Democrats Throwing Up Scarecrows and Bogeymen
Straw man arguments and scare tactics are no way to win an election.
“There is no military solution.”
“We can’t drill our way out of this.”
How many times have we heard these tired, toxic bromides from the Democrats? If I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard them spouted on shouting talking head shows and on the campaign trail over the past months and years, I could single-handedly fund either presidential campaign. Not that I wouldn’t have much better uses for the money.
They are both straw-man arguments, of course, one of the favorite debating tactics of those who are losing the war of words, and desperate because they lack valid arguments. They pretend that someone has made an argument that is easily knocked down, and then they knock it down, and hope that no one was paying attention to the actual argument, which is much more robust. In both cases, there is a false implication not only that their political opponents are proposing a single solution, but that the solution proposed is in fact not even a part of the “true” solution.
But while there are some situations in life to which there is a simple, single clear solution (need groceries? Go to the store), winning a war against Islamic extremism, or finding new energy supplies to free us from foreign suppliers (related to the first problem) aren’t two of them, despite the simple-mindedness of the chants.
When war opponents declare that there is no military solution, they are attempting to imply that those with whom they politically differ believe that there is not only a military solution, but that it is the sole component of the solution, and that no other solutions (e.g., diplomacy, reform of a corrupt government, etc.) need apply.
There is an additional false implication that the military will play no part of the solution — that only their solutions are useful. Hence their extremist demands for years that the troops be brought out of Iraq immediately. After all, if there is no military solution, what is the military doing there, and what harm can there be in removing it?
Similarly, when we are told that we can’t drill our way out of our current energy problems, they falsely imply that those who favor expanded domestic exploration believe that this is a panacea, and that no other measures need be taken to solve the energy shortage. But I’m aware of no proponent of looking for more sources at home who believes this.
With whom are they arguing? And even if one grants that such people might exist, the sound bite (I won’t dignify the talking point with the description “argument”) continues to fail to address the arguments of those many more who believe that it is at least part, and an important one, of the solution.
And again, note that drilling is not only not the solution in their minds, but it isn’t even a component of it. After all, even if it were only a part of the solution, how could they rationally oppose it, given the current straits of the energy market and their toll on the American consumer (and voter)? And yet they do.
Winning the war in Iraq required (note my tense) a range of tactics and strategies, some military, some diplomatic, some intelligence related, some involving aid and infrastructure. General Petraeus himself recognized that there was no solely military solution, which is why the misnamed surge was more than simply pouring in more boots on the Mesopotamian ground. It involved a major shift in tactics, including the building of new alliances among the Iraqis, providing them with the protection and confidence they needed to rid themselves of the nihilists who had been terrorizing them. To think that the general’s plan and actions had no effect on the outcome (as Senator Obama and other Democrats seem to be attempting to rewrite recent history to indicate) requires, in Senator Clinton’s words in another context, a “suspension of disbelief.”
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Rand Simberg is a recovering aerospace engineer and a consultant in space commercialization, space tourism and Internet security. He offers occasionally biting commentary about infinity and beyond at his weblog, Transterrestrial Musings.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
58 Comments
1. Broadsword:“…anti-driller’s proposed solutions — electric cars, wind power, advanced solar, geothermal – that will take many years”
Oh come on! I have it on good authority that wind powered aeroplanes and solar powered submarines are mere weeks away from the ascension of His Inflated-ness to the Throne.
Aug 5, 2008 - 3:46 am 2. TomP:The 230 million registered vehicles in the US will require oil for the next 3 decades unless the Dems can covert ‘pie-in-the sky’ into a combustible material.
Aug 5, 2008 - 5:53 am 3. CyaNeos:Renewable energy? There is no such thing. Once energy is used it’s gone for good.
First of all the surge is not a military solution it is a policing solution. Our military was not designed to be a occupying police force which it is forced to act like now. If the war is won as the author suggests that means we can bring the troops home. As for the oil have you ever heard that “necessity is the mother of invention?” By attempting to fool Americans into believing we have any significant amounts of domestic oil we are lessening the need to come up with solid solutions today. If we had begun pouring money into alternative energies starting with the gas crisis in the 1970s we would be closer to ending our reliance on oil today. By focusing on getting out the small amount of oil we have in the US we are neglecting the necessary national will to make sure that ten years down the road we are not starting at alternative energy square one.
Aug 5, 2008 - 5:58 am 4. dan:Ever since 9/11, with a Republican president and a Republican-majority House and Senate, the Democrats have intentionally followed a political strategy of simply opposing their rival party, no matter the relation between the criticism and the reality. Politics is the means and the end. This has been transparent to every clearminded person since the first salvos against American patriotism and righteous anger in the wake of the attacks, when manipulative venal scum like Susan Sontag saw fit to lecture us about our collective moral sensibilities and the US media began to ask, apologetically, “Why do they hate us?”
Now we see Obama pursuing a strategy that is the culmination of this strategy. “You know, I don’t look like those other presidents…” “They’re going to try to scare you…” “Bush and Cheney use fear to manipulate you, which you should be afraid of…” “There is no terrorist threat, the Republicans and the imperial ‘unitary executive’ want to add caveats to the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to justify their police state…” The last of which is not something he has said explicitly but which he – and Leahy, and Feingold, and Levin, and Boxer, and so on – have alluded to more or less explicitly.
