The ‘Why Won’t Dumbass Democrats Just Drill For American Oil?’ Song

Democrats Block US Energy Independence, Send Gas Prices Soaring

Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently said:

“The one thing we fail to talk about is those costs that you don’t see on the bottom line. That is coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick; it’s global warming. It’s ruining our country, it’s ruining our world. We’ve got to stop using fossil fuel.”

Watch it on Youtube if prefer seeing your idiots in living color.

Well, how about if YOU stop, Harry. And tell all your fellow liberals and Democrts to stop right along with you. The rest of us realize that we need the stuff, and that we will continue to need it for decades to come.

Let us not forget to point out that Barack Obama has the same stupid and self-defeating ideas about energy.

So it’s not coal and oil that we’re sick of, Harry. We’re sick of you and your irrational and self-defeating energy policies. Coal and oil is what made our country great; it’s what our economy has been – and continues to be – based upon. It’s what we will continue to need in order to continue to improve our way of life.

Stop and think about it: Route 66; the interstate system; distant communities interconnected by vast stretches of freeways and roads. Our entire way of life has been based upon the mobility that oil has provided. We can’t just get rid of oil and keep right on truckin’. The Democrat’s vision will create enormous adjustment and enormous pain for Americans.

At some point, we will clearly need to transition to another dominant source of energy. But there is simply no way that we will be ready to make that transition any time soon. To refuse to allow our vast domestic oil supplies to be utilized by citing theoretical alternatives is foolish beyond crazy.

While a few R.I.N.O. (Republican In Name Only) politicians (I like the term “Stockholm Syndrome Republicans”) have embraced global warming alarmism and environmentalist bans on drilling, the simple fact of the matter is that it was Bill Clinton who vetoed taking advantage of our oil reserves over a Republican effort to expand our supplies, and it has overwhelmingly been Democrats who have thwarted every effort both to increase oil drilling and oil refining every since.

The result is that we have been deliberately left completely vulnerable to just the kind of sky-high prices that we are seeing now.

Democrats argue that drilling is pointless because it won’t produce any results for 10 years. But that is insane. Number one, only a fool doesn’t plan for the future. Number two, had Bill Clinton allowed us to drill in the 90’s we wouldn’t be where we are now. And number three, oil drillers say that they could be getting substantial oil out of the ground within one year; and even the most technically difficult sites wouldn’t take longer than six years to harvest.

Democrats argue that they have provided oil companies with leases giving them access to millions of acres for exploration. But these leases weren’t granted on the basis of geologists’ studies (that these are the best locations for oil); but rather on the basis of “junk” land that doesn’t have any political (and likely not any energy) value. It’s the equivalent of the U.S. Government putting the Indians on the crappiest land in the country and then saying, “There: we’ve given you plenty of land.” The reality is that 92% of our offshore reserves and most of the state and federal lands are off limits to oil companies.The outer continental shelf – which contains the best known sources of oil – are completely off limits to the American oil companies, even as Chinese rigs are going up in those very same oil fields!!!

An Associated Press story titled, “Much of oil, gas off limits” says:

WASHINGTON — About half the oil and more than a quarter of the natural gas beneath 99 million acres of federal land is off-limits to drilling, the Bush administration says in a report that industry sought to highlight environmental and other hurdles to development.

Just 3 percent of the oil and 13 percent of the gas under federal land is accessible under standard lease terms that require only basic protections for the environment and cultural resources, according to the survey, which was ordered last year by Congress.

An additional 46 percent of the oil and 60 percent of the gas “may be developed subject to additional restrictions” such as bans to protect winter rangeland for foraging antelope, nesting areas for bald eagles and jagged slopes from erosion during parts of the year.

The revised inventory, released Tuesday by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management, is starkly different from a study done three years ago. That version, which covered 59 million acres in the Rocky Mountains, estimated more than 80 percent of oil and gas was accessible, although in some cases subject to restrictions. Environmentalists often cited that figure in arguing that a wealth of energy resources is available for developing without going into pristine areas now off limits.

And, the actual fact of the matter is that the oil companies are routinely unable to drill even in those leased areas that the Democrats deceitfully claim that they have available to them. There are plenty of stories like this out there:

Billings, Mont. (AP) – Two conservation groups have asked the federal government to impose new restrictions on oil and gas development in the West to protect the greater sage grouse, a popular game bird on the decline.

