Tag Archives: drill

Unlock the Energy and Unlock the Economy Part 5,000,000

***Courtesy of THE RIO NORTE LINE***….We’ve posted numerous times here about the necessity of the Energy sector to be allowed to just do its job. Any Energy successes we’re experienced in the past 3 years have all been in SPITE of the current Administration, not because of it. This post from TRNL shows yet again how and why Energy is a key driver for our economic recovery here, and why the upcoming election is so vital to our country’s future.

The Rio Norte Line

Not to long ago, I posted my long expressed thesis that the energy sector is the key to the revival of the American economy. I wrote:

Over and over again, we have posted about how opening up energy exploration and production in the US could have an immediate “shock” effect on the economy because hydrocarbon based energy touches all strata of the economy and does so all at once. Cheaper fuel leads to cheaper production costs of products, immediately has an impact on personal income and strengthens the balance sheet of all companies by lowering overall costs to do business. It also immediately increases employment in the E&P (exploration and production) and EPIC (engineering, procurement, installation and construction) sectors of the oil patch. Good, high paying jobs that could be created at the cost of a signature.

Erika Johnson at Hot Air points to supporting data:

View original post 209 more words

An Energy Smörgåsbord

I have several items for your energy intake today:

First up is an article from former meteorologist Brian Sussman called Drill It, Dam it, Log It: How To Fight Eco-Tyranny In America. Caution: if you have a heart condition, you may wish to pop a nitro before you read this. It’s a solid “8.5” on the Government Outrage-O-meter.

Courtesy of Forbes.com:

In a major press event staged at the rim of the Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona (an important swing state that year) Clinton and Vice President Al Gore announced their unilateral executive decision to designate a 1.9 million acre monument in Utah. The instant creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was a major victory for eco-activists, and a great loss to America’s energy portfolio. Portions of area are estimated to contain 62 billion tons of clean-burning, low-sulfur coal, between 3 to 5 billion barrels of oil, and 2 to 4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Members of Utah’s congressional delegation were livid, as they were informed of the decision just shortly before Clinton and Gore boarded Air Force One bound for the publicity stunt. 

Over the next four years Clinton and Gore would create over 4 million acres of national monuments, all known for their rich resources.

In 2000, the Clinton administration brazenly stretched the limits of the Antiquity Act further by establishing the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) at the behest of Department of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit (a man beloved by environmentalists for his dramatic DOI press events held in front of dams, in which he would brandish a sledgehammer as a part of his self-proclaimed “sledgehammer tour,” encouraging the destruction of America’s dams). The NLCS gave the president the power to deem a simple landscape as “treasured,” thus taking its resources off the books forever. In 2009, liberal majorities in Congress fashioned an official NLCS law, which President Obama eagerly signed. The legislation, part of an omnibus-spending bill, declared 27 million acres of “treasured landscapes.”

Now, as I disclose in my book Eco-Tyranny, President Obama has been caught in a plan to potentially declare 140-million acres of land treasured. I was one of the first to see a 21-page DOI draft document describing the scheme, which declares the acreage as, “components of larger landscapes, ecosystems, airsheds, and watersheds.” Note that all of the said components are purely subjective in nature.

For a visual depiction of just how much territory the government now owns, I’ll include this from 2004:

Sussman is an excellent writer, and I urge you to read the whole article. Heck, while you’re at it, read his book, too.


Next up is the 4th installment of Tim Dunn’s 5-Minute Energy Blog, courtesy of Hugh Hewitt’s website. If you aren’t familiar with him, Tim Dunn is CEO of Crown Quest Operating (one of the top oil producers in Texas) and board member of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. And with a title like OIL-HATERS AND ENERGY-CRATS, this installment is in synch with the Sussman piece above, but with a slightly different perspective.

***To read Tim’s previous Energy blog posts, go HERE.


And, before anyone from the save-mother-earth-blah-blah-blah crowd says, “Hey, neither of those guys is a CLIMATOLOGIST, and the CLIMATOLOGISTS all say drilling is bad, etc, etc….. Why should we care what these authors say?”, please check out one of my favorite articles from waaaay back in 2009, courtesy of the examiner.com:

What is a ‘Climatologist,’ precisely? Let me cut to the chase scene for you: It’s a job title, not an educational path. Translation: You, too, can be a Climatologist!


I could go through every single paper presented as proof of Algore’s Earth View written by “climatologists” searching in vain for a “climatology” degree. Not there. The reason is because the very first such degree program in the world took students in just 2001.


Just remember:

An Obliquity by any other name…

I just paid $4.05 per gallon to fill my car.


$71.00 for a tank of gas….and I drive a Camry, for goodness sake.

Regardless of where you live, you are paying a ridiculous amount for gasoline, and there appears no end in sight. Certainly not when President Genius sputters such inanities as “With only 2% of the world’s oil reserves, we just can’t drill our way to lower gas prices”.

This is pabulum, yet it persists.

I had as clients a couple of geologists whose job was coming up with the calculations for where to drill for oil and natural gas. Great guys. They were of one mind on this point: the US has as many or more natural resources per square mile of territory than any other country in the world. We are blessed with them. The problem is that we deny to ourselves their very existence and then lie about the reason.

Take the President’s words above. Only 2%? Really? By saying that, he is being deliberately duplicitous (read as: he’s fibbing).

By “reserves”, he undoubtedly is referring to “proved reserves”, which only counts oil that companies are currently drilling for in existing fields.

To quote the website oilprice.com:

How much recoverable oil does the U.S. have in addition to the 22.3 billion Obama had in mind? Start with the Green River Formationin Wyoming: 1.4 trillion barrels—sixty-two times as much as Obama counts.

After Green River, it’s almost embarrassing to count other sources: 86 billion on the outer continental shelf; 24 billion in the lower 48; 2 billion on Alaska’s north slope; 19 billion in Utah tar sands; 12 billion in ANWR. Then add in oil shale: 800 billion just in Wyoming and neighboring states. As IBD sums it up: “When you include oil shale, the U.S. has 1.4 trillion barrels of technically recoverable oil, according to the Institute for Energy Research, enough to meet all U.S. oil needs for about the next 200 years, without any imports.”

They even include a handy-dandy graph to depict more accurately what our actual energy situation looks like:

Newsflash to President Obama: bigger available supply = lower price.

“But, but, but, ….oil is priced on the world market”, they say, which is certainly true. But when more gas, or just the promise of more gas, enters the market, that changes the equation drastically. Then again, that is what the futures market does. It looks at what the energy demands and supply might look like….in the future. And, since we can’t control what the Middle East does with their oil supply, why wouldn’t we try to insure against any potential disruption by maximizing ours?

Additionally, if we are developing more resources here, producers will look to sell it where they can make the most profit. Given that there is one worldwide price and assuming that there is demand for it in the US (a relatively safe assumption), they stand to make more money selling as much as possible locally, rather than, say, in China.

In honor of my old algebra teacher:

faster delivery + cheaper transport = more profit.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Obama knows all this, of course. He is quite aware that he is giving a deceptive view of our energy capabilities. The probable answer to the question, “why??” is that he wants to give the impression of scarcity in order to make the case for wind, solar and other largely unviable means of energy.

Paradoxically, he has also made the following claim:

Last year, American oil production reached its highest level since 2003. Let me repeat that. Our oil production reached its highest level in seven years.”

As I try to teach my boys, when you only tell part of the truth, it still amounts to a lie.

From freeenterprise.com:

The president did not paint an accurate picture of America’s energy reality on oil. Last year’s increase in domestic oil production is entirely a product of decisions to encourage new production that were made several years ago, in previous Administrations. The reduction in the percentage of oil we import occurred due to these previously-approved permits, as well as lower U.S. oil demand due to our weak economy.

The next big thing in energy will eventually come around and when it does, I’ll be one of the first in line. Until that day and then, only if it can compete on the open market, not developing as much of own energy as humanly possible makes as much sense as playing a hockey game where you only play defense and never take a shot:

you can’t win.

You can only, inevitably, lose.