quantitative easing by essentially printing hundreds of billions of dollars, Governor Palin shared these words to a trade association meeting in Arizona (emphasis mine):

The Fed hopes doing this may buy us a little temporary economic growth by supplying banks with extra cash which they could then lend out to businesses. But it’s far from certain this will even work. After all, the problem isn’t that banks don’t have enough cash on hand – it’s that they don’t want to lend it out, because they don’t trust the current economic climate.

And if it doesn’t work, what do we do then? Print even more money? What’s the end game here? Where will all this money printing on an unprecedented scale take us? Do we have any guarantees that QE2 won’t be followed by QE3, 4, and 5, until eventually – inevitably – no one will want to buy our debt anymore? What happens if the Fed becomes not just the buyer of last resort, but the buyer of only resort?

All this pump priming will come at a serious price. And I mean that literally: everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher. And it’s not just groceries. Oil recently hit a six month high, at more than $87 a barrel. The weak dollar – a direct result of the Fed’s decision to dump more dollars onto the market – is pushing oil prices upwards. That’s like an extra tax on earnings. And the worst part of it: because the Obama White House refuses to open up our offshore and onshore oil reserves for exploration, most of that money will go directly to foreign regimes who don’t have America’s best interests at heart.

Again, Governor Palin saw the effect of a weakened dollar on energy prices. Now the price of a barrel of oil is just below $100 a barrel and nationwide gas prices are hovering at about $4 a gallon. A study just released by the Congressional Joint Economic Commission, a bipartisan and bicameral committee, shows that the devalued dollar has added $17.04 dollars to the price of a barrel of oil and 56.5 cents to the price of a gallon of gas.The Weekly Standard reports:

The weakening of the dollar since 2008 has added 56.5 cents to the price of gasoline, the congressional Joint Economic Committee (JEC) has found. The average price of gasoline would be $3.40 per gallon, instead of the current average price nationally of nearly $4, if the dollar hadn’t declined.

[...]

When the Federal Reserve uses loose money to boost the economy in the short-term, consumers pay the price,” the study said. Because oil is traded in dollars, oil prices increase to compensate for the falling value of the dollar. And the price of gasoline at the pump also increases.

“Since the Fed launched its program of quantitative easing in late November 2008, the value (trade-weighted) of the U.S. dollar has declined 14 percent,” the study calculated. “The declining value of the U.S. dollar has added $17.04 per barrel to the price of oil (Brent Crude),” thus driving up the price of gasoline.

“Arguably there are other factors affecting the price of gasoline than just the price of oil,” according to the study. “[G]iven that oil is the primary input to gasoline and the close correlation [between oil and gasoline prices],” JEC Republicans said it is possible “to determine how much of the current price of gasoline is attributable to the declining value of the dollar.

Suffice it to say, Governor Palin was right again, and she saw it nineteen months before everyone else did--the value of the dollar effects energy commodity prices which can affect prices throughout the economy. Printing hundreds of billions of dollars is no solution for an economic boost, and in fact, it has done just the opposite. This brings us full circle, as Governor Palin said in November, the money the Fed has printed essentially is re-directed towards foreign countries for their oil, when we have the opportunity to drill for it here to provide security on multiple levels. Addressing America's energy problem requires a strong energy policy and a prudent monetary policy, just as Governor Palin has promoted.

Crossposted here, here, and here.

Governor Palin and Forward Focused Leadership--Part I

President Reagan once said, " to grasp and hold a vision--that is the very essence of successful leadership". One of the keys to leadership is being forward focused. This involves seeing beyond the next release of one's polling data, seeing beyond the next budget, and beyond the next election. It involves seeing the possible barriers and knowing how to address them based upon the successes of the past while also seeking for ways to address problems in the future. However, so often politicians make decisions based upon their own selfish myopic vision or a vision based upon yet to be proven ideas. True leadership involves making decisions in light of what's best for both the present and the future. When we look in particular at energy, we can certainly see that Governor Palin has exhibited forward focused leadership.

We aren't energy independent, and energy prices are high because politicians have not had the political will to drill in America, which would both make us more independent and help increase the worldwide oil supply so that it is not so dependent on unstable countries. A forward focused politician like Governor Palin understand this very well. To address an energy price crisis, you must prepared for the crisis. You can't be floundering looking for companies and speculators to demonize, nor be unable to offer true solutions. One major way to combat a potential crisis is essentially to prevent it and/or mitigate its effects. It is simple supply and demand economics, as Governor Palin discussed last night. If supplies are decreased and demand is held steady or increased, prices are going to go up. Unrest in oil rich countries like Libya have decreased supplies, which has influenced President Obama to call for the Saudis to ramp up their production. Additionally, he has praised and funded drilling in Brazil in hopes of helping America to be one of Brazil's "best customers". Neither of those supposed solutions bring America any closer to energy independence, nor are they the result of a forward focused plan.