Scientists contend sage grouse breeding areas are suffering in the face of accelerating oil and gas exploration in Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Utah and other Western states.

West Nile virus, drought and residential development also have taken a toll on the bird, which is being considered for the endangered species list.

Federal rules now say oil and gas companies cannot drill within quarter of a mile of sage grouse breeding areas. Last week, Idaho-based North American Grouse Partnership and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership of Washington, D.C., filed a legal petition asking for the rule be extended to two miles.

I don’t apologize for caring more about my family and friends than I do about some rare species of bird. Frankly, Democrats should be apologizing to the American people for caring more about a few birds than they do about them.

Again and again, Democrats, Democrat-controlled government bureaucracies, and their left-wing allies in the “environmentalist” and “litigation” communities have blocked oil companies from doing anything. The result is years of lawsuits and court proceedings, red tape, delay, and other excessive costs that make such projects unfeasible.

There’s an old joke about a modern-day Noah trying to build an ark in today’s liberal political environment. It certainly has the pro-bureaucracy, anti-business policies that characterize the Democratic Party in mind.

Democrats routinely use environmental groups’ minimized estimates as to how much oil is actually in a given field. The oil companies believe there is much more available in those fields; that’s why they want to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to start getting that oil out of the ground. Think about it: Democrats routinely say that there isn’t very much oil in places like ANWR, and that oil companies don’t want to drill anyway. If that were even remotely true, then why are the Democrats repeatedly preventing oil companies from drilling by force of law? If the Democrats are anything other than lying demagogues, allow the oil companies to drill where they believe the oil is without the massive bureaucratic hassles; and if they don’t drill and increase our oil suppolies, the Democrats could say, “See, we were right.”

“Proven reserves” are resources that drilling has confirmed exist and can be produced with current technology and prices. By imposing bans on leasing, and encouraging environmentalists to challenge seismic and drilling permits on existing leases, politicians ensure that we will never increase our proven reserves. In fact, reserves will decrease, as we deplete existing deposits and don’t replace them. The rhetoric is clever – but disingenuous, fraudulent and harmful.

They have repeatedly argued that opening up ANWR would do virtually nothing to alleviate the price of gasoline. But Democratic Senators have called upon the Saudis to increase production by amounts that would be less – even according to ridiculously low liberal estimates – than the amount of daily oil flow that ANWR would generate.

The Geological Survey and Congressional Research Service say it’s 95% likely that there are 15.6 billion barrels of oil beneath ANWR. And we could add to that an estimated 169 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf, Rockies, Great Lakes, Southwest and ANWR – as well as natural gas, coal, uranium and hydroelectric resources that are currently off limits because of Democratic activism.

One of our best prospects is Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which geologists say contains billions of barrels of recoverable oil. If President Clinton hadn’t bowed to Wilderness Society demands and vetoed 1995 legislation, we’d be producing a million barrels a day from ANWR right now. That’s equal to US imports from Saudi Arabia, at $50 billion annually.

Mexico has increased its oil production 64 percent since 1980. Canada’s production has increased 85 percent. If we’d increased production at the rate of our North American neighbors, we’d be producing 91 percent of our current consumption, noted National Review’s Noel Sheppard.

Democrats routinely demonize oil companies for their “excessive” and “windfall” profits. But – as usual – they merely prove what hypocrites and demogogues they truly are. Look at the revelations from The Hill:

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), who calls for “windfall profit taxes on big oil,” has some $200,000 in oil holdings with Exxon and BP. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), who publicly says that oil companies are guilty of “price fixing,” has some $350,000 in oil holdings with Exxon and BP. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Tx) – who speaks of “unjustifiable tax breaks for big oil” has $350,000 in Exxon Mobil and Chevron holdings. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) who claims oil companies are “gouging” has $200,000 in holdings with Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Schlumberger. These Democrats are privately profiting from the very companies they publicly claim are so terrible. What hypocrites!

And they falsely demonize oil profits in the way of the classic demagogue. The reality is that the oil companies invest FAR more than they retain in profits; and the reality is that their profits are actually quite modest given the sheer massiveness of their operations.

Investor’s Business Daily says the following:

Yes, oil companies make money. But they spend more than they make on finding new sources of oil. A new Ernst & Young study shows the five major oil companies had $765 billion of new investment from 1992 to 2006 compared with net income of $662 billion.

Over the same stretch, the industry — which includes 57 of the largest U.S. oil and natural gas companies — had new investments of $1.25 trillion compared with a net income of $900 billion and a cash flow of $1.77 trillion.

This is an industry that has redefined innovation, reinvesting profits to find innovative ways to recover oil and gas wherever they find it. This includes fields once considered “dead,” vast tracts miles beneath the ocean surface, and sands or even shale in North Dakota.

Democrats talk about the need to conserve oil and use alternative energies instead. But do the American people truly want to drastically and dramatically change their way of life when the clear alternative of domestic oil production is readily available? Even the most radical environmentalist activists such as Al Gore clearly don’t want to make such a transition in their own personal lives: Gore has routinely been faulted for his own shockingly high rate of energy consumption. And as I see drivers routinely whiz by me on the freeway, I realize that few Americans are determined to make the kinds of painful sacrifices that Democratic strategies call upon them to make.

Furthermore, there is little evidence that such sacrifice will amount to anything. With China, India, and much of the rest of the developing world increasing its oil consumption, all the “global warming” hyperbole justifying the deliberate restriction of US energy consumption (and therefore economic production) will be “much ado, signifying nothing.” If China and India use the oil we would have used – which by all accounts is exactly what is happening and will continue to happen – then what is the net climate gain?

As a further point revealing the absurdity of Democrats’ claims that we must not drill for oil lest we contaminate the environment and increase global warming, just what do you think is going on in the Middle East? When they increase their production to meet our energy needs (at a massive profit), are they not contaminating the environment and increasing global warming even more than we would, given our higher level of technology and environmental regulations?

Democrats are currently hollering and screaming about speculators artificially driving up the price of gas. But let us consider this:

NEW YORK — Oil prices rose Monday on disappointment over Saudi Arabia’s modest production increase and concerns that output from Nigeria will decline. Retail gas prices, meanwhile, inched lower overnight, but appear unlikely to change much as long as oil prices stay in a trading range.

Saudi Arabia said Sunday at a meeting of oil producing and consuming nations that it would turn out more crude oil this year if the market needs it. The kingdom said it would add 200,000 barrels per day in July to a 300,000 barrel per day production increase it first announced in May, raising total daily output to 9.7 million barrels.

But that pledge at the meeting held in the Saudi city of Jeddah fell far short of U.S. hopes for a larger increase. The United States and other nations argue that oil production has not kept up with increasing demand, especially from China, India and the Middle East.

The fact that the price of oil goes UP when the supply goes DOWN ought to tell you something about what is truly driving the shocking price increases: supply and demand.

As we see the volatility of oil prices, and as we see that threats in the Middle East, or in unstable regimes such as Nigeria, send our prices through one roof after another, thinking, rational people must surely come to realize that there is an urgent, long-term strategic need for American to have it’s own stable domestic oil supply.

And one political party – the Democrats – are clearly standing in the way of that critical strategic goal. Our survival depends upon energy independence. But Democrats are literally STANDING on our ability to provide that independence.

Democrats Refuse to Allow Domestic Oil Production

Gene Dale wrote:

OK, want to know why I detest Chuck Schumer?:

NY Times, 1999, on releasing strategic reserves…

Mr. Schumer said the United States should begin selling a few hundred thousand gallons a day from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which now contains 571 million gallons. ”A relatively modest amount of oil released from our oil reserves will keep prices flat and actually reduce them,” he said.

April 30, 2008

Senator Schumer, responding to Bush’s ANWR proposal: ““And what does the President do? He takes out the old saw of ANWR. ANWR wouldn’t produce a drop of oil in 10 years, and its estimated that if they drilled in ANWR in twenty years it would reduce the price one penny.

You should know ANWR will produce 1 million barrels a day.

May 14, 2008

“If Saudi Arabia were to increase its production by 1 million barrels per day that translates to a reduction of 20 percent to 25 percent in the world price of crude oil, and crude oil prices could fall by more than $25 dollar per barrel from its current level of $126 per barrel,” Schumer insisted during a speech on the Senate floor.

“In turn, that would lower the price of gasoline between 13 percent and 17 percent, or by more than 62 cents off the expected summer regular-grade price – offering much needed relief to struggling families,” he added.

And that is a pretty darned good reason to detest Sen. Chuck Schumer. A classic example of the twisted logic of a pandering demagogue in action.

First of all, it is important to point out that if President Bill Clinton hadn’t vetoed the Republican measure to drill in ANWR in 1995 – by Schumer’s own 10 year timeframe – we would have oil from those fields stabilizing our energy for a good three years now.

