Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Drill, Coast Haste
Investor's Business Daily (IBD) ^ | May 23, 2008 | Investor's Business Daily Editorial

Posted on 05/24/2008 7:55:08 AM PDT by Clairity

Energy Security: With the prospect of an oil shortage and $12 gas, the energy crisis is turning into a national emergency. One solution: Give states the option to develop offshore tracts.

Uncle Sam bans states from drilling in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf mainly to protect the environment. Some 85% of the U.S. coastline is off-limits to energy production - including huge reserves off Florida's coast, which China is exploiting in Cuban waters.

To change that, a lawmaker is offering a novel idea. Rep. Sue Myrick of the House Energy and Commerce panel wants to let coastal states decide whether drilling is environmentally risky. She has introduced a bill that would give coastal states that want offshore drilling the power to opt out of the Interior Department's offshore restrictions.

And politicians concerned about America's energy security ought to do a better job educating the public with the facts. For example:

- Less than one one-thousandth of a percent (0.001%) of the 7 billion-plus barrels of oil that Washington has allowed to be produced offshore over the past 25 years has been spilled, according to the Interior Department.

- A whopping 63% of petro pollution in North American seas comes not from offshore rigs, but from natural seepage from the sea floor. Source: National Academy of Sciences.

- There hasn't been a major oil spill from an offshore well since 1969 even though rigs since then have been lashed by Katrina and other major hurricanes.

(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial
KEYWORDS: 110th; 2008; coastalenvironment; congress; drill; drilling; energy; energyindependence; energysecurity; environment; offshore; offshoreoil; oil
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 05/24/2008 7:55:09 AM PDT by Clairity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Clairity
...the U.S. coastline is off-limits to energy production - including huge reserves off Florida's coast, which China is exploiting,,,

Yeah, not drilling is helping the environment, cuz China knows how to do it better, right? Oh, and they will sell us the oil just as cheap as we could produce it, right?

Effing idiots.

2 posted on 05/24/2008 7:59:12 AM PDT by Principled (Vaporize the "Divide and Conquer" taxes - Have everyone pay the same marginal rate!. NRST!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clairity

What? States Rights? OMG!


3 posted on 05/24/2008 8:00:46 AM PDT by Eurale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clairity

Well, we could drill our own oil, just off the shores of Texas, Florida, California or the eastern coast ....

or, we could wait and simply buy the oil from China, Venezuela, Mexico, Cuba and Russia who are drilling off the same shores, just 12 or more miles off the shore in international waters. Because, as everyone knows the cause of all the world’s pollution is the USA, every other country is far more ecologically conscious than the evil Americans. < /sarcasm off>


4 posted on 05/24/2008 8:00:51 AM PDT by Hodar (With Rights, come Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clairity

Soon, we will have Cuban gas wells off the coast of Florida while we continue to prohibit American gas producers from doing so. Russia will extend its control of Arctic fields while Alaskan oil production continues to decline. And the Democrats will achieve their goal of destroying the economic sovereignty of the United States. Just ask Maxine Waters.


5 posted on 05/24/2008 8:00:56 AM PDT by Hoodat (Bull Moose Party Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clairity

Read this and I think you will agree the oil industry has already been Nationalized in the US;

It was common in those days, as it is in ours, to identify the Communists as leftist and the Nazis as rightists, as if they stood on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. But Mises knew differently. They both sported the same ideological pedigree of socialism. “The German and Russian systems of socialism have in common the fact that the government has full control of the means of production. It decides what shall be produced and how. It allots to each individual a share of consumer’s goods for his consumption.”

The difference between the systems, wrote Mises, is that the German pattern “maintains private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary prices, wages, and markets.” But in fact the government directs production decisions, curbs entrepreneurship and the labor market, and determines wages and interest rates by central authority. “Market exchange,” says Mises, “is only a sham.”

Mises’s account is confirmed by a remarkable book that appeared in 1939, published by Vanguard Press in New York City (and unfortunately out of print today). It is The Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism by Guenter Reimann, then a 35-year old German writer. Through contacts with German business owners, Reimann documented how the “monster machine” of the Nazis crushed the autonomy of the private sector through onerous regulations, harsh inspections, and the threat of confiscatory fines for petty offenses.

“Industrialists were visited by state auditors who had strict orders to examine the balance sheets and all bookkeeping entries of the company or individual businessman for the preceding two, three or more years until some error or false entry was found,” explains Reimann. “The slightest formal mistake was punished with tremendous penalties. A fine of millions of marks was imposed for a single bookkeeping error.”

Reimann quotes from a businessman’s letter: “You have no idea how far state control goes and how much power the Nazi representatives have over our work. The worst of it is that they are so ignorant. These Nazi radicals think of nothing except ‘distributing the wealth.’ Some businessmen have even started studying Marxist theories, so that they will have a better understanding of the present economic system.

“While state representatives are busily engaged in investigating and interfering, our agents and salesmen are handicapped because they never know whether or not a sale at a higher price will mean denunciation as a ‘profiteer’ or ‘saboteur,’ followed by a prison sentence. You cannot imagine how taxation has increased. Yet everyone is afraid to complain. Everywhere there is a growing undercurrent of bitterness. Everyone has his doubts about the system, unless he is very young, very stupid, or is bound to it by the privileges he enjoys.