Of course, the better option is to have been drilling here in America which would add to the supply of oil internationally in addition to adding to the economic, monetary, and the national security strength nationally. Governor Palin, of course, has been a strong and longtime proponent of drilling in places like ANWR. In 1996, President Clinton vetoed a bill that would have allowed drilling in ANWR. Liberals often poo poo such notions as drilling because it would supposedly take ten years for oil to be produced. Of course, it has now been fifteen years since President Clinton's veto. Oil producers in Alaska could have been developing for at least five years by now, which recent estimated would result in oil production at a minimum of around a half million barrels per day.

Yesterday marked the one year anniversary since President Obama put a moratorium on offshore drilling following the Gulf oil spill. Although he has lifted the moratorium, he has been very slow in issuing permits, and the EPA, an additional regulatory arm of the Obama administration, has been antagonistic to offshore drilling. Governor Palin also has been very critical of President Obama's offshore drilling moratorium. In fact, in response to a question on what she would do to help ease oil prices, she mentioned that she would not have instituted the drilling moratorium:

I never would have done what President Obama did and that’s engage in that moratorium after the tragedy in the Gulf with the spill. He should have been more sensible in figuring out what the problem was, what the solution was to the gulf spill but not take it out on the rest of the country and prohibit drilling onshore and offshore is what he did. 97% of our offshore area locked up after that and there still is a quasi-moratorium because the EPA is making it virtually impossible for drillers to be out there extracting responsibly the God-given resources that we have domestically.

[...]

Now the President is engaged now in what he wants to get to the bottom of with whether it be collusion, or price fixing, or speculators, what else is driving up the cost. Well he can look at other states like Alaska. We already did a study to find out was it collusion? Was it speculators? What was driving up the last big spike in gas prices? And we found that no, more than anything it is a supply-and-demand, a very basic economic principle, supply-and-demand.

These are not the words of a woman who is merely engaging in armchair politicking. Governor Palin was forward focused during her tenure a Governor. In addition to being a strong proponent of expanding energy development to help make America more energy independent through drilling for oil, she also acted to move development of natural gas forward through the development of a pipeline that would bring natural gas from Alaska to the Lower 48. As Governor, she moved a natural gas pipeline project further than any of her predecessors. A New York Times hit piece in March tried to attack AGIA, but all of the evidence points to AGIA as being right on target:

The New York Times also questions the progress of Governor Palin’s natural gas pipeline project–the Alaska’s Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA)–which will bring natural gas from the North Slope of Alaska through Canada to the Lower 48 as an additional means of achieving energy independence. Governor Palin’s pipeline project was done in a transparent free-market friendly manner with proposals available for public consumption-- a far cry from the behind-closed-doors pipeline discussion with oil companies that were commonplace and unsuccessful in previous administrations. The New York Times argues that neither gas suppliers nor federal permits had been obtained for the project.

However, at the end of the first open season for bidding by gas suppliers this past summer, there were “several major players” who had submitted bids. Additionally, the pipeline company TransCanada and oil company ExxonMobil, both partners on AGIA-backed pipeline project, have had discussions with BP-ConocoPhilips to work together on the project. Additionally, the permitting process with both American and Canadian regulatory agencies has made “significant progress,” and the progress is right on track with time projections.

Following one of the early successes of this project nearly two years ago, Governor Palin was interviewed by Matt Lauer, where he questioned the need for the pipeline as natural gas prices were low at the time.Governor Palin called such an idea "short sighted" (see especially at the 2:15 mark and following):



Governor Palin is right about the need to make America energy independent when it comes to both oil and natural gas. She also was right to note the short sighted nature of evaluating future energy development entirely upon current prices. The most recent natural gas futures were at $4.58 per MMBtu (million British thermal units). When Governor Palin was interviewed in June of 2009, natural gas futures were at $3.56 per MMbtu. Prices have increased. Governor Palin was right to note that it would have been short sighted not to proceed when natural gas prices were low. As you can see in this chart here, natural gas prices are volatile, just as oil prices are. What is the best way to deal with both? Ensure that there are sufficient supplies produced in the United States. Increased domestic supplies soften the blow when instability in other energy producing nations affect the world energy market. Additionally, such efforts would provide jobs and protect America's national security.

Critics may claim that someone who is forward focused on energy would be looking to green energy initiatives as President Obama has focused on green energy in his last three weekly addresses and in much of attempt to deal with the current high energy prices. Governor Palin has been rightly critical on the overemphasis of such initiatives, pointing to the failure of green energy in Spain that has crippled employment and contributed to their massive debt problem. Meanwhile, President Obama is pushing for electric cars that have proven to have major problems and are mostly re-charged on energy derived from fossil fuels like coal. Governor Palin recognizes that in the desire for energy independence, knowing what doesn't work is just as important as knowing what does.

Part of leadership involves solving problems, but another part of leadership involves having the foresight to both prevent problems from happening in the first place and mitigate the effects when there are problems. This is why Governor Palin warned that not seeking energy independence would result in the federal government being tempted to tap into our strategic petroleum reserves. That is why Governor Palin has been a very vocal proponent for expanding offshore drilling and drilling on land in the United States. That is why she championed the natural gas pipeline to bring Alaska's abundant natural gas to the Lower 48. That is why she has the justified skepticism with the social engineering disguised as "green energy" focus of the Obama administration. Governor Palin has shown that she has the leadership skills to be both a problem solver and a problem preventer.

