Norm Coleman: Start drilling now, and go nuclear
posted at 11:10 am on June 13, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Senator Norm Coleman often runs afoul of conservatives as a moderate Minnesotan, but today he’s proving why he makes such an intelligent ally. Coleman plans to introduce legislation to expand oil and nuclear energy production in the US. In a message sent out to Minnesota bloggers this morning, his campaign elaborates on Coleman’s plan:
Yesterday Senator Coleman delivered a speech on the floor of the Senate where he outlined his new, comprehensive energy bill that aims to bring energy prices down. Notably, this legislation includes increased domestic drilling, more nuclear energy, clean coal technology and an increased use of renewable fuels.
I know that several of you are interested in both increasing domestic oil production and investing in more nuclear energy, so below you will find information on how Senator Coleman’s legislation would help in these areas.
Increased Domestic Drilling
With an estimated 2.8 million barrels of oil and 12 trillion cubic feet of natural gas sitting under the Outer Continental Shelf, Senator Coleman feels it is essential that we tap this unused resource. As a way to lower oil prices. Unlike Democrats like Al Franken, Senator Coleman knows that with an ever-increasing demand for oil, the only way to see a decrease in the price-per-barrel is to increase the supply. This has the potential to offset foreign oil imports by as much as $145 billion dollars. This bill would give governors of affected coastal states a say in the matter and would allow them to negotiate deals that are in the best interests of their citizens.
Investing In More Nuclear Energy
As Senator Coleman is fond of saying, “the French are not braver than we are” when it comes to investing in nuclear. Senator Coleman’s legislation would implement a tax credit and loan guarantee system for nuclear production as well as training for an expanded nuclear workforce. And, he has been a strong advocate for lifting Minnesota’s moratorium on expanding nuclear power.
If passed, this legislation would go a long to help bring energy prices down and go a long way in securing our energy independence.
We will, of course, need to see the details. Of special interest is how willing Coleman will be to opening up federal lands for exploration and drilling. He has opposed ANWR drilling in the past, and he probably will continue to do so, but if we can get enough production from continental resources, ANWR could wait for another debate later down the road.
Coleman has apparently understood the opportunity that this energy crisis has provided to both parties to finally establish a rational plan to secure the energy necessary for our standard of living. Using nuclear, coal, and oil resources within our own borders, we can alleviate the supply problems we currently face within a few years — and action along these lines might prompt current production to rise in an attempt to dissuade us from becoming more independent, resulting in price declines in the near term. Using our own resources will put less money in the pockets of those who fund terrorism against American and Western interests and therefore make the nation more secure.
Norm Coleman may not be as conservative as some would like, but he is a pragmatist. If he delivers on this effort, he will have shown his worth to the GOP once again. Hopefully, he can convince members of both parties to participate in a sensible and long-overdue approach to energy policy — and maybe get John McCain to explicitly back this effort.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
If he can get it out of committee, it probably has a good chance of passing.
RushBaby on June 13, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Welcome to another term, Senator.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 13, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Do it.
Yakko77 on June 13, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Which is an easy ticket to the White House.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 13, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Yes, ANWR can wait if we open other avenues, and show we can be envio responsible.
This is what we need, someone with the Malkins to bring it to the national table of debate.
The left has always admired the French, now let’s see them tell us how foolish the French are.
The web is being spun…
right2bright on June 13, 2008 at 11:18 AM
2.8 million barrels? That can’t be right. Can it?
boomer on June 13, 2008 at 11:18 AM
We can’t drill, Nancy Pelosi says so, it will raise the earth’s temperature or something.
benrand on June 13, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Yeah…one supertanker can haul 3m barrels. Gotta be a typo.
Limerick on June 13, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Very good! That’s leadership, Senator. Now, if you can get the guy at the top of the ticket on board . . . . .
james23 on June 13, 2008 at 11:21 AM
I think he means billions. Even montana has like 3 billion barrels of oil.
lorien1973 on June 13, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Great, but again, where were you when the GOP had a majority? Proposing bills you know the majority will not accept is just political grandstanding.
Kafir on June 13, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Eh, he’s conservative. And from the get go, he’s been one of the hardest working in Washington. I gotta give him credit.
Just seems it’s going to be difficult to start building nuke plants again. I’m all for it, but it’s not going to be easy.
JetBoy on June 13, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Regarding a nuclear workforce I know for a fact that there are thousands of nuclear trained professionals just waiting in the wings for opportunities and they were all trained for at least a year and have many years of experience. These thousands of professionals are the men and women who run the nuclear power plants of the US Navy. The expectation of going into the nuclear field was what prompted me to join the Navy back in 1985. However when Igot out the industry had dried up but the Navy still needs “nukes” so they keep training them and pumping them out year after year.
As for oil check out the editorials on Investors Business Daily. Great stuff.
DerKrieger on June 13, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Drilling in ANWR isn’t even necessary. We can drill in Montana too. We could also drop the opposition to shale oil and get almost unlimited oil from Canada and the badlands at about $40-$50/barrel.
lorien1973 on June 13, 2008 at 11:22 AM
The democrats aren’t even grandstanding; so at least its a step in the right direction.
lorien1973 on June 13, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Hammering the anti-energy, eco-Marxist Liberals on the energy issue day after day is a winning strategy. American sneed to know who is responsible for this “crisis”. It is the socialsists in teh Democrat party and their environmentalist puppet masters.
DerKrieger on June 13, 2008 at 11:23 AM
I agree. McCain can turn the $4/gallon into a positive; if he’d get his head out of his ass.
lorien1973 on June 13, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Yeah, 2.8 million barrels is about 1/10 of a day’s use for the USA. Must be a misprint.
Krydor on June 13, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Poison pill. Just like here in Colorado, the GOVENROR’s are part of the problem…
Neither Calif, or Florida’s Govenors want drilling anywhere near their states… and WHY is it suddenly a state issue when its 50 miles off their Coast?
We really need to see the whole plan, but this sounds more like a “see, we’re doing somthing” kind of thing.
Romeo13 on June 13, 2008 at 11:29 AM
I see with the rise of McCain the term moderate is skittering to the left quicker than a Chuck Schumer dash to the glare of media lights. Perhaps by Minnesota standards Coleman’s positions are considered moderate but it’s all relative. He’s been a huge disappointment on many issues that matter to the rest of the country.
highhopes on June 13, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Someone needs to draft a pledge for this election cycle.
The pledge would read come thing like: “In order to reduce our energy cost, help our economy, and protect our nation. I pledge to do everything in my power to expanded domestic oil produciton and refining capacity.”
This will put the Dems on the defensive.
Nobody cares about alterantive energy and global warming when gas is five bucks a gallon.
liberrocky on June 13, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Such as? Looking at his page on ontheissues; he’s not bad just not a pure conservative. Unfortunately, for too many conservatives, that means he’s the devil.
lorien1973 on June 13, 2008 at 11:34 AM
If it doesn’t give the states veto power, then it’s a step beyond McCain’s position on offshore drilling. If it gives California or Florida a veto on drilling, then it’s the same as McCain’s position.
RBMN on June 13, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Oh what the hell.
McCain/Coleman 2008
(How much worse could it be that who Mac’s gonna choose anyway?)
Fishoutofwater on June 13, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Wait…what the hell? Where did he get those ridiculously low numbers from?
MadisonConservative on June 13, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Yeah, that’s got to be some kind of typo. It should probably be 2.8 trillion if he’s talking about the entire Outer Continental Shelf.
Maxx on June 13, 2008 at 11:36 AM
I was a long time support of Norm but I have lost faith in him recently. He is a Wolf in Sheep’s clothing. He did vote for S. 3044 (Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 ) which was going to put Windfall taxes on the Oil companies.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00146
He 100% on Global Warming band wagon.
Here is an portion of an e-mail I recieved from his office.
“I firmly believe the time for arguing about the evidence of climate change is over. We know humans are emitting substantial greenhouse gases into the air, and we know the world is getting warmer - eight of the last ten years are among the warmest on record. “
jlemieu1 on June 13, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Amnesty.
RushBaby on June 13, 2008 at 11:41 AM
If he is such a strong supporter of offshore drilling, why did he vote against it just a few weeks ago? He was one of only 6 republicans to oppose the bill to open up offshore drilling… Here’s an article on it: “The U.S. Senate Tuesday rejected an attempt to expand offshore oil and gas drilling to allow the states to generate revenue.”
thankful on June 13, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Hey, if Iran can build 7 new refineries, we should be able to do the same.
