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

Gov. Palin is on Newt Gingrich's list

The final caller in Wednesday night's Faith & Free Coalition Tele-Town Hall asked Newt Gingrich if he would consider choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate:

"She is certainly one of the people you would look at. I am a great admirer of hers and she was a remarkable reform governor of Alaska, she’s somebody who I think brings a great deal to the possibility of helping in government and that would be one of the possibilities."

"There are also some very important Cabinet positions that she could fill very, very well. I can’t imagine anybody who would do a better job of driving us to an energy solution than Gov. Palin, for example. Tell her that she would certainly be on the list of one of the people we would consider."

Though some among the Paliniste continue to harbor an irrational hatred of the former Speaker, of all the announced GOP presidential candidates, he has been the most supportive of her. And, unlike some of the Janie-come-lately candidates, his appreciation of Gov. Palin is not a conveniently recent phenomenon, as this clip from the 2008 RNC Convention attests:


- JP

CFP: Palin Will Fight for Energy and Against Crony Capitalism

A candidate must embrace domestic energy and fight crony capitalism to win her endorsement.
*
Claude Sandroff, in a CFP op-ed, laments Sarah Palin's decision not to run in 2012 and predicts the GOP will nominate a presidential candidate "less conservative than we had hoped."

But Palin made it clear in her interview with Mark Levin that she would work hard to elect conservative candidates at every level of government. She framed two key themes that will animate her fight as a political outsider as she works with republicans (not against them as a 3rd party spoiler) to prevent Obama’s reelection: energy and crony capitalism. Hardly a syllable about these issues has been uttered by the current candidates but now with Palin’s help they will get the attention they deserve. Her endorsement is highly coveted and to earn it a candidate will have to embrace these two subjects convincingly.

Her unapologetic and knowledgeable advocacy for the development of American-sourced energy has been a Palin trademark for much of her recent career. But her recognition of the level of corruption achieved through Obama’s brand of crony capitalism and its fundamental immorality was a brilliant insight. Those candidates with careers defined outside the boundaries of Washington, DC, like Herman Cain and Mitt Romney, should use the charge of cronyism like a bludgeon against Obama’s hope and change mirage until it completely deflates and disappears.

In Indianola, Iowa last month, in what was her best speech since the 2008 convention, Palin started to focus on her crusade against the “corporate crony capitalism” of Obama with a fervor equal to her discussions about the need to embrace oil and gas exploration.

[...]

Palin remarked confidently and seemingly without regret that she decided not to run because family comes first. What Palin might have really meant is that she decided not to run because family safety comes first. Out of Obama and the radical left there has oozed a form of derangement and hatred for populist figures on the right that must be truly frightening for the Palin family to behold. Obama’s goons become more unhinged and threatening every day whether they represent the union movement or appear in the form of pathetic, incoherent, spoiled middle-class street thugs defacing the sidewalks of lower Manhattan.

So by declining to compete for the presidential bid at least we know that Sarah Palin and her family will be safe, or at least safer.

[More]

Sandroff expresses his desire to see Gov. Palin appointed to a cabinet position where she can reverse the disastrous energy policies (or lack of same) of present and past administrations if a Republican with some common sense wins the White House in 2012. But even if that doesn't come to pass, we agree with the writer that Sarah Palin's speech at the RNC in Tampa next August will rock the house. It will also serve as a sobering reminder of what could have been.

- JP

Gov. Palin: Eliminate All Energy Subsidies

"Bottom line, we can't afford it."
*
In response to a reporter's question, Sarah Palin stated Tuesday that she is in favor of eliminating all energy subsidies, not just federal support of ethanol, a key issue for Iowa and other farm states of the American Midwest, especially when viewed in the context of the approaching presidential primaries. Scott Conroy has the story at RealClearPolitics:

"I think that all of our energy subsidies need to be re-looked at today and eliminated," Palin told RCP during a quick stop at a coffee shop in this picturesque town tucked into the south-central Pennsylvania countryside. "And we need to make sure that we're investing and allowing our businesses to invest in reliable energy products right now that aren't going to necessitate subsidies because, bottom line, we can't afford it."

The Palin position goes one step further than that of former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty who has spoken out against federal ethanol subsidies and the polar opposite of the position taken by former Massachusetts Gov Mitt Romney, who said last week that he supports ethanol subsidies:

But Palin differs, saying, "We've got to allow the free market to dictate what's most efficient and economical for our nation's economy. No, at this time, our country can't afford the subsidies. Before, though, we even start arguing about some of these domestic subsidies that need to be eliminated -- should be -- we need to look at ending subsidies and loans to foreign countries and their energy production that we're relying on, like Brazil."

[More]

If Gov. Palin runs for president, energy matters will likely be her signature issues. she would be able to campaign on her record as governor of Alaska, where she restructured oil taxes and initiated a major natural gas pipeline project.