“There are terrible times coming. If only I had succeeded in smuggling out $10,000 or even $5,000, I would leave Germany with my family. Business friends of mine are convinced that it will be the turn of the ‘white Jews’ (which means us, Aryan businessmen) after the Jews have been expropriated. The difference between this and the Russian system is much less than you think, despite the fact that we are still independent businessmen.”

As Mises says, “independent” only in a decorous sense. Under fascism, explains this businessman, the capitalist “must be servile to the representatives of the state” and “must not insist on rights, and must not behave as if his private property rights were still sacred.” It’s the businessman, characteristically independent, who is “most likely to get into trouble with the Gestapo for having grumbled incautiously.”

“Of all businessmen, the small shopkeeper is the one most under control and most at the mercy of the party,” recounts Reimann. “The party man, whose good will he must have, does not live in faraway Berlin; he lives right next door or right around the corner. This local Hitler gets a report every day on what is discussed in Herr Schultz’s bakery and Herr Schmidt’s butcher shop. He would regard these men as ‘enemies of the state’ if they complained too much. That would mean, at the very least, the cutting of their quota of scarce and hence highly desirable goods, and it might mean the loss of their business licenses. Small shopkeepers and artisans are not to grumble.”

“Officials, trained only to obey orders, have neither the desire, the equipment, nor the vision to modify rules to suit individual situations,” Reimann explains. “The state bureaucrats, therefore, apply these laws rigidly and mechanically, without regard for the vital interests of essential parts of the national economy. Their only incentive to modify the letter of the law is in bribes from businessmen, who for their part use bribery as their only means of obtaining relief from a rigidity which they find crippling.”

Says another businessman: “Each business move has become very complicated and is full of legal traps which the average businessman cannot determine because there are so many new decrees. All of us in business are constantly in fear of being penalized for the violation of some decree or law.”

Business owners, explains another entrepreneur, cannot exist without a “collaborator,” i.e., a “lawyer” with good contacts in the Nazi bureaucracy, one who “knows exactly how far you can circumvent the law.” Nazi officials, explains Reimann, “obtain money for themselves by merely taking it from capitalists who have funds available with which to purchase influence and protection,” paying for their protection “as did the helpless peasants of feudal days.”

“It has gotten to the point where I cannot talk even in my own factory,” laments a factory owner. “Accidentally, one of the workers overheard me grumbling about some new bureaucratic regulation and he immediately denounced me to the party and the Labor Front office.”

Reports another factory owner: “The greater part of the week I don’t see my factory at all. All this time I spend in visiting dozens of government commissions and offices in order to get raw materials I need. Then there are various tax problems to settle and I must have continual conferences and negotiations with the Price Commission. It sometimes seems as if I do nothing but that, and everywhere I go there are more leaders, party secretaries, and commissars to see.”

In this totalitarian paradigm, a businessman, declares a Nazi decree, “practices his functions primarily as a representative of the State, only secondarily for his own sake.” Complain, warns a Nazi directive, and “we shall take away the freedom still left you.”

In 1933, six years before Reimann’s book, Victor Klemperer, a Jewish academic in Dresden, made the following entry in his diary on February 21: “It is a disgrace that gets worse with every day that passes. And there’s not a sound from anyone. Everyone’s keeping his head down.”

It is impossible to escape the parallels between Guenter Reimann’s account of doing business under the Nazis and the “compassionate,” “responsible,” and regulated “capitalism” of today’s U.S. economy today. At least the German government was frank enough to give the right name to its system of economic control.

Here is the link for this article:

http://mises.org/story/47


6 posted on 05/24/2008 8:02:37 AM PDT by stockpirate (Typical bitter white person, not voting for McCain, he's socialist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: Principled

Liberal DemoRAT Energy Plan:

1. You can’t drill for oil anywhere.
2. You can’t build a refinery anywhere.
3. You can’t build a nuclear power plant anywhere.
4. You can’t burn coal for electricity.
5. You can’t allow the oil companies to reinvest their profits into exploration.
6. But you can drive up the price of food by subsidizing an ethanol industry that takes land out of food production while using more energy than it creates.
7.You must continue to tax every gallon of gas that we put in our tanks.
8.You must threaten all energy users with additional ‘carbon taxes’.
9. And just in case some entrepreneur out there somewhere may have an idea for an alternative energy concept that just might work, you must raise the capital gains tax so that investors have less capital and less incentive to invest in his/her project. count your blessings.

With the coming change in administration and Liberals in Congress, it will be guaranteed that the price of gasoline hits $10 per gallon as our economy dumps. All this and more thanks to anti-American, anti-military Liberal DemoRATS whose platform is “enjoy living in America the new third-world created by Liberal socialists.”


8 posted on 05/24/2008 8:09:05 AM PDT by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
Extend that: when we are beholden to our enemies for oil how will ever defend ourselves?

Should I take up Russian or Chinese? Both?
9 posted on 05/24/2008 8:09:18 AM PDT by socialismisinsidious ( The socialist income tax system turns US citizens into beggars or quitters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Principled

Liberal DemoRAT Energy Plan:

1. You can’t drill for oil anywhere.
2. You can’t build a refinery anywhere.
3. You can’t build a nuclear power plant anywhere.
4. You can’t burn coal for electricity.
5. You can’t allow the oil companies to reinvest their profits into exploration.
6. But you can drive up the price of food by subsidizing an ethanol industry that takes land out of food production while using more energy than it creates.
7.You must continue to tax every gallon of gas that we put in our tanks.
8.You must threaten all energy users with additional ‘carbon taxes’.
9. And just in case some entrepreneur out there somewhere may have an idea for an alternative energy concept that just might work, you must raise the capital gains tax so that investors have less capital and less incentive to invest in his/her project. count your blessings.

