Months ago I listened to radio talk show host Don Imus flap refer to a female college basketball team as a bunch of “nappy-headed ho’s." Imus said he was only using language popularized by black rappers. Maybe so, but it was a stupid thing to say. Imus was castigated nationwide for his offense, humiliated publicly in New York, and ultimately fired from his job. In an attempt to rehabilitate himself, he apologized personally to the team (which included a white student) and even made an appearance on the air with black talk show host Al Sharpton.
You’d think Imus would have learned when to keep his mouth shut, but apparently not. Rehired a couple of months later at another station, he asked a co-host day before yesterday the skin color of a Dallas Cowboy football player who had been arrested numerous times. When the co-host answered “African-American,” Imus remarked, “There you go, that says it.”
While some people might think this is funny, others won’t because of what Imus said previously. Looked at in context, he clearly meant that black football players are more likely to get in trouble than white ones. That might be true but it’s not true across the board and to suggest that it is not only smears black players who stay out of trouble, it excuses white players who don’t.
Imus entered rocky territory when he asked about the football player’s color. He set himself up no matter what the other broadcaster said. Athletes of all colors get in trouble mainly because they are young, rich and irresponsible. They have more money than they can spend, generally have an attitude, and think they can get away with anything.
Imus falls into this category too. He’s not young but he is rich and a media star with an attitude. And while it’s true a ranch he owns rehabilitates youth, he apparently thinks he can say anything on the radio and get away with it. He doesn’t understand that words are like arrows — once they leave the bow they can’t be brought back.
Imus is now saying he meant that police pick on black people. As a retired cop myself, I find that statement troubling. Imus shot his mouth off again because he was playing to his audience and trying to be funny. Funny is one thing, but stupid statements are another. Imus deserves the axe one more time, only this time it should keep him off the air permanently.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Watch your step, America
Finally, someone is offering energy solutions instead of more talk, incentives instead of regulation. Here are a few paragraphs from today’s Mike Allen’s Politico Playbook:
--New this morning -- McCain's CLEAN CAR CHALLENGE and BATTERY PRIZE - from remarks prepared for delivery at Fresno (Calif.) State University today: 'My administration will issue a Clean Car Challenge to the automakers of America, in the form of a single and substantial tax credit based on the reduction of carbon emissions. For every automaker who can sell a zero-emissions car, we will commit a 5,000-dollar tax credit for each and every customer who buys that car. For other vehicles, whatever type they may be, the lower the carbon emissions, the higher the tax credit.
'I further propose we inspire the ingenuity and resolve of the American people by offering a $300 million prize for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars. This is one dollar for every man, woman and child in the U.S. - a small price to pay for helping to break the back of our oil dependency - and should deliver a power source at 30 percent of the current costs.
Newsweek's Howard Fineman, on NBC's 'Today': McCain's 'essentially going to say we can't beg or sue our way out of our situation with energy, which is a direct shot at Obama's emphasis on going after speculators. McCain talks about it in terms of energy security. He wants to link that to the commander-in-chief role. That's the strategy that the McCain people are pursuing.'
--AFP, 'Obama unveils clampdown on oil speculators': 'Obama attacked energy speculators Sunday, outlining new regulatory proposals that his campaign said would slash record-high oil prices and help hard-pressed consumers. The Democrat attacked the so-called Enron loophole, a 2000 deregulation of oversight by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that critics say opened the way to a speculative free-for-all in the oil markets. ... McCain's campaign said the Republican had already backed legislative action against speculative trading, which had failed to get through the Senate.'
I couldn’t help but notice the last line: “McCain had already backed legislative action against speculative trading, which had failed to get through the (Democratically-controlled) Senate.” If that’s the case, how can Obama say he’d clamp down on oil speculators when his Senate brothers and sisters have already blocked such an action? I am reminded of a story from the LBJ era. It seems that Mr. Johnson was campaigning through western Oklahoma’s rural Indian villages and promising them the moon if they voted for him. Every time Johnson made a promise the Indians would clap wildly and shout “Oooooooom-PAH!”
On the way back to the campaign caravan, Mr. Johnson asked one of his aides what the Indians meant by "oooooooom-pah." Before the aide could answer, another aide rushed over and said, “Watch your step, Mr. Johnson, and don’t step in any of the buffalo oooom-pah.
--New this morning -- McCain's CLEAN CAR CHALLENGE and BATTERY PRIZE - from remarks prepared for delivery at Fresno (Calif.) State University today: 'My administration will issue a Clean Car Challenge to the automakers of America, in the form of a single and substantial tax credit based on the reduction of carbon emissions. For every automaker who can sell a zero-emissions car, we will commit a 5,000-dollar tax credit for each and every customer who buys that car. For other vehicles, whatever type they may be, the lower the carbon emissions, the higher the tax credit.
'I further propose we inspire the ingenuity and resolve of the American people by offering a $300 million prize for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars. This is one dollar for every man, woman and child in the U.S. - a small price to pay for helping to break the back of our oil dependency - and should deliver a power source at 30 percent of the current costs.
Newsweek's Howard Fineman, on NBC's 'Today': McCain's 'essentially going to say we can't beg or sue our way out of our situation with energy, which is a direct shot at Obama's emphasis on going after speculators. McCain talks about it in terms of energy security. He wants to link that to the commander-in-chief role. That's the strategy that the McCain people are pursuing.'
--AFP, 'Obama unveils clampdown on oil speculators': 'Obama attacked energy speculators Sunday, outlining new regulatory proposals that his campaign said would slash record-high oil prices and help hard-pressed consumers. The Democrat attacked the so-called Enron loophole, a 2000 deregulation of oversight by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that critics say opened the way to a speculative free-for-all in the oil markets. ... McCain's campaign said the Republican had already backed legislative action against speculative trading, which had failed to get through the Senate.'
I couldn’t help but notice the last line: “McCain had already backed legislative action against speculative trading, which had failed to get through the (Democratically-controlled) Senate.” If that’s the case, how can Obama say he’d clamp down on oil speculators when his Senate brothers and sisters have already blocked such an action? I am reminded of a story from the LBJ era. It seems that Mr. Johnson was campaigning through western Oklahoma’s rural Indian villages and promising them the moon if they voted for him. Every time Johnson made a promise the Indians would clap wildly and shout “Oooooooom-PAH!”
On the way back to the campaign caravan, Mr. Johnson asked one of his aides what the Indians meant by "oooooooom-pah." Before the aide could answer, another aide rushed over and said, “Watch your step, Mr. Johnson, and don’t step in any of the buffalo oooom-pah.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Bush and Congress fiddle while America burns
It is as I suspected: President Bush’s drill bit is dull. I’ve been quick to blame Congressional Democrats for $4 (or $5 or $10) gasoline, but Bush and the Republicans deserve skewering too.
Today’s Wall Street Journal features an editorial that has Bush telling Congress that if it eliminates its prohibition against drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, he will remove prohibitions put in place by the executive branch. This is schoolboy stuff – you show me yours and I’ll show you mine.
Bush and Congress are playing games while America hurts. By not leading, Bush and the Republicans have lost the moral high ground which is now there for the taking by Obama and the Democrats.
The WSJ editorial also points out something I suggested in a prior column, which is that oil companies are reluctant to spend money on exploration when they’re making billions of dollars the way things are.
The companies also know they will make even more money if the price of oil goes to $200 or $300 or more per barrel. Could it be that leftists are correct in saying capitalism is all about greed?
But that’s stuff for another column. Herewith, the WSJ editorial:
Bush's Drill Bit
June 19, 2008; Page A14
Even some of Washington's fiercest opponents of oil drilling are thinking anew, and the politics of domestic energy production seem to be shifting. This isn't surprising with gas prices as a top-tier campaign issue. More confounding was President Bush's timidity yesterday as he tried to prod Congress into movement.
Mr. Bush argued that leaving most of America's immense offshore oil-and-gas resources off-limits was "outdated and counterproductive," and he called on Congress to end its quarter-century ban. Fair enough. But the ban actually has two components, one of which is a 1990 executive order; like launching a warhead, both keys must be turned. Mr. Bush said he would only turn his after Congress did.
The Administration has botched a prime political opportunity. Lifting the Presidential ban would have been symbolic for now, because Congress's ban would still apply. But it would have put the spotlight on Congress as the last political obstacle to exploiting domestic reserves, just as public support for more drilling is rising.
Anticarbon Democrats are on the defensive for once. Their default position – doing nothing – doesn't have the best resonance amid $4 gas. They've been reduced to arguing that more exploration would merely make a difference over the long term. The GOP plan, in other words, is too pragmatic.
Democrats also claim that land already leased is "sitting idle," and should be used before any new exploration begins. As put by Maurice Hinchey, a senior member of the House Resources Committee, Big Oil is "trying to take control of as much land now during the oil-friendly Bush Administration years, but are holding off on drilling until the price of oil soars to $200 or $300 a barrel so they can make even greater profits."
Conspiracy theories aside, it is true that only 0.46% of the Outer Continental Shelf is producing oil (though only 2.3% is under lease). But because of the exploration ban, oil companies go in more or less blind, not knowing the extent of the available resources. Millions of acres lack oil or gas, which is why it's called "exploration." Federal law stipulates that an oil company must sink a producing well within 10 years or lose the lease; it often takes nearly a decade to navigate the geography, not to mention the long process of environmental and regulatory review. Or coping with multiple lawsuits from the green lobby.
If it isn't already obvious, Democrats seem intent on proving that they do not understand the oil business – and Mr. Bush would have done better to ramp up the pressure. The White House says it wants to work out a compromise with Congress, which isn't likely unless Republicans start playing their strongest hand.
Today’s Wall Street Journal features an editorial that has Bush telling Congress that if it eliminates its prohibition against drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, he will remove prohibitions put in place by the executive branch. This is schoolboy stuff – you show me yours and I’ll show you mine.
Bush and Congress are playing games while America hurts. By not leading, Bush and the Republicans have lost the moral high ground which is now there for the taking by Obama and the Democrats.
The WSJ editorial also points out something I suggested in a prior column, which is that oil companies are reluctant to spend money on exploration when they’re making billions of dollars the way things are.
The companies also know they will make even more money if the price of oil goes to $200 or $300 or more per barrel. Could it be that leftists are correct in saying capitalism is all about greed?
But that’s stuff for another column. Herewith, the WSJ editorial:
Bush's Drill Bit
June 19, 2008; Page A14
Even some of Washington's fiercest opponents of oil drilling are thinking anew, and the politics of domestic energy production seem to be shifting. This isn't surprising with gas prices as a top-tier campaign issue. More confounding was President Bush's timidity yesterday as he tried to prod Congress into movement.
Mr. Bush argued that leaving most of America's immense offshore oil-and-gas resources off-limits was "outdated and counterproductive," and he called on Congress to end its quarter-century ban. Fair enough. But the ban actually has two components, one of which is a 1990 executive order; like launching a warhead, both keys must be turned. Mr. Bush said he would only turn his after Congress did.
The Administration has botched a prime political opportunity. Lifting the Presidential ban would have been symbolic for now, because Congress's ban would still apply. But it would have put the spotlight on Congress as the last political obstacle to exploiting domestic reserves, just as public support for more drilling is rising.
Anticarbon Democrats are on the defensive for once. Their default position – doing nothing – doesn't have the best resonance amid $4 gas. They've been reduced to arguing that more exploration would merely make a difference over the long term. The GOP plan, in other words, is too pragmatic.
Democrats also claim that land already leased is "sitting idle," and should be used before any new exploration begins. As put by Maurice Hinchey, a senior member of the House Resources Committee, Big Oil is "trying to take control of as much land now during the oil-friendly Bush Administration years, but are holding off on drilling until the price of oil soars to $200 or $300 a barrel so they can make even greater profits."
Conspiracy theories aside, it is true that only 0.46% of the Outer Continental Shelf is producing oil (though only 2.3% is under lease). But because of the exploration ban, oil companies go in more or less blind, not knowing the extent of the available resources. Millions of acres lack oil or gas, which is why it's called "exploration." Federal law stipulates that an oil company must sink a producing well within 10 years or lose the lease; it often takes nearly a decade to navigate the geography, not to mention the long process of environmental and regulatory review. Or coping with multiple lawsuits from the green lobby.
If it isn't already obvious, Democrats seem intent on proving that they do not understand the oil business – and Mr. Bush would have done better to ramp up the pressure. The White House says it wants to work out a compromise with Congress, which isn't likely unless Republicans start playing their strongest hand.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Congressional Democrats following Karl Marx
I have always felt that Dick Morris was a slime ball. No matter how much a person hates his boss (in Morris’ case, former president Bill Clinton and wife Hillary), you don’t stab them in the back after you move on to other things. That said, Morris apparently has moved on from the Clintons and turned his talents, whatever they are, to addressing the oil crisis.
Morris' story in today’s Newsmax magazine provokes two questions: Are we looking at another bust after the manner of the S & Ls, sub-prime lending practices and the housing market? And secondly, how much influence do oil speculators have on this Congress or the next as it tries to address America’s needs?
For instance, if Obama becomes president and former Clinton administration treasury secretary Robert Rubin (currently on the board of Goldman Sachs) is brought back into the cabinet, do we really think he would “do what’s right?” Or would he protect fellow investors from losing their shirts and blouses?
Would whoever advises a McCain presidency do the right thing? We can only hope and wonder where Ronald Reagan is when we need him.
For those who don’t have time to read Morris' column, the oil crisis is a combination of:
It doesn’t take a Rhodes Scholar to figure out where the problem is. It isn’t with oil companies or entrepreneurs who would jump at the chance to make a buck. The fault lies with Congressional Democrats (as opposed to Democrat voters who may not have a clue who pulls their leaders’ strings) and their leftist supporters who envision an America totally dependant on government for everything.
Then, and only then, would income be distributed equally. Then, and only then, would the needs of the masses be met.
Karl Marx couldn’t have said it better.
I’m Jere Joiner and I digress. Here is Morris’ column:
Gas prices are the first important issue in the 2008 elections. But both parties have been pathetic in their solutions and, one suspects, in their understanding of what is going on.
Democrats call for windfall profits taxes. Bad idea. How can you get oil companies to explore and drill if you tax away their profits? Republicans focus on a gas tax “holiday," an 18 cent palliative to gas prices that now top $4.50.
Fadel Gheit, managing director of oil and gas research for Oppenheimer and Co. and Jim Norman, author of the book "The Oil Card," coming out next month, say that speculation is responsible for a huge part of the run-up in prices.
The growing demand for oil by India and China and the instability of oil supplies certainly account for much of the increase. But the recent spike, they say, is equally due to the weakness of the dollar and massive speculation.
They argue that oil prices are, indeed, determined by supply and demand — not only the supply and demand for oil, but also the supply and demand for oil futures. (Oil futures are a commitment to buy 1,000 barrels of oil at a certain date at a certain price.)
Formerly, most of the investments in oil futures came from energy companies. The federal Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sharply limited investments by those outside the business, to prevent precisely the kind of speculation now gripping the market.
But when the stock market slowed down in 2000–2002, outside investors decided to speculate in oil futures. The new players were institutional investors like corporate and government pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, university endowments and other investors, guided by brokerage firms like Morgan, Stanley, and Goldman, Sachs.
To avoid the CFTC caps, these investors moved their operations to London, setting up the International Commodities Exchange (ICE). Now, they can buy all the oil futures they want.
Michael W. Masters, of Masters Capital Management, told Congress that the volume of investment in commodities futures soared from $13 billion at the end of 2003 to $260 billion in March of 2008.
After a while, the CFTC rescinded its limits on how much speculators could buy as long as they went through special “swap” desks at the major brokerage houses.
You can buy oil futures for only 5 percent down on margin, a bargain considering the 50 percent margin requirement for stock market equity investments. Because the margin requirement on oil futures rises as the due date approaches, few investors actually end up buying the oil, they just roll over their investments.
So the willingness of sellers to unload their oil futures and buyers to acquire them sets up its own market of supply and demand which has more to do with determining the actual price of oil than even the global demand and supply for the product itself.
Masters told Congress, on May 20 of this year: “commodities futures prices are the benchmark for the prices of actual physical commodities, so when index speculators drive futures prices higher, the effects are felt immediately in spot prices and the real economy. So there is a direct link between commodities futures prices and the prices your constituents are paying for essential goods.”
Gheit and Norman suggest that the CFTC regulate the domestic oil futures market (NYMEX) and the participation of U.S. companies in the ICE, restoring the caps on the amount of oil futures speculators can buy. Gheit also urges raising margin requirements for them.
Both worry that the oil futures bubble is going to burst and cost a lot of investors — particularly pension funds who channel their investments through the swap desks of the brokerage houses. We don’t need another subprime or S&L crisis on our hands right now.
The Senate recently tried to force CFTC regulation of all commodities speculators but the bill was loaded down with a windfall profits tax so the Republicans killed it.
McCain needs to get with this program. In his town hall meeting in New York City last Thursday night, he attacked speculators for driving up oil prices but didn’t propose remedies or really explain the problem. Americans will pay close attention if he does. For McCain this is the issue and now is the time to use it.
Morris' story in today’s Newsmax magazine provokes two questions: Are we looking at another bust after the manner of the S & Ls, sub-prime lending practices and the housing market? And secondly, how much influence do oil speculators have on this Congress or the next as it tries to address America’s needs?
For instance, if Obama becomes president and former Clinton administration treasury secretary Robert Rubin (currently on the board of Goldman Sachs) is brought back into the cabinet, do we really think he would “do what’s right?” Or would he protect fellow investors from losing their shirts and blouses?
Would whoever advises a McCain presidency do the right thing? We can only hope and wonder where Ronald Reagan is when we need him.
For those who don’t have time to read Morris' column, the oil crisis is a combination of:
- the real supply and demand, which is current world reserves v. demand for oil by the U.S., China and India
- two artificial supply and demand situations, they being the amount of oil OPEC makes available and the demand created by Wall Street speculators
- failure on the part of this country to develop its own oil reserves and the associated refining capacity to turn oil into gasoline. This is primarily the fault of Congress, which put much of America’s oil reserves off limits to oil companies, thus creating a situation where it cheaper for them to buy oil than fight through prohibitions in this country
- complacency on the part of oil companies to do much beyond “keeping on keeping on.” They are making billions of dollars already. Why spend more when there are so many obstacles in the way?
- failure on the part of Congress to authorize development of alternative energy resources — primarily nuclear power plants that generate electricity. This effort alone would signal America’s willingness to address its own needs. It would also prompt OPEC to realize the folly of holding this country hostage to Middle Eastern oil
It doesn’t take a Rhodes Scholar to figure out where the problem is. It isn’t with oil companies or entrepreneurs who would jump at the chance to make a buck. The fault lies with Congressional Democrats (as opposed to Democrat voters who may not have a clue who pulls their leaders’ strings) and their leftist supporters who envision an America totally dependant on government for everything.
Then, and only then, would income be distributed equally. Then, and only then, would the needs of the masses be met.
Karl Marx couldn’t have said it better.
I’m Jere Joiner and I digress. Here is Morris’ column:
Gas prices are the first important issue in the 2008 elections. But both parties have been pathetic in their solutions and, one suspects, in their understanding of what is going on.
Democrats call for windfall profits taxes. Bad idea. How can you get oil companies to explore and drill if you tax away their profits? Republicans focus on a gas tax “holiday," an 18 cent palliative to gas prices that now top $4.50.
Fadel Gheit, managing director of oil and gas research for Oppenheimer and Co. and Jim Norman, author of the book "The Oil Card," coming out next month, say that speculation is responsible for a huge part of the run-up in prices.
The growing demand for oil by India and China and the instability of oil supplies certainly account for much of the increase. But the recent spike, they say, is equally due to the weakness of the dollar and massive speculation.
They argue that oil prices are, indeed, determined by supply and demand — not only the supply and demand for oil, but also the supply and demand for oil futures. (Oil futures are a commitment to buy 1,000 barrels of oil at a certain date at a certain price.)
Formerly, most of the investments in oil futures came from energy companies. The federal Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sharply limited investments by those outside the business, to prevent precisely the kind of speculation now gripping the market.
But when the stock market slowed down in 2000–2002, outside investors decided to speculate in oil futures. The new players were institutional investors like corporate and government pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, university endowments and other investors, guided by brokerage firms like Morgan, Stanley, and Goldman, Sachs.
To avoid the CFTC caps, these investors moved their operations to London, setting up the International Commodities Exchange (ICE). Now, they can buy all the oil futures they want.
Michael W. Masters, of Masters Capital Management, told Congress that the volume of investment in commodities futures soared from $13 billion at the end of 2003 to $260 billion in March of 2008.
After a while, the CFTC rescinded its limits on how much speculators could buy as long as they went through special “swap” desks at the major brokerage houses.
You can buy oil futures for only 5 percent down on margin, a bargain considering the 50 percent margin requirement for stock market equity investments. Because the margin requirement on oil futures rises as the due date approaches, few investors actually end up buying the oil, they just roll over their investments.
So the willingness of sellers to unload their oil futures and buyers to acquire them sets up its own market of supply and demand which has more to do with determining the actual price of oil than even the global demand and supply for the product itself.
Masters told Congress, on May 20 of this year: “commodities futures prices are the benchmark for the prices of actual physical commodities, so when index speculators drive futures prices higher, the effects are felt immediately in spot prices and the real economy. So there is a direct link between commodities futures prices and the prices your constituents are paying for essential goods.”
Gheit and Norman suggest that the CFTC regulate the domestic oil futures market (NYMEX) and the participation of U.S. companies in the ICE, restoring the caps on the amount of oil futures speculators can buy. Gheit also urges raising margin requirements for them.
Both worry that the oil futures bubble is going to burst and cost a lot of investors — particularly pension funds who channel their investments through the swap desks of the brokerage houses. We don’t need another subprime or S&L crisis on our hands right now.
The Senate recently tried to force CFTC regulation of all commodities speculators but the bill was loaded down with a windfall profits tax so the Republicans killed it.
McCain needs to get with this program. In his town hall meeting in New York City last Thursday night, he attacked speculators for driving up oil prices but didn’t propose remedies or really explain the problem. Americans will pay close attention if he does. For McCain this is the issue and now is the time to use it.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Senate Democrats just don't get it
So Senate Democrats want to impose a “windfall profits” tax on oil companies for making too much money. That’s like punishing a heart surgeon because insurance companies are willing pay big bucks for coronary bypasses. Doesn’t Congress know U.S. companies control only 10 percent of the world’s oil supply? When worldwide supply and demand is the problem, increasing the supply at home is the only solution.
OPEC could increase the oil supply but they are not inclined to do so when we’re not willing to do anything about our own situation. Besides, some OPEC members enjoy seeing the U.S. squirm in our present credit and economic predicament. Then, too, commodity markets bear some responsibility for price increases. However, the major problem is worldwide demand, mostly in the U.S., China and India.
Alternative energy sources like nuclear power plants, Anwar, the Canadian tar sands, our own vast oil shale and coal deposits, biofuel, ethanol, and wind and solar technology will play a role in future energy needs. However, these resources will not be readily available in the near future; because high oil prices likely are here to stay, action at home is needed to turn things around.
We must open access to lands presently off limits to development. Alaska, both coasts and federal lands in the west have conventional oil and natural gas resources that could be developed to make a significant contribution to our energy needs. We are not moving fast enough in these areas and this is the fault of Congress where California, Florida and upper East Coast “greenies” exercise far too much influence.
Pundits have suggested that capped wells are being held in reserve. Capped wells don't exist; if they did oil would have begun flowing when prices hit $120 a barrel. Some low-producing wells that went off-line for economic reasons could be brought back on profitably with $120-$130 oil. Technology such as horizontal drilling is being developed to help increase the percentage of original oil reservoirs, but that’s not new oil. What’s needed to turn this country around is a unified effort to locate new oil reserves. Unfortunately, Congress just doesn’t get it.
Jere Joiner
Divide, Colo.
OPEC could increase the oil supply but they are not inclined to do so when we’re not willing to do anything about our own situation. Besides, some OPEC members enjoy seeing the U.S. squirm in our present credit and economic predicament. Then, too, commodity markets bear some responsibility for price increases. However, the major problem is worldwide demand, mostly in the U.S., China and India.
Alternative energy sources like nuclear power plants, Anwar, the Canadian tar sands, our own vast oil shale and coal deposits, biofuel, ethanol, and wind and solar technology will play a role in future energy needs. However, these resources will not be readily available in the near future; because high oil prices likely are here to stay, action at home is needed to turn things around.
We must open access to lands presently off limits to development. Alaska, both coasts and federal lands in the west have conventional oil and natural gas resources that could be developed to make a significant contribution to our energy needs. We are not moving fast enough in these areas and this is the fault of Congress where California, Florida and upper East Coast “greenies” exercise far too much influence.
Pundits have suggested that capped wells are being held in reserve. Capped wells don't exist; if they did oil would have begun flowing when prices hit $120 a barrel. Some low-producing wells that went off-line for economic reasons could be brought back on profitably with $120-$130 oil. Technology such as horizontal drilling is being developed to help increase the percentage of original oil reservoirs, but that’s not new oil. What’s needed to turn this country around is a unified effort to locate new oil reserves. Unfortunately, Congress just doesn’t get it.
Jere Joiner
Divide, Colo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