Who would trust these people in power, given this shameful display of partisan doubletalk and ignorance-peddling? I am a registered Independent for precisely the reason that a political party has not only the interests of the country at stake, but also its own interests, which double interests may conflict from time to time. The Democracts – and I grew up in a Democrat household, although I had no political consciousness myself – have conducted themselves in the worst possible manner in a time of genuine uncertainty and crisis, and they should be ashamed – as should all their idiot supporters, from John Stewart to Paul Krugman to Zbigniew Brezsinski, who somehow believe they are taking part in a psychodrama of world-historical significance. What a bunch of miserable fucking fools you all are.
Aug 5, 2008 - 6:19 am 5. Moultrie:Amen…it’s time for the American people to tell those who seem to believe otherwise to stop foreclosing obvious and necessary mitigations to our foreign policy and domestic problems in the name of ideology. It’s time for the Democrats to understand that straw men are not the solution.
Aug 5, 2008 - 6:28 am 6. jerry:Don’t expect to convince the public on the simplicity of the Democrats strawman arguments. I know lots of seemingly intelligence people who are easily fooled by those simplistic arguments. Just look at CyaNeos (well I am giving his intelligence the benefit of the doubt), he tells us the amount of recoverable oil in the United States is negligible and that a massive effort on the part of Government is needed to fix the problem. He tells us we should have made the effort in the 1970s. It takes knowledge to see through the strawman but today ignorance reigns in the general population.
The Carter administration poured billions of dollars into alternative fuels that did not provide one btu of usable energy. Your typical CyaNeos type person does not know that the United States has at a minimum over 100 years of recoverable oil reserves in conventional and non-conventional source like oil shale using known and proven technologies. Given the facts the strawman will be burned down. The question is will the MSM, the information store for the American public, stock its shelves with facts or with Obama talking points.
Aug 5, 2008 - 6:51 am 7. Chuck Pelto:TO: All
RE: Strawmen and Keeping Up the Scear
Folks, the Dems will continue to do this as long as it works. And, based on my observations of the results of our vaunted American public education system, eventually it WILL work.
Why?
Because the teachers unions don’t care one wit about teaching children and young adults HOW to think. They only want to teach them WHAT to think.
The result is voters who just follow the herd mentality that gets them exercised up the most.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Aug 5, 2008 - 6:56 am 8. Anonymous:[You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic. - Robert A. Heinlein]
CyaNeos, Those are some of the dumbest arguments I’ve read in awhile. First I’m sure our military is much more relieved now they know they are a police force. In war occupation is part of it. You don’t take a hard won hill then just leave. How about France, should we have won on D-Day and said; “we won, now lets leave”? The war in Iraq is won so we need to help the Iraqi government take hold. Now they seem to be getting confidence and spreading their wings. Give peace a chance? That won’t happen if we pull out and leave them to the mercy (strange use of the word) of their neighbors. As far as drilling goes we have billions of gallons to tap into. Just think if we started 10 years ago we wouldn’t be having this conversation and if we didn’t have the supply as you claim, and we now how much of an expert you are in this field, then we would definitely know by now. Alternative energy is to far down the road to help now and yes it would have been nice if we started a few decades ago but we didn’t so we have to get it going now and that’s one thing I’m sure we all can agree on. If the democrats didn’t keep beating the republicans in the head with the “green stick” at every turn and using it to stop oil exploration, drilling and refinement, in the past 20 years we wouldn’t be in this boat now so let me just say “GOOD GOING PEOPLE” thanks for screwing us. And don’t bring up the acreage the oil companies lease now that has been explained enough. So now write back and shout me down, call me names, accuse me of working for Halliburton; tell me I don’t care about the environment or “Global warming”. Isn’t that is how you liberals work?
Aug 5, 2008 - 7:21 am 9. CyaNeos:Per Wikipedia-
Aug 5, 2008 - 7:33 am 10. rocketeer:United States proven oil reserves declined to a little less than 21 billion barrels (3.3×109 m3) in 2006 according to the Energy Information Administration[43], a 46% decline from 39 billion barrels (6.2×109 m3) in 1970. U.S. crude production peaked in 1970 at 9.6 million barrels per day (1.53×106 m3/d), and had declined 47% to 5.1 million barrels per day (810×103 m3/d) by 2006. [44] This represents about an 11 year supply of oil reserves at current rates of production. United States crude oil production has been declining since reaching a smaller secondary production peak in 1988 (caused by Alaskan production).
CyaNeos – You are guilty of the same straw-man thinking that this article is talking about. Your arguments are tired ones, they basically follow the one-dimensional thinking that most democrats seem to only be capable of. We shouldn’t do “X” because we should be doing “Y”. Just answer the simple question, why can’t we do both? There is more then one person in this country, so some people could be working on “X” while some people are working on “Y”. We can expand our domestic oil production while at the same time look for alternate fuel supplies. We can mount a “surge” in Iraq while at the same time look for that punk in Afghanistan. Start thinking out of the box.