Connie on June 13, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Coleman has a weak opponent in Franken and a ripe opportunity with $4/gallon gas, but where was he when ANWR was the hot issue? It’s easy to peg these guys as the hero du jour when they stand up for a single issue, but Coleman hasn’t been exactly conservative when he needed to be, and certainly not as he promised the voters he would be.
Bishop on June 13, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Apparently Al Franken’s campaign is having an effect. . .
has the McCain campaign noticed yet?
rockhauler on June 13, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Here is an portion of an e-mail I recieved from his office.
jlemieu1 on June 13, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Hey, at least you got an email, I get the form letter telling me my correspondence was received and they will reply shortly. Then nothing.
I wonder if it has something to do with me telling Norm that he won’t get my vote again until he stops pandering to the libs.
Bishop on June 13, 2008 at 11:44 AM
While the rest of the world is expanding their oil drilling, refinery capacity, and nuclear power plants, we’ve been nearly dead in the water in those regards for the last 30 years. It’s as if we’re TRYING to make our nation as weak as possible. I know that’s what the leftists want, but then the rest of us have to suffer for it. How about some national pride for a change.
Paul-Cincy on June 13, 2008 at 11:44 AM
The only time he gets “conservative” is when his office gets flooded with people complaing or the polls change.
jlemieu1 on June 13, 2008 at 11:45 AM
If by pragmatist you mean political opportunist who sees a way to get more money pumped into alternative fuel programs that “just happen” to include grain be grown in Minn. I might agree with you.
I may be a little tough on Coleman but he seems to be as much of a political Judas as John McCain. He’s been against ANWR and an awful lot of these other initiatives until just before a close election with an electorate upset about fuel prices. Coleman has been focused on other areas than energy during his time in the Senate. It’s all just a little bit too convenient that he’s suddenly Mr. Energy.
For the record, the members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee- the ones that would have to act for any of Coleman’s ideas are listed below. It is there opinons that matter far more than the lifelong Democrat (turned Republican 12 years ago) and sometimes votes with the conservatives senior Senator from MN.
Democrats
Chairman Jeff Bingaman (NM)
Daniel K. Akaka (HI)
Byron L. Dorgan (ND)
Ron Wyden (OR)
Tim Johnson (SD)
Mary L. Landrieu (LA)
Maria Cantwell (WA)
Ken Salazar (CO)
Robert Menendez (NJ)
Blanche Lincoln (AR)
Bernard Sanders (VT)
Jon Tester (MT)
Republicans
Pete V. Domenici (NM)
Larry E. Craig (ID)
Lisa Murkowski (AK)
Richard Burr (NC)
Jim DeMint (SC)
Bob Corker (TN)
John Barrasso (WY)
Jeff Sessions (AL)
Gordon Smith (OR)
Jim Bunning (KY)
Mel Martinez (FL)
highhopes on June 13, 2008 at 11:46 AM
I wish… http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,366004,00.html
read, and get even more angry…
Romeo13 on June 13, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Mary Landrieu, who is on the Energy committee BTW, doesn’t even send a form letter until months after the issue is even relevant. Even then, it is generic (Thank you for your recent correspondence on…) and self-serving (rest assured that Senator Landrieu is listening to advice from people with all sorts of views on this issue (never definded) and will put the people of Louisiana first….)
She’s pulled this arrogant “I don’t have to respond” crap for years.
highhopes on June 13, 2008 at 11:51 AM
I did not get a reply back from him on his stance on S 3044. I even remained cival in questions back to him.
jlemieu1 on June 13, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Coleman’s ACU rating was anemic last year, only 64%. Let’s put that in perspective: Hagel had 79%, Lindsey Graham had 88%.
Coleman only scored 43% on Club for Growth’s scorecard.
thankful on June 13, 2008 at 11:53 AM
I did not get a reply back from him on his stance on S 3044. I even remained cival in questions back to him.
jlemieu1 on June 13, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Calling doesn’t help either. The two times I tried I was shunted to a young-sounding woman who answered with, “Yeah?” and sounded as if she would rather scalp herself than listen to my opinion.
Coleman is a windsock. He threw in his lot with the GOP during their majority and now he is heading back left, smelling the winds of change. I wouldn’t be surprised if he suddenly decided to get DFL religion.