Second, ANWR has a lot more oil than Democrats or their environmentalist “experts” admit, and ANWR is only the tip of the U.S. oil supply iceberg: we have massive sources of oil all over the continent that Democrats won’t allow us to touch, such as the continental shelf.

It is simply a fact that Democrats have been obstructing efforts to increase U.S. domestic oil production for years and years. While Democrats and their many media allies have attempted to phrase this issue in terms of everything BUT oil independence, it remains a fact that the steadfast policy of Democrats has been to oppose every effort to increase our supply of oil.

Last year President Bush again attempted to open up more areas to drilling, but Democrats wouldn’t have any of it. “Whatever pressing energy issue comes before the American people, the Bush administration always responds with the same oil answer: more oil,” said Representative Nick J. Rahall II, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.”

MAYBE THAT’S BECAUSE WE NEED MORE OIL!!!

Shell’s John Hofmeister tried to explain this to Democrats, but Democrats view “hearings” as opportunities to pander, not as opportunities to learn:

While all oil-importing nations buy oil at global prices, some, notably India and China, subsidize the cost of oil products to their nation’s consumers, feeding the demand for more oil despite record prices. They do this to speed economic growth and to ensure a competitive advantage relative to other nations.

Meanwhile, in the United States, access to our own oil and gas resources has been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people.

Senator Sessions, I agree, it is not a free market.

According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Pacific Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the eastern Gulf of Mexico, congressional bans on on-shore oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska, and even a congressional ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico.

The Argonne National Laboratory did a report in 2004 that identified 40 specific federal policy areas that halt, limit, delay or restrict natural gas projects. I urge you to review it. It is a long list. If I may, I offer it today if you would like to include it in the record.

When many of these policies were implemented, oil was selling in the single digits, not the triple digits we see now. The cumulative effect of these policies has been to discourage U.S. investment and send U.S. companies outside the United States to produce new supplies.

As a result, U.S. production has declined so much that nearly 60 percent of daily consumption comes from foreign sources.

The problem of access can be solved in this country by the same government that has prohibited it. Congress could have chosen to lift some or all of the current restrictions on exportation and production of oil and gas. Congress could provide national policy to reverse the persistent decline of domestically secure natural resource development.

Senator Orrin Hatch also questioned Hofmeister about proven reserves discovered in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming totaling at least 800 billion and as many as 2 trillion barrels of oil, which could be recovered at a cost that would be a powerful offset against the rising cost of oil. The last part of this discussion is insightful:

HOFMEISTER: I don’t know what the exact cost would be, but, you know, if there is more supply, I think inflation in the oil industry would be cracked. And we are facing severe inflation because of the limited amount of supply against the demand.

HATCH: I guess what I’m saying, though, is that if we started to develop the oil shale in those three states we could do it within this framework of over $100 a barrel and make a profit.

HOFMEISTER: I believe we could.

HATCH: And we could help our country alleviate its oil pressures.

HOFMEISTER: Yes.

HATCH: But they’re stopping us from doing that right here, as we sit here. We just had a hearing last week where Democrats had stopped the ability to do that, in at least Colorado.

HOFMEISTER: Well, as I said in my opening statement, I think the public policy constraints on the supply side in this country are a disservice to the American consumer.

Add to that the recent discovery in the Bakken Play, a North Dakota field that stretches into Montana and Saskatchewan, Canada, which is expected to yield 100 – and possibly even 200 – billion barrels of oil, and we truly have an abundance of domestic oil that could easily meet American energy needs for decades to come. If we were only allowed to exploit those resources.

Instead, the United States is forced to rely on countries and regimes that are either hostile to our interests or politically unstable. This dependence is a clear threat to our national security, and – as long as this situation remains – “oil security will continue to be one of the primary drivers of US foreign and military policy.”

In other words, if Democrats really want America out of the turmoil of the Middle East, THEY SHOULD LET US TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR OIL RESERVES.

But these people have long since proven that they would rather pander than produce, would rather demagogue than dialog.

Take a leading Democrat, Rep. Maxine Waters.  Her contribution to the Democrat-engineered “show trial” of oil executives was to say, “And, guess what this liberal will be all about? This liberal will be about socializing… uh, will be about, basically taking over and the government running all of your companies.”  That’s right.  That ought to work.  The government that brought us the $1500 toilet seat will undoubtedly do a bang-up job in lowering gas prices.  And the fact that this prominent Democrat is openly proclaiming socialism while calling for a heavy-handed Marxist approach to economics shouldn’t trouble anyone.