Crossposted here, here, and here.

International Energy Dependence Vs. National Energy Independence

President Obama and Governor Palin both gave interviews on Tuesday where they both discussed how to address rising gas prices. Interestingly, they both agreed-- oil supplies need to be increased. In local interviews with a Virginia and a Detroit television station, President Obama called for increased supplies...from Saudi Arabia:

As the high cost of gasoline takes a toll on politics and pocket books, President Barack Obama says he is calling on major oil producers such as Saudi Arabia to increase their oil supplies to help stabilize prices, warning starkly that lack of relief would harm the global economy.

"We are in a lot of conversations with the major oil producers like Saudi Arabia to let them know that it's not going to be good for them if our economy is hobbled because of high oil prices," Obama told a Detroit TV station.

[...]

In interviews Tuesday with WXYZ in Detroit and in WTKR in Hampton Roads, Va., Obama said the message to major oil producers like Saudi Arabia is that an economy that buckles because of high oil prices won't grow and won't be good for them or for the U.S.

[...]

Obama said he has stressed the self-interest of oil producing nations, arguing that "if we're not growing, they're not going to be making money either.

"And so they need to increase supplies," he told WTKR.

Of course, such a foreign-centric energy policy is nothing new for President Obama. He authorized billions of dollars for drilling in Brazil and has stated that he wants America to one of Brazil's best customers. He has also lent nearly $3 billion to Colombia for oil refineries. He may be saying, "drill, baby, drill", but not in English.

While he has called for increased supplies from the Middle East and has supported energy development in South America, he has been antagonistic to increasing supplies and developing energy from America. This includes moratoriums on offshore drilling and EPA over regulation, as Governor Palin discussed with Greta van Susteren on Tuesday:

I never would have done what President Obama did and that’s engage in that moratorium after the tragedy in the Gulf with the spill. He should have been more sensible in figuring out what the problem was, what the solution was to the gulf spill but not take it out on the rest of the country and prohibit drilling onshore and offshore is what he did. 97% of our offshore area locked up after that and there still is a quasi-moratorium because the EPA is making it virtually impossible for drillers to be out there extracting responsibly the God-given resources that we have domestically.

So that’s certainly a difference that I would have had with President Obama had I been in that chair. I would have said, no, we’re going to allow the domestic drilling and we’re not going to subsidize Brazil or other foreign countries and ramp up production in those countries as we promise that we’ll be their best customer if only they’ll drill more. No, I would concentrate on the domestic drilling here.

Of course, Governor Palin is right. Energy policy must be both present and future focused. That is why energy independence is key. It protects America's economy, strengthens America monetarily, and shields America's national security. When instability in the Middle East occurs, America would be better prepared to handle the effects of this unrest. Additionally, it would provide jobs that strengthen the American economy. Also, as Governor Palin pointed out later in that discussion, the devalued dollar also affects the increase in energy prices. Something that Governor Palin has sounded the warning bell on as early as October of 2009, when she discussed the interrelatedness of the value of the dollar, energy independence, and the national debt.

A recent regulatory decision by the EPA caused Shell to cancel plans to drill in the Arctic. Heritage reports that the EPA reached this decision because Shell did not properly account for the emissions given off by needed ice breaking vessels. This comes as a bit of a shock, as the alarmist, chicken little EPA would usually have us to believe that global warming has cause all Arctic ice to melt, and therefore, Shell would have no need for such a vessel to assist in their energy development processes.

Alaska is not the only state and the Gulf is not the only region to be affected by President Obama's policies. His moratorium has affected the people of Virginia and the East Coast as well. A bill has been proposed to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling off of the Virginia Coast. Two of the sponsors of this bill represent the coastal area of Hampton Roads, VA, where President Obama did one of these local interviews where he discussed energy policy. I'm sure they would appreciate a moratorium to be lifted for the economic benefit of their town and the energy security of America.

H/T Doug Powers

Crossposted here, here, and here.

President Obama Knocks "Drill, Baby, Drill" in Energy Policy Speech

As the Hill points out, in an uncharacteristic move, President Obama went off teleprompter to get in a dig at Governor Palin during his speech on energy this morning.

As shown in the clip above, President Obama stated:

But here’s the thing – we’ve been down this road before. Remember, it was just three years ago that gas prices topped $4 a gallon. I remember because I was in the middle of a Presidential campaign. Working folks haven’t forgotten that. It hit a lot of people pretty hard. But it was also the height of political season, so you had a lot of slogans and gimmicks and outraged politicians waving three-point-plans for two-dollar gas – you remember that-'drill, baby,drill'-we were going through all that. And none of it would really do anything to solve the problem. There was a lot of hue and cry, a lot of fulminating and hand wringing, but nothing actually happened. Imagine that in Washington.

