Sarah Palin: ‘They’re trying to crucify this man and rewrite history’

Sarah Palin will be on ‘Stossel’ tonight (Updated)

John Stossel tweets that Sarah Palin will be on his show tonight:

@SarahPalinUSA joins me on #STOSSEL
tonight with her reaction to the President’s
#SOTU energy plans. She says
#drillbabydrill.

10PM Eastern, 9PM Texas Time on Fox Business.

Update: Philip Klein has a preview.

- JP

75 percent of Americans in sync with Sarah on domestic energy

'Drill, baby, drill' is a winning issue for Gov. Palin
*
From the Washington Examiner's David Freddoso, some potentially very good news for Sarah Palin:

For politicians seeking a winning issue, there is still a lot of ground to be gained from the "drill, baby drill" meme, a new Rasmussen Reports poll shows:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that just 19% believe the United States does enough to develop its own gas and oil resources. Seventy-five percent (75%) do not think the country is doing enough in this area.

h/t: Tammy Bruce

Though the left has mocked Sarah Palin for making Michael Steele's "Drill, baby, drill" mantra a well-known phrase, Freddoso observes that this is one issue they are no longer winning.

More importantly, this is one of the most compelling reasons why Sarah Palin should run for president in 2012. No announced or potential presidential candidate can match Gov. Palin's experience in energy matters nor her record or of accomplishment on domestic energy exploration and production. Certainly none share the intensity of her commitment to make America energy secure and independent.

She has tirelessly advocated for opening ANWR and the National Petroleum Reserve for drilling. As Alaska's governor, she negotiated an agreement to develop a natural gas pipeline from Alaska through Canada to the Lower 48. When ExxonMobil failed to live up to its lease agreement to develop the Point Thomson field, Gov. Palin warned them to get to work or risk losing the lease, and that decisive action led to the first drilling at that location in 30 years. She developed and implemented a new oil tax plan that provided incentives for investment in capital development for producers.

Also as governor, Sarah Palin served as the 2007-2008 chairman of IOGCC, the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, an organization of 30 member states and seven associate states which promotes the conservation and efficient recovery of the nation’s oil and natural gas resources, while at the same time protecting health, safety, and the environment. Prior to her election as governor, Palin chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the state agency responsible for overseeing oil and gas drilling and production, reservoir depletion, and other operations on private and state-owned lands in the 49th state.

With 75 percent of Americans on her side on a matter as essential to America's economic health and security as this one, plus her unique qualifications and accomplishments on domestic energy, it's an issue which could fuel a considerable portion of a Sarah Palin drive to the White House.

Drill, baby drill, and run, Sarah, run!

- JP

Quote of the Day (May 14, 2011)

White House caves on off-shore oil drilling in Alaska
*
Eric Dondero at Libertarian Republican:

“Sarah Palin Big Win! over Administration...”

- JP

IBD Editors: Sarah Palin vs the '$4-A-Gallon President'

"Obama's claim that the U.S. has only 2% of the world's oil is blatantly false"
*
The editors of Investors Business Daily agree with Gov. Palin that the Obama Administration's dreams of European-style gasoline prices in the U.S. is stifling our economy, killing jobs, and keeping us dependent on unstable foreign sources of crude oil:

The former governor of an energy-rich state notes that our president as a candidate did not object to higher gasoline prices but would have preferred "a gradual adjustment." Like a 67% increase?

We recently asked if President Obama actually wanted $8-a-gallon gas, a level reached by Europeans when Steven Chu, now his secretary of energy, said in a September 2008 interview: "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe."

Notice he said "boost" and not "allow to rise, or fall, in accordance with the law of supply and demand." Of course, restricting supply is one way to "boost" gas prices, whether by designating oil-rich areas off Alaska as "critical" habitat for an abundant and growing polar bear population or by imposing a de facto moratorium on offshore drilling because one well exploded.

Sharing this view is former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. On her Facebook page Tuesday, she said the rise in gasoline prices by 67% in Obama's first two years in office was "no accident." Rather, she said, it was "accomplished through a process of what candidate Obama once called 'gradual adjustment.'"

In a 2008 interview, then-Sen. Obama complained that "we've been consuming energy as if it's infinite." When asked if gas prices, which had briefly spiked under President Bush, would help reduce demand, Obama replied: "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment." He didn't object to higher prices, only to the fact that we use too much energy.