With the coming change in administration and Liberals in Congress, it will be guaranteed that the price of gasoline hits $10 per gallon as our economy dumps. All this and more thanks to anti-American, anti-military Liberal DemoRATS whose platform is “enjoy living in America the new third-world Liberal socialists.”


10 posted on 05/24/2008 8:10:37 AM PDT by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JackRyanCIA

HEy, graft and corruption isn’t easy nowadays.


11 posted on 05/24/2008 8:12:13 AM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Clairity
To change that, a lawmaker is offering a novel idea. Rep. Sue Myrick of the House Energy and Commerce panel wants to let coastal states decide whether drilling is environmentally risky. She has introduced a bill that would give coastal states that want offshore drilling the power to opt out of the Interior Department's offshore restrictions.

Nope. Declare a national energy emergency and just start drilling wherever there are viable sources. Same with refineries and nuclear power plants.

12 posted on 05/24/2008 8:15:04 AM PDT by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate

>The difference between the systems, wrote Mises, is that the German pattern “maintains private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary prices, wages, and markets.” But in fact the government directs production decisions, curbs entrepreneurship and the labor market, and determines wages and interest rates by central authority. “Market exchange,” says Mises, “is only a sham.”<

The parallels between the two governments are frightening.


13 posted on 05/24/2008 8:21:39 AM PDT by Califreak (Hangin' with Hunter-under the bus "Dread and Circuses")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Clairity

14 posted on 05/24/2008 8:25:16 AM PDT by RushingWater (Pres. Bush honors Mexican sovereignty over our own - Pardon Ramos/Campeon/Hernandez)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clairity
We're told drilling oil at home is hazardous for the environment. But liberals have no problem with buying oil from Third World countries that don't have the kind of environmental consciousness that we do! It doesn't compute.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

15 posted on 05/24/2008 8:27:59 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate
Thanks for posting the full text of the article this time.
I've found that most here will not click on the provided link. This is an excellent article and should be read and scrutinized. (I saved it from the link you provided the other day.)

Perhaps you could post it as a stand alone thread?

16 posted on 05/24/2008 8:32:17 AM PDT by Just A Nobody (PISSANT for President '08 - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JackRyanCIA
You have to be smart to be one of those ya know.

Yeah, if you're smart and stay in school and do your homework, you'll get stuck in the US sInate.

17 posted on 05/24/2008 8:34:17 AM PDT by Just A Nobody (PISSANT for President '08 - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead

Well said!


18 posted on 05/24/2008 8:39:01 AM PDT by TFMcGuire (Either you are an American, or you are a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RushingWater

Mark to send to legislators.


19 posted on 05/24/2008 8:42:04 AM PDT by TFMcGuire (Either you are an American, or you are a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: paul51
Nope. Declare a national energy emergency and just start drilling wherever there are viable sources. Same with refineries and nuclear power plants.

Yep. It will have to be a multi-facetted action plan. It is a real crisis and it is in our faces and ignorant government policy and inaction let it happen. The real solution lies in attacking the problem from various directions. Allow me to provide details to your statement.

Explore and drill, east and west coasts and Alaska. And yes, that includes YOU Californians. You ain`t nothing special, except maybe "special-ed." Besides, you need the money because your state is going bankrupt from all the illegal aliens you won't get rid of.

Develop the rather massive oil reserves contained in the Bakken Formation

Build modern technology refineries

Build modern technology Nuke power plants

Build modern technology clean-coal power plants

Open the clean coal deposits Klinton “closed” which contains 62 BILLION tons of environmentally safe low-sulfur coal from the Kaiparowits Plateau in Utah.

Slowly but steadily increase the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)

Tax breaks to companies developing bio-diesel techniques that create fuel from cheap waste.

Tax breaks and investment perks for moderate temperature geothermal ORC power plant technology that operates off industrial waste heat / geothermal applications to generate power directly and run at 90% efficiency, without impacting oil and gas production.

At 400kW per unit you just line up as many as you need for a small community. Quiet and extremely clean.

Just how can we do this the simple, easy, smart way? How do we get away from the ignorance of ethanol? And from CORN no less?

The President must lead.

If the President were to announce this program tomorrow and clearly state that due to the necessity of averting a disaster to the economy and a threat to National Security he will emplace Executive Orders that will not only immediately initialize this overall program but exempt it from excessive or unnecessary environmental regulatory agencies rules where do you think the hedge fund speculators will go, thus dropping the market price of crude by roughly 50 bucks?

They will go straight to that new market of energy production and the companies that will build it, the new technologies that will emerge, as a well functioning "new energy industry" SHOULD be that inviting. Not only will the price start to drop immediately, the very nature of new industry gains and emerging technologies will keep the price down. And, as always, when other nations began to utilize the new and more efficient (higher profit margin) techniques the overall demand will slow.

BTW, as we move into the future and plan ahead we should think about how we use the energy source. Examples... All future power plants should be Nuke or Clean Coal. Reserve the natural gas for heating homes. That will allow more fuel oil to be used in diesel trucks because it is not heating houses. The natural gas can. You can heat a home with natural gas but you can not get the hauling capacity by trying to run the 18 wheeler on it.

