Friday, November 21, 2008 | 10:19 a.m.

Terence Jeffrey

Home > Opinion Columns > Terence Jeffrey
Please contact your local newspaper editor if you want to read Terence Jeffrey's column in your hometown paper.
Terence Jeffrey

Recently

  • Trusting Paulson
    President Bush's trusted treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, is setting the stage for the all-Democratic government that comes to power in January to vastly increase government control over our economy. At an Oct. 23 briefing, CNSNews.com …
  • Send Your Children to D.C. Public Schools, Mr. President-Elect
    Barack and Michelle Obama are poised to commit a classic act of limousine-liberal hypocrisy — in this case, turning their backs on tens of thousands of inner-city kids in Washington, D.C. Public schools, it seems, are good enough for poor and …
  • Wanted: Small Government
    Up until the 1930s, the United States maintained a small federal government that mostly focused on the limited number of things the Constitution authorized it to do. Americans were responsible for their own food, clothing and shelter, and if they …
  • Will Government Give up Ownership in the Banks?
    Sweeping acts of government power are certain to have unintended consequences. Americans have seen this truth played out in the conduct of recent wars. But what are the potential unintended consequences of the sweeping move the government is making …

A Crude October Surprise

Podcast available through:

If you like Terence Jeffrey, you might enjoy

Republicans may be planning a crude surprise for Democrats this October. I mean crude in the sense that it will involve unrefined petroleum.

Since the House recessed earlier this month, Republicans have been demanding that Speaker Nancy Pelosi call it back into special session to vote on whether to allow new offshore oil-drilling.

The Republicans know Pelosi won't do that. So, what do they really want?

Let's start with some sense of the oil resources America could develop if Congress would allow it.

In 2006, the Interior Department estimated that about 85.9 billion barrels of "undiscovered technically recoverable" oil sits offshore on the Outer Continental Shelf within U.S. territory.

In 2007, the Energy Department's "Task Force on Strategic Unconventional Fuels" reported that: "America's oil shale resource exceeds 2 trillion barrels, including about 1.5 trillion barrels of oil equivalent in high quality shales concentrated in the Green River Formation in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. ... Depending on technology and economics, as much as 800 billion barrels of oil equivalent could be recoverable from oil shale resources yielding (more than) 25 gallons per ton."

This combined 885.9 billion barrels of recoverable oil that the government estimates lies undeveloped within U.S. territory is almost three and a half times as much as the 260 billion barrels in proven oil reserves that lie under Saudi territory.

America is an oil-rich country.

Since 1982, however, each year's Interior appropriation has included language forbidding Interior from selling oil-drilling leases in about 85 percent of the acreage comprising the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. (In July, President Bush lifted an executive order — originally imposed by his father — that essentially duplicated this congressional moratorium.)

Since this fiscal year, the Interior appropriation has also included a moratorium, sponsored by Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., that forbids Interior from issuing final regulations governing the sale of leases to develop oil shale lands. This effectively stops leases from being sold.

Because these moratoria are part of an appropriations bill that runs for only one fiscal year, they also run for one year.
If not renewed by Sept. 30, they expire.

Unless Congress enacts a new law banning offshore leases and oil-shale leases, Interior can legally start selling these leases on Oct. 1.

This fact was not lost on House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., when I interviewed him on Aug. 7. I asked him if President Bush should veto any bill that includes a moratorium.

"My view is that the president should just take the position right now that these moratoriums will end on September the 30th and the Democrats have to be responsible for putting them back in," said Blunt.

"Well, the Democrats wouldn't be responsible, congressman," I said. "With all due respect, President Bush would have to sign the moratorium into law for it to exist."

"And I don't think he should do that," said Blunt.

"So, if a bill passes Congress that has that moratorium, your belief is President Bush, your advice to him is: Mr. President, veto that bill?" I asked.

"That's right," said Blunt. "And my advice to him today would be to start the process up right now for what we do on Oct. 1 when this moratorium is ended and move forward assuming that there will be no moratorium after September the 30th."

"You would tell him to instruct those people in the Interior Department, who are responsible for administering these leases for the offshore oil and the shale oil, to begin the process of getting ready so that on Oct. 1 he can sell a lease?" I asked.

"I would," said Blunt.

"And you would go ahead and sell those leases? You would say: 'Let's do it. Let's move ahead'?" I asked.

"Well, after Oct. 1 when there is no moratorium," said Blunt. "The studies are there. The resource is there. We know you can safely go after it. The American people are hurting. We need to do whatever is necessary."

The Democrats would likely attempt to pre-empt such a strategy by using the traditional method Congress uses for ramming through legislation that cannot stand on its own: They will roll almost all fiscal 2009 appropriations into one monstrous continuing resolution and attach to that monstrosity the offshore oil and shale oil moratoria.

They will say to President Bush: If you want to develop U.S. oil resources, you must first shut down most of the U.S. government. You must be willing to face a massive national controversy over oil drilling and government spending.

President Bush might balk at that. For conservatives, it's a two-fer.

Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor in chief of CSNnews.com. To find out more about him, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.




AddThis Social Bookmark Button RSS Get RSS Feed for Terence Jeffrey Email updates Email me Terence Jeffrey updates Comments Comments
Originally Published on Wednesday August 13, 2008


Terence Jeffrey's column is published once a week.
Editors Picks - Opinion Columns
She'd Be Perfect for the Job -- (Not!)
David Harsanyi
Interesting Times Are Here Again
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.
Evangelicals -- A Drag on or Essential to the GOP?
David Limbaugh
See All
More Terence Jeffrey
Nov. `08
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 1 2 3 4 5 6
View By Month
About the author Print friendly format Write the author Email This Article to a friend
All newspaper editors want to know what their readers like. If you would like to read this feature in your local newspaper, please do not hesitate to share your enthusiasm with your local newspaper editor.


 

Shop Creators Syndicate

 
Friday, November 21, 2008 | 10:19 a.m.
About Creators | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Editor's login | FAQ | En Español
Copyright © 2006 Creators.com. All Rights Reserved.
Web Development by JJCO