Oil Drilling

I have a few questions for Congress:

1) Why don't we drill where there is oil? It seems to me that setting artificial and arbitrary boundaries limits the effectiveness for obtaining the oil thus increasing the cost of extraction and delivery. For instance, if there is a large oil source that is out of bounds, but smaller ones that are in bounds, it would take more oil rigs to do the extraction, as well as having to lay down that much more piping to get it to shore. The more oil rigs there are, the more potential risk to the environment (this makes no sense in the world of loony liberal logic).

This arbitrary restriction is like saying that we can't build a wind farm in the windiest places in America because it would wreck someone's view, so build wind farms where the wind isn't as good or consistent.

2) Why is this even a Federal issue at all? Each state should govern what happens within their property. Granted, it can get dicey when dealing with state boundaries off-shore, but I think an easy solution can be reached: just draw a line from the state boundary due east (or due west for left coast states). Easy.

Once the boundaries have been drawn, each state can decide what to do with their oil reserves, with the Federal Government acting as a customer. Each state can decide how to lease the land to the oil companies, and each state can decide how to divvy up any royalties paid to the residents of that state. This is basically the Alaskan model set up by Governor Palin. If a state doesn't want to have any drilling, that is their prerogative. When that states residents sees their neighboring states' residents getting tax breaks or reduced prices at the pumps, I'm sure they will put pressure on their state's government to change their minds.

We know the answers to these questions. It is because the Federal Government has grabbed too much power over the states and will not let go, even though what they are doing is constitutionally questionable. We also know that Liberals are more interested in control over our daily lives. I know this is a bold statement, but it is born out by the fact that they do not want us to have money in our pockets by keeping tax rates and energy costs high... and money = freedom, thus less money = less freedom. To a liberal, competition is verboten unless they can control it, thus they do not want states to compete for energy solutions.

Remember, the energy platform of Liberals is BANANAs -- Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.

Sue Opec?

Thomas Evans writes in the New York Times that suing OPEC would be a good idea. the idea is that OPEC has broken the US anti-trust laws and therefore can and should be sued.

THE president of the United States has the power to attack, and perhaps destroy, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, the illegal cartel that has driven the price of oil over $130 per barrel. This can be accomplished without invasion or bombing. No special legislation is needed. The president need simply allow the states to seek relief in the Supreme Court under our antitrust laws.

ooookaaay... Lets go with this. Let's sue them. After all, it must be a good idea to bite the hand that supplies us with the majority of our oil. And win or lose this lawsuit, we will succeed.... succeed in pissing off the oil producers so much so that the global oil prices will be reduced. How? Because when America's share of the oil is redistributed to the other countries that have NOT pissed them off, there then will be ample supply for everyone else, just not Americans.

Let me give Mr. Evans an analogy, I will sue Tavern on the Green because their prices are too much for me to afford. During my lawsuit, I get a bonus and now want to take my significant other to the best restaurant in the city, so we go to Tavern on the Green who recognizes me as the jerk who is suing them. Should I expect good service? Should I expect any service at all?

Bottom line, suing OPEC will not create one more drop of oil. It will not reduce the price of gas. It will not solve our energy problem. In fact, it will do just the opposite. It will decrease our supply of oil because OPEC doesn't have to sell oil to us. Thus, it will drastically increase the price of gas and further exacerbate the problem.

On so many levels, suing OPEC would be extremely stupid. But for loony liberal logic, I guess it makes sense.

Edwards was for it before....

John Edwards said in the debate last night that although he voted for using Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste storage facility, he now does not support it. His reasoning? ...'because there is new technology'.

So, because there is new technology that may reduce the amount of waste that needs disposing, Edwards is against it???

Argonne’s spent-fuel recycling may reduce nuclear waste storage shortage.

Argonne’s new approach to recycling spent fuel from commercial nuclear reactors could help solve an expected international shortage of repository space for disposing of nuclear wastes.

In a single step, commercial fuel, which is a ceramic, can be converted to a metallic form for processing with Argonne’s pyroprocessing technology. This technology can greatly reduce the amount of waste that needs disposal in a repository.

To someone in the world of loony liberal logic this makes sense.