Get the automakers together on a relatively cheap electric car and start building the new technology Nuke power plants to handle the extra overnight charging demand. And get the automakers off the shoebox on a roller-skate designs. Hello GM / Ford / Honda your designs are BUTT-UGLY.

Build these and we will buy.

However, you are going to have to give up on the $109,000 price tag. In return we will come off the 0-60mph in 3.9 seconds thing.

20 posted on 05/24/2008 8:42:23 AM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RushingWater

That graphic isn’t completely correct. Drilling in the Cook Inlet south of Anchorage, Alaska is allowed, primarily because production was established before Congress decided to ban everything.


21 posted on 05/24/2008 8:43:51 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: socialismisinsidious
Extend that: when we are beholden to our enemies . . .

To these Democrats, the only enemies are conservatives. The goal of Democrats is to bring down the might of the United States in order to consolidate their political power. They would much rather be beholdent to the Chinas, Syrias, and Venezuelas of the world than to those they despise most - the American wealth creators.

22 posted on 05/24/2008 8:45:29 AM PDT by Hoodat (Bull Moose Party Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate

Scary parallels to the current situation. All we need now is the Obamination or Hitlery as POTUS to repeat this bit of history.


23 posted on 05/24/2008 8:47:40 AM PDT by Kolb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: just start drilling and DARE Congress to stop it. We’re going to have to challenge the evil people who choose to destroy us. Congress is a rogue body and they don’t deserve ANY respect for their policies; they have abandoned their constitutional duties long ago. It’s time to tell them NO, we aren’t going to listen to your criminal edicts.

You hear me, Congress??? You’d better start listening because I’m pissed at your thieving ways!


24 posted on 05/24/2008 8:51:11 AM PDT by Arkansas Toothpick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

My thoughts exactly. The America-haters say the rest of the world hates us because we’re so self-centered and act so superior. Those same people then demand that OTHER countries spoil THEIR environment with drilling. Who’s being superior now?!

As for Myrick’s bill. The article says it would give states the OPTION to drill. Why would Florida’s senators oppose this? They don’t HAVE to drill. They can choose not to. It’s all about appearances.

I’ve been waiting a long time for something like Myrick’s bill. Reward the states that are willing to take (small) environmental risks to drill/refine oil. If California wants to be pristine, let her citizens pay Louisiana for the risks it takes. Myrick’s finally come up with a way to let that happen.


25 posted on 05/24/2008 9:00:23 AM PDT by Timeout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Principled

Term limits.

You implement term limits and all the politicians in the pocketbooks of the environmentalists go away.

We should have a national referendum on it, but somehow it never makes it to the ballot box.

Have a litmus test. 1) Are you for term limits and 2) Will you promote domestic exploration. Two yesses and you have my vote.


26 posted on 05/24/2008 9:02:21 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Shouldn't the libs love a Hunter Thompson ticket in 08?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Principled

It’s ironic that the Rats have single handedly done more to raise the price of oil by constricting supply, and yet complain about the oil industry and that the Pubs are the ones in the back pocket of the oil industry. Which party has benefited the oil industry the most?


27 posted on 05/24/2008 9:07:55 AM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TheDon

A simple question; if this is a case of of National Security, (and I believe it is) why can’t the President issue an Executive Order stating that drilling rights in ANWR and the continental shelves be granted immediately? Would that send the D-Rats into a tizzy, or what?


28 posted on 05/24/2008 9:22:08 AM PDT by cumbo78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TFMcGuire

Please share with everyone and thank you for the support.


29 posted on 05/24/2008 9:45:59 AM PDT by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TLI
Good Show!
30 posted on 05/24/2008 9:56:41 AM PDT by jnsun (The LEFT: The need to manipulate others because of nothing productive to offer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RushingWater

The yellow zone on the left coast is probably MORE red than where you have red on US coasts. Really.


31 posted on 05/24/2008 9:59:28 AM PDT by Don W (To write with a broken pencil is pointless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RushingWater

Great image. How sad.


32 posted on 05/24/2008 10:07:04 AM PDT by The Mayor ("A man's heart plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps" (Prov. 16:9))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cumbo78
A simple question; if this is a case of National Security, (and I believe it is) why can’t the President issue an Executive Order stating that drilling rights in ANWR and the continental shelves be granted immediately?

Answer: The President can do exactly that through Executive Orders. That is how Klinton closed access to the clean-coal deposits in Utah. BTW, has anyone noticed how Hillary talks about "clean-coal?" YA think she might be fishing around for another round of illegal political contributions from the Riady's?

Here is the background on that and the quote on bill klinton using Executive Orders to get it done.



Bill Clinton’s Felonious Land Grab
Charles Signorile January 24th, 2008

Investor’s Business Daily has an editorial today which will most likely be ignored by the media as being “old news”. While it is true the story is over a decade old, it is certainly that needs to be brought to public view, in light of the fact that Democrats are pushing for new legislation to reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

A large part of America’s energy dependence on foreign sources can be traced to Sept. 18, 1996, when President Bill Clinton stood on the edge of the Grand Canyon on the Arizona side and signed an executive proclamation making 1.7 million acres of Utah a new national monument.

Why would he dedicate a Utah monument while standing in Arizona? Well, this federal land grab was done without any consultation with the governor of Utah or any member of the Utah congressional delegation or any elected official in the state. The unfriendly Utah natives might have spoiled his photo-op

The state already had six national monuments, two national recreation areas and all or part of five national forests. Three-quarters of Utah already was in federal hands. Still, the land grab was sold as a move to protect the environment.

At the time, the Clintons were worried that Ralph Nader’s presence on the ballot in a few Western states would draw green votes from Clinton in a race that promised to be close after the GOP retook Congress two years earlier.

In fact, the declaration of 1.7 million Utah acres as a national monument, thereby depriving an energy-starved U.S. up to 62 billion tons of environmentally safe low-sulfur coal worth $1.2 trillion and minable with minimal surface impact, was a political payoff to the family of James Riady.

He’s the son of Lippo Group owner Mochtar Riady. James was found guilty of — and paid a multimillion dollar fine for — funneling more than $1 million in illegal political contributions through Lippo Bank into various American political campaigns, including Bill Clinton’s presidential run in 1992.

Clinton took off the world market the largest known deposit of clean-burning coal. And who owned and controlled the second-largest deposit in the world of this clean coal? The Indonesian Lippo Group of James Riady. It is found and strip-mined on the Indonesian island of Kalimantan.

The Utah reserve contains a kind of low-sulfur, low-ash and therefore low-polluting coal that can be found in only a couple of places in the world. It burns so cleanly that it meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act without additional technology.

“The mother of all land grabs,” Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said at the time. He has called what was designated as the Grande Staircase of the Escalante National Monument the “Saudi Arabia of coal.”

When Clinton signed the proclamation, he promised to exchange other federal lands for the land that was taken. But a fair exchange was impossible, Hatch said, since no other land in Utah had a trillion dollars worth of clean coal.

Rep. James Hansen, R-Utah, pointed out that a large portion of the coal-rich Kaiparowits Plateau within the monument belonged to the children of Utah. When Utah became a state in 1896, about 220,000 acres were set aside for development, and a trust fund was created to collect and hold all the revenues directly for the benefit of schools.

Margaret Bird, trust officer for the fund, said that because the land will not be developed, the schools stand to lose as much as $1 billion over the next 50 years. Phyllis Sorensen, head of the Utah chapter of the National Education Association, called Clinton’s action a “felonious assault” and “stealing from the schoolchildren.”

Stealing from children to reward Indonesian billionaires. How pathetic.

Nah, that is just the Democrats.

33 posted on 05/24/2008 10:27:14 AM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
Yes, we can further the Imperial Presidency and build its power so Obama can dismiss the Congress and rule by Executive Order. Wouldn't that be great?!

</sarc>

34 posted on 05/24/2008 10:56:32 AM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead
Although it's a completely stupid 'theory', allow for a moment that we are trading blood for oil in Iraq as the liberals say.

That would mean that the 4,000 or so lives lost there were just so we could drive our SUV's.

Conservatives wanted to drill for oil here to be independent of Mideast oil.

Liberals didn't want to drill here because it might hurt the environment.

So, I would think then that the liberals would believe it to be OK to spend 4,000 or so good American lives to save the caribou in ANWAR.

To sum up, we are fighting in Iraq to get oil that liberal policies won't let us get at home. So, the war in Iraq is not Bush's fault, but the liberals.

By the way,I'm a little confused about your name 'ExTexasRedhead'. Does that mean you're now a blonde living in Texas, or a redhead not living in Texas, or not a redhead not living in Texas?

35 posted on 05/24/2008 11:08:20 AM PDT by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tbpiper

I was born and raised in Texas and now live elsewhere and I have red hair.

I agree totally with you regarding Liberal elitist, anti-American politicians that want to turn America into a third-world POS at the cost of brave American lives. I pray that God will judge Liberals harshly for their traitorous, treasonous ways.

God bless our troops, past and present, and may he watch over them every minute.


36 posted on 05/24/2008 11:24:14 AM PDT by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
We should have a national referendum on it, but somehow it never makes it to the ballot box.

One obstacle would be that such a thing would unconstitutional.

There are no national elections provided for in the constitution. Even when you vote for President, you are voting for the electors to the electoral college within your own state.

37 posted on 05/24/2008 11:33:12 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Hodar; Clairity; Diddle E. Squat; deport; Ben Ficklin; zeugma; MeekOneGOP; Fiddlstix; ...
or, we could wait and simply buy the oil from China, Venezuela, Mexico, Cuba and Russia who are drilling off the same shores, just 12 or more miles off the shore in international waters. Because, as everyone knows the cause of all the world’s pollution is the USA, every other country is far more ecologically conscious than the evil Americans. < /sarcasm off>

No they couldn't. The 12 mile limit is only for navigational purposes. The US claims a 200 mile exclusive economic zone, and all minerals out to the continental shelf. The states just own the minerals out to 3 miles, except for Texas which claimed 10 miles back when it was the Republic of Texas.

The Truman administration stole Texas' offshore mineral rights between 3 and 10 miles offshore back in the late 1940's, and the federal courts allowed that action to stand. Governor Shivers endorsed Republican presidential candidate General Dwight D. Eisenhower over this issue. That was the beginning of the shift towards the Republican Party in Texas. Eventually Texas' rights to a 10 mile limit were reestablished by federal legislation in the 1950's.

38 posted on 05/24/2008 11:39:23 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (1984 was supposed to be a warning not an instruction manual!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TLI

Love it! All your suggestions.
Do you realize how many people that would put to work?