- JP

Video: Sarah Palin Blasts Obama's Energy Policies

"President Obama... doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to energy"
*
Gov. Palin fielded questions from Brett Baier about energy, the debt ceiling, the GOP's prospective presidential candidates and the 2012 election on a special two-hour edition of "Special Report" Friday:


- JP

Whittington: Barack Obama, Sarah Palin Argue Over Energy Policy

Palin has an attack point against Obama that will be hard for him to defend against
*
In his speech this week on energy policy, President Obama made a point of going "off-teleprompter" to ridicule Sarah Palin for the "drill, baby, drill" slogan that was actually coined by Michael Steele at the 2008 RNC Convention, but used to great effect by Gov. Palin during the campaign that year and afterwards. In response to Obama's speech, she went on Facebook to challenge many of his claims. Instead of expediting new drilling permits, for example, she pointed out that his administration has approved few permits since it imposed a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and a de facto moratorium on drilling in the Arctic, has proposed a 2012 budget that would do away with some key oil and natural gas production tax incentives, and has established regulatory policies that are anything but encouraging to oil and gas development.

If the pump price of gasoline continues at or near the four-dollar level now that election fever is beginning to break out, Yahoo! contributor Mark Whittington predicts energy policy will become a key campaign issue for 2012, one on which Gov. Palin will have the advantage in the area of public debate:

The tit for tat argument over energy policy might be a hint of things to come for the 2012 election, should Palin decide to run. Palin knows quite a bit about energy policy, stemming from her days as an energy regulator then governor of Alaska. Furthermore, she has linked energy policy with economic growth and national security in what amounts to a Palin Doctrine.

Palin further provides a critique of what passes for Obama's energy policy that amounts to an accusation that he is manipulating oil and gas prices to make them artificially high in order to make his favored alternative energy technology more attractive.

Palin thus has an attack point against Obama that will be hard for the president to defend against. Despite his denials, he has locked up quite a bit of American's oil and gas resources, resulting in greater dependency on foreign oil and higher oil and gas prices. Obama can dispute this all he wants, but Palin will be able to ask people to either believe the president or their lying eyes.

If Palin does decide to run for president, she will have a substantial argument for electing her beside the fact that she is not Obama. She will be able to promise to unlock domestic energy reserves, sparking new domestic energy production, creating tens of thousands of jobs and, perhaps, bring the country out of the economic malaise that has featured throughout the Obama presidency.

[More]

For Sarah Palin supporters, the 2012 debate over energy policy can't come soon enough. That's just one reason why the left will be employing the politics of mass distraction. They will be working overtime to try to keep the national discussion off of the economic issues that are hitting average Americans so hard in the checkbook.

- JP

Sarah Palin recalls an earlier 'new energy proposal' by Obama

"2012 is just around the corner."
*
Gov. Palin rips Obama's failure on energy policy in an op-ed on her Facebook Notes page:

FLASHBACK: What We Were Saying One Year
Ago About Obama’s Failed Energy Policy

It’s unbelievable (literally) the rhetoric coming from President Obama today. This is coming from he who is manipulating the U.S. energy supply. President Obama is once again giving lip service to a “new energy proposal”; but let’s remember the last time he trotted out a “new energy proposal” – nearly a year ago to the day. The main difference is today we have $4 a gallon gas in some places in the country. This is no accident. This administration is not a passive observer to the trends that have inflated oil prices to dangerous levels. His war on domestic oil and gas exploration and production has caused us pain at the pump, endangered our already sluggish economic recovery, and threatened our national security. Through a process of what candidate Obama once called “gradual adjustment,” American consumers have seen prices at the pump rise 67 percent since he took office. Meanwhile, the vast undeveloped reserves that could help to keep prices at the pump affordable remain locked up because of President Obama’s deliberate unwillingness to drill here and drill now. We’re subsidizing offshore drilling in Brazil and purchasing energy from them, instead of drilling ourselves and keeping those dollars circulating in our own economy to generate jobs here. The President said today, “There are no quick fixes.” He’s been in office for nearly three years now, and he’s about to launch his $1 billion re-election campaign. When can we expect any “fixes” from him? How high does the price of energy have to go?

So, here’s a little flashback to what I wrote on March 31, 2010, at National Review Online’s The Corner:

Many Americans fear that President Obama’s new energy proposal is once again “all talk and no real action,” this time in an effort to shore up fading support for the Democrats’ job-killing cap-and-trade (a.k.a. cap-and-tax) proposals. Behind the rhetoric lie new drilling bans and leasing delays; soon to follow are burdensome new environmental regulations. Instead of “drill, baby, drill,” the more you look into this the more you realize it’s “stall, baby, stall.”

Today the president said he’ll “consider potential areas for development in the mid and south Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, while studying and protecting sensitive areas in the Arctic.” As the former governor of one of America’s largest energy-producing states, a state oil and gas commissioner, and chair of the nation’s Interstate Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, I’ve seen plenty of such studies. What we need is action — action that results in the job growth and revenue that a robust drilling policy could provide. And let’s not forget that while Interior Department bureaucrats continue to hold up actual offshore drilling from taking place, Russia is moving full steam ahead on Arctic drilling, and China, Russia, and Venezuela are buying leases off the coast of Cuba.