However, in his prepared remarks released to the press, this portion of his speech reads (emphasis mine):

But here’s the thing – we’ve been down this road before. Remember, it was just three years ago that gas prices topped $4 a gallon. Working folks haven’t forgotten that. It hit a lot of people pretty hard. But it was also the height of political season, so you had a lot of slogans and gimmicks and outraged politicians waving three-point-plans for two-dollar gas – when none of it would really do anything to solve the problem. Imagine that in Washington.

President Obama characterizes Governor Palin as an "outraged politician". However, the Obama administration has repeatedly claimed they don't think about Governor Palin. This is not the first time that President Obama has taken a political shot at Governor Palin's comment during a policy speech. In his speech in September of 2009 where he tried to sell his form of health care reform, he stated that the claim that Obamacare include "death panels" was "a lie, plain, and simple". Of course, it has been shown again and again that "death panels", rationing via bureaucratic decision making, are present in Obamacare. We have addressed this numerous times, here, here, here, and here to name a few.

Beyond the political shot at Governor Palin during what was supposed to be a policy speech, it is clear that President Obama sees every speech as a campaign speech. In 2008, Republicans, namely Governor Palin, saw "drill,baby, drill" as a mantra representing a solution to make America energy independent. However, when the America people bought the "hope and change" mantra over the "drill,baby,drill" mantra, there's little wonder that " nothing actually happened", as President Obama said. Hope and change is little more than a platitude, yet in many ways, it is indicative of the energy policy that President Obama has implemented since he was elected.

Governor Palin has highlighted many of the wrong-headed energy initiatives that President Obama has touted are unproven and can only be pushed because liberals hope that they work. In her Facebook post earlier today, Governor Palin highlighted the "boondoggle" of President Obama's support of electric cars:

It’s a lot more viable than subsidizing boondoggles like these inefficient electric cars that no one wants. I’m all for electric cars if you can develop one I can actually use in Alaska, where you can drive hundreds of miles without seeing many people, let alone many electrical sockets. But these electric and hybrid cars are not a quick fix because we still need an energy source to power them.

The promotion of electric cars as a means of reducing Americans dependence on energy is laughable, as the majority of the time these electric cars will be charged using electricity generated from fossil fuels, and like Governor Palin said electric cars are horribly impractical in many areas like Alaska.

Beyond this "hope and change" energy policy idea, President Obama is right to say that "nothing has happened", because despite his claims that his administration has increased drilling, the opposite has happened. Yes, he has advocated for drilling, but his biggest recent push for drilling has been in Brazil, not America. He has been slow to issue deep water drilling permits, and a few of these have been for projects that started prior to last year's oil spill, not new projects. Additionally, the EPA redtape has held up Arctic drilling for Shell until 2012. If he has promoted drilling, it's akin to someone tying a runner's shoes together, then telling them to go run a mile.

President Obama continues to also falsely claim that America has only 2% of the world's oil resources. American Solutions highlights the fact that this number is taken from only taking into account the reserves where we are already drilling--not the billions and billions of untapped barrels of oil that we are currently not accessing, due in large part to what Governor Palin has characterized as a "moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico as well as the de-facto moratorium in the Arctic". The 2% of worldwide oil resources is only in light of the fact that we are not drilling for oil where we do have it. In fact, a recent Congressional study showed that America has recoverable more fossil fuel--oil, natural gas, and coal--resources than any other country in the world. Governor Palin has often said that we have the resources, the workers, and the ingenuity for energy independence, all we need is the political will:

Cars and businesses cannot be fueled and homes cannot be heated by an energy policy of "hope and change". However, when "drill, baby drill" is implemented bringing economic, monetary, energy, and national security, it not only contributes to an "all-of-the-above approach" to energy independence, but also addressing many problems we face in America.

As Governor Palin says, "2012 can't come soon enough".

Thank you to Sheya at C4P for providing both video clips.

Crossposted here, here, and here.

President Obama Says "Drill, Baby, Drill"...in Portuguese; Updated

Yesterday, President Obama spoke to a group of business leaders in Brazil regarding the economic partnerships that could be made between the two countries. One such partnership is in the area of energy:

The second place we want to partner with Brazil is on the issue of energy, which is why President Rousseff and I also agreed to launch a Strategic Energy Dialogue. By some estimates, the oil you recently discovered off the shores of Brazil could amount to twice the reserves we have in the United States. We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers. At a time when we’ve been reminded how easily instability in other parts of the world can affect the price of oil, the United States could not be happier with the potential for a new, stable source of energy.

