Drill Here? Why Now?

It's well past the time for the Democrats and Republicans to grow a spine and win back our respect. They can be much more persuasive with honesty, rather than deception. The offshore drilling ban has been around for decades. High gas prices have not. A ban on offshore drilling is not a significant explanation for high gas prices.
The top reasons for high gas prices:

1. Lack of competition translates into paying more at the pump.(Exxon merges with Mobil, ChevronTexaco, BPArco, etc )

2. Were the diplomatic skills of this administration up to par, oil prices would be far more stable. Invading Iraq has only brought instability. Angering Russia by placing our military and our missiles at their doorstep only brings more instability.

3. If the dollar was as strong today as it was when Bush took office, $140 would fetch closer to 2 barrels of oil.

4. CAFE standards are too weak. Future technology is promising, but fuel efficiency could double using old technology.

It seems like our President wants high oil prices. But that would make him an oil man...inconceivable!

WE NEED ATTACK DOGS BRAVE ENOUGH TO STAND UP TO BIG OIL! Instead we get politicians too eager to roll over. Send a message to congress and the administration that we're on to their game. We know the real reasons for high gas prices.

"Expect to hear a continuing chorus of 'Drill here, drill now' in Minneapolis this week."

Or even in Saint Paul, where the convention was held.

The Democratic position that adding to supply will not affect price is counter-intuitive and only reinforces doubts about Democrats and economics. Even worse is opposing off-shore drilling because of the years needed to bring new supplies to market. That's like opposing long years of education or long years of saving for retirement because the benefits lie too far in the future.

The case against off-shore drilling is not rooted in economics. Democrats should abandon their badly thought-out arguments about price and supply and return to their honestly held green opposition.

Does the Democratic leadership under Barack Obama expect current electric power plants to provide all the huge electricity requirements to recharge and power all the new hybrid and electric cars that will be coming on line. There will have to be new power plants built and these must be nuclear plants. The new sources of additional electricity to charge up all these cars will have to come from nuclear energy. Why is there such an ingrained irrational fear about nuclear energy and waste disposal among some Americans especially the Democratic leadership under the direction of Barack Obama. Importantly also why is it somehow okay for hundreds of thousands of Navy sailors to have served for nearly thirty-five years aboard nuclear power American aircraft carriers and nuclear powered submarines and air force personnel to handle nuclear bombs but Democratic leadership under Barack Obama will not consider to even remotely assume any risks involved with nuclear power. Is it okay for our servicemen to be exposed to alleged risks but not the Democratic leadership who oppose nuclear power. This irrational fear is particular evident with the Democrats acceptance of risks that are associated with other aspects of modern American living. Forty thousand people die every year in the United States in auto accidents but there is no outcry to ban all automobiles in the United States. Bridges have collapsed recently in Minnesota and tunnels ceilings in Boston have fallen but there is no consensus on eliminating bridges or tunnels. There have been airplane crashes that have also involved injuries on the ground but there is no outcry to ban air travel. There have been repeated rail and ship accidents but no outcry to ban railroads or ship travel. The irrational fear involving nuclear power and waste disposal has no justification. American people undergo multiple medical and dental xrays and CT scans yearly and have no fear. Patients with cancer including Senator Ted Kennedy undergo treatment with chemotherapy and radiation treatments without fear of overexposure to radiation. TSA airport screeners and medical staff work daily around xray equipment, fluoroscopes, and CT machines and do not experience adverse health consequences as a result of their work exposure. There were no documented adverse health events associated with the Three Mile Island release of minor radiation in the 1970s and no payments for health losses were ever made involving lawsuits related to that accident. The containment vessel held at Three Mile Island. In light of most Americans acceptance of risks associated with automobiles, trains, planes, and ships, the fear on the part of the Democratic leadership of nuclear power can not be viewed as rational. John McCain's proposals to build 45 new nuclear power plants along with his other energy proposals on conservation and renewable energy will help America achieve relative energy independence in the near term and long term.

Under Nixon and Ford, the United States built 100 nuclear power plants and American owned Westinghouse was the world leader in nuclear plant construction. In the last thirty years there has not been a single new nuclear power plant built in the United States. Today John McCain calls for the rapid expansion of forty-five new nuclear power plants. Barack Obama and some of the Democratic leadership want to study the issue for another thirty years.

Look folks do the simple math. Our current 108 nuclear power produce 20 twenty percent of our electric power as opposed to the 80 percent that is produced in France. If 108 nuclear power plants can produce twenty percent of our electricity power than 500 nuclear power plants can produce 100 percent of our electricity needs without a single pound of greenhouse gas emissions. Naturally we are not going to tear down hydroelectric dams and geothermal plants and wind production of electricity. So we will not need 500 nuclear power plants but if we could only double the number of plants we would be on our way to relative energy independence. John McCain???s proposal for rapid construction of 45 nuclear power plants accompanied by increased offshore drilling, investment in solar energy and renewable energy and energy conservation technologies will help us attain relative energy independence both over the short-term and longterm. Instead of studying the issue for another 30 years John McCain wants to do something now.