As an Alaskan, I’m especially disheartened by the new ban on drilling in parts of the 49th state and the cancellation of lease sales in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. These areas contain rich oil and gas reserves whose development is key to our country’s energy security. As I told Secretary Salazar last April, “Arctic exploration and development is a slow, demanding process. Delays or major restrictions in accessing these resources for environmentally responsible development are not in the national interest or the interests of the State of Alaska.”

Since I wrote the above, we have even more evidence of the President’s anti-drilling agenda. We have the moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico as well as the de-facto moratorium in the Arctic. We have his 2012 budget that proposes to eliminate several vital oil and natural gas production tax incentives. We have his anti-drilling regulatory policies that have stymied responsible development. And the list goes on. The President says that we can’t “drill” our way out of the problem. But we can’t drive our cars on solar shingles either. We have to live in the real world where we must continue to develop the conventional resources that we actually use right now to fuel our economy as we continue to look for a renewable source of energy. If we are looking for an affordable, environmentally friendly, and abundant domestic source of energy, why not turn to our own domestic supply of natural gas? Whether we use it to power natural-gas cars or to run natural-gas power plants that charge electric cars, natural gas is an ideal “bridge fuel” to a future when more renewable sources are available, affordable, and economically viable on their own. It’s a lot more viable than subsidizing boondoggles like these inefficient electric cars that no one wants. I’m all for electric cars if you can develop one I can actually use in Alaska, where you can drive hundreds of miles without seeing many people, let alone many electrical sockets. But these electric and hybrid cars are not a quick fix because we still need an energy source to power them. That’s why I like natural gas, but we still have to drill for natural gas, and this administration doesn’t like drilling or apparently the jobs that come with responsible oil and natural gas development. They don't have a coherent energy policy. They have piecemeal ideas for subsidizing impractical pet “green” projects.

I have always been in favor of an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy independence, but "all-of-the-above" means conventional resource development too. It means a coherent, practical, and forward-looking energy policy. I wish the President would understand this. The good news is there is nothing wrong with America’s energy policy that another good old-fashion election can’t solve. 2012 is just around the corner.

- Sarah Palin

- JP

Quote of the Day (March 29, 2011)

Palin on the Issues: Energy Independence
*
Right Wingnut at Right Speak:

"The following is a very long list of op-eds and Facebook posts, relating to energy, written by Palin over the past two years..."

- JP

WSJ Political Diary: Sarah Stateswoman

"India offers a lesson here."
*
Abheek Bhattacharya, Asia-based editorial page writer for The Wall Street Journal, opines in WSJ's Political Diary that Gov. Palin hit the right notes in her recent speech in New Delhi by discussing the values that U.S. and India hold in common:

Sarah Palin did a fine job bolstering her foreign-policy credentials in a speech in New Delhi this month. She hit the right notes discussing the common democratic values and the similar geopolitical outlook that tie the U.S. with India. And she hailed New Delhi economic reforms that were launched 20 years ago and have deepened the bond.

"The relationship between our countries could shape the course of the next century, tilting it in the direction of free people and free markets," she said.

The former Alaska governor also addressed how free-market reforms could inform energy policy.

[...]

The other side of her vision involves developing the natural resources in America that regulations, like bans on offshore drilling, have "stymied." In a time of high unemployment and high inflation, unlocking the country's mineral wealth can both create jobs and provide larger supplies of oil and gas to ease high energy prices.

[More]

h/t: Benyamin Korn

- JP

Excerpt: Gov. Palin's Remarks in India

It's a 'false, utopian fairytale' that we don't need to drill for oil today
*
India Today has published a transcript of Sarah Palin's remarks earlier today. Here is an excerpt:

Of course, energy issues are critical to the whole world's stability & economic opportunities! By 2030, the world's energy consumption will increase by 50% & almost half of that will come from here in India & from China. We all face similar challenges in this arena & this makes America's quest for energy security all the more crucial as we seek to stabilize our economy, secure our homeland & cooperate with our allies who would also seek peace on earth.

Energy is key! My vision for a free & prosperous America has much to do with energy.

Now, we hear a lot about "green energy" today. And I am a true believer in environmental conservation & responsible stewardship of our lands. (It's why I live in AK! A pristine environment to be passed on to future generations - I don't want to mess it up! I am a conservationist. I married into an Alaska native family, where Todd's connection to the land through his Yupik Eskimo heritage, an indigenous people, reinforces my respect for God's creation. And we've made our living off the land - as commercial fishermen & Todd working in North Slope oil fields - so we don't want to mess it up!)

So, I'm in favour of "all-of-the-above" approach to energy security. But "all-of-the-above" means including "conventional" resources! That means, the kind we actually use to reliably fuel our economy. That means crude oil, for example. And our natural gas, our coal, nuclear power.