Bishop on June 13, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Ok, just sent off a quick email to the esteemed senator questioning his energy policy dichotomy. I will add his form letter to the other ones adorning my wall.
Anyone not from MN, don’t get excited about Coleman because there won’t be any payoff in the end.
Bishop on June 13, 2008 at 12:02 PM
I’d normally agree with you, but he does represent Minnesota. It may cost him some votes.
SouthernGent on June 13, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Amen Norm. My kind of Republican.
carbon_footprint on June 13, 2008 at 12:12 PM
If Coleman voted for cloture on the global-warming bill, only to see it not even get a majority (48 votes), maybe he’s seen the light, that global-warming legislation and carbon taxes are a loser when people are paying $4/gallon for gasoline and $3/gallon for home heating oil.
If Madison Conservative’s numbers are right, offshore drilling, as well as exploitation of shale oil in CO, UT, and WY (estimated 800 billion barrels) could significantly reduce imports for years to come, and ANWR may be unnecessary, in order to placate the caribou crowd.
There may be some interesting Democrats on that committee who might vote with Coleman. Dorgan (ND) and Tester(MT) might go along with this, because there’s a promising (Bakken) shale oil field under their states, and there are plans for a refinery in SD to refine its oil, which might be used to sway Johnson. Salazar (CO) is a huge disappointment, because development of shale oil could be a bonanza for his state, and he has convinced lily-liver Landrieu to vote against lifting the moratorium on shale oil. Landrieu, from oil-rich Louisiana, should know better than this, and she’s in a tight re-election race this year.
If Coleman’s idea could be endorsed by all the Republicans of the committee and one or more of the five Democrats above, it could reach the Senate floor.
Steve Z on June 13, 2008 at 12:14 PM
And there to languish until after the election and a solid dem majority comes into power to kill it.
Bishop on June 13, 2008 at 12:21 PM
It may not be as sexy a topic as “Drill, Drill, Drill!” (no pun intended), but we badly need to build new refineries as well, & no one is bringing that up.
jgapinoy on June 13, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Mega nuclear, drilling, fining, Dittos Senator Norm.
Texyank on June 13, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Ahhhhh ! ! It’s refining
Mega nuclear, drilling, refining, Dittos Senator Norm.
Texyank on June 13, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Let me take a guess, based on the following line from his self-promotion:
Which affected coastal state has the longest coast line? Why, Florida. And what is Governor Crist’s stance on off-shore drilling? He opposes it, as he reiterated just this week. Add to that the fact that Florida’s Republican Senator, Mel Martinez, was instrumental in defeating offshore drilling bills in both 2003 and 2004 (when it actually might have passed) and Norm’s not taking much of a gamble on this one.
Nichevo on June 13, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Don’t hold your breath. McStupid’s head hasn’t seen the light of day in many years.
james23 on June 13, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Exactly!
This can be a winning issue for us. I’m hoping Coleman’s bill will get the ball rolling.
petefrt on June 13, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Norm Coleman for Vice President!
bopbottle on June 13, 2008 at 1:15 PM
actually you are wrong. It is Alaska, due to Federal constraints. Or are you talking continential? The you would be right it is FL with CA a close second.
upinak on June 13, 2008 at 1:15 PM
You’d be even cooler if you changed your name to DJ Cwac Cwac. (per obscure Dexter’s Laboratory reference). Any response to this and I will be forced to look up the episode title, et cetera…et cetera.
-
eh hum! *my favorite cartoon*
MechEng5by5 on June 13, 2008 at 1:25 PM
I really sense the start of a shift of public opinion which is leading to a change in position of politicians. Recently I have talked with people I know of all political opinions and all have mentioned frustration over high gas prices. When I mention drilling in ANWR and such, they seem to agree it just makes sense.
I called McCain’s election office and said if he came out forcefully with an energy plan that included drilling, he would win in a landslide. Also called some local politicians and told them the tide is turning and they might want to get on the correct side of it before it washes them out of office.
AndrewsDad on June 13, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Why are we giving up the argument on ANWR? The Alaskan people want the jobs, their entire congressional delegation and governor support opening ANWR, and it would definitely help increase America’s energy supply. Why as conservatives, should we allow moderates who worry about the opinions of Sierra Club to take away the freedom of Alaskans to have jobs and Americans to access our own oil? Nice of Coleman to support offshore drilling, but we shouldn’t allow him the veto power over Alaskan jobs and America’s energy.
thankful on June 13, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Taking a loud and consistent stance on increased drilling and nuclear energy is the best shot the Republicans have in this cycle. Come up with a new Contract for America on energy and ride it as hard as you can until November, from the top of the ticket to all of the local races.
