Obama says drill – but knows Sierra Club will fight

Powerline has a nice wrap-up concerning Obama’s two-faced approach to drilling for more oil and natural gas here in the States. Even though he’s now preaching that we should consider drilling offshore and open more leases in Alaska – not ANWAR – he knows that environmentalists will go to court to block every move to actually drill.

By playing both sides of the coin, he gives the impression that he cares about energy costs; and even though the oil companies can drill, they are not drilling. Squarely putting the blame back on Big Oil even though it’s not their fault.

He is not explaining why the oil companies are not drilling.

Will someone on the Obama road crew (aka journalists covering his campaign) ask the Democrat candidate following question.

If you are serious about opening up additional leases in Alaska, will you go to the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations and ask them to call off the lawyers and allow companies to drill for oil and gas on those leases? Will you call for them to allow pipelines and additional infrastructure to move oil and gas to where it is needed?

Here’s the most recent post from Powerline, The Dishonesty of Barak Obama Part II, and an excerpt in response to Obama saying that we should lease more of the National Petroleum Reserve (NPRA) in Alaska, located west of Prudhoe Bay.

But, as Obama no doubt knows, much of the NPR has already been leased, yet those leases have not generated any oil production. Why is this? Not because there aren’t enough leases, but rather, as we pointed out here, because the necessary infrastructure doesn’t exist: the Corps of Engineers has not been able to get a permit to build a pipeline. Further, the projects that oil companies have already proposed in NPR have been tied up in litigation initiated by the Sierra Club and other environmental groups. Leasing more acres won’t solve these problems, it will only lead to more litigation. Of course, the Democrats have always been better at producing lawsuits than producing oil.

So by saying he wants to lease more land, he gets credit for trying. But he knows that the Sierra Club and other environmental wacko groups will do the dirty work to cover him with the fringe base and keep fuel prices high. Wink wink, nod nod.

The link within the quote above goes to a July 17 post at Powerline, Real and Fake Energy Proposals. For reference, I’ve also snagged the image Powerline uses to provide an overview of the areas discussed. (Thanks guys…)

The Democrats brought legislation to the House that would expire leases – in the NRA, not ANWAR – after a specific period of time if oil companies don’t drill. How can they drill if the environmental lawyers are blocking them at every turn?

NPR-A is already open to oil exploration and development. That isn’t happening, though, because the Corps of Engineers hasn’t been able to get a permit to build a pipeline, and the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations have tied up proposed projects in litigation. Moreover, NPR-A is a less desirable area for exploitation than ANWR. It has about the same amount of recoverable oil, but spread out over ten times the area as ANWR’s 1002. Both environmentally and economically, ANWR is a far superior place to recover oil, and it is close to the existing Alaska Pipeline.

This is all a bit clearer to me now, and it shows how far liberals will go to keep energy costs high. They know that their minions won’t take the 38 minutes required to research the subject.

Another good article posted today is from our friend Walter Williams. I consider him a friend since he responded to an e-mail I sent him. Anyway…

His article this week, Environmentalists’ Hold on Congress, he slams Congress. It’s a good read…

Congress and the environmentalists aren’t through with us. If you’re bothered by skyrocketing food and energy prices, wait until Congress re-introduces its environmentalist-inspired Climate Security Act, so-called “Cap and Trade.” Cap and Trade is deceptively peddled as a free-market solution to the yet-to-be-settled issue of manmade climate change.

Under its provisions, companies would be able to emit greenhouse gases only if they had a government allowance. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a 15 percent cut in emissions would raise the annual average household’s energy costs by $1,300. Since energy is an input to everything we use, we can expect everything to become more costly, resulting in a reduction in economic growth.

Will someone please ask Obama the question provided above? I’m kind of busy at work and probably would not be able to get a back-stage pass anyway.