It's interesting that President Obama wants to say, "drill, baby, drill"... but perhaps only in Portuguese. In fact, as GatewayPundit highlighted on Friday, President Obama praised Brazil's offshore drilling industry, while at the same time he imposed an offshore drilling moratorium in the Gulf. To date, only three deepwater leases have been issued since the moratorium was quasi-lifted. All three of these leases have been given to oil companies to re-start and/or complete projects that had been started prior to the Gulf oil spill last Spring,not to begin new drilling. In a recent Facebook post, Governor Palin highlighted that the Obama administration's moratorium has forced companies to move rigs out of the Gulf and off the shores of other countries:

Exhibit A: His drilling moratorium. Guided by politics and pure emotion following the Gulf spill instead of peer-reviewed science or defensible law, the President used the power of his executive order to impose a deepwater drilling moratorium. The Administration even ignored a court order halting his moratorium. And what is the net result of the President’s (in)actions? A large drilling company was forced to declare bankruptcy, the economy of the region has been hobbled, and at least 7 rigs moved out of the Gulf area to other parts of the world while many others remain idle. Is it any surprise that oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to fall by 240,000 bbl/d in 2011 alone?

But that’s just the Gulf. There’s also the question of a moratorium on the development of Alaska’s Outer Continental Shelf. It seems the Obama Administration can’t agree with itself on whether it imposed a moratorium there or not. The White House claims that they didn’t, but their own Department of the Interior let slip that they did. To clear up this mess, Gov. Parnell decided to sue the DOI to get a solid answer because such a federal OCS drilling moratorium would violate federal law.

So while President Obama is doing everything he can to block drilling in the U.S., even to the point of contempt, he says that America wants to work with Brazil to develop their oil. However, as Governor Palin wrote in August of 2009, we already have helped Brazil developed their oil. The U.S. government sent $2 billion to fund state run (and Soros associated) Petrobas:

So why is it that during these tough times, when we have great needs at home, the Obama White House is prepared to send more than two billion of your hard-earned tax dollars to Brazil so that the nation's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, can drill off shore and create jobs developing its own resources? That's all Americans want; but such rational energy development has been continually thwarted by rabid environmentalists, faceless bureaucrats and a seemingly endless parade of lawsuits aimed at shutting down new energy projects.

President Obama states that America would be one of Brazil's "best customers" of Brazilian oil and that we would welcome this stable source of oil. Governor Palin, on the other hand, firmly supports an energy strategy where America is both the producer and consumer of our own oil. President Obama points to Brazil's vast resources of oil, but he ignores the massive amounts of oil in the Gulf of Mexico in addition to the vast resources in Alaska, Texas, North Dakota, and various formations through the United States. There are 90 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil in the Arctic alone! As Governor Palin so often emphasizes tapping into these resources would provide energy, jobs, and national security--something that drilling done in instable regions in the Middle East and even friendly countries like Brazil would not do.

President Obama also praised Brazil for their clean energy technology and discussed the partnership that Brazil can have with the U.S. saying, " ...we know that the development of clean energy is one of the best ways to create new jobs and industries in both our nations". While President Obama was making the false claim of the economic boost of green energy yesterday, Governor Palin spoke of the failures of green energy initiatives during her speech in India:

So as government locks up land & we lose good jobs in the 'Conventional Resource' arena, you may hear that "green jobs" will be the saviour! But look around the world & try telling that to the thousands of English & Scottish workers who've lost jobs as a result of government investments in "green energy" projects. A recent UK study shows that for every "green job" created, nearly four jobs were lost elsewhere in the economy due to lack of affordable energy! Same story in Spain - investment in "green jobs" brought massive debt, skyrocketing energy costs & 20% unemployment.

This push for 'green' at the expense of 'conventional, reliable' sources is not a credible energy policy or economic policy. It's "Social Engineering" by Central Government Planners. And it leads to nothing but more debt & more job loss. And taxpayers will be stuck subsidizing the failure and paying more for energy.

President Obama shows himself to be on the wrong side of the issues of energy yet again. When he promotes development of fossil fuels, he does so in foreign countries where companies cannot create American jobs. When he promotes energy initiatives in America or in partnerships with other nations, they are initiatives that have proven to kill jobs and increase both energy costs and national debt. Governor Palin continues to be on the right side of this vital issue that links America's energy, economic, monetary, and national securities.

UPDATE: Not only did the Obama administration give Petrobas $2 billion in funding to drill off shore in Brazil, they have also now given Petrobas approval to drill in the Gulf. While this may provide some jobs in the Gulf, it also proves to be another case of the pervasive crony capitalism and questionable associations of this administration. (H/T Tammy Bruce)

Crossposted here, here, and here.

Governor Palin Says President Obama Is "Scary Wrong" on Oil

Earlier tonight, Governor Palin tweeted a link to an Investors' Business Daily article highlighting how Americans overwhelmingly support drilling in ANWR and off shore in addition to tapping into shale reserves in the West:

Obama's so wrong on energy/scary wrong on oil;AK alone w/billions bbls & trillions cu ft of nat gas.(Other states, too) http://bit.ly/hX5AzT

"Scary wrong" is indeed the way to characterize the Obama administration's energy policy. On Friday, CNSNews spoke with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to ask him why the administration wasn't considering drilling in the Arctic with gas prices so high:



Yep, you heard that right. Using the logic of Vice President "We have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt" Biden, Salazar said that we should not drill in the Arctic because it won't make us energy independent, as if inaction will make us energy independent. The only action the Obama administration is willing to take is to discuss tapping into our Strategic Petroleum Reserves.

On Saturday, I wrote that Senate Democrats were urging the Obama administration to tap into these reserves, but at the time, the administration felt that this was a short sighted option. What a difference a day makes, as on Sunday, White House Chief of Staff William M, Daley said that this was a measure that the Obama administration was now considering. As I referenced in my post on Saturday, a few sentences from Governor Palin's RNC speech ring especially as true today as they did two and half years ago:

When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we are forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
...
Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems — as if we all didn't know that already.

But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.

The Obama administration has us so dependent on foreign sources of energy that drawing from our Strategic Petroleum Reserves has become a possibility. Their idea of energy independence has been to make America independent of energy. After all, they don't wish to drill in the Arctic, the Gulf, the Atlantic, or Pacific. Their one granted lease in the Gulf was given to enable a company to continue a project following the Gulf oil spill, not to allow new drilling to begin. Mining for coal, which would likely power the re-charging of Obama's favorite electric vehicle, has been hindered by Obama administration EPA regulations.

As Governor Palin mentioned in her tweet, Alaska has billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. The Natural Petroleum Reserve in Alaska alone is estimated to have 53 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The Arctic is estimated to have 90 billion barrels of oil and 1. 67 quadrillion (1,670 trillion) cubic feet of natural gas. For some perspective, that is 1,670,000,000,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas. Those kinds of numbers make even Obama's deficit numbers seem small! She also mentioned that other states have large amounts of resources as well. For example, the Green River formation in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah is estimated to have 1.5 trillion barrels of oil--6 times as much as Saudi Arabia. There are 3-4.3 billion barrels of oil in the Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana. Those a just a few examples of the abundance of God-given resources.

Americans are right to supporting drilling here in America. With soaring gas prices and instability in the Middle East and parts of northern Africa, where much of our oil comes from, it only seems practical to tap into our own resources. Additionally, increased energy production would provide jobs. It is estimated that tapping into resources currently off limits would add more than half a million jobs and also bring in $150 billion in government revenue, which liberals love, by 2025. Energy independence, more jobs, and stronger national security. How's that for winning the future?

Crossposted here, here, and here.

Governor Palin is Right on Energy...Again

Last fall, Stacy and I put together a post highlighting several of the economic and national security problems have emerged since Barack Obama became president, as Governor Palin warned in her 2008 RNC speech. With the current chaos in the Middle East and northern Africa and with President Obama's perpetual aversion to drilling for oil in America, more of Governor Palin's warnings from her 2008 RNC speech are sadly coming to fruition. She said in that speech two and a half years ago (emphasis mine):

When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we are forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

And families cannot throw away more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil.

With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.

To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies ... or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia ... or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries ... we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.

And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: We've got lots of both.

Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems — as if we all didn't know that already.

But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.

Replace the hypothetical situations Governor Palin outlines with the current situation in Libya and throughout the Middle East and we have the today's current energy situation. Governor Palin warned that America should not become so dependent upon foreign sources that we would have need for tapping into strategic reserves in the case of a crisis. However,the New York Times reports:

As oil prices have risen in recent weeks, calls have been growing in Congress for the Obama administration to consider tapping into the nation’s strategic petroleum reserve, which is now at its full capacity of 727 million barrels.

...

“Between the lost production in Libya, the crude oil dislocation associated with additional Saudi production and the prospect of further turmoil in the region,” Mr. Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, said in a floor statement late Wednesday, “we are now unquestionably facing a physical oil supply disruption that is at risk of getting worse before it gets better.”

Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee feel that tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserves should only be done in situations like Hurricane Katrina, the most recent time it was accessed, not in our current conditions. At full capacity (as it is now), the reserves hold 727 million barrels of oil, enough to replace foreign sources of oil in the US for about 5 months. The Obama administration feels that this discussion is a reaction to transient oil price increases, and actually, their 2012 budget proposal suggests selling half a billion of oil from the reserves to pay for governmental programs. They feel no need to access this reserve at the moment.

The fact that such a possibility is even being discussed shows that, of course, Governor Palin was right on the need for energy independence, and her assertion that there is an inherent link between energy independence and national security is indeed correct.

The Obama administration has gone out of its way to not tap into our energy resources. Just yesterday, the Obama administration appealed a ruling from a judge calling for the Interior Department to administer leases for drilling in the Gulf. The judge that the administration is appealing is one of two judges who has held the administration in contempt for not appropriately lifting their drilling moratorium in the Gulf by administering drilling leases. On Monday, the Interior Department did issue its first lease since last year's disastrous oil spill. However, this lease was for a project that had yet to be completed and was halted due to the oil spill. Essentially, this lease allows for an old project to be completed not for new drilling to be initiated.