Indeed, candidate Obama, while campaigning in Oregon, said: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK." He added: "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

Neither is drilling for more domestic energy...

[More]

- JP

Palin to Obama: Please don't rely on OPEC

Drill
*
In advance of President Obama's scheduled press briefing today about what he intends to do about the energy problem, Gov Palin submitted a request late last night via Twitter:

"Mr.Pres: pls don't tell us tomorrow we'll rely on OPEC to make up oil shortfalls;we're blessed w/rich US sources.Long term solution? Tap 'em"

- JP

High gasoline prices may boost a Palin presidential run

Sarah Palin's signature issue at the gasoline pump
*
Timing is everything, as the old saying goes, and no political issue depends on timing as much as that of energy. When prices for gasoline at the pump are high, energy climbs to the top of the electorate's list of concerns, but when prices are low, people tend not to think about it. If the price at the pump continues to climb and stays high through the summer, it will be very much on the minds of voters. And that will play to the strength of Sarah Palin's hand, as Scott Conroy recently observed at RealClearPolitics:

It would be difficult for Palin's GOP rivals, and even her Democratic critics, to deny that energy issues fall directly into the wheelhouse of the former Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commissioner who went on to lead a state where almost 90 percent of the budget is funded by oil revenue. As Tina Fey might say, Palin can see oil pipelines from her house.

During an appearance on Fox News last weekend, Palin nodded in anticipation and smiled confidently as host Jeanine Pirro lined up a question about what the government should do about rising gas prices.

Speaking with unbridled relish, Palin replied that opening the strategic oil reserves was not the solution to the problem and reverted to her old mantra that the government should "drill here and drill now" before going into a more in-depth criticism of the Obama administration's energy policies.

"Back in '08, our U.S. crude also was trading at about $100 a barrel as it is today for about six months, and that was right before our world economy imploded," Palin said. "And now here we are back again, so [Obama's] timing - his destructive timing - of locking up 97 percent of our off-shore and not allowing ANWR to be touched, not allowing domestic drilling to take place to the degree that it should, it is terrifying where he is leading us in terms of being at the mercy of foreign regimes that would seek our demise to produce energy for us."

[...]

As Palin continues to generate criticism from those who frequently suggest that she has not demonstrated a thorough understanding of the issues facing the country, the energy topic could offer a prime opportunity for her to prove them wrong.

As she continues to mull a presidential run, Palin figures to take particular note that energy issues figure to loom especially large in the nation's first voting state of Iowa.

[More]

It has not escaped Gov. Palin's attention. She tweeted Tuesday:

Obama's so wrong on energy/scary wrong on oil;AK alone w/billions bbls & trillions cu ft of nat gas.(Other states, too) http://bit.ly/hX5AzT

Her link points to this Investors.com article showing the results of its latest poll, which clearly demonstrates that Americans' attitudes about domestic drilling are very much in sync with what she has been saying for years:

With the price of gas up 39 cents at the pump in a month and heading higher amid turmoil in much of the Middle East, Americans wonder why the U.S. isn't doing more to exploit its own oil resources.

They favor drilling in territorial waters, 67%-29%, according to a new IBD/TIPP poll. That is up from 61%-30% from last May and 64%-25% when Republicans touted drilling in the 2008 election as oil topped $147 a barrel.

There's also been a solid shift toward drilling in Alaska's Arc tic National Wildlife Refuge, with support at 54%-40%. That's up from 49%-43% last year.

A solid 65%-21% favor tapping federal shale reserves in states like Colorado, Wyoming and Utah, off just slightly from May.

"Americans understand we rely heavily on oil imported from the Middle East and the recent events cause concern and uncertainties in their minds," said Raghavan Mayur, president of Technometrica Market Intelligence, which conducted the poll.

[More]

Though most Americans relate to the energy issue as an economic one, Gov. Palin has often pointed out that energy trancends the economy. It is a national security issue. Our military depends on a stable source of petroleum products to fuel jets, tanks, trucks and many of its ships. When that supply is interrupted, the military can't move. That's why our national strategic petroleum reserve exists. It's there for the military to draw from if its supply is suddenly cut off or significantly reduced. It's not there to tap every time prices get near or above the four dollar level, something Sarah Palin understands, but President Obama does not.