Aug 5, 2008 - 7:58 am 11. pappy:it’s too bad b.s. isn’t energy,these politicians would all be dynamos. b-ho would be at the top of the list using his gift of talking in circles and trying to act official. i guess the truth would cramp his style, but he’s not fooling anyone, he’s a socialist and elitist with connections to all sorts of unsavory charactors with a one world agenda. now thats a real BOOGY MAN.
Aug 5, 2008 - 8:09 am 12. Michael:Hmm, CyaNeos, the amount of proven reserves and ban on exploration. Might have something to do with each other.
Aug 5, 2008 - 8:19 am 13. CyaNeos:Its funny how you guys are blaming the democrats for the oil prices yet you don’t place any blame on the American oil man president for his incompetence in his supposed field. Remember when the Iraqi war was estimated to cost $1B and that reconstruction would pay for itself with oil money? Never happened. The war did bring us Americans tremendous debt and a weakened dollar tho? What do you think happens to the price of oil when the dollar goes down thanks to this administration’s fiscal policy? Guess what the price goes up and so does the cost of the war. The American military uses 340,000 barrels a day much of that tied to the operations in Iraq. At a $120 per barrel that costs American tax payers $40,800,000 in just oil per day. Its a good thing we finally got this war figured out in 6 years and we have another 100 years to police the streets of Baghdad. I sure am glad we can fund projects to make sure average Iraqis can vote for their own corrupt tribal leaders. We might as well do the same for Iran since we are in the neighborhood. Well hey at least Bush and Cheney are making record profits in oil and defense, all the other Americans.. eh not so much, that rebate check…eh not so much.
Aug 5, 2008 - 8:21 am 14. Chuck Pelto:TO: All
RE: CyaNeos & Sources of Reliable Information
“Per Wikipedia-
United States proven oil reserves declined to a little less than 21 billion barrels (3.3×109 m3) in 2006 according to the Energy Information Administration[43]….” — CyaNeos
I guess CyaNeos has not read….…THIS!
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Aug 5, 2008 - 8:35 am 15. David W. Lincoln:[Wikipedia, the source of the Truth, for foolish people.]
When BHO demonizes McCain for being in the pocket
of Big Oil, he should watch out for accusations that he is in the pocket of the anti-human crowd
which cooked up the Kyoto Accords.
The columns who copiously imbibe the koolaid of Kyoto do not want to countenance those things which, they fear, might prove them wrong.
Now, this is cultural immaturity.
Aug 5, 2008 - 9:08 am 16. adam:What a great article. Ive been using a similar line of argumentation when trying to explain these issues to my democratic friends. Like your straw-man argument, ive been using the term “mutually exclusive” to show them that their solution is only a subset of the solution i would support.
The democrats are forced to use the straw-man method because they don’t have any substantial negatives that would apply to just the offshore oil-drilling issue, or just the surge issue.
Aug 5, 2008 - 9:58 am 17. Gringo:CyaNeos
By focusing on getting out the small amount of oil we have in the US we are neglecting the necessary national will to make sure that ten years down the road we are not starting at alternative energy square one.
I take issue with “focusing.” Find me the strawman who is claiming that domestic drilling will of itself solve the supply problem. I am an engineer working in an oil-related business.(Since I am no longer at the rig site, I consider my work oil-related.) I know of no professional in the oil field who is claiming that domestic drilling will of itself solve the supply problem. Look at Boone Pickens. There will be no one single solution to the energy supply issue that we face.
I work with analyzing oil reserves, at the well level. In oilfield speak, the US is a “mature oil province,” with no “elephants” left to discover onshore.(elephants= humongous oil fields, such as Cotton Valley East TX….North Sea, or what was recently discovered offshore Brazil. ) You are correct that there is a “small amount of oil:” ignoring shale oil, which would involve massive environmental issues. That there is only a “small amount of oil” relative to domestic consumption does not mean that drilling and exploration should be curtailed.
The high price of oil will encourage alternate solutions. Liquid fuel from coal is one. Wind energy is another. Nuclear energy is another. Etc. When you have an economy that has been based on cheap oil, it will take a while to turn it around. Further offshore drilling and exploration will help give us time in the transition. Moreover, every dollar that goes for domestic oil is one less dollar that goes to Hugo and the Wahabis. Or do you like sending money to those goons?
Alternative energy square one. While the Cape Wind project in virtuous and green-loving Massachusetts still hasn’t gotten off the ground, wind energy in Texas has increased by 300% ( factor of 4) since 2001. BTW, wind projects in Texas are located in oil and gas producing areas. Texas is the leading wind energy producer in the country. For the last 4 years my household energy has come from wind energy. How about you?
Aug 5, 2008 - 9:58 am 18. Tom Paine:CyaNeos,
1. You’ve heard of “military police”, right? And you may be vaguely aware that the core of David Petraeus’ successful counter-insurgency strategy is creating what amount to military “precinct stations” in Iraqi neighborhoods — and that “the surge” was simply in support of this strategy. In other words, the military does have a police capability.
2. Instead of blathering about “proven reserves”, you should inform yourself about world oil shale deposits, which are three times world proven reserves. And most of that oil shale is right here – in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale
Aug 5, 2008 - 10:04 am 19. Gringo:One problem people not in the oilfield have in analyzing reserves is that if the Reserves/production= X, this does not mean that reserves will run out in X years. Reserves will be added to by drilling, improved reservoir analysis, and improved recovery techniques.
Nonetheless, the Reserves/production ratio HAS gone down in the last 40 years in the US. Moreover, most oil producing countries have much higher Reserves/production ratios than the US. After all, the US is a “mature oil province.”
Aug 5, 2008 - 10:05 am 20. jerry:CyNeos:
Oil reserves are counted as proven only if they are commercially exploitable. Oil found in areas that the States or the Federal Government prohibit exploration in are not counted as proven. There could be 1 trillion barrels of oil off the California Coast but they would be counted as proven since you can’t exploit them. If the Government lifted the ban on drilling the quantity of proven conventional oil reserves would go up dramatically.
There are proven reserves of at least 800 billion barrels of oil in exploitable oil shale lands in the west. This is the minimum number. That is over a century’s consumption there could be as much as 2 trillion barrels in those lands. You can also extract liquid hydrocarbon fuels from our several centuries’ worth of coal.
One of the first things that President Bush did when he assumed office was to set up an energy commission which came up with energy plan that was stonewalled by the Democrats. They didn’t like the fact that energy, not just oil companies, were involved. This probably comes as a shock to CyNeos but Oil companies are in business to produce oil. One wonders where CyNeos believes the gasoline in his car comes from. Does he think that it just materializes from thin air?
Aug 5, 2008 - 10:07 am 21. ursa major:The Obama strategy gets more hilarious with each passing day. Imagine having to listen to and toe the mark established by the likes of NARAL, MoveOn, SEIU, Daily Kos, Huffington, Environmental Defense Fund, PETA, AARP, AFSCME, NOW, Babs Streisand, et al — well you get the idea. Obama is so confused and convoluted that even some of his staunchest drive by media enablers are having second thoughts. The bottom line, of course, is that all who dare oppose him are simply racists.
Aug 5, 2008 - 10:45 am 22. CFB:Dan, I think I love you.
Aug 5, 2008 - 10:55 am 23. Kevin:Until one alternative fuel is decided upon, the debate will never end and we will never see anything but gasoline driven vehicles on the road. The issue isn’t being able to build the cars, we can, now. The issue is the fuel network. Right now the network handles oil and none of the suppliers are going to gear up a production capability until a single fuel is chosen. Personally, I think hydrogen will be the replacement of gas. The reason I like it so much, it would require the construction of nuclear plants to produce both the gas and the electricity necessary for other producers to make hydrogen. Not to mention cut down on emissions. And the nuclear waste issue, already dealt with. Current tech allows for re-use of spent rods and for safe storage. This one-two punch would solve oil dependence on the large scale. Now we will still need oil for plastics, fertilizers, etc., but our native production should be able to completely supply those industries regardless of the proven reserves argument. Personally I side towards the higher numbers of available oil.
Aug 5, 2008 - 11:06 am 24. Eric:But all this is moot as long as the dumbocrats continue in their obstinate ways of rejecting any discussion/vote on drilling. Now I hear rumblings that the Republicans may kill any government finance bill unless drilling is discussed. The nation will finally be safe for that duration. Oh, and the Congressional law banning drilling will also be a part of that bill since it will be up for renewal. Be still my beating heart, the brouhaha is about to really get started. The key will be how the Republican PR departments handle the shutdown. If they screw the pooch like in the 90’s, we are doomed.
So continue on with the “Pollyann-ish” belief in alternative sources. They are feel good projects that don’t procude real results. Oh, and the wind issue, dead in the water. Wind is not a primary source of power, and can never be because of the inconsistencies of wind. Having been involved in hot-air ballooning, I can personally attest to the fickleness that is wind. It can be strong one moment, dead calm the next. Wind power is best seen as a supplement for short periods of heavier demand. The only real ‘alternate” source of power that can produce the massive amounts of electricity we need is nuclear. Alternate being non-oil. Then there is the subject of clean coal. But the greenies don’t like either, hell they don’t like wind either. Kills birds. So, what does that leave us????? Nowhere. Back to reading by candle light and writing letters with pen and paper. That is what Algore and his minions want for US. For them, they get to pollute and use as much energy as they wish, for they need to be more equal since they are busy telling us how to live our lives.
The only argument the dems have right is the time frame. It’ll take 10-20, heck possibly even more. But not for oil to reach market but to build an infrastructure not dependent on oil. So what about the meantime??? They are a little shaky on that one. Oh yeah, blame Bush. We will get to live on the residuals of blaming Bush. Genius.
Another straw man the Liberals love was the “we can’t deport 20 million illegals” one. I don’t recall anyone advocating mass deportations of anyone except illegals in our jails after they served their sentences. The GOP in this case was also calling for a comprehensive enforcement strategy in addition to a wall to reduce illigal immigration. That strategy now seems to be working.
And in case CyNeos missed it the GOP’s energy bill is called “All of the Above” for a reason.