Unfortunately, some have stymied resource development - like responsible domestic oil drilling. As a result, hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs won't be created in the U.S. until we change course; it means Americans get hit with huge gas prices at the pump unless we change course; it means we're continuing to transfer hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars to foreign regimes to purchase energy from them - regimes that don't have our best interests at heart.

And I'm not just talking about gasoline here. Remember that 'petroleum products' are all around you! Look at your everyday surroundings - the foodstuffs; the agriculture products grown with fertilizer; the plastics all around you; medical supplies; the transportation of all these products. It's not just gas that increases as the price of crude increases: Everything is affected. Basic commodities.

So as government locks up land & we lose good jobs in the 'Conventional Resource' arena, you may hear that "green jobs" will be the saviour! But look around the world & try telling that to the thousands of English & Scottish workers who've lost jobs as a result of government investments in "green energy" projects. A recent UK study shows that for every "green job" created, nearly four jobs were lost elsewhere in the economy due to lack of affordable energy! Same story in Spain - investment in "green jobs" brought massive debt, skyrocketing energy costs & 20% unemployment.

This push for 'green' at the expense of 'conventional, reliable' sources is not a credible energy policy or economic policy. It's "Social Engineering" by Central Government Planners. And it leads to nothing but more debt & more job loss. And taxpayers will be stuck subsidizing the failure and paying more for energy.

The good news is there's a choice/another option! Instead of funding non-viable special interest projects, Americans can capitalize on our own viable resources that are just waiting to be tapped - they're right on our doorstep! Billions of barrels of oil warehoused underground in AK!

And so much natural gas - Clean, green, affordable! Easy to transport, abundant across the U.S. - Whether used conventionally, or to power natural gas cars, or run power plants that charge electric cars, natural gas is an ideal "bridge fuel" to the future. (A future when renewable gas can someday become more available, reliable & affordable.)

I warn Americans so often: it's a 'false, utopian fairytale' told that would want you to believe we don't need to drill for oil today. No, government manipulating energy supplies? Manipulating any aspect of an economy - it leads to more people becoming more dependent upon government to meet needs - it is social engineering, it's immoral, & it's a problem we-the-people must be brave enough to take on.

Our need for energy independence is only one of the strategic challenges we face today. The other is an unsustainable government debt which hampers economic growth.

The full transcript of the governor's speech is here.

- JP

Sarah Palin: The $4-Per-Gallon President

2012 can’t come soon enough
*
For the first time in three weeks, Gov. Palin has posted a new op-ed on her Facebook notes page. It was worth waiting for:

The $4-Per-Gallon President

Is it really any surprise that oil and gas prices are surging toward the record highs we saw in 2008 just prior to the economic collapse? Despite the President’s strange assertions in his press conference last week, his Administration is not a passive observer to the trends that have inflated oil prices to dangerous levels. His war on domestic oil and gas exploration and production has caused us pain at the pump, endangered our already sluggish economic recovery, and threatened our national security.

The evidence of the President’s anti-drilling mentality and his culpability in the high gas prices hurting Americans is there for all to see. The following is not even an exhaustive list:

Exhibit A: His drilling moratorium. Guided by politics and pure emotion following the Gulf spill instead of peer-reviewed science or defensible law, the President used the power of his executive order to impose a deepwater drilling moratorium. The Administration even ignored a court order halting his moratorium. And what is the net result of the President’s (in)actions? A large drilling company was forced to declare bankruptcy, the economy of the region has been hobbled, and at least 7 rigs moved out of the Gulf area to other parts of the world while many others remain idle. Is it any surprise that oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to fall by 240,000 bbl/d in 2011 alone?

But that’s just the Gulf. There’s also the question of a moratorium on the development of Alaska’s Outer Continental Shelf. It seems the Obama Administration can’t agree with itself on whether it imposed a moratorium there or not. The White House claims that they didn’t, but their own Department of the Interior let slip that they did. To clear up this mess, Gov. Parnell decided to sue the DOI to get a solid answer because such a federal OCS drilling moratorium would violate federal law.

Exhibit B: His 2012 budget. The President used his 2012 budget to propose the elimination of several vital oil and natural gas production tax incentives. Eliminating these incentives will discourage energy companies from completing exploratory projects, resulting in higher energy costs for all Americans – and not just at the pump. According to one study mentioned in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, eliminating the deduction for drilling costs “could increase natural gas prices by 50 cents per thousand cubic feet,” which would translate to “an increased cost to consumers of $11.5 billion per year in the form of higher natural gas prices.”