Dudley Smith on June 13, 2008 at 1:54 PM
I have yet to figure out why so many are against nuclear power. The two common examples detractors use are Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
1) For a fairly complete description as to what happened, and the resulting effects, I recommend looking at the NRC website. The amount of released radioactive gases was quite minimal.
2) The accident at Chernobyl was due to stupidity, to be blunt. They used graphite (carbon) as their moderator, versus water, like we use in the states. (The moderator is the medium by which the nuclear particles pass from one fuel rod to another. The rods are arranged in a honeycomb-like pattern with either water or carbon between them.) The problem with the carbon moderator is that when the rods get hot, they expand. Carbon, being a solid, doesn’t allow for the rods to be removed. In an American reactor, was just drain the water, hence ending the nuclear reaction.
3) A nuclear power plant is not a bomb. The uranium used in power plants is nowhere near the same grade as that of a nuclear weapon. The structures themselves are also completely different.
4) The waste, if deregulated, can be recycled, much the same as we refine the fuel for nuclear weapons, and reused in power plants. This would solve some of the issues we have with radioactive waste.
Send_Me on June 13, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Finally, some common sense from Norm. We’ll have to wait for the details, hopefully it’s not like Bush’s “comprehensive” immigration reform amnesty.
RJL on June 13, 2008 at 2:13 PM
The Republican congress should introduce bills like this one on a regular basis so that the voting public can see who is obstructing us.
SIJ6141 on June 13, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Kay Bailey Hutchison was speaking yesterday on the Ingraham Show (with the sub Monica Crowley who kept calling her Sen. Hutchinson throughout the interview). Sen. Hutchison explained that though the democrats had since 1970 created too many stipulations and waiting period during which time investment money kept draining without proof of either acceptance or rejection, JUST PRIOR TO THE GOP LOSS OF THE MAJORITY, they passed legislation allowing ALL application materials be submitted/considered simultaneously rather than one at a time as the democrats again NOW are trying to re-legislate. So for the moment, getting the required OK or rejection can be done in a timely fashion should investors begin the process for a nuclear power plant such as AZ has west of PHX valley, or newer as what Japan and France have succeeded using.
maverick muse on June 13, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Successful wacko MSM propaganda.
I remember in grade school watching the newsreels with the smiling nuclear energy picture telling us it was the way of the future.
Then came jr.high when the hippys and uberleftist MSM began their campaigns against “the system”, as though drug induced mentality had moral authority over the establishment. But we were all persuaded, being “of age” aka gullible and naive and “idealistic”, willing to refute rather than trust the establishment.
So “democracy” following our fair-minded MSM reporters demanded safety beyond reason, safety as in overly cautious. We ended up playing “Bubble Boy” mommy with our nation, denying science for myth. The MSM proved their success in swaying the “silent majority” into remaining silent or actually changing their mind after hearing the MSM wholecloth more than three times, just as any ad will succeed with the lame brain. No we suffer Goredom. Hence, the stoopid factor when young commenters scream, “You just don’t get democracy” or even more indicting of their idiocy “you’re just like a holocaust denier” as though they have the monopoly on experience (NOT), feigning ignorance that outside of the US, holocaust deniers are prosecuted, fined, and even imprisoned. Who has the monopoly on hypcrisy? Liberals could claim the prize, being the first to deny free speech.
That dead-end thought is now being sold “new” as repackaged new age is to be scoffed and rebuffed.
While people learn how to read and think, let life be. Meanwhile, it’s the economy stupid. So drill, refine, build nuclear plants and enjoy JOBS, fuel, prosperity and security.
GO GOP: proudly made in the USA
maverick muse on June 13, 2008 at 2:37 PM
I’m one of Norm’s constituents. I’m not holding my breath about this. While I am glad to see him introduce this legislation, I still wonder which side he’s on, considering his vote as noted above on S. 3044.