Democrats talk at the Denver convention about creating and keeping American jobs. Ironically the building that housed the largest research and development division of Arco Oil Company in Texas was sold by British Petroleum to Perot Systems and now serves as its headquarters. Perot Systems was founded by Ross Perot who previously created EDS Electronic Data Systems and who most importantly has been credited with throwing the 1992 Presidential election to Bill Clinton by drawing off many independent voters who would have voted Republican for George Bush senior. Perot Systems derives a significant amount of its business from state and federal contracts. A building that used to house American engineers, geologists, scientists, logistics people and ordinary employees who worked for an American owned oil company that strived to fill the gas tank for the average American now houses a company that focuses on giving computer support on state and the federal government social service contracts. This is the Democratic Party version of a success story. Outsourced government work under Bill Clinton replaces a former American owned world admired jewell of the oil industry that had provided gas for the American gas tank and many good American jobs for many years. So if you need reasonably price gas for your car, contact Bill Clinton and Perot Systems and ask them to give you a gallon of gas. This is the Democratic version of a success story, outsourced government work replacing a real American owned company that produced a real needed product at a reasonable price for the average American household.

Sarah Palin is a wonderful pick for vice President. Both John McCain and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin realize that the Democrats under the leadership of Barack Obama want to effectively give away in trust our offshore exclusive economic zone by standing in the way of any current offshore development. Under the 1982 United Nations Law of the Seas Convention the US has an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles and mineral seabed rights up to 350 nautical miles extending along the Continental shelf. A nautical mile is 6080 feet so our exclusive economic zone extends about 240 miles and mineral seabed rights extend 420 miles. The US has the world's largest offshore exclusive economic zone totaling 4.4 million square miles. In comparison, the total land area of the United States is only 3.4 million square miles. On the East coast alone, if you drive from Key West Florida to Bangor Maine it is 2000 miles. Multiply the 2000 miles by mineral seabed rights extending out 420 miles results in a total of 840,000 square miles of ocean acreage. Because we have the world's largest offshore coastline which is twenty-eight percent greater than our land area, it only makes simple common sense that we exploit our offshore resources to achieve our energy independence.

Democratic Party leadership disdain for energy production by US companies is evident with the current ownership of former US energy companies. Is it any surprise that the jewell Arco Oil Company which owned 80 percent of our Alaska Oil Reserves was bought out by British Petroleum Corporation at the end of the second administration of Bill Clinton due to the hostile Democratic attitude toward energy companies. Under the proper business environment and with the support of both parties, Arco Oil Company should have taken over British Petroleum instead of British Petroleum taking over Arco Oil Company. Look at Apple Computer and Microsoft. Their success in the computer world have made them bullet proof to corporate takeovers. It is no accident that the largest US builder of nuclear power plants, Westinghouse Nuclear Power Construction Division was bought out by Toshiba Corporation of Japan. While 80 percent of France electricity is generated by nuclear power, only twenty percent in the US is generated due to the successful efforts of Democratic party to kill the US nuclear power industry. Significantly, nuclear power is not considered a mainstay of Democratic plans to address our energy crisis. There is also a worldwide shortage and backlog of orders for oil drilling platforms and oil drilling ships but US shipyards are not building these ships. Only one percent of the world's commercial ships are built in US shipyards. Hold your breath for the Democratic outcry and push for government help to US ship builders to build oil drilling ships in the US.

John McCain picked Governor Sarah Palin because he intends to follow through and make his Project Lexington for United States energy independence the dominant issue in this campaign. Governor Sarah Palin is a strong supporter of increased offshore drilling and she knows that Alaska has an offshore coastline greater than the rest of the country combined and is also comes in second among the states in oil production. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and John McCain understand that Obama and the Democrats would never consider government loan guarantees or tax breaks for a sure thing that will produce energy for the American gas tank. In fact Democrats are trying to put together a so-called windfall profits tax which will have the effect of discouraging future investment in the United States oil industry. John McCain also knows that Governor Sarah Palin family situation also illustrates that longterm Democratic leadership hostility and policies toward United States owned energy companies have caused our current energy crisis. Her husband who works for British Petroleum should be working for the former American owned Arco Oil Company. Arco Oil Company developed and explored the Alaska North Slope and formerly owned eighty percent of our proven Alaskan reserves. With its substantial oil reserves Arco Oil Company should have bought British Petroleum instead of British Petroleum buying out Arco Oil Company during the second Bill Clinton administration. With the right business environment and support from both political parties in the United States, Arco Oil Company might have been more successful and been able to buy out British Petroleum instead of British Petroleum buying out Arco Oil Company.

Look at Apple Computer and Microsoft. Their success in the computer world have made them bullet proof to corporate takeovers. Longterm Democratic hostility and opposition to offshore drilling and periodic talk of windfall profits taxes contributed to the takeover of Arco Oil Company.

It's a really sad statement when Big Oil has reaped recording breaking profits they cannot even come up with any sensible, or viable option. Our dependency on Oil is sickening, period! If there was a major war in the middle east with Iran , our economy will sink quicker that an Oil tanker hit by a tomahawk missile. So it only goes to show the rightwing put Big Oil profits first before saving the our country and the American dream .dream. slo

I suppose it makes sense for sex-deprived evangelists to want to rape mother earth, but somehow they've sold the idea to much of America, which I cannot understand.

comparing a bad policy to a worse policy. i think the reason is most people are incompetant