Energy security is one more reason why our nation sorely needs a national energy plan which draws on "all of the above" sources, but includes a serious commitment to explore and produce much more oil and natural gas domestically. Besides, we could use the jobs which would be created, addressing another key concern on the minds of the electorate.

Sarah Palin's vehicle to the White House may have just pulled up to the gasoline pump, and that has to weigh heavily on her decision to run or not to run. No other candidate for 2012 knows this issue as well as she, and it's a club she can use to beat up on an incumbent president who has done nothing to reduce energy prices or increase domestic production, so beholden is he to the green lobby. High oil prices are knocking on that door of opportunity she has spoken of, and her time to make history may be waiting on the other side.

Related - David Paul Kuhn: Could Gas Prices Sink Obama's Reelection?

- JP

Quote of the Day (February 2, 2011)

We are dependent on shaky governments for crude oil
*
Steve Markowitz at EnduringSense:

"The current Egyptian events again bring the forefront the issue of America’s dependence on oil from unstable regimes in the Middle East. While Egypt is not an oil producer, the Suez Canal is important in the supply chain for oil. In addition, the instability with other Middle Eastern countries increases the shipping risk at the chokepoint that is the Straits of Hormuz. The danger of America’s oil dependence on risky sources should have been addressed years, if not decades ago. However, politicians, mainly on the Left, banded together with radical environmentalists to hinder America’s production in coal, oil and nuclear energy... During the presidential campaign, Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin used the slogan; 'drill, baby, drill'. This should be a national rallying cry for what should be America’s most important program of this generation."

- JP

Sarah Palin: Starve the beast of terrorism by responsibly developing domestic energy

*
Sarah Palin made another common-sense argument for U.S. energy security Sunday on Facebook:

Fuel America with Terrorist-Tarred Oil Instead of Drilling Our Own, Baby?

Am I the only one who wonders what could possibly be the agenda of any politician who would thwart our drive toward energy independence? Continuing to lock up America’s domestic energy reserves, including the energy-rich Last Frontier of Alaska, only equips dangerous foreign regimes as they fund terrorist organizations to harm us and our allies. I’m going to keep speaking and writing about this in the simplest of terms until someone can provide a simple answer as to why liberal Democrats don’t understand that we have safe, warehoused onshore and shallow water reserves waiting for permission to be extracted. They either choose not to understand the geology, science, and technology behind an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy security, or they understand it, yet for whatever frightening reason choose to be lap dogs to Chavez and Ahmadinejad.

Shoot, I must have lived such a doggoned sheltered life as a normal, independent American up there in the Last Frontier, schooled with only public education and a lowly state university degree, because obviously I haven’t learned enough to dismiss common sense (a prerequisite for power in Washington these days). Help me out, friends! Help someone like me – and the majority of Americans – understand why we would ever kowtow and bow to foreign regimes that hate us, instead of doing all we can to starve the beast of terrorism in our plight for security, prosperity, and peace.

There’s an obvious common sense answer to our need for security and energy independence, but don’t hold your breath waiting for common sense to surface in Washington – it’s an endangered species there. Obviously we must responsibly develop our God-given domestic oil and gas reserves right here, right now; we must conserve energy; and we must develop renewables that are based on sound science, not snake oil and favors for political pals.

Please read the following Newsmax article (posted below) summarizing GOP efforts to push the Obama Administration to produce a plan to potentially wean us off one source of dangerous foreign oil. (Of course, I think the prodding should be even more aggressive to shake up the naïve complacency of anti-development Democrats and some deer-in-the-headlights mainstream reporters who are finally realizing they’d been buffaloed into believing any politician had all the answers.)

We must understand the imperative nature of energy security, along with America’s life and death need to secure our borders. Baby, this is why I won’t sit down and shut up about the need to drill.

- Sarah Palin

Senators Demand Answers on Venezuela’s Links to Terrorism

A dozen Republican senators have sent a letter challenging the Obama administration to explain what it knows about Venezuela’s support for terrorism and suggesting that the country be declared a “state sponsor of terrorism.”

“Hugo Chavez’s relationships with Iran and other foreign terrorist organizations continue to grow and pose a serious threat to our hemisphere,” Sen. George LeMieux of Florida, one signer of the letter, said of the Venezuelan president.

“I encourage the State Department to thoroughly evaluate Venezuela’s actions and determine if the country needs to be added to the official U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism.”

John Ensign of Nevada, who drafted the letter along with LeMieux, declared: “It’s no secret to the American people that Venezuela wishes harm to the United States. What is secret is how many more ties to terrorist organizations and state sponsors of terrorism does Venezuela need to be declared a state sponsor of terrorism.”

The letter addressed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton points to a number of concerns raised by Chavez’s Venezuela:

• Surface-to-air missiles and other weapons have reportedly been provided by Venezuela to FARC guerrillas in Colombia. An arms cache captured from FARC in 2008 included Swedish-made anti-tank rocket launchers that had been sold to Venezuela.
• Venezuela provides cross-border sanctuaries for Colombian guerrillas.
• A United Nations report last year disclosed that nearly one-third of all cocaine produced in the Andean region passes through Venezuela. The senators question how much terrorist groups such as al-Qaida profit from trafficking drugs that originate in or flow through Venezuela.
• The U.S. has frozen the assets of two Venezuelans, including one working for Chavez, for providing direct support to the terrorist group Hezbollah. The senators ask the State Department for an assessment of the activities of Hezbollah inside Venezuela.
• Chavez’s “extensive support” of the Castro regime in Cuba is calculated to amount to $1 billion a year, and Cuban advisors are involved in the intelligence and security apparatus of the Venezuelan government.
• Chavez “has repeatedly expressed support” for Iran’s covert nuclear program and announced a plan for the construction of a “nuclear village” in Venezuela with Iranian assistance. Also, Chavez has pledged to provide Iran with 20,000 barrels of gasoline per day.
• As for Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, “recent years have witnessed an increased presence in Latin America, particularly Venezuela.”
• Weekly flights connecting Iran, Syria, and Venezuela raise suspicions of “nefarious purposes” because passengers on these flights have been subject to only “cursory immigration and customs controls.”

Newsmax magazine’s May issue disclosed that Iranian security officers seal off the airport in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, two hours before Iran Air jets arrived. Those officers supervise cargo unloading with no inspection by local officials.

Iran could easily fly in highly enriched uranium that could then be carried into the U.S. from Mexico, increasing the risk of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon.

If the U.S. did declare Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism, American arms sales to the country would be prohibited, as would U.S. economic assistance, and severe restrictions would be placed on bilateral trade.

“The Obama administration’s decision to pull the trigger on Venezuela may hinge on whether the United States can afford to forfeit petroleum exports from that South American country,” Roger F. Noriega, a former assistant secretary of state and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, observes on the Institute’s journal, The American.

“Anticipating the argument that Venezuela’s oil supply is too essential to the U.S. economy to risk slapping that country with the terrorist label, the senators ask the administration to explain its ‘contingency plan’ for dealing with a ‘sudden and prolonged unavailability of Venezuelan oil exports to the United States.’”

In answer to the question, the U.S. would likely find new sources of oil on the international market — but Venezuela’s economy will be crippled by the loss of oil revenue and consumer imports, Noriega notes, adding: “Since the last years of the George W. Bush administration, U.S. diplomats have steered clear of Chavez for fear of ‘provoking’ him. Thanks to congressional oversight, we are about to confront the terrible downside of that naïve, passive policy.”

Other senators who signed the letter include John McCain of Arizona, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, and Republican Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona.

- JP

Dan Calabrese: Sarah Palin's courageous leadership on domestic drilling (Updated)

*
Dan Calabrese, writing in The North Star National, sees the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and the resulting oil spill as a good test of spine stiffness for the GOP. One Republican, he says, has passed the test, and it’s Sarah Palin, as usual, but Calabrese is not encouraged by the signs he's seeing from others in the Shy Elephant Party:

A day after pundit Charles Krauthammer declared “drill, baby, drill” to be history in light of the spill, and two days after the Obama Administration halted all domestic drilling (gee, what a surprise), Palin came out and invoked her moral authority as an Alaskan who lived through the Exxon Valdez spill.