Aug 5, 2008 - 11:49 am 25. Dennis:Never use wikipedia as a source. It is fraught with inaccuracies and political shenanigans from those who have an agenda.
Aug 5, 2008 - 12:09 pm 26. jerry:Almost everything that moves in this country moves with the aid of oil based products. Any alternative fuel is going to have to be developed, have distributions systems and take into consideration all of the systems that now use oil and how one replaces those systems.
The move to alternative sources will take 25 years or more if we are to maintain a decent standard of living. The idea that necessity is the mother of invention is fine for those who will not be concerned with all the messy details of getting any product to market.
I doubt that most people who want more drilling are opposed to moving to different sources of energy. One should utilize what we have as a bridge to the future. There is absolutely no reason to create hardships for large numbers of people on a dream of alternative energy when it is unnecessary.
Kevin:
It has occurred to me that the greenies, let’s call them “eco-ists”, are our moral equivalent of the radical Islamists. Both want to return to a golden pre-industrial age. The Islamicists believe it is mandated by the Koran while the eco-ists believe that only by returning to the primitive state of nature described by Rousseau can mankind find salvation. In the end both are willing to murder/starve large numbers of people to accomplish their goals.
Aug 5, 2008 - 12:13 pm 27. Charlie (Colorado):Cya, it was kind of you to present such a marvelous example of exactly the tactics Rand describes.
Aug 5, 2008 - 12:17 pm 28. Amphipolis:Each good point must be defended against ten misrepresentations. That’s the rule.
Aug 5, 2008 - 12:19 pm 29. Michael McNeil:CyaNeos sez:
Per Wikipedia-
United States proven oil reserves declined to a little less than 21 billion barrels (3.3×109 m3) in 2006 according to the Energy Information Administration[43], a 46% decline from 39 billion barrels (6.2×109 m3) in 1970. U.S. crude production peaked in 1970 at 9.6 million barrels per day (1.53×106 m3/d), and had declined 47% to 5.1 million barrels per day (810×103 m3/d) by 2006. [44] This represents about an 11 year supply of oil reserves at current rates of production. United States crude oil production has been declining since reaching a smaller secondary production peak in 1988 (caused by Alaskan production).
Others have criticized the reliance on Wikipedia; I’ll point to this:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
National News
July 22, 2008
Contact: Chris Paolino, 202-208-6461
Frank Quimby, 202-208-7291
Matt Spangler, 202-452-5130
Western Oil Shale Potential:
800 Billion Barrels of Recoverable Oil
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management today published proposed regulations to establish a commercial oil shale program that could result in the addition of up to 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from lands in the western United States.
In keeping with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the BLM is proposing regulations that would provide the critical “rules of the road” on which private investors will rely in determining whether to make future financial commitments to prospective oil shale projects.
“As Americans pay more than $4 for a gallon of gasoline and watch energy prices continue to climb higher and higher, we need to be doing more to develop our own energy here at home, through resources such as oil shale,” said Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne. “Instead, I find it ironic that we are asking countries halfway around the world to produce more for us.”
Oil shale is a fine-grained sedimentary rock containing organic matter from which oil may be produced. The regulations would provide for a thoughtful, phased approach to oil shale development on public lands in the West. Commercial development of oil shale will not begin until it is technologically viable, which is not expected for several years.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is only publishing proposed regulations at this time because the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 prohibits the agency from using FY2008 funds to prepare or publish final regulations. The President has called on Congress to remove the ban on finalizing oil shale program regulations.
Before any oil shale leases are issued, site-specific National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis would be completed on the proposed development. Once a lease is issued, the lessee will also have to obtain all required permits from state and local authorities, under their respective permitting processes, before any operations can begin.
The proposed leasing regulations incorporate provisions of the Energy Policy Act and the Mineral Leasing Act relating to: maximum oil shale lease size; maximum acreage limitations; rental; and lease diligence. The rule will also propose a range of royalty rate options, and will ask for public input on the royalty provisions. The public will have 60 days to comment on the proposed rules.
The regulations address provisions of the Energy Policy Act that establish work requirements and milestones to ensure diligent development of leases. Standard components of a BLM leasing program — including lease administration and operations — would be included, as well as additional NEPA documentation requirements for lease applicants.
In remarks last month calling on Congress to expand domestic energy production, President Bush noted the “extraordinary potential” of oil shale resources on public lands in the West. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. holds more than half of the world’s oil shale resources.
The largest known deposits of oil shale are located in a 16,000-square mile area in the Green River formation in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Shale formations in that area hold the equivalent of up to 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Federal lands comprise 72 percent of the total surface of oil shale acreage in the Green River formation.
“Oil shale is a strategically important domestic energy source that should be developed to reduce the nation’s growing dependence on oil from politically and economically unstable foreign sources,” said BLM Director James Caswell.
Throughout the process, the BLM will collaborate and consult with affected states, tribes and local governments to ensure that their interests and concerns surrounding the oil shale program continue to be addressed. For instance, the site-specific NEPA analyses would include the same opportunities for public involvement and comment that are part of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement process.