39 posted on 05/24/2008 11:45:21 AM PDT by vidbizz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate

Thanx for link.Informative article.


40 posted on 05/24/2008 11:51:01 AM PDT by Thombo2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

I’m being quite picky, and I’m sure you know this, but the Texas state waters extend out three leagues, which is actually nine miles.

Your point about the economic zone is accurate, although when it conflicts with the economic zone of another country, the boundary is the middle point, which is why Cuba can drill near the Florida Keys.


41 posted on 05/24/2008 11:53:57 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: vidbizz
Love it! All your suggestions. Do you realize how many people that would put to work?

I don't know an exact number but I would guess it would roughly double the number of Energy Industry employees.

Also, do not mistake my list as being my bright ideas. The items included all came from pro vs. con discussions right here on FR. You will notice that some are not included on the list such as solar and wind. However, if the price of energy remains this high the recent advances in solar panel technology just might get it on the list.

Now the conclusions are mine and I believe them to be correct. An announcement of such an overall program immediately followed by issuing the necessary Executive Orders would get the attention of every Investment Fund Manager on the planet.

42 posted on 05/24/2008 12:15:29 PM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
I’m being quite picky, and I’m sure you know this, but the Texas state waters extend out three leagues, which is actually nine miles.

Well actually a league is about 3.45 miles, so 3 leagues is about 10.35 miles.




TIDELANDS CONTROVERSY. The tidelands controversy between the United States and Texas involved the title to 2,440,650 acres of submerged land in the Gulf of Mexico between low tide and the state's Gulfward boundary three leagues (10.35 miles) from shore. Texas, first acquiring this land by establishing and maintaining itself as an independent nation, reserved this as well as all other unsold land when it entered the Union in 1845. Ownership of the property by the state of Texas was recognized by officials of the United States for more than 100 years. After oil was discovered under state leases, applicants for cheaper federal leases and federal officials began to assert national ownership in the same manner as they had done against California and other coastal states. The contest was not confined to Texas. All states became concerned over their long-recognized titles to lands beneath their navigable waters. It became a national issue, resulting in three Supreme Court decisions against the states, three acts of Congress in favor of the states, two presidential vetoes against the states, and a major issue in a presidential campaign, before the states finally won the victory. It was the most serious conflict of the century between the states and the federal government. The federal claims were branded as an attempted "expropriation" and "steal" by outraged officials of Texas and many of the other states. In 1949 a statewide public opinion poll reported that the people of Texas considered it to be the most important public issue facing the state. Public indignation ran higher in Texas than elsewhere because this land had been dedicated to and was a source of revenue for the public school fund (see AVAILABLE SCHOOL FUND; PERMANENT SCHOOL FUND). Furthermore, Texas held title not only under the general rule of law theretofore applicable to all states, but under the specific provisions of the Annexation Agreement between the Republic of Texasqv and the United States. State officials, the Texas legislature, the Democratic and Republican state conventions, the Texas congressional delegation, and many citizens groups resolved to resist the federal claims and seek congressional action recognizing continued state ownership.

The history of the Texas side of this controversy began in 1836 at San Jacinto, where Texas won its independence from Mexico. While still on the battlefield, Gen. Sam Houstonqv sketched out the boundariesqv of the new nation. They were enacted into law by the First Congress of the Republic of Texas on December 19, 1836. The boundary in the Gulf was described as "beginning at the mouth of the Sabine river, and running West along the Gulf of Mexico three leagues from land." In 1837 this boundary act was sent to President Andrew Jackson, and it was read to the United States Senate. With full knowledge, the United States officially recognized the independence of the Republic of Texas, and President Jackson said, "The title of Texas to the territory she claims is identified with her independence." With its own navy the Republic of Texas maintained and defended its three-league boundary in the Gulf of Mexico during the nine years that it existed as an independent nation. This was the boundary in the Gulf when negotiations were held between the Republic of Texas and the United States for annexation.qv The Congress of Texas insisted that the United States recognize and defend the established boundaries. Houston would not agree to annexation until he obtained an assurance from President James K. Polk on this subject. On June 15, 1845, Polk vowed to "maintain the Texian title to the extent which she claims it to be." Before Texas entered the Union, the Supreme Court of the United States had already written two decisions holding that lands beneath all navigable waters within the boundaries of the original states "were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively" and that "the new States have the same rights, sovereignty and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States." One of these decisions (Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 1845) was later cited with approval and followed by fifty-two Supreme Court decisions and 244 federal and state court decisions. In addition to this already established general rule of law under which Texas would retain ownership of its submerged lands after admission as a new state, the Republic of Texas received the following specific assurances relating to all of its lands in the Annexation Agreement tendered by the United States on March 1, 1845: "That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State, to be called the State of Texas...and said State shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits."