Yes, Palin says, the spill is horrible, as was the Exxon Valdez, which was why she took steps as a regulator in Alaska to put tighter controls on the oil companies. But she still comes to the same conclusion she’s touted before: We need domestic drilling.

No matter how horrible the British Petroleum spill proves to be, it won’t change the economic reality. We are putting our economy and our national security at risk when we rely on the likes of Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to get the oil we need. And it is insane to do this when we can and should drill for oil on our own lands and in waters we control.

This drilling can be done safely and cleanly. It obviously wasn’t in the case of the BP explosion, but it can and it should.

[...]

We need more domestic drilling, including off-shore, but when the GOP was in charge, they didn’t make it happen. We needed market-oriented health care reform, but it was easier for the GOP to do little or nothing on the issue, so they left the door open for Democrats to create a socialist behemoth the first chance they got. We need to get federal spending and entitlements under control, but that’s too hard because the media and the Democrats will say you hate Grandma. So the GOP did nothing.

Real leadership is what you do when it’s right but it’s also hard. McConnell, Boehner and company have never been known for this, and now we have the latest example as to why.

Many Americans get that we need to drill domestically but in the midst of the current hysteria over the spreading oil slick, Calabrese says it takes courage to say so. While most Republicans run and hide, Gov. Palin stands her ground and speaks truth to hysteria. This, he concludes, is another reason why Sarah Palin is so admired by so many.

The left has already started trying to pin the whole Deepwater Horizon blowup on Sarah Palin, but as we noted late last night, and Dan Riehl was one of the first to point out, the drilling plan was submitted to and approved by Minerals Management Services (MMS) on Obama's watch.

But though MMS signed off on the project, it never had a plan to answer the question, What could possibly go wrong? The Portland Press Herald reported:

Hammond Eve, who did environmental impact studies of offshore drilling for the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service (MMS), said the federal agency never planned for response to an oil spill of this size. "We never imagined that it would happen because the safety measures were supposed to work and prevent it from happening," he said.

Perhaps that will serve to explain why the Obama administration dithered for eight days following the offshore explosion. To try to divert attention away from such facts about the unfolding tragedy on and off the coast of Louisiana , the left is trying to characterize the oil-contaminated area as "Lake Palin." That flies in the face of the facts. If anything, it should be called The Gulf of Obama. Legal eagle blogger John Hinderaker:

It appears clear from this record that the Obama administration 1) underestimated what was obviously a major incident with potential for environmental catastrophe, and assumed a best-case scenario--the opposite of what Ken Salazar now claims; 2) relied for too long on British Petroleum to contain the spill, without taking decisive action to protect American interests in the Gulf Coast; 3) had no real plan in place for how a major spill in the Gulf could be contained; and 4) to this day, remains obsessed with asserting that financial responsibility lies with BP, without any apparent understanding of how inadequate such liability will prove to those whose livelihoods have been devastated.

This is Obama's Katrina, and it's not Bush's fault or Sarah Palin's. BP deserves its share of the blame, but there comes a point in time when the Obama administration will have to take responsibility for its decisions and actions or lack of same. But don't bet on it doing so. With the Obamunists, it's always someone else that is to blame.

Update: Wonder of wonders, WaPo PostPartisan columnist Jonathan Capehart, a frequent Palin critic, agrees with the governor on this one:

"...on the issue of offshore drilling, Palin's Friday missive makes sense. There, I said it."

[...]

"I won't join the chorus demanding that off-shore drilling be stopped forever in the U.S. for one simple reason: Until renewable energy sources are more widely available we have no choice. We need the fuel."

Another rare display of intellectual honesty from the left. Kudos to Capehart for admitting that Sarah Palin is right

- JP

Sarah Palin: Why We Can Still Believe in Domestic Drilling

*
Sarah Palin used her Facebook Notes page Friday to respond to her critics and explain why she still supports offshore drilling in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon explosion:

Domestic Drilling: Why We Can Still Believe

We’ve all been shocked and saddened by the tragic events in the Gulf of Mexico. My heart breaks for coastal residents who are facing fears of the unknown impacts of the oil spill.

As an Alaskan, I can speak from the heart about the tragedy of an oil spill. For as long as I live, I will never forget the day the Exxon-Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef and millions of gallons of North Slope crude poured into the waters of our beautiful Prince William Sound. The spill was devastating to so many Alaskans who, like my own family, make their living on the water from our commercial fishing industry. “Heartbreaking” was the word my husband Todd, an Alaska Native and trained oil spill responder, used to describe the scene as we watched it unfold on land and water that we feel is sacred.

Alaskans understand the tragedy of an oil spill, and we’ve taken steps to do all we can to prevent another Exxon tragedy, but we are still pro-development. We still believe in responsible development, which includes drilling to extract energy sources, because we know that there is an inherent link between energy and security, energy and prosperity, and energy and freedom. Production of our own resources means security for America and opportunities for American workers. We need oil, and if we don’t drill for it here, we have to purchase it from countries that not only do not like America and can use energy purchases as a weapon against us, but also do not have the oversight that America has.

In the coming days, there will be hearings to discover the cause of the explosion and the subsequent leak. Actions will be taken to increase oversight to prevent future accidents. Government can and must play an appropriate role here. If a company was lax in its prevention practices, it must be held accountable. It is inexcusable for any oil company to not invest in preventative measures. They must be held accountable or the public will forever distrust the industry.

This was the position I took as an oil and gas regulator and as Governor of Alaska when my administration ramped up oversight of the oil industry and created a petroleum-systems-integrity office to monitor our oil and gas infrastructure for potential environmental risks. I took a lot of heat for the stand I took “against the oil industry” (which is how political adversaries labeled my actions). But we took tough action because there was proof of some improper maintenance of oil infrastructure which I believed was unacceptable. We instituted new oversight and held British Petroleum (BP) financially accountable for poor maintenance practices. We also filed a Friend-of-the-Court brief against Exxon’s interests for its decades-old responsibility to compensate Alaskans affected by the Valdez spill, and I took other actions “against” the industry which ultimately helped hold it accountable.

All responsible energy development must be accompanied by strict oversight, but even with the strictest oversight in the world, accidents still happen. No human endeavor is ever without risk – whether it’s sending a man to the moon or extracting the necessary resources to fuel our civilization. I repeat the slogan “drill here, drill now” not out of naiveté or disregard for the tragic consequences of oil spills – my family and my state and I know firsthand those consequences. How could I still believe in drilling America’s domestic supply of energy after having seen the devastation of the Exxon-Valdez spill? I continue to believe in it because increased domestic oil production will make us a more secure, prosperous, and peaceful nation.

Our hearts go out to all Americans along the coast affected by this recent tragedy, especially those who lost family members in the rig explosion, and our prayers go up for a successful recovery. May spill responders be safe.

- Sarah Palin

- JP

Sarah Palin Was Right #20: George Will on Domestic Energy Reserves

In her 2008 debate with Joe Biden, Sarah Palin argued:

"When we talk about energy, we have to consider the need to do all that we can to allow this nation to become energy independent. It’s a nonsensical position that we are in when we have domestic supplies of energy all over this great land."

Just the month before, Gov. Palin had said in her RNC acceptance speech:

"The stakes for our nation could not be higher... we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers... And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: We’ve got lots of both."

She wasn't just bragging on Alaska's natural resources, her experience as governor of an energy-producing state, or the energy expertise she acquired as an oil and gas commissioner. The United States is rich in oil and natural gas reserves; rich beyond our wildest dreams. In his most recent Townhall.com column, George Will says claims that we are running out of oil have repeatedly been made for the past ninety-five years:

"In 1914, the Bureau of Mines said U.S. oil reserves would be exhausted by 1924. In 1939, the Interior Department said the world had 13 years worth of petroleum reserves. Then a global war was fought and the postwar boom was fueled, and in 1951 Interior reported that the world had ... 13 years of reserves. In 1970, the world's proven oil reserves were an estimated 612 billion barrels. By 2006, more than 767 billion barrels had been pumped and proven reserves were 1.2 trillion barrels. In 1977, Scold in Chief Jimmy Carter predicted that mankind "could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade." Since then the world has consumed three times more oil than was then in the world's proven reserves."

But in the bold new world of the 21st century, surely we can at long last wash our hands of those messy old fossil fuels, right? Wrong. As Sarah Palin pointed out last month in an NRO opinion piece:

"We rely on petroleum for much more than just powering our vehicles: It is essential in everything from jet fuel to petrochemicals, plastics to fertilizers, pesticides to pharmaceuticals. According to the Energy Information Administration, our total domestic petroleum consumption last year was 19.5 million barrels per day (bpd). Motor gasoline and diesel fuel accounted for less than 13 million bpd of that. Meanwhile, we produced only 4.95 million bpd of domestic crude. In other words, even if we ran all our vehicles on something else (which won’t happen anytime soon), we would still have to depend on imported oil. And we’ll continue that dependence until we develop our own oil resources to their fullest extent."

Will says the demand for oil and gas is simply growing at such a rapid pace that the world is not likely to outgrow it's need for the stuff anytime soon:

"Keith O. Rattie, CEO of Questar Corporation, a natural gas and pipeline company, says that by 2050 there may be 10 billion people demanding energy -- a daunting prospect, considering that of today's 6.2 billion people, nearly 2 billion "don't even have electricity -- never flipped a light switch." Rattie says energy demand will grow 30 percent to 50 percent in the next 20 years and there are no near-term alternatives to fossil fuels."

Wind and solar power combined account for only one-sixth of 1 percent of U.S. energy consumption. Even if we were to embark on a crash program to develop renewables, and even with nuclear added to the mix, we will still need petro. But despite the fact that we've been extracting oil and gas for over a century, there's plenty more of it to be had:

"Edward L. Morse, an energy official in Carter's State Department, writes in Foreign Affairs that the world's deep-water oil and gas reserves are significantly larger than was thought just a decade ago, and high prices have spurred development of technologies -- a drilling vessel can cost $1 billion -- for extracting them."

So just how much oil and gas is still under our feet?

"Rattie says U.S. known reserves of natural gas, which are sure to become larger, exceed 100 years of supply at the current rate of consumption. BP recently announced a 'giant' oil discovery beneath the Gulf of Mexico. Yergin, writing in Foreign Policy, says "careful examination of the world's resource base ... indicates that the resource endowment of the planet is sufficient to keep up with demand for decades to come."

Significant new discoveries have been made in Louisiana (Haynesville Shale) and the Ozarks (Fayetteville Shale). And of course in Sarah Palin's Alaska, plentiful oil and gas reserves are under the North Slope and off the 49th States's shores. They are mostly conventional deposits, so no expensive new technologies are required to extract them.

All that is standing between domestic oil and gas supplies and our need for them are the environmentalists. Will say the environmental lobby will continue to say that fossil fuels are scarce resources because they believe that scarcity demands that government put its jack booted foot down (on our necks and in the way of domestic energy security) and allocate those "scarce" resources. Statism is a way of thinking which demands constant manufactured self-justification because it is a false doctrine.

Sarah Palin's argument to the environmentalists is this:

"Many of the countries we’re forced to import from have few if any environmental-protection laws, and those that do exist often go unenforced. In effect, American environmentalists are preventing responsible development here at home while supporting irresponsible development overseas."

"My home state of Alaska shows how it’s possible to be both pro-environment and pro-resource-development. Alaskans would never support anything that endangered our pristine air, clean water, and abundant wildlife (which, among other things, provides many of us with our livelihood). "

If only they would remove their fingers from inside their ear canals, stop chanting "we can't hear you" and listen, for a change.

- JP

Reaction to Sarah vs.Clueless Joe Biden on energy

Here's some reaction from around the Web to Biden v Palin: The Rematch:

Left Coast Rebel:

"I just caught Biden earlier today talking down to Sarah Palin and her 'drill baby now' mantra. In typical effete, ruling-class snob-liberal M.O., he scoffed at such a simple notion of energy independence."

Sister Toldjah:

"Sarah 2 – Biden 0."

Jim Hoft:

"It’s important to remember that the Obama-Biden energy plan is a non-energy plan. It consists of cutting off domestic production of oil and coal causing prices to skyrocket and implementing costly solar and wind programs that absolutely will not meet America’s energy demands."

Ethel Fenig:

"So you see Vice President Biden, 'drill baby drill' is reasonable, practical advice which will produce thousands of real jobs without taxing for 'stimulus' phony jobs. But apparently that answer is too complicated for the vice president."