In addition to Gulf oil, the Obama administration has not sought to extract the abundant energy resources in Alaska. Earlier this week, Doug linked an article at Human Events that questioned the Obama administration's neglect of ANWR and other Alaskan sources. ANWR has the potential to produce 1 million barrels of oil a day, and yet it has remained untapped. Additionally, the Trans-Alaskan pipeline system is only operating at 1/3 of its current capacity, and the EPA's over regulation has essentially halted Arctic drilling until 2012. Again, Governor Palin is right. Drilling isn't going to solve all problems,but President Obama is doing very little to tap into our national resources and is actually obstructing resource development.

Energy has an effect on America's economy as well. As Governor Palin spoke of in her interview with Bill O'Reilly last night, allowing energy development in Alaska would help lower unemployment and would reduce people's reliance upon government assistance. The White House has even admitted that their moratorium on drilling in the Gulf would cost tens of thousands of jobs. Their moratorium also led to Texas based company, Seahawk Drilling, to file for bankruptcy. Not only are Obama's policies killing jobs, they are contributing to increased oil prices (yesterday, prices hit their highest since September 2008). His policies of "diversifying" energy supplies, rather than increasing production of legitimate energy sources, are having a detrimental effect, as the Heritage Foundation reports:

Anyone could have predicted that the recovering world economy, coupled with the continued growth of India and China, was going to push oil prices higher. So if an Administration wanted to keep gas prices down, they could have mitigated increased oil demand by increasing domestic oil production. But that is not what the Obama Administration has done. Instead of increasing domestic oil supplies, the Obama Administration has cut them at every opportunity, and Americans are now suffering because of those choices.

...

According to Heritage analysts Nick Loris and John Ligon, Obama’s energy policy consists of: increased biofuel production, increased electric vehicle production, and increased renewable power production. These are all terrible public policies. The major source of biomass production, corn-based ethanol, produces less energy per unit volume than gasoline, contributes to food price increases, costs taxpayers $4 billion to produce 2 percent of the total gasoline supply, and has dubious environmental effects.

President Obama's policies focus on yet-to-be-proven sources and eschew proven and abundant sources that we have right here. Such policies lead to reliance on energy sources from volatile nations, fewer jobs, and higher fuel prices. America cannot be powered on hope and change. Governor Palin, yet again, was right on our need for energy independence.

Crossposted here, here, and here.

Governor Palin on the Issues: Energy Regulation

A piece published in Kiplinger earlier this month discussed how, under the Obama administration, energy production is down to a trickle in the Gulf in particular. While the Obama administration lifted the deep water drilling moratorium in October, no leases for drilling in water deeper than 500 feet have been issued. If this continues, estimates state that it would result in lost production of 400,000 barrels a day (equivalent to 7% of the domestic production). The moratoriums and regulations that President Obama have placed on drilling and the subsequent effect these measures have on energy independence show how interlinked energy independence and energy regulation are. Recently, I discussed Governor Palin's stance on energy independence. The next issue I'd like to address is Governor Palin stance on energy regulation.

Governor Palin's experience has made her an authority on this subject. Following her time as mayor of Wasilla, she served as Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) chairman from 2003-2004. In her book, Going Rogue, she discusses the role of this Commission:

AOGCC functions include maximizing oil and gas recovery, minimizing waste, approving oil pool development rules, and maintaining state production records. The commission also lends a hand in protecting the environment from contamination during drilling and also ensures environmental compliance in production, metering, and well abandonment acitivities, so federal agencies like the EPA as well as private interests and environmental groups have key interests in the commission's activities. In my view, the nation deserved an agency that was a fair, impartial body with the best interests of Alaskans and the country in mind.

In short, Governor Palin's experience has given her the expertise to know how best energy development must be overseen to optimize production with environmental protection within the framework of the state and federal government. This framework is something that she would later appropriately challenge as Governor when she sued the federal government for unnecessarily placing a healthy polar bear and beluga whale populations and on the endangered species list which prevented oil and gas development from taking place in those areas. She also has, of course, been a strong proponent of opening up the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to development arguing that its small carbon footprint would do little to affect the environment as a whole nor the animal population. Excessive and misplaced environmental regulations prevent energy exploration which in turn makes America more dependent on foreign sources of energy. She also set up a Petroleum Integrity Office to oversee oil companies and keep them accountable.

What you'll find in Governor Palin's approach to responsible energy development is a 180 degrees different than President Obama. President Obama focuses on over-regulation while Governor Palin focuses on oversight. This is seen most clearly in the way that both approached last year's Gulf oil spill.

She pointed out in a Facebook post last summer following the spill that President Obama took nine days to deploy Dept. of Defense equipment to assist in stopping the leak, 3 weeks for Energy Secretary Chu to bring together experts to discuss how to deal with the spill, and more than a month for approval of sand barriers to help protect the Louisiana coastline at the request of Governor Jindal. So as the President dithered, as he often does with tough decisions, Governor Palin offers the a solution based on what the federal government put in place following the largest oil disaster previous to this one, the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska:

The 1990 Oil Pollution Act was drafted in response to the Exxon-Valdez spill in my home state. It created new procedures for offshore cleanups, specifically putting the federal government in charge of such operations. The President should have used the authority granted by the OPA – immediately – to take control of the situation. That is a big part of what the OPA is for – to designate who is in charge so finger-pointing won’t disrupt efforts to just “plug the d#*! hole.”