After the war Mexican Warqv the Texas legislature passed a resolution urging its congressional delegation to insist on the original Texas boundary being followed in the treaty with Mexico, and this boundary commencing "in the Gulf of Mexico, three leagues from land, opposite the mouth of the Rio Grande" was written into the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgoqv in 1848. Texas's three-league Gulfward boundary was again recognized and followed in the Gadsden Treaty between the United States and Mexico in 1853. On many other occasions between 1845 and 1948 the United States recognized this boundary and Texas ownership of the submerged lands within such boundary. When federal officials needed sites for lighthouses, fortifications, and jetties in the Gulfward areas, they obtained grants from the Texas legislature. Thus, with no adverse claims against the title to this property, the Texas legislature authorized the School Land Boardqv to execute mineral leases on this land for the benefit of the public school fund. These leases, sold to the highest bidders, had yielded many millions of dollars before any federal claims were asserted. Other coastal states, relying upon their general title under the Constitution and the long line of Supreme Court opinions, were receiving revenues from oil, kelp, shell, sand, marl, fish, ports, docks, piers, and expensive building sites on filled land along the coasts of Florida and New York. The earliest adverse claims against any of the states were asserted by applicants for federal oil leases under the federal law, which granted leases at twenty-five cents per acre on any undeveloped lands owned by the United States. This was not one one-hundredth of the price per acre averaged by the states for the leases they had sold under state laws. By 1950 there were 1,031 federal lease applicants who had blanketed the coasts of Texas, California, and Louisiana with applications for leases on lands already covered by state leases.

The first lawsuit asserting federal ownership of tidelands was filed by the United States against California in 1946. The federal claim was based on allegations that original ownership of the land was held by the United States before California was made a state; that former Supreme Court cases adjudicating state ownership were erroneous and should be overruled; that long recognition of state ownership by federal officials did not bar federal action; that paramount federal governmental rights in the tidelands area were inconsistent and incompatible with state ownership; and that no state could hold ownership of lands underlying the marginal sea belt below low tide. Because this lawsuit was based on claims broad enough to be applied against other states, the attorneys general of all other states filed an amicus curiae brief in opposition to the federal claim, and Marion Price Daniel, Sr.,qv (attorney general for the state of Texas, 1947-53) presented oral argument on their behalf before the Supreme Court of the United States. In 1946, while the suit was pending, Congress passed a bill recognizing and confirming state ownership of the property, but this bill was vetoed by President Harry Truman.

In 1947, by a split decision, the Supreme Court decided against California in an opinion by Justice Hugo L. Black. The language and theory of this opinion were so shocking to state officials and leading lawyers of the nation that the American Bar Association, the Council of State Governments, the Governors Conference, most of the state legislatures, the National Association of Attorneys General, and the American Title Association immediately urged that Congress again act to overthrow the result and theories announced in the decision. It became one of the most widely criticized opinions in the history of the court. Justice Black conceded that the states had claimed and possessed their submerged lands in good faith under the language of numerous Supreme Court decisions indicating "that the court then believed that States not only owned tidelands and soil under navigable inland waters, but also owned soils under navigable waters within their territorial jurisdiction, whether inland or not." But since oil and other property involved might be necessary to the national defense and the conduct of international affairs, Justice Black reasoned that the case should not be controlled by "bare legal title" or "mere property ownership." He said: "The crucial question on the merits is not merely who owns the bare legal title to the lands under the marginal sea. The United States here asserts rights in two capacities transcending those of a mere property owner."

It was the new theory that federal "paramount rights" may be exercised to take oil and other property without ownership and without compensation that excited fears that the rule might be applied equally to lands beneath inland waters of all the states and eventually to private property. However, until after the presidential election of 1948, there was still hope that Texas's special title retained under the Annexation Agreement would be recognized by federal officials and that this state would not be sued. On the day he argued the California case, March 13, 1947, United States Attorney General Tom C. Clarkqv handed to the press a statement saying that a decision in that case would not apply to Texas; that "as a Republic it owned all of the lands within its boundaries, including the marginal sea commonly called tidelands. This area was under the sovereignty of Texas during the Republic and was retained by it under the provisions of the Act of Admission." During the presidential campaign, President Truman said in Austin on September 20, 1948: "Texas is in a class by itself; it entered the Union by Treaty." Even former Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes, a champion of the fight against state ownership, said in a national television address, on October 14, 1948: "Parenthetically, Texas may have the legal right to its tidelands, because it came into the Union voluntarily and as an independent country."

Texas went Democratic in the 1948 election, and shortly after the election President Truman directed the attorney general to file suit against Texas. Motion for summary judgment (without hearing evidence) was made on behalf of the United States. Texas made a strong plea, supported by eleven of the world's authorities on international law, in support of its title to the property as an independent nation; its retention of the land under the terms of the international agreement by which it became a state; and its right to introduce evidence on both points. By a vote of four to three, the Supreme Court decided against Texas, thereby, for the first time in its history, denying a state the right to introduce evidence in a contested lawsuit. The majority opinion by Justice William O. Douglas recognized Texas's ownership as a republic, but held that transfer of national sovereignty to the United States and admission as a state on an equal footing with the other states accomplished a transfer of this land to the United States. On motion for rehearing, again supported by leading authorities on the interpretation of international agreements, Texas urged that transfer of national sovereignty does not carry with it the ownership of lands specifically retained by solemn agreement; that the "equal footing" provision was not submitted to or accepted by the Republic of Texas; and that there was no "equal footing" as far as lands and debts were concerned, because Texas was the only state required to assume its own public debt and permitted to retain all of its unsold lands. The court corrected its erroneous citation on "equal footing" but did not change the result of its decision. In 1952 Congress again passed a bill restoring to the states the title to all submerged lands within their respective boundaries, but for the second time, President Truman vetoed the bill.

