Breaking AP News

Loading...

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

WA State Senator Honeyford says DRILL

"Unfortunately, the Governor and our two United States Senators appear unwilling to support this additional drilling even as their constituents pay the higher cost for fuel, food prices soar, and we see increases in prices for all products due to the impact of fuel cost on trucking."

The parade of NW Republicans in favor of drilling in the NW continues. Which should give hope to Republicans all around.

The gas prices always were laying out there dormant as a potential issue and I knew the Republicans could pick up on it. And you know what? The people are WITH us on this issue and the Democrats know it.

Here is Senator Honeyford's full statement:


“I applaud the President’s decision to lift the executive order ban on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and urge Congress to act immediately to help alleviate our nation’s energy dependence on foreign nations.

“According to experts, there are more than 18 billion barrels of oil, or approximately 10 years of current domestic supply, available in the OCS.

“New drilling technology makes environmental impacts from reaching that supply nearly a thing of the past, and tapping into our domestic sources of oil will help send a message to the OPEC oil cartel that we are serious about addressing our energy needs. This will ultimately help drive down prices.

“Unfortunately, the Governor and our two United States Senators appear unwilling to support this additional drilling even as their constituents pay the higher cost for fuel, food prices soar, and we see increases in prices for all products due to the impact of fuel cost on trucking. The average family is paying more than $800 more in gas than they were last year.

“By not supporting domestic exploration, the Democratic leadership in D.C. and Olympia are, by default, supporting the high costs of fuel and the inflation it causes.

“While the President is seeking to move things along at the federal level, I call on my colleagues in the Washington Legislature to begin taking steps to enact a responsible, environmentally-friendly energy agenda for Washington state. We need a comprehensive energy policy that will really save consumers money – not a hodge-podge of ‘feel good legislation’ or a ‘cap and tax’ system that just expands government and limits personal freedom.

“A responsible energy policy must include more refinery permits, more nuclear power, more wind and solar, recognition of hydropower as a renewable fuels source, clean coal, tidal power, and natural gas. We also need to improve the transmission capabilities throughout the Northwest.

“Other specific steps we should consider include:

· encouraging expansion of refinery capacity through, among other things, a more reasonable permitting process;
· saving consumers money on their natural gas and electric bills through a cap on the public utility tax;
· giving renewable electricity developers and investors more certainty by extending and expanding renewable electricity exemptions; and
· examining all environmental and biofuels policies to make sure they are in line with current science and still make economic sense.”

Honeyford is the Ranking Republican Member on the Washington State Senate Water, Energy and Telecommunications Committee.


Watch how in the very near future the Democrats start dealing with this issue. At first like a wild animal backed into a corner they will lash out in wild and flailing attempts to change the subject.

Then eventually they will be tamed into talking like a Republican and suggesting they are in favor of off-shore drilling when everyone knows they will be lying.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yes drilling of the west coast is going to be a REAL winner with the voters.

The amount of oil that would be recoverable will be tiny compared to overall demand.

Although deep sea oil recovery can be done in an environmentally sensitive way (ie North Sea), it is very doubtful that OR, WA, or CA are going to believe oil men to tell them how environmentally safe this is going to be.

There are plenty of holes you can poke it how this will actually effect oil prices (answer, not much).

Voters are more ready for the Government to fund alternative energy projects and provide targeted relief from high energy prices then to open up new oil exploration in areas considered to be environmental jewels.

Republicans appear to think this might be a good wedge issue, but i am pretty sure they are just signing to the choirs so far.

Now with that said i think the republicans do have a huge opportunity with Energy policy. The problem is they will have to make tradeoffs that the hardcore republicans will not accept. Such as doing something serious about Global Climate Change and putting money towards alternative energy industries. If McCain pushes these issues he will attract the political center, but will lose the hard right, and especially some of the wealthier parts of the republican coalition.