Moonbattery:

"Under the radical neo-Marxist administration of Chairman Zero, domestic energy exploration has been halted. Leases to extract oil from Rocky Mountain shale and to explore for offshore oil have been revoked, while billions in loan guarantees have been extended to help Brazilians exploit offshore oil reserves. Why does Brazilian energy development not threaten the environment but American energy exploration does? Another question the Obamunist Cult can't give a good answer to."

VotingFemale:

"Domestic energy development reduces dependence on Foreign Oil, creates domestic jobs, drive down the cost of energy which boosts economic growth, and strengthens US national security. I mean, how hard is that to grasp?"

DaTechGuy:

"Biden speaks to a 'whopping crowd' of media but can’t draw a crowd. Palin is able to answer him via facebook to millions from her keyboard."

Public Secrets:

"Sarah Palin already mopped the floor with him once in their vice-presidential candidates debate last year, so Joe Biden should know better than to look for a rematch."

- JP

Sarah Palin: Drill

Former Governor Sarah Palin has a new op-ed cross-posted on her Facebook Notes page and at NRO, National Review Online:

Drill
Petroleum is a major part of America’s energy picture. Shall we get it here or abroad?

By Sarah Palin

Given that we’re spending billions of stimulus dollars to rebuild our highways, it makes sense to think about what we’ll be driving on them. For years to come, most of what we drive will be powered, at least in part, by diesel fuel or gasoline. To fuel that driving, we need access to oil. The less use we make of our own reserves, the more we will have to import, which leads to a number of harmful consequences. That means we need to drill here and drill now.

We rely on petroleum for much more than just powering our vehicles: It is essential in everything from jet fuel to petrochemicals, plastics to fertilizers, pesticides to pharmaceuticals. According to the Energy Information Administration, our total domestic petroleum consumption last year was 19.5 million barrels per day (bpd). Motor gasoline and diesel fuel accounted for less than 13 million bpd of that. Meanwhile, we produced only 4.95 million bpd of domestic crude. In other words, even if we ran all our vehicles on something else (which won’t happen anytime soon), we would still have to depend on imported oil. And we’ll continue that dependence until we develop our own oil resources to their fullest extent.

Those who oppose domestic drilling are motivated primarily by environmental considerations, but many of the countries we’re forced to import from have few if any environmental-protection laws, and those that do exist often go unenforced. In effect, American environmentalists are preventing responsible development here at home while supporting irresponsible development overseas.

My home state of Alaska shows how it’s possible to be both pro-environment and pro-resource-development. Alaskans would never support anything that endangered our pristine air, clean water, and abundant wildlife (which, among other things, provides many of us with our livelihood). The state’s government has made safeguarding resources a priority; when I was governor, for instance, we created a petroleum-systems-integrity office to monitor our oil and gas infrastructure for any potential environmental risks.

Alaska also shows how oil drilling is thoroughly compatible with energy conservation and renewable-energy development. Over 20 percent of Alaska’s electricity currently comes from renewable sources, and as governor I put forward a long-term plan to increase that figure to 50 percent by 2025. Alaska’s comprehensive plan identifies renewable options across the state that can help rural villages transition away from expensive diesel-generated electricity — allowing each community to choose the solution that best fits its needs. That’s important in any energy plan: Tempting as they may be to central planners, top-down, one-size-fits-all solutions are recipes for failure.

Continue reading my article for National Review by clicking here...

- JP

Sarah Palin Was Right #10: Ed Morrissey on Energy Security

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey applauds Sarah Palin for her op-ed on domestic drilling, debt and the dollar, agreeing that the former governor "once again showed the risk that the US has in relying so heavily on foreign oil when we have resources at home that could replace a significant amount of it":

"This remains a priority for our economic recovery, and Palin shrewdly seizes the opportunity to raise the issue at a timely moment. We could create tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of high-paying industrial jobs by opening the coastlines for drilling, most of which would be union labor. It would take a few years to start benefiting fully from the production, but we could be well on our way to keeping dollars at home rather than sending them abroad for our energy needs before then. It would make energy less expensive at a time when we need to reduce energy costs to stimulate the economy in a real way."

Morrissey says relatively low pump prices we are currently paying should not blind us to the fact that the need for domestic drilling is just as urgent it was last year, if not more so.

Captain Ed from Minnesota and Citizen Sarah of Alaska will get no disagreement on the need for energy security from this Texan.

- JP