NEWS TALK RADIO Our Hosts
Powered by: Townhall.com
ON AIR NOW: Janet Parshall America 2 - 4:00AM  Host: Janet Parshall

Email

Janet has been a devoted advocate of the principles and policies that strengthen the family. She is an articulate spokesperson who is experienced in defending these principles in the media and across the country.Listen now!
Sign Up
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Hugh Hewitt :: Townhall.com Columnist
Memo to the Bush Administration: If Drilling Is That Important, Act That Way
by Hugh Hewitt
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
With the decision in Belmont, CA to ban smoking in condos & apartments, do you think Houston should adopt a similar ban?



The decision by President Bush to revoke an old Executive Order prohibiting offshore drilling for oil and natural gas on the outer continental shelf was a good move, and helped contribute to the drop in oil prices that followed over the next two days.

Demand is down for oil, and any sustained drive to open up new sources of production --even those sources that will take years to tap-- impacts the futures market by increasing the probability of greater-than-expected oil supplies in the out years.

The Obama-Pelosi-Reid Don't Drill Democrats aren't budging in their opposition to seeking new oil supplies, as the electoral benefits they envision from high gas prices far outweigh their concern over the damage done to individual Americans and the U.S. economy from the oil shock.  They'd rather win the presidency and expand their majorities in the House and the Senate than bring price relief to average Americans and shore up a shaky manufacturing sector buffeted by skyrocketing energy costs.

Democrats of course say in unison "We can't drill our way out of this," but in fact we can.  More oil production means lower gas prices --it is that simple.

Democrats say it will take too long, but markets react to short and medium term developments, and a firm commitment to new supplies would immediately impact those markets.

Democrats try and throw dirt in our collective eyes, using the most inane talking point of the year about unused leases --as though Americans don't understand that not all leased land holds oil and that oil companies don't sit on proven reserves that they lose control of over time.

The recognition has broken through and is spreading that a vote for any democrat is a vote for soaring gas prices and a shrinking economy.  Add in Obama's feverish tax hike plans, and the recipe for an economic disaster is on the table to go along with Obama's incredibly risky plans to retreat from Iraq and sit down with Ahmadinejad and Chavez for "no-preconditions" talks. 

But President Bush's action is just a start.  The focus has to be maintained, and the Administration must act as though it really means what it says it believes.

I interviewed both White House Communications Director Ed Gillispie and Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne this week.  I pushed both men on the need to get stand-by leasing of the outer continental shelf under way.  Stand-by leasing would award the tracts to oil companies for set terms, conditional only on the action by Congress to remove the ban or allow it to lapse.  The bidding process, which is normally managed by the Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service, should be directed by the president to prepare a plan within 30 days on how the areas offshore would newly authorized for leasing would in fact be leased, and on how to include incentives in those leases to get the oil above water and into pipelines much more quickly than normal.  The opportunities to expedite new supplies are enormous:  Offer a lower royalty rate for oil pumped within two years of the lease date, or extend the lease term as a bonus for early delivery. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Hugh Hewitt is a law professor, broadcast journalist, and author of several books including A Mormon in the White House?: 110 Things Every American Should Know about Mitt Romney.

Be the first to read Hugh Hewitt's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Subject: Colorado Mac
It is my understanding your Colorado congressmen and senators are the ones adamantly opposed to producing the oil from shale in your state. Those reserves contain enough oil to cover 100% of the U. S. consumption for 274 years. It is expensive. Rand Corp in a 2005 study estimated the costs up to $95/bbl. Doesn’t sound so high now, does it? The production would be a boon for your state’s economy and a God send for our nation’s economy. We have been failed by each congress and it’s administration since Jimmy Carter. Will we ever elect politicians who will address our problem with some resolve?

Three Reasons to Drill, Not One
As usual, the GOP is under-performing when it comes to debating the Democrats on a critical issue.

I have yet to see, hear or read a conservative point out that the need to drill is more than just about gas prices. The Democrats can counter, correctly or incorrectly, that increased oil supplies would not significantly reduce gas pump prices. But the GOP is dropping the ball on the OTHER TWO CRITICAL REASONS for increased drilling.

First, reduced dependence on foreign oil means reduced exposure to the completely unpredictable geopolitical behavior of oil-producing countries like Iran, Russia and Venezuela. They can make oil prices spike just by SAYING something. Do we want these people in control of our economy?

Second, wouldn't it make more sense to send the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend annually on gas to American companies and employees? Why pad the pockets of those who want to see our country destroyed?

Come on, GOP, you're letting the Dems control the debate, as usual. Wake up.