In the presidential campaign of 1952 Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhowerqv made special recognition of the rights of Texas under the Annexation Agreement as well as the long-recognized rights of the other states under earlier Supreme Court decisions. He declared in favor of state ownership legislation and said he would sign the bill if it were enacted again by Congress. The Republican platform agreed. On the other hand, the Democratic nominee, Adlai Stevenson, said he would veto such a bill if enacted again by Congress. In Texas this became the foremost issue in the 1952 campaign. The state Democratic Convention placed Stevenson's name on the ticket but then passed a resolution urging all members of the Texas Democratic partyqv to vote for Eisenhower, and Eisenhower carried the state in the November election.

In 1953 Congress made the restoration of submerged lands one of the first orders of business. Price Daniel, then United States senator from Texas, was coauthor of the legislation in the Senate, where it survived what was then the longest filibuster in Senate history (twenty-seven days) and finally won a substantial majority in both houses. President Eisenhower signed the measure on May 22, 1953. One of the pens used by the president in affixing his signature was presented to the Texas Memorial Museumqv in a ceremony conducted by the University of Texas. As an aftermath, one last battle was pitched against Texas in 1957, when the Republican attorney general, Herbert Brownell, filed suit against the state, alleging that its legal boundary and therefore its tideland ownership extended only three miles instead of three leagues (10.35 miles) into the Gulf. This was resented in Texas, primarily because President Eisenhower, the Congress, and Attorney General Brownell himself had specifically recognized three leagues as the extent of the Texas boundary and ownership during the hearings and pendency of the 1953 legislation. The Brownell action sought to take away two-thirds of the Texas property. President Eisenhower publicly disagreed with the position taken by the Department of Justice with respect to the Texas boundary. Nevertheless, Texas was forced to defend its boundary in the Supreme Court of the United States. Texas prevailed in this lawsuit, which was decided on June 1, 1960, and now holds thoroughly litigated and firmly established title to its three-league Gulfward boundary and the 2,440,650 acres within such boundary. As of August 31, 1987, the General Land Officeqv reported that the Texas public school fund had received nearly $2 billion from leases, rentals, and royalties on this property, and that forty oil wells and 393 gas wells had been discovered.


43 posted on 05/24/2008 3:17:32 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (1984 was supposed to be a warning not an instruction manual!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

You’re right. A nautical league is longer than its land-based cousin.

More Texas for me.


44 posted on 05/24/2008 4:14:08 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Clairity; All
Here is the rat argument in a nutshell: It takes too long--up to ten years to get oil out of these places so why bother,also some might be spilled and our constituents, the enviro wakcos, would have a hissy fit and we might not get our full allotment of campaign contributions.

Pathetic argument but that's what it boils down to. Here is the truth. According to Boone Pickens in another 7-10 years at $750-900 billion per year being transferred to terrorist oil countries, we will be broke as a country.

Here is the truth.

Drilling in Anwar could take a while. You can only drill in the winter when the ground is frozen and only for about 4 months of the year.

Absent a Marshall plan to get oil up and flowing it's an 8-10 years program. With a Marshall type plan exempting all regs and govt. regs. who knows, maybe half that time.

Either way we should start tomorrow.

The Gulf is whole other ball game. I have gotten estimates from numerous Freepers and others who are in the oil business or well connected. They tell me its an 8 month to three year project in the Gulf from start to finish.

Problem is the dem/rats are winning by 6 votes right now, maybe if gas goes to $5.00 we can beat them. It's really sick what they are doing to us, destroying the country and major portions of the world by forcing $126/130 oil.

No one to blame for this but the Democrat party and we should go after them big time if we have half a brain.

45 posted on 05/24/2008 5:01:31 PM PDT by rodguy911 (Support The New media, Ticket the Drive-bys, --America-The land of the Free because of the Brave-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLI
Open the clean coal deposits Klinton “closed” which contains 62 BILLION tons of environmentally safe low-sulfur coal from the Kaiparowits Plateau in Utah.

Just curious. What recovery methods would you suggest and what current transportation facility could get that coal to market?

46 posted on 05/24/2008 5:46:38 PM PDT by kitchen (Any day without a fair tax thread is a good day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rodguy911
Drilling in Anwar could take a while. You can only drill in the winter when the ground is frozen and only for about 4 months of the year.

If we had started back in 2001 when W proposed it, the oil would be coming online now.

47 posted on 05/24/2008 6:17:58 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (1984 was supposed to be a warning not an instruction manual!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop; Clairity
We're told drilling oil at home is hazardous for the environment. But liberals have no problem with buying oil from Third World countries that don't have the kind of environmental consciousness that we do! It doesn't compute.

What do you expect from Gulfstream DemocRATS? They want plenty of jet fuel to fill the tanks of their private planes while they fly from one blue enclave to another to attend environmental seminars where they denounce the SUV's driven by the middle class.

48 posted on 05/24/2008 6:26:24 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (1984 was supposed to be a warning not an instruction manual!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

“There are no national elections provided for in the constitution. Even when you vote for President, you are voting for the electors to the electoral college within your own state. “

Then amend the 22nd amendment to include the legislative branch of government.


49 posted on 05/25/2008 2:26:50 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Shouldn't the libs love a Hunter Thompson ticket in 08?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
NO argument there, I would assume at this point we have to guess how high fuel has to go before those supporting the enviro rats will say uncle and give in.
50 posted on 05/25/2008 5:23:18 AM PDT by rodguy911 (Support The New media, Ticket the Drive-bys, --America-The land of the Free because of the Brave-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson