The real reason we don’t drill in the U.S.?

Saudi Arabia cannot afford to have the U.S. be energy independent.  Oil is their life-blood and if we become independent by increasing our domestic oil supply, S.A. loses out.  Saudis are therefore looking for energy interdependence.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A More Clear Position on Nuclear

Although I cannot vouch for Jeb Handwerger- I don’t know him from Adam- he seems to have a sound argument for re-entering the nuclear power market.  Read about it here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Corn Ethanol to Sponsor NASCAR

Farm Focus reports that the National Corn Growers will be sponsoring NASCAR during the 2011 season.  I wonder how many race cars will actually be using E15 Ethanol as the fuel of choice.  And in reality, the sponsorship is limited to car number 33, driven by Clint Bowyer in the Sprint Cup Series.

See my previous article on the boondoggle that is Corn Ethanol.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

New drilling method opens vast oil fields in US

Great news about drilling and mining oil in the US.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Milk regulated by the EPA

Although this is a detour from the normal conversation on energy independence, the EPA has gone overboard and it is time for its complete dismantling.  From gop.gov we read that “Due to the animal fat in milk, the EPA has indicated that milk storage could be regulated under the Clean Water Act like large oil tanks.”

Hey, wait.  Milk in the gas tank?  The ultimate bio-fuel that needs no processing.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Israel understands national security and energy sourcing

Referencing the explosion of a natural gas line in Egypt that supplies fuel to Israel, writer Amy Teibel cites Israel’s Infrastructures Minister Uzi Landau as stating that Israel must do everything possible to secure Israel’s energy independence.

Should the United States do any less?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Tyler Formation, 4-8 billion barrels, read this!

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/11/tyler-formation-could-be-one-third-to.html

November 18, 2010
Tyler Formation could be one-third to one-half the size of the Bakken oil field

ShareState Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms says the Tyler Formation is most likely one-third to one-half the size of the Bakken in terms of coverage area and oil reserves. The Tyler lies about 2,000 feet above the Bakken. The Tyler Formation above the Bakken encompasses nearly all of western and southwestern North Dakota and extends into South Dakota. The Bakken covers some 25,000 square miles in North Dakota, Montana, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Officials believe more than 4-8 billion barrels of oil can be recovered using current technology.

“From the conventional standpoint (vertical wells) the wells drilled into the Tyler sandstones are better producers than most of the vertical wells drilled into the Bakken/Three Forks,” Nordeng said. “This is because the Tyler contains reservoir rocks (sandstones) that allow economic oil production from vertical wells whereas the Bakken/Three Forks wells (outside the Antelope Field) do not. However, the new horizontal Bakken/Three Forks wells are much better producers, at least initially, than the old vertical Tyler wells

So North dakota is turning up large area and thin oil formations at many levels. Besides the Bakken there is also the Spearfish oil formation (also called the Waskada).

The Three forks formation probably adds 2 billion barrels to the Bakken

The Bakken has massive amounts of oil in place.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

NewsReal Blog » 8 Things I Wish I’d Known (or Remembered) When I Was a Leftist » Print

NewsReal Blog » 8 Things I Wish I’d Known (or Remembered) When I Was a Leftist » Print.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A litmus test for legislation…

It seems safe to say that the federal government has far exceeded the size and scope originally intended by the US Constitution, and our job is to let them know.

This might be an effective 1-2 punch:

1. Let state legislators know that we favor a 10th Amendment endorsement by all states to defend and support State Soverienty rights. A number of states have already voted affirmative on measures like this. Taking back that which rightfully belongs to the states is a good idea and should be promoted.

2. Ask our federal legislators to use a litmus test on every single item that comes to a vote in the House and Senate. That litmus test asks one simple question: “Does this measure fall within the guidelines established by the US Constitution?” If it does not, it must be voted against.

Finally, the knock-down punch: As has many an activist done, we must paint those who believe that it is okay to continue growing the federal government in a very negative light as “Anti-Constitutionalists.” The battle now is between “Pro-Constitutionalists and Anti-Constitutionalists.” Choose ye this day…

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Time for Constitutionalism…

The Constitution of the United States of America is that document by which all laws that restrain federal interaction in the lives of its citizens and proscribe the several and separate roles of the three branches of the federal government is based. It is multi-partisan and unifying in nature. In the years since it was ratified, political parties have come and gone; Whigs, Torreys, Democrats, Republicans, Communists, Socialists, Independents, and the list goes on. Political philosophies which include liberalism, progressivism, conservatism, socialism, and communism run throughout the United States citizenry, which is as it should be; we have no rights to limit conscientious thought, nor should we.

However, increasingly society has divided along two lines. Statism, a term ascribed by author and constitutional scholar Mark Levin, can be defined as a belief that the federal government is the solution to all problems, individual or otherwise (Levin, Liberty and Tyranny, 2009). Conservatism, which is the other side of the line, calls for less government intervention in the private sector. In both, however, a reliance on the federal government to set the terms is evident. The conservative movement is as guilty of overstepping the role of the federal government as statists and liberals are. Both demand greater regulation in the affairs of the governed, just in different forms. Amnesty for illegal aliens, which devalues citizenship for those who do it correctly, was a conservative push in the Reagan era. The demand for conscripted higher taxes on the wealthy to provide for the poor is a statist position. Neither are founded in the constitution. In reality, there is little difference in the work done by politicians on both sides of the line. For the most part, what can be done to solidify control and power to the federal government and the governing class is the course of action those in office will undertake, whether their name is followed by a D or an R.

The time has come for the restoration of a philosophy that dates to the founding of this great nation- Constitutionalism. While the concept has been around for generations, never has its importance been greater than it is now. As defined by this author, Constitutionalism is a belief that the federal government must be restored to the original size and scope the Constitution of the United States outlines. Constitutionalism is a position that cannot be argued, unless one believes that an overthrow of our federal government is in order, and the direction our future should take. One cannot have both sides of this issue. Either one supports and defends that Constitution as written and amended from time to time, or one believes it is an outdated document and no longer needed or valid.

If you believe that statism, the absence of a constitutionally based federal government, and a rule of law that is ever changing to satiate the appetites of the governing class is the future you want for your children, then you seek the status quo in Washington. Mind you, the status quo in Washington is constantly changing, an interesting paradox.

On the other hand, if you believe in a solid, unchanging rule of law that restricts government intervention in your life, that puts money back into the hands of the governed by reducing the size of government to the original scope the Constitution establishes, and that removes the impediments of over-regulation, you seek Constitutionalism.

Now is the time to choose; do so wisely.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment