Vote to pen up oil fields, or else
Rochester Post Bulletin
8/5/2008 11:43:46 AM
My heating bill arrived today with an increase in my monthly even pay amount for natural gas. It's going up over $100 per month starting in July. Yep, in July.
I called the gas company to ask why. My usage has consistently gone down over the last several years, and again this year, due to a great deal of weatherizing for our home. The lady at the gas company says it's going up now because natural gas prices are expected to rise again sharply for this coming winter.
The oil fields that are not currently open to production also offer natural gas production opportunities.
If Tim Walz won't open up oil and natural gas production, then I am voting for Brian Davis. It's just that simple. I thought the gasoline situation was bad, but now I know it's only part of the story.
Muriel Hanson
Preston
Monday, August 11, 2008
Open Up Oil Fields, Or Else: Letter to the editor
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Brian Davis campaigns for Congress on conservative values
Friday, August 01
By John Torgrimson
Brian Davis, a Mayo physician and researcher from Rochester is the endorsed Republican candidate for U.S. Congress in the 1st District. He is being challenged by Sen. Dick Day of Owatonna in the September primary election to run against incumbent Democratic congressman Tim Walz in November.
Davis recently spoke with Journal editor John Torgrimson about his candidacy and his stand on a range of issues. Excerpts from that conversation follows.
Journal: Why, with your background, are you choosing to run for Congress in the first district?
Davis: The change in representation in 2006. I feel like Congress was trying to take the country in the wrong direction. I believe there are solutions that need to be addressed: solutions in energy; solutions in health care. So in early 2007, I visited with state Republican leaders and I chose to run. On March 29 I won [Republican] endorsement.
Journal: When I say George Bush, what does that mean to you? Positive, negative? Good legacy?
Davis: I think we'll leave that to the historians to determine. I think some of the analogies with Harry Truman being resolute, and sometimes people even say "inflexible," but there may come a time down the road when people will look back and he [Bush] will have a stronger public perception than he does now. People in this district voted for George Bush both in 2000 and in 2004. So, I will tell you that I'm running in 2008 for the future. I don't agree with everything that he's done, but I will tell you I supported him in 2000 and 2004, as did the majority of this district.
Journal: The Iraq war?
Davis: The Iraq War is a part of our larger struggle with radical Islam, who are totally opposed to our way of life, our freedoms, our freedom of speech and freedom of the press, our ability to have this conversation and not be afraid that someone's going to knock on our door in the middle of the night and take us away. And I believe that we need to be strong against it, whether that's in Iraq or Afghanistan. But I think for us to move forward regardless of what one's opinion has been on this war we should ask the people of Iraq and Afghanistan to have a referendum and pose the question "Do you want the US military to stay or to go?" If the people vote freely in democratic elections and say 'we think it's time for the US military to go', then we can leave and hold our heads up high, we helped them put forward a democratic government, and in that respect we won the war and our military can be proud of a lot of things that have happened there.
Journal: Will there be a political settlement in Iraq?
Davis: I would like to see a political settlement in Iraq that would be based on having a referendum there. I think it's unquestionable that the change in strategy has been successful. It's bought us time, it's bought the government of Iraq time. But I don't think it's in our interest or in the interest of the countries in the Middle East to have the US government and the military leave there with the perception that we were chased out of there by a few thousand terrorists or suicide bombers. If we leave, have us leave because it was a mutual decision between the democratically elected governments, and the people of Iraq, and the United States government, not because of some partisan political contest in Washington D.C.
Journal: What about the economy?
Davis: Energy is the lifeblood of a modern economy. And the higher the cost of energy, and the more constraints the government places on energy production, the more costly it will be and people in our country will suffer economically.
Some think America would be better off if we had $5 gasoline. I don't believe that. The majority of the people of this country don't believe that. I'm in favor of clean air and clean water. In fact, our air is so much cleaner than it was 30 or 40 years ago because of the Clean Air and Water Act. You can have intelligent technology--it costs a little more but it's not such that it will shut down an industry.
Journal: Speaking of energy, what are the elements of an energy policy you think will work?
Davis: First of all, we have to realize that 85% of our energy in this country is carbon based. Coal, oil, natural gas. Throw in nuclear power, and that's the four major sources of energy. That's over 90% of the energy we use in heating, transportation and electricity and we can't turn off those switches easily. That's the bedrock, those are the pillars of energy. In Minnesota, I'm proud of the fact that we are among the leaders in the country in wind-power and ethanol. And anything we do that reduces our dependence on foreign oil is a good thing. I'm optimistic that over the long-term these forms of energy will be competitive over the open market.
Journal: You talked a little bit about oil, but I know you've been fairly outspoken about drilling. Some experts believe America doesn't have enough oil reserves to drill it's way out of it's problems. Respond to that.
Davis: I think it's doubtful that we would be in a position soon where we're independent of foreign oil. However, we're the third largest producer of oil in the world. And we need to produce more oil in this country, and if we can do it easily and readily, we should. It'll help our economy, it'll employ people, and it'll make us less dependent on foreign oil from countries that don't necessarily share our values. We still get two-thirds of our oil from North America--between Mexico, Canada, and the United States--if we can reduce that percentage of imported oil by using our own resources in an environmentally friendly manner, I'm in favor of drilling in Alaska. I think it should be done. And in off shore areas, we only have less than 5% that is open.
Journal: I've read where you're not a firm believer in climate change?
Davis: We've had climate change since the beginning of recorded history. We know there's areas right here that 13,000 years ago were glaciers. So, climate change happens. But to what extent CO2 production is responsible for the climate change we're observing is not well-quantified, not well-quantified at all. I met with an MIT professor, Richard Lindzen - he's in the National Academy of Science. He has been real outspoken that we don't know how much--if at all--we'd be able to change the climate if we shut down carbon based energy. If we stopped right now, can we predict how much we'd change the climate?
Journal: Are we doing enough as people, as Americans, as a government, to put in place conservation practices?
Davis: I don't favor mandated rationing or mandated conservation. I think that if we let people make their own personal decisions on that, then it is better. The auto makers in Detroit learned a lesson in competition regarding fuel-efficient cars. And it's harder for the government to mandate that than it is for the free enterprise system to respond.
Journal: Your website speaks strongly about conservative values.
Davis: I believe a human life and human being begin at conception. I oppose abortion, I believe we should respect and protect life. I know as a doctor and medical researcher that one does not need to destroy a human embryo to do stem cell research, that there are other sources of stem cells.
When it comes to marriage, I believe marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman. I would oppose civil unions if they are same sex marriage by another name.
Edits provided above by Brian in italics.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Vote to Open Oil Fields, Or Else: Rochester Post Bulletin
Letter to the Editor
Vote to pen up oil fields, or else
7/30/2008 7:32:24 AM
My heating bill arrived today with an increase in my monthly even pay amount for natural gas. It's going up over $100 per month starting in July. Yep, in July.
I called the gas company to ask why. My usage has consistently gone down over the last several years, and again this year, due to a great deal of weatherizing for our home. The lady at the gas company says it's going up now because natural gas prices are expected to rise again sharply for this coming winter.
The oil fields that are not currently open to production also offer natural gas production opportunities.
If Tim Walz won't open up oil and natural gas production, then I am voting for Brian Davis. It's just that simple. I thought the gasoline situation was bad, but now I know it's only part of the story.
Muriel Hanson
Preston
Brian Davis for Congress: Agricultural Policy
Davis and agricultural policy
Brian Davis, the GOP endorsed candidate for Congress in the First Congressional District, and his campaign's Agricultural Advisory Group, issued an Agricultural Policy Statement today, encompasing a wide range of principles including free and fair trade, protecting and improving Minnesota's water resources, estate and capital gains tax policy. It is also seeks to contrast Davis' positions on agricultural position with those of DFL Congressman Tim Walz.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Minnesota Voters Want Solutions and Clear Answers to Our Energy Problems Not More Partisanship
Davis: Walz fails to give Minnesota voters clear answers on his position regarding offshore drilling.
For Immediate Release
July 24, 2008
Contact: Brad Biers
651.261.2182
(Rochester, MN) - Today, Brian Davis, the endorsed Republican candidate for the First District of Minnesota, has called upon Congressman Walz to clarify his stance regarding offshore drilling and development of shale oil. In a recent article in the Star Tribune, Congressman Walz was the only member of Minnesota's Congressional delegation who did not give a clear answer regarding his position on development of shale oil. In addition, he was also unclear regarding his position on offshore drilling.
Dr. Davis stated, "While Minnesotans and the nation are feeling the economic consequences of high gas prices and a suffering economy, Congressman Walz is failing to let Minnesotans know where he stands. Like the majority of Americans, I strongly support offshore drilling and am very encouraged by yesterday's report from the U.S. Geological Survey that estimates there may be up to 90 billion barrels of oil in the arctic that are in unexplored areas, mostly offshore."
Davis continued, "Congress should let the moratoria on offshore drilling expire on September 30 as scheduled and not renew it. We are the only major industrialized country in the world that has the majority of offshore areas off-limits to oil exploration. This is bad for our country and bad for the family budgets in Minnesota's First District."
Brad Biers, the Davis campaign manager added, "Voters in the First District should ask for whom does Tim Walz work? The residents of southern Minnesota or Speaker Pelosi? Many families are struggling with their family budgets and have mounting credit card debt, including Congressman Walz with credit card debt in the neighborhood of a hundred thousand dollars. Congress isn't getting the job done and shouldn't go on its August 1 recess if it can't even vote on this issue of national importance. It's unfortunate, but not surprising, that Congress has the lowest approval rating in the history of polling."
Brian Davis is a physician who treats cancer patients and resides in Rochester with his wife Lori and their four children.
# # #
You can support Brian Davis for Congress HERE !
Sunday, July 20, 2008
No Excuses: It's Time to Drill
Over to You, Speaker Pelosi
Let's drill. by Matthew Continetti
07/28/2008, Volume 013, Issue 43
Gas is still at $4 a gallon, but the good news is there's an emerging consensus on a measure that would help: Drill for more oil here at home. President Bush dropped the executive ban on offshore oil and natural gas exploration last week, and House GOP leader John Boehner plans to lead a congressional delegation to Colorado and Alaska to highlight America's abundant energy resources this week. Polls show more than two-thirds of the public support increased domestic energy exploration and production. Guess who stands in the way.
Congress has its own ban on offshore energy exploration, and the Democrats who run Congress have shown no sign that they are willing to follow Bush's example. They have preferred to make excuses--about why the price of oil is rising, who is to blame for its rise, and why increasing domestic supply won't do anything to ameliorate the problem.
It isn't working. Democrats are losing the fight over gas prices, and they know it, too.
They have slowly changed positions as the absurdity of their arguments has become clear. First they ignored the problem altogether. Earlier this summer, Senate Democrats wasted time debating a carbon cap-and-trade scheme that would have raised energy prices dramatically at a time when those prices were already at record highs. Cap and trade crashed and burned.
For a long while, Democrats simply blamed the oil companies for the spike in gasoline prices. They proposed new windfall profits taxes on "Big Oil," which would of course be passed on to the consumer, making gasoline even more expensive. They even threatened to sue OPEC. Nonstarters all. The price of oil didn't drop.
Then the Democrats--and, to their discredit, plenty of Republicans--decided to scapegoat "speculators." The thinking here is that commodities traders have a financial interest in watching prices go up. Well, some do. Others--those betting prices will fall--do not. The fact that there are traders of oil futures has nothing to do with why those prices increase. The "speculators" just make bets on where the price of a commodity will be by a certain date. This year, the bets on higher oil prices have been good because the falling dollar, rising global demand, and political instability in the Middle East and Africa are driving the price of this particular commodity upward.
When ignorance and finger-pointing didn't work, Democrats dusted off the law of supply and demand. But they refused to acknowledge that one of the best ways to increase supply is to expand America's production capacity by opening new territory to exploration. Rather, they demanded that Bush release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, forgetting that the reserve is called "strategic" for a reason. It's meant to be used in a national emergency. Bush has stopped new shipments to the reserve, increasing supply on the (microscopic) margins.
Meanwhile, New York senator Charles Schumer demanded that other oil-producing nations increase production in order to lower U.S. gas prices. If only the Saudis "produced half a million barrels more oil a day," Schumer said, "the price would come down a very significant amount." Maybe so. But why rely on the Saudis? Why not take steps to increase our own supply? Are we dependents?
The Democrats' next tack was to suggest that the oil companies are sitting on millions of acres of oil and not doing anything about it. Last week House Democrats tried to pass a "use it or lose it" law that would have denied federal land leases to oil companies if the companies couldn't demonstrate that they were producing energy on existing plots. The bill was rejected, and for good reasons. For one, there is already a "use it or lose it" provision in federal law. For another, the bill was premised on the idea that 4.8 million barrels of oil a day could be extracted from these "unused" lands. Boehner has asked Speaker Pelosi where this unsubstantiated statistic comes from. She hasn't said. That is because the number is a joke.
Finally, Democrats are attacking the pro-drilling folks for thinking ahead. Exploring deposits on the continental shelf "wouldn't produce a drop of oil for seven years or longer," wrote Senator Dianne Feinstein. Nobel laureate Al Gore said last week, "It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil ten years from now."
Leave aside, for a moment, the fact that no one is saying drilling is a short-term answer to the long-term energy challenge. Recall, instead, that Feinstein and Gore are simply echoing what critics say every time the drilling issue arises. Whether it is twenty or ten years ago or today, the answer is always, "You won't see anything for ten years." Okay, then. But if we had drilled ten years ago, wouldn't those supplies be on the market today?
No one pretends that drilling will solve all our problems overnight. But it will send a powerful signal to the markets that America is serious about energy and the global economy. It will send a signal that we are taking action, that we are not helpless. The 25-year boom of the 1980s and 1990s coincided with, and to an extent depended on, an era of cheap and plentiful energy. To get there again requires favoring the national interest over the parochial interests of environmentalists. No excuses. It's time to drill.
--Matthew Continetti, for the Editors
© Copyright 2008, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Letter from a Concerned Citizen: Congressman Walz is Bluffing and is Beholden to an Impractical and Extremist Environmental Agenda
The following was sent to our campaign from a concerned citizen:
Dear Mr. R,
Thank you for contacting me regarding domestic oil production. I appreciate hearing from you.
The rapid increase in gas prices is putting a serious strain on all Americans. A number of factors contribute to the high cost of gasoline, including the growing global demand for crude oil, the limited capacity within the United States for refineries, and market uncertainty regarding the threat of supply disruption due to conflicts in the Middle East.
While there are no quick fixes, Congress is currently considering a number of proposals to address rising fuel costs. As part of these proposals, some suggest that by opening up more areas for drilling within the United States we can lower gas prices and reduce our dependence on foreign imports.
Instead of rushing to open new areas for drilling, I believe that oil companies should make use of the land they already have available. Today, oil companies hold leases to about 92 million acres of federally-owned land, both onshore and offshore. Roughly 67 million of those acres-more than 70 percent of the area they own the rights to-are not being used for production. These are areas that oil companies are authorized to start drilling, which have the potential to produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day, nearly double total US oil production.
I have supported legislation in Congress that tells the oil companies to "use it or lose it," and either make use of the land they have leased, or turn it over to a company that will. Unfortunately, while this should provide some relief in the medium term, most experts agree that we cannot drill our way out of the current energy crisis.
That's why I believe that we should be harnessing American ingenuity and innovation to develop long term solutions to our current energy crisis. By developing renewable resources such as wind and solar power, biofuels, and geothermal heat, we can move beyond fossil fuels to an energy policy which is sustainable, renewable and produced in America by American workers. Rest assured that as Congress continues to debate these issues, I will keep your views in mind.
Thank you again for sharing your views with me, and I look forward to hearing from you again in the future. For more information about my activities representing southern Minnesota in Congress, please visit http://walz.house.gov and sign up for my e-newsletter.
Sincerely,
Tim Walz
Member of Congress
***************************************************************
Nice bluff Congresmen Walz. No wonder Congressional approval ratings are in the upper teens.
Your (or maybe Nancy Pelosi's) paragraph on having oil companies make use of the land that they already have available is very misleading. To come up with this statistic, you assume that roughly 23 million acres of federal land are producing 1.6 million barrels each day. Since roughly three times as many federal acres are leased to oil companies you assume that the US could be producing three times as much oil, which is the 4.8 million barrels of oil that you get.
However, oil and gas are not going to be found under each and every acre. Also, oil production in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska has been stalled by groups like the Sierra Club.
Don't count on bluffing the residents of the 1st Congressional District too long!
Thursday, July 17, 2008
We Need to Increase Our Domestic Oil Production: About Those Estimates
From the U.S. Department of Interior, Mineral Management Service
Assessment of Undiscovered Technically Recoverable
Oil and Gas Resources of the Nation’s Outer Continental
Shelf, 2006
Using a play-based assessment
methodology, the Minerals Management
Service estimated a mean of
85.9 billion barrels of undiscovered
recoverable oil and a mean of 419.9
trillion cubic feet of undiscovered
recoverable natural gas in the
Federal Outer Continental Shelf of
the United States.
...
This assessment provides estimates of the undiscovered,
technically and economically recoverable oil and natural gas
resources located outside of known oil and gas fields on the
OCS.
From an editorial in the Albert Lea Tribune regarding these estimates: But these are only estimates. Without allowing American oil companies to explore these regions, we won’t know how much is there.
It's time to Drill Here! And Drill Now! Sign our Petition! And contribute to our campaign here!
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Letter to the Editor: Liberals like Walz will hurt the price of oil
Published Saturday, July 12, 2008
Please refer to our 1st District Congressman Tim Walz’s article printed in our Tribune on June 26 titled “Why isn’t Big Oil using leases it already has?”
A question such as his only indicates his lack of knowledge on the economics of the oil industry. If his proposals become law, we will be paying much more than $4 per gallon for gasoline. Yes, the oil companies do own the rights to drill on federal land. However, most of this land does not contain “proven” petroleum reserves, and it would be prohibitively expensive to drill on at this time. There is only so much capital available to explore for new sources of oil and that capital must be spent where the best chances of recovery can be found. With modern exploratory techniques, finding new reserves is much more scientific than it was 20 years ago. Why drill where there are chances of finding a small amount of oil when that capital can be better used in finding larger, and less expensive, quantities in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska?
Rep. Walz accuses “Big Oil” of price gouging. Just who is “Big Oil?” It’s a group of common stockholders who have pooled their resources in an effort to bring energy to the marketplace. To do this is a very expensive operation with a high degree of risk. If we were to eliminate the total profits of the major oil companies, we would still be paying about $3.70 per gallon rather than the current $4. Of this approximately 30 cents per gallon gross profit, only about 13 cents is distributed in dividends and the other 17 cents goes toward the exploration for additional petroleum reserves. The final “yield” (dividend) to the stockholder averages about 3 percent in today’s marketplace. To discourage further investment in the oil industry by threatening the real producers of energy is highly counterproductive. If you want higher gasoline prices, follow the advice of our current Congressman Tim Walz, who advocates killing the goose who has been laying the golden egg since the discovery of oil at Titusville, Penn., in 1859.
Not only are Tim Walz and his fellow liberals in Congress attempting to discourage development of the cheapest and most available sources of energy, they also want to subsidize sources that are not economically viable at this time. Tim should better educate himself on the subject of energy before he attempts to sell a counterproductive policy to his constituents. No time in our country’s history have we needed better leadership on the subject of energy.
Charles Foster
Albert Lea
© 2008 Albert Lea Tribune, Inc. All rights
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Letter to the Editor: Tim Walz fails to grasp U.S. needs for oil
The view of Congressman Tim Walz as reported in the Albert Lea Tribune on July 4 is a disgrace and lacks understanding of our oil needs.
1. Congressman Walz sided with rich coastal liberal elites whose limos and planes eat gas, but do they care?
2. Midwest farmers, factories and drivers depend on steady oil needs and prices, based on the market. (Prices need to go down.)
3. President Bush has long sought more drilling and oil for Americans.
4. Oil firms’ profits should encourage more drilling, refining, etc., and more oil now, which the U.S. needs as soon as possible.
5. Oil firms are mainly owned by pensions funds, IRAs and mutual funds.
6. More oil taxes are likely to be passed on to consumers and elites know all this, but feel average Americans should cut back.
7. All persons want wind, solar conservation, etc., but oil is now more realistic for average Americans and for many years to come. Alternatives yes, but more oil now ASAP.
8. Speculators buy and hold oil in anticipation of higher prices — which the plans of Walz and his liberal rich coastal elites will foster! They don’t produce more oil.
9. More drilling in new places found to have real potential is needed now to get oil? Oil leases with potential now are needed.
There is hope in Minnesota. First Congressional District Dr. Brian Davis has strongly supported more oil drilling, nuclear, coal, etc. Dr. Davis is also a medical expert, and we need to vote for him in 2008. There is hope, but we need to change the U.S. Congress majority in 2008.
Tom Schleck
Albert Lea
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Stewartville Star: Davis says U.S. should drill for more oil offshore, in ANWR
Mark Peterson Editor
Monday, July 07, 2008
The United States can become much more energy independent by drilling for oil in areas Congress has deemed off limits, Republican First Congressional District U.S. Rep. candidate Brian Davis said last week.
Davis will face Republican state Sen. Dick Day in a Sept. 9 primary to determine who will run against Democratic incumbent Tim Walz in this November's general election. Davis spoke about his energy policy differences with Walz during a visit to the offices of the Stewartville STAR last week.
Up to 100 billion barrels of oil are available in offshore areas near the United States, and many billion barrels more could be found in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), Davis said.
Drilling for more oil at home would decrease America's dependence on foreign oil and improve the U.S. economy, Davis said. However, Democrats in Congress have blocked proposed increases in domestic oil production, voting down proposals to drill for oil in offshore areas and in ANWR, Davis said.
"It's environmental radicalism that we're paying for at the gas pump," he said.
Davis criticized Walz's record of taxing and spending, saying that Walz ranks 394th among the 435 members of Congress on the Club For Growth Scale, which rates each lawmaker's votes on economic growth issues."Washington taxes too much and spends it all and then some," Davis said.
Davis, a physician at the Mayo Clinic since 1996, has called for a national policy to address the overabundance of malpractice lawsuits against doctors."Malpractice is driving doctors and hospitals out of business, which hurts our access to quality care," he said.
He is also calling for health care reform, saying that healthy individuals should be allowed to take their health insurance policies with them from job to job, across state lines or into retirement.
Also, people who make choices to live healthier lifestyles should be rewarded with lower insurance premiums, he said.
Davis said he believes the U.S. must stay on the offense against radical Islam in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he said he would favor allowing the Iraqi and Afghan people the opportunity to vote in referendums to determine whether they want American soldiers to stay.
"It's apparent that the surge has worked," he said. "It has given the government of Iraq a chance to become more stable."Davis describes himself as pro-life, stating in a campaign brochure that he will always vote in Congress to protect life and emphasizing that he will never backtrack from that position.
"We need to respect life and protect life," he said. More than 1 million babies are aborted each year in the United States, Davis said. Even so, some candidates look at abortion as just another political issue to the polled, spun and used in an election campaign, he said."It was once said that a civilization will be judged by how it treats those in the dawn of life and the sunset of life," he wrote in a campaign brochure. "I agree."
Davis said he is against embryonic stem cell research, saying that scientists can move closer to finding cures for various diseases without destroying human embryos in the process.
He defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Marriage, he said, is a fundamental building block of society."If civil unions are same-sex marriages by another name, then I am opposed to them," he said.
The California Supreme Court's recent decision to overturn the vote of the people and allow same-sex marriage is "a travesty," he said."If given the opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment on this subject, I would vote in favor of defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman," he said.
Davis has put more than 40,000 miles on his car since he began campaigning for Walz's seat. As of last week, he had marched in 21 parades and planned to take part in Stewartville's Fourth of July Summerfest parade.
Davis earned a bachelor of science degree in nuclear engineering at the University of Illinois and worked for three years as an engineer in the electric power industry.
He and his wife Lori, an emergency medicine physician at the Mayo Clinic, have four children.
(Posted 7/13)
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Minnesotans need real solutions to gas prices
Brian Davis, U.S. Congress Candidate, Worthington Daily Globe
Published Monday, June 30, 2008
ROCHESTER — As the price of oil and gas reach record levels and Minnesotans feel it in their pocketbooks, and small businesses in their bottom line, it’s the same old story in Congress: The Blame Game.
Congressman Walz’s strategy, based on his column last week, is to lay the blame on partisan politics and “Big Oil.”
Have the oil companies made big profits lately at the expense of us? Yes. Will the oil companies continue to have record profits as long as demand outpaces production? Yes.
But instead of throwing around blame, let’s talk about real solutions. Otherwise, $6-a-gallon gasoline could be just around the corner.
Affordable energy is the lifeblood of a modern economy. In the United States, over 90 percent of the energy consumed in transportation, heating and electricity comes from four sources: oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. In oil production, we are the world’s third-largest producer behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. Our coal reserves are the largest of any nation and we produce more nuclear energy on a yearly basis than anyone else. In Minnesota, we are among the leaders in the U.S. in ethanol and wind power production. It should be clear that we need to develop and maintain all sources of energy to keep our economy moving, not just one energy source or the other.
The United States has over 1.7 billion acres of offshore areas where nearly 95 percent have been closed to oil exploration since 1982. The Atlantic Coast, eastern Gulf of Mexico, Pacific and most of the Alaskan Coasts are off-limits. According to published Congressional research, these areas have an estimated total of over 80 billion barrels of oil. But, these are only estimates. Without allowing American oil companies to explore these regions, we won’t know how much is there.
What do Congressman Walz and others in Congress offer?
Blocking increased development of domestic oil supply in federal areas in all but a small portion of those available.Legislation that doesn’t produce one drop more of oil.
Cap-and-trade regulatory schemes for utilities and industries that will ultimately tax Americans trillions of dollars and hit rural electric cooperatives particularly hard.
More hearings and investigations.
Nationalizing the oil and refinery industries in the United States.
Unfortunately, the politicians in Congress have stood in the way of developing more energy sources in this country. In my view, we should:
Open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) where an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil exist. There already exists a pipeline in the adjacent Prudhoe Bay region, which contributes over 15 percent to our domestic oil supply. In 1995, President Clinton blocked development of ANWR and in 2002 and 2008 Congress blocked development of this area again.
Open the Outer Continental Shelf to safe oil and natural gas exploration — currently only 4 percent of the region is open and 60 percent of Americans favor its development.
Build more refinery capacity.
Reduce regulatory barriers to increase nuclear power production, a proven clean and safe form of electricity generation.
Continue to promote and develop alternative fuels and energy sources including ethanol, biodiesel and wind power.
As the endorsed Republican candidate in our First Congressional District, I hear daily the personal stories of Minnesotans who are being negatively impacted by the lack of leadership from the politicians in Washington. As individuals and our Nation feel the economic straitjacket tightening, we are faced with difficult choices. Americans deserve to know what solutions our elected representatives offer so that our future is secure and our children will know the American dream.
In reality, this is a debate that reveals the stark contrast between those who have lost faith in America’s ability to do great things and those of us who know we can.
We must move forward with developing additional American energy supplies, the sooner the better.
Brian Davis trained as a nuclear engineer and worked in the nuclear power industry. He is a physician and a Rochester resident.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Posted on 'Let Freedom Ring'
Where’s the Proof, Rep. Walz???
Last week, Rep. Tim Walz came out against expanding oil exploration. That isn’t shocking in the least bit. What it is, though, is proof that Rep. Walz consistently buys into the liberal line. that’s why MN-1 needs to retire him this November.
U.S. Rep. Tim Walz said President Bush’s efforts to pressure Congress to lift a federal ban on some offshore oil drilling would do nothing to move the United States in the direction of a sensible energy policy or substantially lower gas prices.
Calling the issue a red herring, the first-term Democrat also said he was prepared to call oil companies’ bluff. He said federal law should be changed to penalize oil companies for not using the leases they already have.
Federal law already stipulates that an oil company must sink a producing well within 10 years or lose the lease. The legislation Walz supports would deprive oil companies of the ability to lease new federal offshore areas until they’ve drilled on all their existing leases, an aide said.
“This idea, this red herring, that all of a sudden you’re going to drill and everything is going to be better, as if the market fundamentals are at work here, that’s not happening,” Walz said. “These are the same people that are (getting) $40 billion in profit.”
First of all, what proof is Rep. Walz using in saying that increasing oil production won’t affect gas prices at the pump? Is he basing his opinion on market principles or is he basing this off the talking points the Environmental lobby has given him to speak from?
One thing that I know is that his opinion isn’t based on this study:
These restrictions effectively banned new offshore energy production off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, parts of offshore Alaska, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Recent DOI estimates put the amount of energy in these off-limits areas at 19.1 billion barrels of oil and 83.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, approximately 30 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia and enough natural gas to power America’s homes for 17 years. It should also be noted that these initial estimates tend to be low.
OCS restrictions are a relic of the past. They were put in place at a time when energy was cheap, the need for additional domestic supplies was not seen as dire, and the political path of least resistance was to give in to environmentalists. All that has changed, with more than a quadrupling of oil and natural gas prices since the restrictions were first imposed. Extra energy is badly needed, and the risk of producing it has been reduced. All new drilling would be subject to strict safeguards and would require state-of-the-art technology with a proven track record for limiting the risk of spills.
Conclusion
The President can bring America one step closer to accessing promising sources of domestic oil and natural gas for decades to come. He should lift the existing executive moratorium against OCS exploration. More important, Congress must show the nation that it is serious about meeting our energy needs by supporting the production of American energy from American waters.
Is Rep. Walz willing to argue that tapping into the equivalent of 30 years worth of imported Saudi oil and enough natural gas to power America’s homes for 17 years won’t have a serious impact on home heating and gas prices? If he’s willing to argue against this study, then that’s grounds for questioning his objectivity and his competence to serve Minnesota’s First District. Minnesota’s First District can’t afford that type of irresponsible behavior from its representative. No legislative district should be forced to suffer through such irresponsible behavior.
This is why policies matter. That’s why voters do themselves a disservice in not vetting the candidates enough on the issues. Tim Walz never was qualified to represent anyone in the Unite States House of Representatives. The proof is in how uninformed he is and irresponsibly he’s acting on the most important issue of this election cycle.
Fortunately, the First District has a choice this time because Brian Davis takes this issue seriously:
Davis said gas prices might not automatically drop if the country drills for more oil domestically. But they almost certainly will go up if the country does nothing to further develop its domestic oil reserves, he maintains.
“I repeatedly hear from Congressman Walz that markets fail. He has an adversarial relationship, it appears, with corporate America. It doesn’t seem as if he understands the free market and supply and demand,” Davis said.
Residents of Minnesota’s first district owe it to themselves and to each other whether they want someone who believes in capitalism or if they want someone who doesn’t understand or is ambivalent towards capitalism.
I seriously doubt that people think highly of a legisltor who is indifferent to the principles of capitalism. That means there’s only one real choice. That means voting for Brian Davis.
letfreedomringblog.com Categories: Economy, Energy, Environmental Extremism, Election 2008, Tim Walz
Friday, June 6, 2008
Why isn't Congressman Walz Providing Real Solutions to our Transporation Needs?
For Immediate Release
Contact: Brad Biers
651.261.2182
June 6, 2008
(Winona, MN) - Despite appearing at the closed Highway 43 Bridge in Winona near the Mississippi river, Congressman Tim Walz has failed to propose any real solutions to our transportation needs, especially as it concerns finding relief for working families in southern Minnesota and the burden of high gas prices.
As residents of southern Minnesota continue to empty their wallets trying to pay for gasoline that is nearing $4 per gallon, Rep. Walz continues to vote against proposals to address America's energy crisis.
"Tim Walz' speaking about the needs of the people of southern Minnesota while using the Highway 43 bridge as a backdrop does nothing to solve our transportation and energy crisis," said First Congressional District Republican candidate Brian Davis. "He is ignoring the fact that the price of gas has risen over 70% since he was sworn into office and he continues to do nothing to address this unfortunate situation."
"There are solutions to our energy needs," continued Davis. "We must develop more domestic oil supplies and increase our refinery capacity because southern Minnesota residents demand action now."
# # #
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
A Conservativie Energy Plan
A Conservative Energy Policy
When Ronald Reagan accepted his party’s nomination in 1980, he said that America’s energy policy was based on the sharing of scarcity, and that our great nation had to get to work producing more energy.
“Large amounts of oil and natural gas lay beneath our land and off our shores, untouched because the present administration seems to believe the American people would rather see more regulation, taxes and controls than more energy, he said. “It must not be thwarted by a tiny minority opposed to economic growth which often finds friendly ears in regulatory agencies for its obstructionist campaigns.
”When Ronald Reagan spoke these words he was describing President Jimmy Carter’s disastrous policies that ransacked family budgets, cost jobs and robbed Americans of hope. They could just as easily be spoken today about the Bush Administration, the Congress, and the candidates vying to become president this election year. On the energy front, it seems, the classically successful principles of less government and more self-initiative been replaced by a myth of resource scarcity and helplessness. Government now, as then, has created a massive energy problem. And now, as then, it wants people to believe it also has the solution. Well, as Reagan put it, “government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem.”
On January 1, 1970, Richard Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which allowed the federal government - or a liberal judge - to veto or delay indefinitely any energy project of any kind. Coincidentally, 1970 was the year when America produced the most oil in its history and imported only 12 percent of its needs.
Nearly a decade later to the day, President Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter signed the Alaska Lands Act, the law that closed ANWR and - in one fell swoop - took more taxpayer -owned government lands out of our energy resource portfolio than any other time in history. It was the fitting and symbolic end of the decade that set us on the course for the energy collision we face today. U.S. dependence on foreign sources of oil had reached 40 percent.
The list of laws enacted in between are on are an alphabet soup of government activism that continues to restrict our access to American energy today. They include the Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA); the Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA); the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA); and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), just to name a few. And while everyone wants to save animals from extinction, breathe clean air, drink clean water and avoid toxic substances, these laws and their successors have been used by opponents of U.S. energy production as a means to an end -- to stop domestic production of our economy’s lifeblood and promote scarcity.
Ronald Reagan initially made some progress against energy suicide of the 1980’s by using the tools he had to reduce regulations and direct more energy development on taxpayer-owned federal lands. But the Congress struck back, and in 1982, added a rider to a spending bill that prohibited energy leasing on 85% of the outer continental shelf surrounding the lower 48 states.
For the twenty-six years since, Congress has voted each year, every year, to continue these bans and continue our dependency on foreign oil. And, to burnish his kinder, gentler credentials, President George H.W. Bush imposed his own moratorium in 1990, which President Clinton extended until 2012, and which President Geor ge W. Bush has yet to repeal, despite the looming promise of economic ruin for families caused by our energy supply imbalance. Today, America remains the only developed country in the world that shoots itself in the foot in such fashion.