Although i think Obama is going to win this election with 300+ electoral votes. I think McCain could win. The problem i have seen so far is that he has had to turn so far to the right that he has lost many of his former supporters. I know many people who loves McCain in 2000 and appreciated how he stood up to Bush on various issues over the years. He looked like one of the few adults in the republican party. Today he is having so many problems keeping the republican coalition together that he has alienated those in the center by looking inconsistent about Tax policy, Civil rights, Environmental policy, ect.

He can still win, but with his current stratigy i think he is going to go down in flames.

p.s. It would also help if he started campaigning on weekends!!!

Anonymous said...

Ted, are you still opposed to investment in alternative energy and/or higher fuel economy standards for US auto manufacturers?

How much of our current energy crisis could have been averted if Reagan had embraced, rather than reversed, the nascent efforts of the Carter adminisration to invest in alternative energy?

Anonymous said...

anon 9:02,

Don't focus on the past. This is not helpful to the current debate.

Although i agree with you, it is better to use the conversation to advance current ideas, not focus on the mistakes of the past.

Anonymous said...

Attentional all Republicans.

PLEASE KEEP PUSHING THE DRILLING ISSUE

That should help ensure that the whole west coast is a nice dark shade of blue for the next 20 years.

I am Coyote said...

I see that one moonbat decided to come on here and have a conversation with himself... LOL

Guess what moonies? There is polling that says Americans want drilling.

Oh and just how MUCH taxpayer money should we be spending on experimental "alternatives?"

I mean that whole biofuel thing worked out so well. NOT.

Ever wonder how much oil is in ANWR? More than is in Saudi Arabia.

Yet they hiccup and the world feels it in the price of crude.

Beyond ANWR? Well it is just icing on the cake.

Oh and that whole "fuel economy standard" thing? Stupid.

I mean as if Americans couldn't figure out for themselves and the market wouldn't deal with the low mileage vehicles.

Ford and GM are shutting down plants that make trucks. Why? Because some bureaucrat in a bad suit told them to?

No. Because the market told them to.

But leave it to Democrats to not understand the market. It is not in their DNA.

yip yip

Anonymous said...

Americans in general might want oil drilling. The question is do the people of OR, WA, or CA want drilling. I am pretty sure that will be a big NO.

In a Field Poll done in California "Most said they would not favor loosening restrictions to stem the tide of rising gas prices.
Fifty-six percent of surveyed registered voters said they favored keeping the restrictions; 39 percent said they didn't."
[http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_9632439]

You are also wrong about how much oil ANWR has.

A May 2008 assessment by the EIA estimated "cumulative production of the 1002 area to be a maximum of 4.3 billion barrels from 2018 to 2030. This estimate is a best case scenario of technically recoverable oil during the area's primary production years if legislation were passed in 2008 to allow drilling."
[http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec4_11.pdf]

While Saudi Arabia has "According to British Petroleum Statistical Review of World Energy, as of 2007 Saudi Arabia reported it had 264 billion barrels of estimated oil reserves, around 21% of conventional world oil reserves."
[http://www.bp.com/multipleimagesection.do?categoryId=9017892&contentId=7033503]

In regards to Off shore drilling. "The U.S. Minerals Management Service, which runs the federal offshore leasing program, estimates that 18 billion barrels of oil are available from offshore areas that are off-limits – and more than half of that lies off California." [http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20080709-9999-1n9oil.html]

I also would like to point out that I understand markets and am a HUGE advocate of Pigovian taxation to help deal with negative externalities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou_Club

So instead of just stating things as fact "Ever wonder how much oil is in ANWR? More than is in Saudi Arabia.", i would recommend stating some sources to back of your statements.

I am Coyote said...

anon 1:43,
OK what I meant to say was that the amount of oil that we would get from ANWR would equal what we are importing from SA.

I'm sure that some folks will debate that statement but it is pretty close give or take.

But even then you STILL miss the point. Go back and reread it.

The polling that I have been around is indeed for the NW and I am NOT going to provide a link to it.

But let me say this... Don't be surprised if in the coming weeks and months you start to see even DEMOCRAT candidates talking about drilling.

Then again none of this is really of any concern to you. You are philosophically opposed to the freedom that the internal combustion engine provides. Ultimately right? I mean c'mon admit it.

So anything at all that perpetuates that version of western freedom you will be opposed to.

The fact of the matter is that there are billions of barrels of oil in US hands. Some of that oil and natural gas are in lands that will benefit Oregon and Washington.

But you and the Democrats in Washington and Oregon will have none of it. Period.

Hmmm....

I am Coyote said...

Hey as if on cue.

Now there is a Rasmussen poll that says what the other "non-publicized" polling has been saying.

Oregonians favor off-shore drilling 51-39.
http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2008/07/obama_leads_in_oregon_state_le.html#more

Washingtonians favor off-shore drilling. While 48% of voters think offshore drilling should be allowed, 41% disagree.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/washington/election_2008_washington_presidential_election

That simply substantiates what I've seen in private.

Non Oblitus said...

I'm all for alternate fuels. They will eventually be the way we power the majority of the world.

KEY WORD "EVENTUALLY".

Solar cells have been on the market for decades. Their effeciency is based on the amount of direct sunlight that is available. To set up a solar energy grid that would take enough strain from the oil demand we would have to cover the majority of the State of Nevada with mirrors. Can that change? Yes. Will it change? Most likely. Will it change soon? No.

Electric cars? They are coming. Viable? Not quite.

What I truly love tho, is how people will sit on their butts whining about "we need alternate fules" and cry and rail and flail about, but don't anything about it. It's always up to someone else to solve the problem. It's our problem, but someone else's solution.

"But I'm no scientist of engineer." Neither am I. I have, however, invested in some small alternative companies.

"Well, I don't have enough money to invest." It doesn't take much. Let's play the math game shall we? If 1,000,000 snotty nosed moonbats invested just $100 in RSOL: Nasdaq (Real Goods Solar, Inc), that would be $100,000,000 in working capital. The stock is currently trading at $6.05 a share.

Go to solarcompanies.com and find the companies that are trying to develop the technolgy. Find the ones that are publicly traded and go to sharebuilder.com to open an account and put your money where your mouth is.

You are either part of the solution or part of the problem. If you are unwilling to be part of the solution, you are simply the problem.

Anonymous said...

The stock market funding new technology? Are you freaking nuts?!

The only way new technology will be funded is with taxpayer dollars.

Just look at bio-fuels.

Anonymous said...

Non-Oblitus, your sugestions are sound, even if your assertion that anyone who has sounded the warning bells about the need for alternative energy is "just sitting on their hands" is not.

Ted, you are a poster-child for why the GOP is becoming less and less relevant, electorally speaking. Your absolute insistence on dismissing any view to your left -- which is about 90 percent of the country -- as far left; the false dilemma you set up between a total free market economy and a command economy; is isolating you from moderate, pro-business voices like myself who tend to take a non-partisan or bi-partisan approach to governing is myopic and self-defeating.

YOU, and people like yourself are well on your way to destroying the Republican Party.

Anonymous said...

anon 4:44 - I disagree. Reagan showed that Republicans can win by showing bright-color differences with Democrats. Or they can be Democrat-light or Left-ist and lose.

For example, Pres. Bush is offering a text-book case right now. His administration is busy collectivizing the nation's entire financial sector - but is he getting proper credit from the Left for crossing the aisle? Only if you call amping up the anti-Bush hatred 'credit'.

Republicans may need to refresh themselves with this rule, but we are fortunate in a way because the Left is predictable. There is always a chance to defend liberty and the American dream because the Left is always fighting to eliminate it by centralizing and collectivizing ... whatever they can get away with.

I am Coyote said...

anon 4:44,
You must be nuts. First of all you come on here and post anonymously making sweeping generalizations and expect to be taken seriously? Seriously?

What are you talking about "absolute insistence on dismissing any view to your left as far left;"?

Like what? You provide no examples just some stereotypical generalization that we are supposed to take at face value.

Yet any reader of this blog or anyone who actually KNOWS me, knows that I have on many occasions supported people who do not "absolutely" agree with me.

