E!!

 If you have not already visited Porter County Politics blog and viewed their photo and graphics essay on ANWR, you really should. 

The page includes graphics of ANWR’s location and size, photos the Lefties use to depict what ANWR supposedly looks like, photos of the coastal plain area where the drill rigs would actually go, some Google Earth screen shots, and local wildlife hanging out quite happily in Prudhoe Bay.

If this doesn’t convince you that we should drill up there, I don’t know what would.

Dontgomovement.com has a “Caption It” graphic challenge up today.  Check it out and give it your best shot!

There’s one in every crowd.  Or in this case, five…Republicans, that is, who are muddying the waters of the clearest issue facing the GOP this fall:  energy and offshore drilling.  In response to voter discontent over high gas prices and polling near 80% in favor of offshore drilling, the majority of GOP has (wisely) gone after the Dem anti-drillers in the House.  Enthusiasm for the cause has given new life to conservative candidates who were losing oxygen in tight races.

Enter Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Thune (R-SD), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Bob Corker (R-TN) and John Isakson (R-GA) who, along with five Senate Democrats, have announced that their ”Gang of 10″ wants a “sweeping” and “bipartisan” energy plan to break the ”stalemate.”  Sounds good, right? 

Not really.  The bill says new production on offshore federal lands would be left to the state legislatures, and then in only four coastal states. The regulatory hoops and hurdles are huge.  The bill prohibits drilling within 50 miles of the coast — keeping some of our most potentially productive areas closed.  ANWR would still be  a no-go. AND the plan contains $84 billion in tax credits, subsidies and handouts for alternative fuels and renewables…to be paid for (drum roll) by raising taxes on oil companies!

Boys, we’ve been over this umpteen times:  we need to open up all lands in all coastal states, keep the red tape to a minimum, drill wherever the oil is, tap ANWR, and get it straight that raising taxes on oil companies means raising the price of gas for consumers, because Big Oil will just pass the hikes down to the man at the pump.

These five Republicans need to re-think their agenda and quick, before November voters hit the ballot booths.  If you wish to express your thoughts and feelings to any of the senators, here are links to their contact pages:

Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
John Thune (R-S.D.)
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
Johnny Isakson (R-Ga)
Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)

When gas prices fell below $4.00 a gallon, did anyone else feel a fleeting moment of happiness, quickly followed by this thought:  ”Hey, how is it that I feel GOOD about paying $3.85 a gallon for gas?!” 

The fact is, we’ve been gouged into thinking that anything under $4.00 a gallon is good.  To bring yourself back to reality, see this graphic.  To do something about it, go here.

AFF is on Reid’s case again, this time via the radio airwaves in Nevada.  Here’s part of the transcript:

How’s Harry Reid using his position as Majority Leader to help lower gas prices?  Reid and Congress just took a five week vacation – instead of working to lower gas prices. Congress found time to pass National Apple Month, but Reid continues to block votes to explore for energy in America.

America has huge energy reserves, but Congress has placed up to 85 percent of them off-limits. Reid repeatedly blocks efforts to lift the moratorium on safe exploration off our coasts. Reid opposes exploring a tiny portion of Alaska – less land than the Las Vegas airport – and he’s against developing our massive oil shale reserves.

Call Harry Reid: 702-388-5020. Tell him his vacation should end and the Senate should vote on S. 3202.”

Hat Tip:  PolitickerNV

!!

Did anyone else feel the urge to choke the living daylights out of Chuck Schumer this week?  If not, you must have missed the Senate floor speech in which he re-opined the tired line that if only the Saudis would produce “half a million barrels more oil a day, the price [of oil] would come down a very significant amount.” 

Why does this statement make my blood pressure rise and my fingers twitch?

Because the tiny impact area within ANWR – a size ratio equivalent to a dime on a 4 x 8’ table – is projected to produce ONE MILLION barrels a day, every day, if only we would drill.  And because Schumer’s (true) statement that a greater immediate supply would reduce prices falls short of saying what is also true:  that even the ANTICIPATION of a greater FUTURE supply would decrease prices in the Now.

Schumer’s other infuriating comment – that more drilling would “stop the speculation that keeps driving up the price of oil” – also missed the proverbial mark.  Speculators wouldn’t “stop” if the Saudis drilled more, because speculation in free markets never stops.

Instead, speculators (also known as investors, also known as buyers and sellers, also known as people trying to earn money for their families and futures) would anticipate the increased oil supply, begin to sell for less, continue to drop prices as volume increased, and thus reverse the current market trend of charging a per barrel premium for what is currently a too-scarce commodity. 

Perhaps  “speculation” would then stop being a dirty word and be seen as what it really is:  the natural response of the market to the forces of supply and demand.  

For those not convinced that these tenets of ECON 101 are true, please note that we’ve already seen the evidence.  As Larry Kudlow reported the other day on NRO, oil prices dropped $9 per barrel the day after the offshore drilling moratorium was lifted by the president.  This is no coincidence.  It is case-and-point and perfectly illustrates what speculation really IS – not a crime against humanity, but the market doing what markets tend to do:  try to anticipate the future and adjust.

It is maddening that the same people who want to spend billions on economy-choking “climate change” measures that might (MIGHT!) reduce temperatures by one quarter degree over the next one-half century cannot see the wisdom of opening a tiny piece of ANWR in return for a sure thing over the next one to ten years.