In 1987, when President Reagan asked Congress to open ANWR along with a required report showing that it could be done safely and help supply 1 million barrels per day, Congress ignored him, and instead expanded the amount of wilderness in the US greatly, taking even more lands away from energy production. Congress did finally pass a bill to open a small piece of ANWR in 1995, but President Clinton vetoed it.
America is the Saudi Arabia of oil shale deposits. With the 2 trillion barrels of oil we could extract, the US could run for 250 years on that source alone. Unfortunately, the best deposits lie under nationalized lands in the West, and the Congress passed a law in 2007 making it illegal to lease the lands for energy development.
Ditto for our coal resources; the US the Saudi Arabia of coal. Last year, Hollywood’s Henry Waxman slipped a provision into law that will block government – the biggest single user of energy – from buying any alternative fuels made from coal. Germany ran its war machine on the stuff throughout WWII, and South Africa has been making coal into su bstitute petroleum for decades. We could too, but for our government.
Today, America only uses 3% of its offshore areas to produce energy, and only 6% of government lands onshore. The US now imports more oil than ever, produces less oil than it did before WWII, and is sending over half a trillion dollars a year to a lot of people who don’t like what our country stands for.
Ronald Reagan’s stand that our nation’s future “should not be thwarted by a tiny minority opposed to economic growth.” Is as true today as it was when he uttered it 28 years ago. That tiny minority has hidden their agenda behind the environment movement and thus grown to control our nation’s energy decisions made in Washington, and it shows in every American’s energy bill.
With gasoline prices and utility bills finally awakening the Sleeping Giant of the American people, the creators of the current US energy mess are pointing their fingers here…there…and everywhere.
They say “we can’t drill our way to cheaper gasoline” to hide the fact that they won’t let anyone drill here in the US. They argue adding 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve – sequestered from use - will help lower prices at the pump but Ronald Reagan’s 1987 recommendation to open ANWR’s million barrels per day will not.
They pass bills to enable suits against OPEC for withholding supplies, while their congressional websites brim with press releases about how they voted to stop energy in Alaska, in our OCS, in the Rocky Mountains or wherever some group that objects to more American energ y production objects to more American energy production.
Here’s the truth Ronald Reagan understood but Washington’s central planners don’t want you to know about: God blessed North America with huge energy resources, probably rivaling those of any other continent. Free the American people to use their brains, technology and hard work to access the energy that government has put off limits.
Let’s actually make it economically attractive to produce energy at home. Legalize the coal, oil shale, oil sands, methane hydrates (a frozen natural gas that dwarfs all other energy resources on earth), uranium, hydropower and all of the exotic alternative energy potential we have, and get off the backs of all the people whose job it is to supply this country with the energy that provides us the capacity do work. Americans will respond and go to work putting America to work. We will produce energy…a lot more energy. The result will be enough of our own energy to keep the lights burning in the Shining City on a Hill for a long, long time.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Concerns About Our Latest Economic Indicators and Energy Costs
Increased Domestic Energy Production Needed to Sustain Economic Growth
For immediate release
January 10, 2008
(Rochester, MN) - Today, Brian Davis, Republican candidate and physician in Minnesota's First Congressional District, released a five point plan to put America on the path towards a sound energy policy. Citing the price of oil as leading our nation towards recession, Davis unveiled the plan on the eve of Republican debate in Rochester on Thursday.
Davis stated, "The current energy bill that passed Congress is inadequate, especially since the price of oil is pushing our economy towards recession. We need people in Congress with backgrounds in energy and those that have more faith in the free market system, than a system of government mandates. The politicians need to move away from rhetoric and take a level-headed look at the numbers and facts to achieve sustained economic growth and increased domestic energy production."
Added Davis, "There is a real possibility of a recession developing, because the cost of energy factors so much into our economy and contributes so heavily to our trade deficit, in fact, up to one-half of it."
The former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, remarked recently that the likelihood of recession is clearly rising, and that the unemployment rate for December increased from 4.7% to 5.0%.
Davis outlined the following proposals for us to move towards eventual energy independence:
- Open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Outer Continental Shelf for immediate exploration for oil and natural gas recovery.
- Continue developing alternative energy sources including ethanol, wind, solar power, and bio-diesel, but move away from mandates.
- Provide a stable regulatory environment that permits the development of nuclear power, an underutilized clean and safe source of electric energy.
- Remove automobile mileage standards and government imposed production mandates because they often work against the free market and have failed in the past. Let individuals decide what is best for them.
- Continue with laws to safeguard our air and environment from the known pollutants of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, lead and particulate matter.
"The bottom line: our government should be promoting policies which remove obstacles to increased production of the major sources of energy that fuel our economy: oil, natural gas, coal and uranium while still protecting the environment," said Davis.
Davis continued, "Our nation's energy policy and economic well-being should not be based on the deeply flawed theory that carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuel combustion will lead to catastrophic climate change. Eighty-six percent of our energy consumption is from fossil fuels."
"Congressman Walz is against opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy exploration. He and others are just simply wrong about this," concluded Davis.
For more detail, a letter to First District Republicans related to this topic is posted here.
##