Exhibit C: His anti-drilling regulatory policies. The U.S. Geological Survey found that the area north of the Arctic Circle has an estimated 90 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas, one third of which is in Alaskan territory. That’s our next Prudhoe Bay right there. According to one industry study, allowing Royal Dutch Shell to tap these reserves in Alaska’s Chukchi and Beaufort seas would create an annual average of 54,700 jobs nationwide with a $145 billion total payroll and generate an additional $193 billion a year in total revenues to local, state, and federal governments for 50 years. This would be great news if only the federal government would allow Shell to drill there. But it won’t. It’s been five years since Shell purchased the lease to develop these fields, but it’s been mired in a regulatory funk courtesy of the Obama Administration. After investing $3.5 billion in exploration programs (a significant portion of which went to ensuring responsible spill response and prevention), Shell announced last month that it has given up hope of obtaining the required permits to conduct exploratory drilling this year. That means no jobs and no billions in oil revenue from the Arctic anytime soon thanks to this Administration. Let’s stop and think about this for a moment. Right now Beltway politicos are quibbling over cutting $61 billion from our dangerously bloated $3.7 trillion budget. Allowing drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas will enrich federal coffers by $167 billion a year without raising our taxes. If we let Harry Reid keep his “cowboy poetry,” would the White House consider letting us drill?

Taken altogether, it’s hard to deny that the Obama Administration is anti-drilling. The President may try to suggest that the rise in oil prices has nothing to do with him, but the American people won’t be fooled. Before we saw any protests in the Middle East, increased global demand led to a significant rise in oil prices; but the White House stood idly by watching the prices go up and allowing America to remain increasingly dependent on imports from foreign regimes in dangerously unstable parts of the world.

This was no accident. Through a process of what candidate Obama once called “gradual adjustment,” American consumers have seen prices at the pump rise 67 percent since he took office. Let’s not forget that in September 2008, candidate Obama’s Energy Secretary in-waiting said: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” That’s one campaign promise they’re working hard to fulfill! Last week, the British Telegraph reported that the price of petrol in the UK hit £6 a gallon – which comes to about $9.70. If you think $4 a gallon is bad now, just wait till the next crisis causes oil prices to “necessarily” skyrocket. Meanwhile, the vast undeveloped reserves that could help to keep prices at the pump affordable remain locked up because of President Obama’s deliberate unwillingness to drill here and drill now.

Hitting the American people with higher gas prices like this is essentially a hidden tax and a transfer of wealth to foreign regimes who are providing us the energy we refuse to provide for ourselves. Like inflation, higher energy prices are a hidden tax on Americans who are struggling to make ends meet. And these high gas prices will be felt in the form of higher food prices due to higher transportation costs. Energy is connected to everything in our economy. Access to affordable and secure energy is key to economic growth, which in turn is key to job growth. Energy is the building block of our economy. The President is purposely weakening that building block and weakening our country.

2012 can’t come soon enough.

- Sarah Palin

- JP

Quote of the Day (March 13, 2011)

Obama's Long Nose On Energy
*
John Hinderaker at Power Line:

"With respect to energy, Barack Obama is a fraud. In reality, he is a tool of the environmentalist, anti-growth, anti-wealth Left. But he cannot go before the American people and try to defend policies that are deliberately designed to make us all poorer, so he has to pose as a sort of Sarah Palin in drag. All the while, he is doing everything he can to prevent America from developing its own energy resources, employing many thousands of people in high-paying jobs, boosting our economy, and ending our reliance on the Saudis. If the Obama administration were not a disaster on so many fronts, its energy policies alone would dictate that it be replaced in November 2012."

- JP

Gov. Palin: Obama is mistaken. Again.

"Who writes his stuff?"
*
For the second time in three days, Sarah Palin used Twitter to call President Obama out for his misleading statements on U.S. domestic oil reserves and production. She tweeted late Sunday afternoon:

"Pres is mistaken. Again. Claims we control 2% world's oil & he 'boosts production'?Who advises him?Who writes his stuff?Why won't press ask?"

John Hinderaker explains the 2% deception:

That two percent figure is one that you hear all the time from liberals. It refers to the fact that the United States has only two percent of the world's "proven reserves" of petroleum. This is what a character in a Nabokov novel called a "doughnut truth"--the truth, the whole truth, with a hole in the truth. Here is the hole: there is no universal definition of "proven reserves," and "proven reserves" do not represent what Obama called "every single reserve available to us."

[...]

Liberals like Barack Obama imply that America only has two percent of the world's petroleum, but that is completely false. We only have two percent of the "proven reserves" that are recoverable under current "government regulations" and at current petroleum prices. We could increase our proven reserves overnight by opening up new areas to exploration and development; ANWR is just one of many examples. And our proven reserves increase every time the price of oil rises.

Under American law, there is another category of petroleum in the ground called "undiscovered technically recoverable oil." I believe this category is also limited to areas that are legally available for development, but nevertheless, this category encompasses an enormous amount of energy...

[More]

As for "boosting production," Obama is falsely taking credit for production growth which occurred over the last decade, even though he has only been in the White House for a little over two years, as Steve Maley points out:

Obama Administration policies had nothing whatever to do with the production buildup in late ‘09 into early 2010.

That production growth is due almost entirely to a handful of large deepwater fields, notably BP’s Thunder Horse, which came on production during that time frame.

”First oil” came on June 14, 2008. Since then, Thunder Horse has steadily ramped up its production by bringing on new wells. In March 2009, Thunder Horse produced close to 250,000 barrels per day (40,000 m3/d) oil equivalent in oil and natural gas from seven wells.

So Thunder Horse by itself accounts for almost all of that abrupt ramp-up in oil production.

Does Obama deserve credit?

Thunder Horse sits in 6,200 feet of water. The leases date from 1988 (Reagan) and 1994 (Clinton). The discovery well was drilled in 1999, and the platform was set in 2005, during the George W. Bush Administration.

Due to the Deepwater Moratorium/Permitorium and the shutdown of the Offshore Leasing Program, we have essentially stopped looking for the next Thunder Horse.

Instead, half the available rig fleet sits idle due to a lack of permits. The BOEMRE’s current permitting backlog is comprised of 270 shallow-water and 52 deepwater wells. The Obama Adminstration threatens to reject seven of the outstanding deepwater permits rather than comply with Judge Feldman’s order to approve them or show cause within 30 days.

Production elsewhere in the U.S. has also increased, but no thanks to Obama’s policies. It is industry ingenuity and competitiveness that has led the production growth, in the Bakken Shale of North Dakota, the Eagleford Shale of South Texas and in the Permian Basin of West Texas. This increase is driven by technology (horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing) and by product prices. None of these areas are primarily on Federal lands; they have excelled in spite of hostile Federal policies, not because of them.

[More]

On Friday, Gov. Palin also criticized Obama's false claims about domestic energy.

- JP

Schooling Obama on domestic drilling

Most of the Gulf rigs he cited are not working
*
Via Twitter, Gov. Palin schooled President Obama on remarks he made at Friday's presser that domestic oil production "reached its highest level in seven years":

Mr.Pres: "increase oil" means unlock land; end de facto moratorium; hire agency heads who ALLOW production (not just verbally "encourage"it)

Indeed, as Jazz Shaw explains:

Sadly, it seems that the President was basing his claims on some recent comments by Ken Salazar. While they sound great on paper, Ken was talking about the total number of oil rigs in the gulf, not the total amount of oil being produced. Jack Gerard of the American Petroleum Institute attempts to straighten out the math for the Oil Analyst in Chief.

Salazar’s numbers distort the true number of working rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. According to Baker Hughes:

• Four days before the Deepwater Horizon accident there were 55 rotary rigs actually drilling offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.


• On May 28, 2010, when the administration announced the six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling, there were 46 rotary rigs operating in the Gulf.


• Last week, 25 rotary rigs were operating in the Gulf of Mexico.

So the fact that there is an “all-time high” number of rigs in the Gulf ignores the fact that most of those rigs are not working. Claiming an increase in idle rigs in the Gulf as a success story is like claiming the job market is great because a lot of people are unemployed and available to work.

[...]

The president needs to go back and do a bit more work on his math.

Ed Morrissey updates with a link to Steve Everley of American Solutions for more debunking of Obama's claims:

Here are the three biggest myths from President Obama's remarks this afternoon:

• "We can't escape the fact that we control only 2% of the world's oil." This is a common refrain among anti-drilling Democrats and environmentalists, and it's repeated enough that many people accept it as true. In reality, it's 100% false. The number comes from a highly conservative estimate from the Energy Information Administration totaling America's proven reserves where we are already drilling. It does not include the 10 billion barrels available in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It does not include most of the 86 billion barrels available offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf, most of which President Obama has placed under an executive drilling ban. And it does not include the 800 billion barrels of oil we have locked in shale in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. Those shale resources alone are actually three times larger than the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia, so the claim that the U.S. only has 2% of the world's oil is clearly false.


• "Industry holds leases on tens of millions of acres both offshore and on land where they aren't producing a thing." President Obama adds to this whopper by saying he wants to "encourage companies to produce [on] the leases they hold." While this sounds like a common sense fix, it's actually just blind rhetoric reserved only for people with a shocking ignorance of drilling. You can read more about this here and here, but it basically boils down to this: A lease is for exploration and production, not just production, and because oil is not equally distributed across the globe, one parcel of leased acreage may not hold any oil. Moreover, due to the circuitous and needlessly complicated permitting process, it can take years for companies who own a lease to complete their exploration activities. To get to the production phase, it could take as long as ten years. Ironically, President Obama wants to tax companies for not producing on their leases, even if the federal government's refusal to grant permits is the reason why those companies are not drilling.


• "Last year...our oil production reached its highest level in 7 years." This is pure spin. President Obama is deliberately trying to take credit for actions unrelated to his policies. The increased level of production is due to the actions of previous administrations and production in the Dakotas where most drilling is occurring on private land. By contrast, the Energy Information Administration projects that there will be a decline in production of 220,000 barrels of domestic oil per day in 2011, and in 2012 America will produce 150 million fewer barrels in the Gulf of Mexico, all because of President Obama's policies to discourage or ban domestic drilling. In addition, President Obama's drilling moratorium (and subsequent refusal to issue drilling permits) has forced at least 7 rigs to leave the Gulf and sign contracts in other countries, taking much needed jobs and revenue with them.

Related: Jeff Dunetz: Clearing-up Today’s Obama Energy Lies

- 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, energy and the media left narrative

How to drown out the anti-Palin narrative
*
The Democrat/Media Complex (DMC) has kept its anti-Palin narrative going since the Tuscon shootings. It was built on SarahPAC's "Take Back The 20" map until conservative new media flooded the Web with Democrat bulls eye maps and the bulls eye that Markos Moulitsas put on Rep. Giffords' district in 2008. So the corrupt DMC changed its narrative, and suddenly it was all about blood libels. At least it was about blood libels until Jewish conservatives and even a prominent Jewish liberal of good character stood up in defense of Gov. Palin on that non-issue, and it was revealed that the DMC had itself used the term in a manner that went well beyond the historical ethic/religious context. So it was time to morph the narrative again, and it became about "civility" in politics, which is an oxymoron. The DMC really shouldn't go there, and we feel safe in predicting that this one won't last very long. Just where the DMC narrative will go next we're not sure, but surely such fertile imaginations as those on the left will think of something.

Many conservatives believe the DMC is trying to use its narrative to destroy Sarah Palin's career, which is certainly true. The left has been attempting to do that since August, 2008, so it's nothing new. But there's much more involved here, as Gov. Palin herself pointed out in her Monday night interview:

There's this trifecta thing going on in our country right now that's going to bring America to her knees if Congress doesn't start addressing the issues at hand. That being our growing debt, a looming energy crisis if we don't start domestically developing our resources, and some of the national security policies that have been adopted and enacted, like the signing and the ratification of the START treaty that Russia's Duma won't even ratify because there are misinterpretations of what the preamble means.

So, we have these things going on right now that have got to be addressed, and Congress has got to get back to work. And it's just much easier, I believe, for critics of common-sense conservative agenda to try to divert and distract from the issues at hand, those tasks that must be addressed today.

One component of that trifecta the governor mentioned is energy, an issue which appears on the national radar scope, it seems, only when the pump price of gasoline rises above the three-dollar level. The DMC desperately wants to keep this issue out of its anti-Palin narrative, as P.J. Gladnick wrote Monday at the Washington Examiner's website:

"Progressives" would think that the general public was angry about something Sarah Palin said such as using the "blood libel" phrase which is often used to describe a whole host of unfair charges. However, there is something that is currently getting little play in the media that is truly infuriating the public...rising gasoline prices. The upward creep in prices seems to have increased its rate of climb in recent days. Gasoline prices that just a few weeks ago seemed outrageously high suddenly appear to be quite reasonable. Many of you have your own "secret" gas station where you are sure the gasoline prices have somehow resisted the general rise. You drive several miles out of your way to reach that oasis of low prices and...you find out that the prices there pretty much match the intolerable prices of all the other gas stations.

This is why I would love to be present when liberal pollsters question people about their views on Sarah Palin at a gas station...

The DMC knows that any discussion of rising pump prices would lead to a further dialog on the energy crisis which is boiling under the surface of its narrative. As Gary Bray explains at Examiner.com:

The last poll after the BP accident showed over 65% of Americans were for drilling for oil which means the real number is closer to 75% and likely 15-20% were against it.... We are in real danger of having gas pass $4/gal, which the last time it happened was the trigger for the Obama meltdown.. That was when people were paying more for their tanks of gas and groceries and could no longer pay their mortgages. Imagine what would happen now as more and more are living closer to the bone.

[...]

We now lose over 10,000 jobs in one of the most important industries of our economy for no real reason, which in turn likely costs millions of jobs. While every other country we are competing with is drilling for oil around the world and locking up contracts, we are closing our resources. There couldn’t be a more effective way to kill the economy than to cut the lifeblood of commerce... Once the rising cost of transportation is built into the inflating cost of goods and services, we are going to see a dramatic slowdown and perhaps another meltdown, as a new wave of foreclosures moves across the Country thanks to our fossil fuel moratorium.

This of course is one of the main reasons the Ivy Leaguers and the rest of the DNC is terrified of Sarah Palin since she not only is one of the experts on the oil and gas industry, she has common sense. The latter is something the libs can’t deal with or have a connection to. They need to vilify rather than be exposed by [debate on] the issues. Palin is a major pain in the donkey since she is not only articulate and fearless, she represents an area where they have no credibility. She owns this argument, as they have been shown as frauds and charlatans to Americans through the Global Warming fiasco and now the Gulf and coal shutdowns.

No one wants to end our dependence on foreign oil more than Sarah Palin. She has a potential ally in financier and former oil baron T. Boone Pickens, who in a 2009 op-ed made a bold proposal:

America has an abundance of a nearly perfect substitute for imported oil: domestic natural gas.

The Potential Gas Committee released a report indicating the U.S. has as much as 2 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves, or a century's worth at the present consumption rate. Advances in drilling techniques and technology over recent decades have made the natural gas in the enormous shale fields of Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas and Appalachia available for recovery.