In a previous Facebook post, Governor Palin offered another solution for how she would deal with such a disaster especially as it pertains to the involvement of oil companies (emphasis mine):

In the meantime, let me make a constructive suggestion to help the White House out of its current impasse. They should reach out to the best oil and gas team in the nation and tap into its expertise. I know just the team: Alaska’s Department of Natural Resources, led by Commissioner Tom Irwin. Having worked with Tom and his DNR team as Governor, I can vouch for their expertise and their integrity in dealing with Big Oil and overseeing its developments.

This team’s (and Alaska’s PSIO team’s) expertise on oil spill issues is particularly relevant. We all lived and worked through the Exxon oil spill, and we all committed to the principle that this would never happen again in Alaska’s waters, at least not on our watch. That’s why we created the Petroleum Systems Integrity Office (PSIO) when we saw proof of improper maintenance of oil infrastructure in our state. And that’s why we instituted new oversight and held BP and other oil companies financially accountable for poor maintenance practices. And that’s why we cracked down on unethical and unsound practices by oil companies and their contractors that operate in Alaska. And that’s why I filed a Friend-of-the-Court brief against Exxon’s interests for its decades-old responsibility to compensate victims adversely affected by the Exxon-Valdez oil spill. None of these actions made us popular with oil company management. (In fact, Commissioner Irwin received a message from a North Slope oil company employee that summed up their view of our efforts well: the message told him to “go to hell, but resign first.”) Our relationship with Big Oil may have been perceived as contentious because we always put the interests of Alaskans first.

One thing that stands out about Governor Palin approach to regulation is that it is not regulation, but instead, oversight. For Governor Palin, it is not about heavy handed regulation or government putting "their boot on the throat" of an oil company. It is about ensuring that an oil company or a company in any industry is accountable for their actions and accountable to the consumer. It is indicative of Governor Palin's philosophy of government. In Going Rogue, Governor Palin wrote, " the role of government is to protect us, not to perfect us". This is quite the opposite of what President Obama is doing. Following the spill, he decided to suspend drilling in the Arctic and canceled leases in the Gulf and off the coast of Virginia; some of this has continued to this day. This is an example of the government trying to perfect. If no drilling is allowed, there is no chance for spills or environmental problems. There is "perfection"-- the absence of accidents. However, as Governor Palin, suggests government has a role of oversight and insurance of accountability as she has suggested with the federal law and the Alaskan office. The occurrence of car and plane accidents have not stopped people from driving or flying, nor should the occurrence of a drilling accident cause the halt of drilling. As Governor Palin also suggested, drilling must continue, and safer opportunities exist--like ANWR:

Please, Mr. President, hear me on this, if nothing else: if it’s your administration’s decision to suspend the leases of new oil field developments off the coast of Alaska in response to the Gulf’s deepwater spill, and you still remain committed to locking up ANWR and other oil-rich lands, please know you are making a mistake. Unless we continue to drill here and drill now, we risk digging ourselves deeper into the hole created by our continued dependence on foreign energy – which often comes from regimes that care nothing for our prosperity or security, and even less for global environmental safety.

We need affordable, reliable, secure, environmentally-sound, and domestically-produced energy, but this administration continues to lock up federal land filled with huge energy reserves. If there is to be a moratorium on offshore development, then it’s time we stop ignoring our safest options for domestic development – places like ANWR and NPR-A in my home state of Alaska.

It also must be pointed out that suspending a large portion of drilling and continual over-regulation does not only make America more dependent on foreign sources of energy, it also affects our economy and American jobs--the very focus of President Obama's State of the Union address earlier this week. Over-regulation and agenda driven economic policies, rather than consumer driven policies, hurt the economy and kill jobs. This has not stopped President Obama from implementing burdensome legislation and EPA administered policies.

Governor Palin has stood for energy oversight, rather than regulation, that protects the environment and hold energy producers accountable while providing both energy and physical security to America. Energy producers are accountable directly to the American people, who are their consumers, and indirectly to the American people via the government, elected by the American people. The Obama administration does not hold oil companies accountable as evidenced by the BP oil spill when the rig that caused the disaster received a regulatory pass just 10 days prior in addition to a waiver the previous year.

Proper oversight by state level agencies like AOGCC and PSIO in addition to appropriate federal regulations can ensure environmental, economic, physical, and energy security for America while ensuring ethical practices of these producers. Burdensome over-regulation accompanied by insufficient accountability leads to an economic and energy environment where America becomes dependent upon foreign sources of fuels,as the Kiplinger piece mentions. Such policies also have a negative affect on the economy and American jobs. Governor Palin promotes oversight that allows for energy industry to remain accountable and America to be secure and independent in every sense of the word.

Crossposted here, here, here, and here.