Conservative Cajun

I think the conservative cajun, a notable Louisiana blogger, has put up a pretty good representation of how I feel about attacking oil companies. Key quotes:

The federal government makes two times more money per gallon of gasoline sold than the oil companies themselves.

…The extra revenues that would be generated from H.R. 6 are supposed to go into a fund for alternative energy programs. While helping to fund research for alternative energy is a good investment, this is the wrong way to collect the funds. Why not just open up more acreage for domestic production? The federal royalties paid by increased production could easily be used for the alternative energy fund.

…We have all heard the rhetoric from the Left that President Bush and the Republicans gave huge tax breaks to “Big Oil.” But in reality, when giving tax breaks, the government doesn’t actually GIVE anything. All they are doing is actually TAKING LESS from American companies.

Posted in oil. 3 Comments »

Baker-Hamilton

David Ignatius – Baker-Hamilton Does Its Job – washingtonpost.com

Well, they’ve finally come out and stated the obvious: Iraq is a mess, one that, our behest, has created instability in the region. We have days, not months to take our heads out of the sand and change course.

Their laundry list of recommendations contains few things that are new – most of it is so common-sense that you wonder why it hasn’t been policy all along.

We already know that people on both sides are going to criticize the report as either going too far or not far enough. The question that remains to be seen is whether those that say that the MEDIA is responsible for making Iraq seem worse than it really is (the “I’ve got friends over there and they tell me things are a lot better than CNN reports” argument) will continue to willfully ignore the facts.

The first step to solving any problem is (according to AA) to admit you have one.

The thing that I was impressed with the most about this group of elder statesmen was their ability to bridge partisan divide and the desire for short-term political advantage, and come up with 79 recommendations that they unanimously supported.

If nothing else, that shows the rest of us that when serious people get together to solve a serious problem, statesmanship is still possible.

Immigrants out, offshore drilling in?

That’s what the State of Georgia decided and the Commonwealth of Virginia is debating, respectively. My jaw dropped when I heard Mark Warner supported offshore drilling for Virginia. If people of this country don’t see the writing on the wall and start getting that oil, well, there will be more exploration down home at least.

Posted at 10:07 pm by Johnny B

Posted by BP @ 04/19/2006 07:30 AM PDT
In my opinion, the Georgia thing is great news. If the States take action on thier own, the Fed can either sit by idly as it has for years, or flounder around with various and sundry versions of an amnesty bill. Either way, the states have a right to protect THEIR sovereignty.

Oil Revenue in LA continued

Don’t know how well researched this is, but an interesting story over at TheInd, about how little tax revenue LA gets from oil and gas production.

Posted at 08:40 pm by Johnny B

The great oil shakedown

The great oil shakedown continues in places like Nigeria, where they use older and more direct techniques. I don’t think Blanco is aware of violence as an option…has anyone told American senators about this?

Posted at 10:13 am by Johnny B

Oil revenue?

Kathleen Blanco recently threatened to disallow drilling unless LA gets more tax revenue from the sale of oil. As usual, she does it in a ham-handed fashion, but does she have a point? On one hand, it is a noble effort on her part to try to get money for her state. On the other hand, isn’t offshore drilling typically take place on federal property? One could ask the same question about the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, and could the federal government technically allow offshore drilling on federal property off the coast of, say, California? If the citizens of that state does not want to build a pipeline to accept the crude oil, then the government could ship it to Alaska, or simply sell it on the world market. If no citizens of that state need a well paying union job, perhaps illegal immigrants can pump oil, which might after all lower the cost of production.

It is doubtful that Blanco will actually follow through on her threat, but she does have a point, why should she beg for Washington to free up cash, rankling tax payers throughout the nation, when a steady source of taxable revenue is available right in her backyard. Of course the legislature of Washington D.C. will have none of it, as they would like to control the purse strings. For those who don’t know already, property value is pretty high in D.C. Why? Because everybody is a millionaire!

Now don’t get me wrong, my people in DC, because I know y’alls got to get your scratch, and for one I can’t blame you. But here in Columbus, we’ve got Wendy’s and Nationwide Insurance company, and the Ohio State University (unfortunately it is also a state capital and growth is generally on the back of taxpayers here too). What is the source of the DC economy? Laws and regulations, and federal taxes paying for everything. I know that companies have to pay lawyers to represent their interests, but this just proves the inherent point that the federal government is too powerful, and one source of that power is taxes or royalties from Louisiana oil. Why should royalty revenue from Louisiana oil pay for the Washington DC school system when the Vermilion parish school system needs to be rebuilt? If Louisiana has too high a royalty rate, the forty thousand or so employees who drill for that oil can let their congressman know they are worried about their jobs. As it is now, we have to beg and plead with DC to get assistance.

Posted at 06:16 pm by Johnny B

In my e-mail inbox

A letter from my dear Senator:

January 13, 2006

Dear John:

Over the past several months, a healthy debate has occurred in our country
about drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). I
appreciated knowing your views on this important issue.

As you know, after a great deal of thought, I voted against drilling in
the ANWR. I thought the risks outweighed the potential benefits. The
United States will never be petroleum independent-we simply do not have
the oil. Department of Energy (DOE) figures show that we are currently 56
percent dependent on foreign oil. The DOE estimates that the ANWR would
reach full production by the year 2020, and even then, it would only
decrease our dependence on foreign oil by about 2%.

We desperately need a comprehensive energy policy, and the Administration
should get a lot of credit for putting a comprehensive package together.
The energy bill that the Senate passed this Congress addressed important
issues, such as electricity reform, nuclear and hydroelectric plant
regulations, energy efficiency standards for buildings and appliances, new
gasoline content standards and many others. These, in particular, are
more important to the energy needs of Ohioans than drilling in Alaska.

While I oppose drilling in the ANWR, I do not believe drilling should be
restricted on all federal land. The federal government is the caretaker
of millions of acres, which undoubtedly contain oil and gas reservoirs,
and I support the President’s efforts to identify potential energy sources
on our federal lands. In less fragile ecosystems, oil and gas exploration
can coexist with the natural environment. I believe that it is our duty
to find these sources and then carefully assess the costs versus the
benefits in each case.

Again, thank you for sharing your concerns. If you have any further
questions or comments please feel free to contact me.

Very respectfully yours,

MIKE DEWINE
United States Senator