About 70% of the oil we import is used as fuel for America's 250 million cars and light trucks and 6.5 million heavy trucks. Nearly half of the oil used for transportation is used as diesel fuel to power 18-wheelers. Natural gas is the only alternative. It is not only more abundant; it costs half as much and emits almost 30% less carbon dioxide.

If, in the normal course of replacements, we exchanged those 6.5 million heavy trucks running on largely imported diesel for new ones running on domestic natural gas, we could reduce our imports by 2.5 million barrels per day. We would be able to reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East by half in only seven years.

It will take longer to rotate passenger vehicles and light trucks away from gasoline and onto other alternatives: natural gas, batteries and fuel cells. But if we had a plan to do that we would be able to stop competing with the Chinese for oil.

This is a national security concern, an environmental concern and an economic concern.

The United States does not have a refueling infrastructure for natural gas as a motor fuel, but that is more of an opportunity than a problem. Just imagine all of the construction jobs that would be created if building such an infrastructure were a national priority. Moreover, these jobs would be created in every state in the union as each one of the nation's 10,000 truck stops would get an extreme makeover. Thousands of manufacturing jobs would also be created to build the storage tanks and natural gas "pumps" for these refueling stations.

And speaking of makeovers, there are roughly 150 oil refineries in the country, and they need some work as well, which means more construction jobs. Not only could these refineries be retasked to process less diesel and more gasoline, but those which refine fuel oil for heating homes could also be freed up to make more gasoline if we had an energy plan which called for conversion from fuel oil to cleaner burning natural gas to heat homes, especially in the northeast. More construction jobs would be needed to build natural gas pipelines and distribution facilities as well. And literally hundreds of thousands of jobs in the oil and gas industry would bloom for exploration and production of this vast natural resource.

Standing against this solution to our energy independence and unemployment woes, of course, is the Democrat/Media Complex. They know full well what a boost to our economy the energy ideas that have been advocated by Gov. Palin and Mr. Pickens would be. But they fear the Green Lobby, which would not stand for such common sense solutions. Even though environmentalists are well aware that natural gas burns cleaner than diesel, gasoline or even the once-vaunted ethanol, it is not a "renewable resource," and therefore they oppose it.

In October, 2009, Gov. Palin made the case in National Review for natural gas as an intermediate remedy to energy needs:

It contains fewer pollutants than other fossil fuels, it’s easier to collect and process, and it is found throughout our country. In Alaska, we’re developing the largest private-sector energy project in history — a 3,000-mile, $40 billion pipeline to transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas to markets across the United States. Onshore and offshore na­tural gas from Alaska and the Lower 48 can satisfy a large part of our energy needs for decades, bringing us closer to energy independence. Whether we use it to power natural-gas cars or to run natural-gas power plants that charge electric cars — or ideally for both — natural gas can act as a clean “bridge fuel” to a future when more renewable sources are available.

But the Green Lobby doesn't want a bridge fuel. Greenies want only renewable fuel and they want it now. This is both short-sighted and childish. Our nation desperately needs an "all-of-the-above" energy plan which has natural gas as one of its key components. We are willing to bet that if Sarah Palin and T. Boone Pickens were to work together, they could develop an impressive national energy plan and present it in a white paper. And nothing would drown out the DMC narrative more effectively than such a strong alliance and such a bold move. Can you imagine the press conference? "Energy-related questions only, ladies and gentlemen." Forced to focus on an actual issue critical to national security, the future of our economy and jobs which would improved the lives of millions of Americans, the lamestream media wouldn't even know what to ask. It's not as easy as incuriously passing along propaganda from leftist blogs.

- JP

Sarah Palin: The left ignorantly argues against energy security

*
Governor Palin again makes the case for energy security on Facebook:

Drill, Baby, Drill and Mine, Baby, Mine; Serious Consequences

Although the Left chooses to mock the mantra of “drill, baby, drill,” and they ignorantly argue against the facts pertaining to the need for America to responsibly develop her domestic supply of natural resources, surely they can’t argue the national security implications of relying on foreign countries to extract supplies that America desperately needs for industry, jobs, and security. Some of the countries we’re now reliant upon and will soon be beholden to can easily use energy and mineral supplies as a weapon against us.

The solution? Simply, please don’t elect politicians who cast votes that lock up our plentiful supplies. Please consider the case of China bending us over a barrel as it develops rare earth minerals while we ban mining. Please consider Venezuela and Russia and Saudi Arabia and Brazil (as we subsidize their off-shore drilling) and all other energy-producing countries as the Left locks up ANWR, NPR-A, and other American lands that are teeming with our own needed energy supplies.

“Drill, baby, drill and mine, baby, mine.” Yep, the mantra may be mocked by the Democrats, but serious consequences ensue when we let the Left make us rely on foreign countries to feed us energy. The joke is on us if they win.

Please see this article by David Case on the important issue of China and rare earths.

- Sarah Palin

- JP