The regulations are just one of several steps designed to harness these vast energy resources. The BLM has also issued research, development and demonstration (RD&D) leases for five oil shale projects in Colorado’s Piceance Basin and one in Utah. The BLM is also preparing a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement that would amend several resource management plans to open lands for application for potential oil shale leasing in the future.
The Oil Shale Regulation on the electronic desk of the Federal Register today is at
http://federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2008-16275_PI.pdf
–www.doi.gov –
Last updated: 07-22-2008
Aug 5, 2008 - 12:20 pm 30. Andrew Garland:(end quote)
Magic Power
They Could Do The Magic If They Wanted To?
A friend in college told me about his mother and what she knew about electricity. She regarded electricity as a type of magic and was resentful that she had to pay for it. She thought that it ran everywhere through the walls of the house. The reason that there were wall sockets was so the plugs on appliances would not damage the walls when plugged in. Otherwise, you could jam the plug anywhere and get the electricity. The plugs were designed so you could be charged for electricity when you used them. She was a good person, but didn’t understand physics.
(Continued at Magic Power
Continued at http://easyopinions.blogspot.com/2008/07/magic-power.html
Aug 5, 2008 - 12:24 pm 31. Fritz J.:It is not a question of them having any brains. I’ll grant that many of the ones repeating those straw man arguments don’t understand what they are saying, but the people who came up with them know very well what they are doing and are being dishonest, which is a polite way of saying that they are flat-out lying in their efforts to gain political power. Yet those are the same people who run around crying that Bush lied, which is equally untruthful. I can only surmise that they are ashamed of themselves and are trying to paint others as they are so they will not appear so bad in comparison.
Aug 5, 2008 - 1:03 pm 32. MarkD:Those who oppose drilling should have their access to petroleum products rationed. I’m going to believe they are serious when Congress starts flying commercial and driving small hybrids. Until then, it’s just an exercise in political theater, getting the scorn it deserves from those who still think for themselves.
Anybody got a hydrogen car? How about an atomic one? A fuel cell? A solar powered one? A non-hybrid electric? Could it be that some of these technologies are not economically or technically viable? Or is it some massive conspiracy that is preventing any company from making trillions of dollars by selling me affordable transportation that doesn’t use petroleum?
Drill. Drill here. Drill now. Or wait another decade, while Lucy yanks the football away again. Fool me once, shame on you. You know the rest.
Aug 5, 2008 - 1:12 pm 33. peter jackson:If expensive fuel were such a panacea, then Europe, which has endured punishing fuel taxes for generations now, would be crawling with alternative-fueled vehicles, but they’re not. Instead they simply have a higher percentage of diesel powered vehicles and Europeans are poorer than they otherwise would be.
And if there aren’t appreciable oil reserves in the US to exploit, then why do we need laws prohibiting oil companies from drilling for these non-existent supplies? Is oil exploration so cheap or the oil companies so stupid that they will spend a dollar for a nickel’s worth of oil?
yours/
Aug 5, 2008 - 1:46 pm 34. ShawnF:peter.
I find it hard to believe that CyaNeos is an actual person and not a stooge by this publication to interest the readers into a reactionary view. That is probably a bit too idealistically paranoid to think that there is such a capability to create intelligent thought.
I am afraid that CyaNeos is an actual person who actually thinks what was written under that alias. Why would he post such an opinion so flatly in disagreement with the general tone of this group – does he not suspect he will not only be put in place but made to look ridiculous? Does he think he will be applauded for knowing so much more than Mr Simberg?
Either I must think that CyaNeos is a fantasy created by a super-organization that can control people’s thoughts by such finely tuned psychology or I must once again be faced with the reality that the number of short buses has increased once again.
Chuck Pelto – the subject of teacher’s unions and their self-interest and possible agenda frightens me deeply. Teacher’s unions are an organization that controls the teachers. It is not unfair to say that they control the selected dogma that is stuffed into the minds of each impressionable generation. Do they have an agenda? Is it likely that they are not very much aware of the financial gain that benefits them – the exclusive, rich, and powerful business end of the teaching community?
Let me be the first to point out my obvious bias towards conservative thought and suggest that my criticism of CyaNeos might simply be a byproduct of narrow mindedness. I will also add that it was the inflammatory (yet extremely well supported) book by Ann Coulter that gave me the ideas and fears of teacher’s unions.
By the way, the oil industry is quite good at creating a healthy middle class job market. I welcome any information as to a comparison of job growth and income comparing an oil approach or a research into non oil approach. If I am not mistaken, the technology for non-oil solutions is very much on the drawing board (or under it). Monies for such a solution would go to support research but would not do much to help the job market for a long time. As I just implied, it would be money spent by taxpayers in researching this indefinite solution and not money generated domestically or saved from going overseas.
Shawn F.
Aug 5, 2008 - 2:13 pm 35. rvastar:First of all the surge is not a military solution it is a policing solution. Our military was not designed to be a occupying police force which it is forced to act like now.
Thanks for perfectly illustrating the author’s point!
Take ONE aspect of something as complicated as the “surge”, and reduce the entire endeavor down to that ONE aspect. Then, because that one of aspect wouldn’t be sufficient to accomplish ALL of the goals of the surge, pronounce the entire endeavor a failure.
Typical double-speak.
If the war is won as the author suggests that means we can bring the troops home.
And if we can bring the troops home, we can simply disband the military altogether! Right?!?
See how this game works?
If we had begun pouring money into alternative energies starting with the gas crisis in the 1970s we would be closer to ending our reliance on oil today.
Really? Prove it. Prove that alternative technologies would have been more efficient by now and more cost effective.
Its funny how you guys are blaming the democrats for the oil prices yet you don’t place any blame on the American oil man president for his incompetence in his supposed field.
Well, I can certainly blame the Democrats for the fact that American dependence on foreign oil rose from about 20% of total consumption in 1970 to 70% now. It’s what happens when you don’t allow off-shore drilling…or building new refineries…or building new nuclear power plants.
Remember when the Iraqi war was estimated to cost $1B
No.
…and that reconstruction would pay for itself with oil money? Never happened.
Tell us, CYA, when was the due date for this conflict’s bills? Have the collection agents starting calling yet?
The war did bring us Americans tremendous debt and a weakened dollar tho?
So does social security…and Medicaid/Medicare…and welfare.
what’s your point?
What do you think happens to the price of oil when the dollar goes down thanks to this administration’s fiscal policy?
And what happens when the worldwide oil consumption increases 40% in 8 years, while worldwide production increases less than 10%?
The American military uses 340,000 barrels a day much of that tied to the operations in Iraq. At a $120 per barrel that costs American tax payers $40,800,000 in just oil per day.
So? Are you advocating that the US military stop using gasoline-powered vehicles to cut cost? Weird…then what good will all that extra armor on the Humvess you Lefties were screaming about a couple of years ago do?
Its a good thing we finally got this war figured out in 6 years and we have another 100 years to police the streets of Baghdad.
Yeah, who can believe it’s been SIX YEARS?
Remember, six years ago, when our troops were killing dinosaurs in Baghdad? Glad those things went extinct since then!
I sure am glad we can fund projects to make sure average Iraqis can vote for their own corrupt tribal leaders.
Yeah, screw’em! And screw all of ‘em in Africa, too!!!
We might as well do the same for Iran since we are in the neighborhood.
Just keep watching the news
Well hey at least Bush and Cheney are making record profits in oil and defense, all the other Americans.. eh not so much, that rebate check…eh not so much.
Well, at least oil and defense are tangible products that actually do something. What’s Obama selling you Leftists that’s making him the record profits he’s been pulling in? Hope-Beams and Change-Rainbows?
Aug 5, 2008 - 2:25 pm 36. Rand Simberg:If the war is won as the author suggests that means we can bring the troops home.
The Germans surrendered in 1945. The troops stayed for several decades afterward. Are you saying that the war wasn’t won in 1945?
Aug 5, 2008 - 2:53 pm 37. Chuck Pelto:TO: Charlie (Colorado)
RE: Heh…
“Cya, it was kind of you to present such a marvelous example of exactly the tactics Rand describes.” — Charlie (Colorado)
…and I thought you were one of the people ‘editing’ at Wikipedia. Or at least that’s the impression you left over on RLS; where we’re discussing censorship of “Unfortunate Truthes”.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Aug 5, 2008 - 3:00 pm 38. Chuck Pelto:P.S. ERRATA…
That should read “Inconvenient Truthes”.
Sorry. I never watched Gore’s movie. Let alone paid much attention to it.
Aug 5, 2008 - 3:14 pm 39. Chuck Pelto:TO: Rand Simberg
RE: Indeed
“The Germans surrendered in 1945. The troops stayed for several decades afterward. Are you saying that the war wasn’t won in 1945?” — Rand Simberg
The current understanding amongst my commissioned comrades-in-arms is that if it had not been for US being there these last 63 years, the Europeans would have been at each others throats at least twice by now.
We call it Pax Americana.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Aug 5, 2008 - 3:30 pm 40. Chuck Pelto:P.S. And MY understanding is that when there is no longer a presence of US there, they’ll be at each others throats again.
Aug 5, 2008 - 3:40 pm 41. kcom:“Need groceries? Go to the store.”
Sorry, we can’t shop our way out of this situation. We need to adopt alternative grocery supplies. Perhaps we can eat air.”
Aug 5, 2008 - 5:19 pm 42. Jesus warrior:Obama is a self admitted crack dealer, did not former Attorney General Janet Reno recently successfully argue that crack cocaine was the most dangerous drug in the country. Where are all the protesters that claim to be against crack in the innercity, Church leaders, parents, police, district attorneys, or is this the image of the black manto democrats. I am a black man that have sat on two juries and happen to be an universal blood donor. Obama and democrats I am drug free, deviant free, debt free, and disease free, I will take a DNA test because I am an abstainer for Christ. When will Obama take one or that matter any democrat in public office that goes for the neocons also. I can name republicans who take test on regular bases.
Aug 5, 2008 - 5:28 pm 43. David P:The Democratic Party is run like a P.T.A.
How can anyone take any of your figureheads seriously?
Aug 5, 2008 - 5:54 pm 44. Javelin:And of course, Mr Simberg and this blog would never use such strawman and scarecrow tactics. What a load of blog pap! God, I have never seen so many lame brains take themselves so seriously as here.
Aug 5, 2008 - 8:18 pm 45. George:The Democrats have done something similar since the invasion of Iraq. Every time there was a Bush policy they didn’t agree with, or wanted the public to disagree with, they simply said that Bush or the Republicans had “no plan”. They kept saying that the Bush administration had no plan for the aftermath of the invasion. Released Pentagon documents show that not to be true. Was it a poor plan? Perhaps. A poor plan is better than no plan, which is exactly why the Democrats chanted all throughout the 2004 presidential campaign that Bush had no plan. Instead of having a debate about how Bush’s plan was good/bad, they threw up a strawman and claimed there was no plan to discuss, thereby sidestepping having a debate at all.
The Democrats are now recycling this strawman strategy against McCain, saying that he has no energy plan, no plan for the economy, etc, etc.
Aug 6, 2008 - 3:39 am 46. Sandra M:I think the Republicans should run against the Democrat-controlled House and Senate with ads asking:
“Are you better off since the Democrats took control of the House and Senate two years ago?”
And then compare prices of food and fuel two years ago and now.
As to wind technology, apparently many of the Democrat politicians attending the Denver Democratic convention invested in a Colorado wind farm project which has been bogged down in difficulties and has yet to produce ANY energy at all. That’s a story I’d like to read more about.
Aug 6, 2008 - 6:55 am 47. rvastar:And of course, Mr Simberg and this blog would never use such strawman and scarecrow tactics.
Thanks for admitting that you Leftists are unprincipled liars who use strawman arguments as a diversionary tactic for fooling the public! In months of trolling, you’ve finally written something meaningful!
Congratulations, Jav!
Aug 6, 2008 - 8:33 am 48. Sandy Salt:I have to agree with the fact that if we had started on alternative fuels in the 70’s, we would be on our way to independence. Brazil is energy independent because they invested heavily in ethanol technology after the 70’s crisis. The export most of the oil they produce. They use sugar cane, but I am sure that after 30 years of research we could have a good alternative to corn, but alas we stopped trying once the price of gas came back down and our now 30 years behind the curve. You can complain all you want but the sad truth we are responsible for our current mess because we failed to plan for the future and bought all those gas guzzling cars. Was it any mystery to anyone that this crisis was coming? This should be a forum for discussion of information not slinging mud back and forth. We are all responsible for our actions and to fight back against strawman arguements with the facts not slurs. There are things that need to be done to move this country ahead and one of them is not fighting each other with half truths and lies.
Aug 6, 2008 - 10:39 am 49. Right Wing Nation » Are You A Racist?:[...] Idjits, ‘08, Wackjobs Take the quiz and find out (with a hat tip to Jeff Foxworthy). Related, there’s no there there, about the Democrats’ strawman arguments. It’s appropriate, since according to the left [...]
Aug 6, 2008 - 12:11 pm 50. Kevin:Jav,
You must not read the DailyKos or HuffingtonPost.
Aug 6, 2008 - 12:23 pm 51. WR Jonas:After hearing Obamas proposal to deal with fuel prices I think we need a new term to describe his programs. OBAMANOMICS. We could apply his rationale to all sorts of areas to bring about huge savings nationally.
Aug 6, 2008 - 1:07 pm 52. Chuck Pelto:For example we could legislate less milk in childrens cereal bowls and cause huge savings in the dairy industry and lessening the flatulence danger from cows. How about carpenters taking extra care cutting lumber and create millions of spare 2×4’s. And lets not forget making condoms 3″ shorter to create econo-rubbers. That would save millions right there, and bring about a spurt in the abortion business.
TO: WR Jonas
RE: Heh
“After hearing Obamas proposal to deal with fuel prices I think we need a new term to describe his programs. OBAMANOMICS.” — WR Jonas
Would that be the Economics equivalent of Ebonics?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Aug 6, 2008 - 2:19 pm 53. scooter:Dan, I couldn’t have said it better myself; they are all ignorant fools.
Aug 6, 2008 - 6:28 pm 54. M. Simon:CyaNeos,
Proven reserves depend on price. What was the price in 2006?
I believe the report cites the price assumptions it was made under. Could you quote it for us?
Aug 7, 2008 - 1:16 am 55. M. Simon:CyaNeos is dumber than Paris Hilton.
Aug 7, 2008 - 1:20 am 56. M. Simon:When you look at the greenies agenda what is at the core. Too many people not enough land.
I’m told there was a political movement in the 30s with a similar agenda. They were looking for Lebensraum.
Aug 7, 2008 - 1:29 am 57. M. Simon:Brazil is energy independent because they invested heavily in ethanol technology after the 70’s crisis.
Well no. They are on their way to energy independence because they drilled and are drilling for oil. Found some too. Ethanol is a supplement not a substitute. At this time.
Aug 7, 2008 - 1:32 am 58. larry z:Thank you Dan, you said it so well. Aug 5 2008-6:19 am
Aug 7, 2008 - 7:47 pm