I called JIm Oberstar’s (D-MN) office a while back to express my displeasure with his vote on decreasing funding for the military. I ended up getting into an argument with the useful idiot taking calls regarding Jimmy’s anti-military stance. Dummy kept arguing about the number of troops killed; when I asked him how many died on Omaha Beach the response was ‘I dunno, a lot?”. When I told him how many did (10K), he hung up on me.
That’s what we here in Minnesota have for representation. I truly do not understand the mentality of the population here. It boggles the mind.
Blue-eyed Infidel on June 13, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Problem here is that he also supports Lieberman/Warner.
Give with right, take with the left-a number of times.
Amendment X on June 13, 2008 at 2:47 PM
And he also wants to spend oodles of money on “alternative fuels”.
I called his office and warned that he would not be getting my vote if he supports Lieberman/Warner and “alternative fuels” that have a history of 30 years of failure.
Amendment X on June 13, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Refineries. We need more refineries.
h0mi on June 13, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Common sense seems downright exceptional these days.
Mojave Mark on June 13, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Wow! I might have to vote for this Dill Weed after all! I’m taken aback!
sabbott on June 13, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Ahhhh yes, Normie! Say what I wanna hear, and I agree with what you said. But, I’ve followed your service in the Senate and I will NOT hold my breath. But, at least you’re on record, sorta, kinda. Minnesota will always lean liberal and look to live in the 18th and 19th centuries. People here wear their “Northwoods” personas on their flannel shirt sleeves. They also invite more distaff minority cultures here to suck off the State tax payers teat than most states.
MNDavenotPC on June 13, 2008 at 3:26 PM
According to Investor’s Business Daily’s editorial today:
• The lower 48 outer continental shelf. Watson estimates there are 86 billion barrels of crude in the Gulf of Mexico to which access is federally restricted. There’s as much as another 4 billion to 10.3 billion barrels on the Atlantic coast, 11 billion to 13.8 billion on the Pacific coast.
Clearly the correct number is way more than what was in the text above for recoverable oil on the continental shelf. The point made by Coleman is valid however.
KW64 on June 13, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Whats needed,is a hot rumour, that there drillin,
in all the places enviromental wackos hold ever
so holy!
Then sit back,thats one political group that will
be in a tizzy during this election cycle! haha.
canopfor on June 13, 2008 at 5:01 PM
That’s MY Senator, right there. She doesn’t always make decisions I agree with, but she does the right thing a lot more than she gets it wrong.
And her office also responds with letters whenever I write or fax. Hearing some of the nightmares some of you are living with, I am thankful we here in Texas are so fortunate to have what we have for representation. That goes for John Cornyn too.
techno_barbarian on June 13, 2008 at 8:12 PM
No, but next to McCain, he looks like Reagan.
Coleman for President!
labrat on June 13, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Nuclear has nothing to do with oil, don’t get me wrong I have no problem with using it but we have a huge supply of coal too and it is cheaper than Nuclear for electrical generation.
- The United States has 268 billion tons of coal reserves or about a 240 year supply (National Mining Association)
- The levelized cost of a kilowatt hour is 3.53 cents for coal, 5.47 cents for gas, 5.94 cents for nuclear
- Only 1.5% of the United States electrical generation comes from oil (EIA) (48% Coal, 20% Natural Gas, 19% Nuclear)
- 2 Trillion barrels of oil are estimated in the United States Oil-Shale Reserves (USGS)
- 175 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the Oil Sands of Alberta, Canada (AGS)
- 86 Billion barrels of oil are estimated on the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States (MMS)
- 32 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in ANWR, NPRA and the Central North Slope in Alaska (USGS)
- 4.3 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and Montana, United States (USGS)
- 214 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the Illinois Basin, United States (USGS)
For Comparison:
- 260 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in Saudi Arabia (EIA)
- 80 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in Venezuela (EIA)
Some facts on ANWR:
- ANWR: 19.6 million acres. Size of oil production area: 2,000 acres (about the size of an Airport)
- 10.6 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in ANWR by the USGS
- Original Prudhoe Bay estimate: 8 Billion barrels, Actual: 14 Billion barrels (to date)
- The Central Arctic Caribou Herd has grown from 3,000 to 32,000 since Prudhoe Bay production began
- 75% of Alaskans support responsible energy exploration in ANWR
Poptech on June 14, 2008 at 3:03 AM
Great info Poptech. Thanks!
rtsidedragon on June 14, 2008 at 10:26 AM