The United States has not had a new oil refinery since 1976, due to a pattern of unyielding Democratic opposition, nonstop environmentalist litigation, and one impossibly burdensome environmental regulation after another. Democrats are clearly standing in the way of any kind of increase in refining capacity. In the last effort to increase our refining capacity, 99% of Republicans supported the bill, and 92% of Democrats opposed it.

“Everyone is quick to say “look at these refiners, they’re driving up the price,'” said Phil Flynn, senior market analyst at Alaron Trading in Chicago. “But if I wanted to build a refinery tomorrow, I couldn’t do it.”

Today on Fox News, one industry expert predicted that if we have a single refinery disaster during this hurricane season, we will see $7.00 a gallon gasoline this summer. Why? Because our limited refining capacity is already stretched to maximum, and any delay will send already stressed prices through the roof.

Why? What possible explanation can Democrats offer to account for their incredibly absurd energy positions?

Here’s a couple Democrat’s answers to the question “Why Are Democrats Against Building More Refineries?” that quite accurately reflect the Democrat position:

* “As a Democrat I want alternative fuel not more oil. More refineries = more oil. Let us turn the page and go forward.”

* “We don’t need more refineries, we need alternate and better fuel sources. More refineries is a temporary “fix” to a very big problem. Also, was there anything hidden in the bill?“

Democrats dismiss the FACT that increasing the domestic oil supply will have a profound positive impact on the price of U.S. gasoline.  Amazingly, by and large Democrats readily acknowledge that an increase in OPEC production will decrease prices; yet in practically the same breath they claim that a similar increase in American production would have no effect whatsoever.

Democrats demand that we turn away from what has provided well over ninety percent of our energy for a century and instead rely on costly, inefficient, impractical, and unproven alternatives. As one example, “Take out the 51-cents-a-gallon federal subsidy, and the true cost of U.S.-produced ethanol is equivalent to paying $6 a gallon for the same energy as gasoline, calculates Michael B. McElroy, Harvard professor of environmental studies.”

Democrats – who frankly don’t seem to understand much of anything – point to the complexity of the “very big problem” of meeting our energy needs.

And of course, Democrats love to punt to some version of a conspiracy theory rather than allowing any effort that would solve our energy crisis. One Democrat during yesterday’s hearings told the oil executives that, although she had no proof of collusion, believed that oil companies were conspiring to keep prices high, and challenged them to prove her wrong. I’ve actually wanted to pose a similar “when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife”-style question to Democrats by demanding that they prove to me that they are not insane, but I thought it would be unfair to ask until now.

Democrats keep refusing to allow any increase in oil production or refining capability, citing the argument that they want to reduce demand by means alternative energy and by changing American’s behavior. But the problem is, the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t want to change. Not long ago, I set my cruise control to the speed limit on the highway while on a sixty-mile drive, and counted the number of cars, trucks (excluding big rigs), and SUVs that went by me versus the number of cars I passed. The result: 421vehicles passed me, and I passed only 5. And cars and trucks routinely go flying by me on the road.

And while people are currently not buying a lot of gas-guzzling pickups and SUVs, previous gas-spike behavior assures me that once prices come back down, people will quickly go back to their previous ways and go back to buying the guzzlers.

The Democratic Party’s approach is to try to force automakers to produce cars that by-and-large customers don’t want; try to force vehicles to conform to shockingly-stringent environmental standards that will add thousands of dollars to the sticker price of each car; and try to force oil companies to invest in non-oil energy technologies (which is rather like trying to force Microsoft to invest in Apple). Such measures are largely ignored by consumers. What would really be interesting is if Democrats attempted to pass legislation requiring that speed-restricting governors to be placed on every new car sold. THAT would be a nice barometer to gauge genuine public opinion of their approach to energy.

The sad truth of the matter is that, unless draconian limitations on individual freedom are imposed, most of the Democrats’ energy policy will do nothing to nothing to reduce the costs of energy for the overwhelming majority of Americans. In fact, by refusing to increase the supply of oil in a global environment that is increasingly demanding a resource in increasingly restricted supply, they are only serving to drive up the cost of that energy.

That is outrageous enough. But to then turn around and attack President Bush, the Republican Party, and oil companies for a problem that Democrats themselves have been creating for over thirty years is nothing short of despicable.