You sound like some wounded party player who is losing an argument someplace and are left with the "I'm taking my ball and going home" argument. Very strong that is.

As far as this thread goes I said I am not in favor of adding more regulations on the auto industry. Because they don't need to be told by the government to make vehicles that are high mileage vehicles.

And somehow YOU say that that is anathema to YOU the "pro-business" wing of the party?

That's the line? My recoiling to more regulations?

Hell I thought that that was one thing that the "pro-business" wing of the party and folks like me COULD agree on.

Unless one is not really pro-business and only plays like they are on a blog.

Or was it my ridiculing of the bio-fuels debacle? The millions of dollars taxpayers have spent subsidizing bio-fuels to the point that it has caused a food crisis world wide.

Because I am willing to say that that was a dumb move that somehow THAT makes me too extreme?

Well what about the countless others who have come out and basically admitted that that little experiment in "investing" didn't quite work out?

What about those "right wingers" in Europe who are now saying that subsidizing those fuels was a bad idea?

So now why don't you actually start debating some issues reasonably next time. Come loaded with a reasonable tone and some actual evidence as to how I am a "poster child" for why the party is becoming less and less relevant.

OK? Something beside empty bromides delivered in a condescending tone.

I'm open for debate on my positions. Anyone who actually KNOWS me knows that.

yip yip

Anonymous said...

Ted, I'm a small-business owner who has never been active in party politics. Until about 2004, I regularly donated money to local candidates, and occasionally to the state party.

This year, the only Republican I'm donating to is a former Republican, Jim Torrey.

You can count me as one of the 50,000 or more Republicans who left the party in the last couple of years thanks to the takeover of far right wing extremists like yourself, who have done nothing but chase moderate, sensible, pro-business politicians out of the party.

I am Coyote said...

anon 7:27,
I see you brought back some more of your empty accusations back here.

I offered some real responses to some of your non-real, cryptic charges upthread.

I was really hoping for a better response from you regarding that. Like an actual dialogue instead of vapid charges based on liberal talking points.

Now let's try this again shall we? Can you move yourself out of your comfort zone of simply parroting the party line and reading off of the talking points?

What "take-over" of the party in the "last couple of years?"

Over what issue?

How was that done?

You asked about more taxpayer dollars going to invest in things like bio-fuels and used my opposition to that as "extreme."

Then I explained how THAT is not an extreme position and your response? Crickets.

You do not get to level another empty accusation at me unless you deal with that issue. OK? Don't even try it.

Next you also suggested increasing regulation on automobiles to increase mileage standards. I said I was opposed to more regulation on automobiles because the free market was already figuring that out. I gave examples.

And yet you use my opposition to that as to say that I am "extreme?"

No... You are the one who is extreme. You are probably a Democrat charged with pretending you are a Republican and you are definately NOT a business Republican.

Do not come back here with any more empty charges without answering that question as well. OK? Just don't do it. It will not be tolerated.

I have tried to have a conversation with folks like you and am tired of the silly accusations of "taking over the party," or some such nonsense with no examples of just how such take-overs take place. Or over what issues.

And then to extend that silly way of thinking to me and my opinions is just... well... silly.

Anon 7:27,
You comment just above me was devoid of anything that would merit any kind of reasonable response.

If you are going to remain anonymous and level accusations then show some substance to your position or don't show up at all.

Non Oblitus said...

My assertation isn't that "people that are ringing the warning bell are sitting around whining and not doing anything."

My assertation is that the average person, the layman, that is whining about "we need to do something" is doing nothing.

They say "we need to do something" but that really mean is "YOU need to do something."

The average layman is content to sit back and watch from the sidelines and HOPE that someone else will do what is needed to make things change.

So I am simply asking the chicken littles "what are you willing to do?" "are you willing to put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is?"

Those who are working to solve the problem need help, so help them. Don't just sit and whine about it. Put up or shut up.

There was an error in this gadget

Digg

Infocious RSS raw feed - channel BNAPPOLITICS