« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

$2.50 per Gallon Gasoline, Energy Independence and Jobs

To hear the White House and President Obama tell it, high gasoline prices are here to stay and we better get used to them. If Americans would quiet down and accept $4.00 a gallon gas, it would certainly make the President and his environmentalist allies happy—but it would also require us to forget everything we know about American energy.

During the years I was speaker the average price for a gallon of gasoline was $1.13, and when President Obama took office in January 2009 the average price nationwide was $1.89 a gallon. Three years into the Obama presidency, the average is $3.47 a gallon.

Today, prices like those we enjoyed three years ago seem like a fantasy, and under the president’s current policies, they are. But these were prices Americans paid in the recent past. We can achieve $2.50 a gallon gasoline if we want to.

Listening to the president, you would never know the United States is sitting on more oil than there is in all of Saudi Arabia. In fact, we could have more technically recoverable oil  in the U.S. than the entire world has consumed since the first commercial oil well was dug before the Civil War.

In spite of these resources, President Obama has opposed policies at every step that could lower the price of gasoline.

He has stubbornly prevented the development of American of oil and gas resources that could be used to meet greater demand with increased production. He has shut down the Gulf of Mexico and blocked offshore drilling in the Atlantic, Pacific and Alaska coasts, where there are an estimated 86 billion barrels. Only 2.2 percent of federal offshore land is currently being leased for production, and the president is refusing to allow more.

On land, the administration’s obstruction is just as damaging. Among the 30.5 billion barrels of oil located on onshore federal lands (not including oil shale), 92 percent of them are inaccessible or under restrictions above and beyond standard regulatory and administrative hurdles. The Obama administration rescinded 77 oil and gas leases in Utah and stalled oil shale research and development  in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, where the federal government owns most of the world’s oil shale reserves on lands estimated to hold 1 trillion barrels of oil.

In addition to  stonewalling new production of domestic energy resources the President has proposed a $40 billion tax hike on oil and gas production in his budget every single year, which would reduce production and increase prices, and he rejected the Keystone XL pipeline to appease his ideological base. Meanwhile, he’s eager to spend hundreds of billions in taxpayer money on risky green energy startups like Solyndra and have the United States be Brazil’s best oil customer.

Clearly, President Obama is more interested in playing favorites with environmental extremists than in embracing the “all-of-the-above” strategy that would achieve energy independence and help all Americans now.

With gasoline prices higher today than they have ever been at this point in the year, the president’s actions are unacceptable to the American people.

Implementing a bold American energy plan will bring down the cost of gasoline, eliminate our dangerous dependence on overseas oil and ensure that no American president is forced to confront Iranian threats to close the Straits of Hormuz or ever again bows to a Saudi king.

As president, I will  dramatically expand leasing of federal lands for oil and gas development, with the goal of increasing production as much as possible. I will move aggressively to put the Gulf of Mexico back to work, open up new areas like Atlantic Coast and the Chukchi Sea in Alaska, and remove regulatory hurdles to development of the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska and our vast oil sands deposits. We won’t have to wait until the actual supplies come online to see lower gasoline prices. A credible and significant commitment to expanding American energy supplies can put downward pressure on prices today.

I would approve the Keystone XL pipeline on my first day in office, and work to condense regulations to make it easier to build new refineries. I would eliminate the capital gains tax to promote investment and move to 100 percent expensing for new equipment so companies could write it off in one year, making it easier for companies to build new extraction sites. And I would replace the EPA with a new, economically rational Environmental Solutions Agency since the current bureaucracy is so hostile to businesses it can’t be fixed.

$2.50 a gallon gas is not a dream. It’s achievable with the right policies. If we take these and other steps, we will  reduce the price of gas by tapping America’s incredible oil and gas resources to increase supply. Doing so will  mean more money in Americans’ pockets, lower costs for millions of businesses, and tens of thousands of jobs across the country in an industry poised to take off.

COMMENTS

  • APA Guy

    In my humble opinion, there is no one in this race – not the other GOP candidates or the current president – who has anywhere near your ability to solve the problems that plague this country and its economy. The impact your policies would have on monetary, energy and budgetary matters would save this nation’s economy and put us back on the path to prosperity.

    Forget what the polls say…STAY IN THE RACE…NO MATTER WHAT. Conservatives will have your back and help you win this nomination as we take back this country.

    • clowngirl

      Btw, great debate last night!

      Excellent point about the need to modernize government and the potential for deep change. It’s very true that people often imagine the future while still looking through the lense of the past.

    • Juggernaut

      of the final 4. The rest are lost on social issues and continue to ramble in fighting over their past plus they don’t know how the government works nor do they know how to cut costs on a national level.

    • Rudy

      Newt would do so much damage in Washington. He would turn it all right side up. I can see all the establishment republicans running for their lives.

      Go Newt go! RAWR!!!!!

      I’m going to go donate to Newt’s campaign right now.
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .

      • WillWong

        Just made a contribution to Newt’s campaign on www.newt.org.

    • citizenkh

      he understood exactly what the Keystone XL was to do, kick imports from Venezuela to the curb.

      He also understood the importance of shale plays not because of “energy” (Lord I hate the use of that word) but because these shale plays also produces lots and lots of NGL (natural gas liquids). These are great things to be used in the petrochemical stream.

      Don’t forget that hydrocarbons are only about “energy”, they are about just about everything else, as the raw material used even to make the computer chips you are using.

      As for energy, the U.S. is BY FAR the number one producer of petroleum coke in the world. We export approximately 50% of that over 53,000,000 tons annually. A strike in Venezuela caused 11 Gulf Coast refineries scrambling wildly to make up the lost HEAVY CRUDE which they were configured to refine and all those billions upon billions of capital investment to do so. We came darned close to some major refineries having to shutdown due lack of heavy crude. Canadian Syncrude would insure an almost limitless supply of heavy crude.

      BTW, I am presently awaiting the financial package to be finalized to sell a small refinery to be dismantled and exported overseas. The pipeline supplying it now has heavy Canadian Syncrude flowing in it, and without a $100 million investment this $130 million like new refinery can not even think about processing it.

      BTW, tell Newt that Keystone XL would terminate in Nederland, TX because that terminal and right of way already exists. The crude would not go to Houston, except a little, but mostly to Corpus Christi, some to Port Arthur, but most to refineries in Louisiana (Lake Charles, Norco & Chalmette.)

  • Marcus_Traianus

    The drifting, feckless and incomprehensible energy policy, (or lack thereof) of this administration has left us with no secure source of fuel and continued to place us at the mercy of countries which are becoming less secure every day. Millions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted on utopian green energy scams, and that’s what they are since none of them has paid off and are the result of unprecedented government intervention in the free market.

    Political patronage is no substitute for a sound, understandable, sagacious energy policy which ensures we have the fuel necessary to run our industry and daily lives. We are in a much more dangerous situation due to this administrations incompetency.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Jacobson get2djnow

    Your policy positions are so much less important than your hair, in this primary. Attacking the anti-business policies of the Obama administration should be the focus of the campaigns. If you can respond to our comments, please talk about the way to win in the general election.

  • WillWong

    You made my day! What a pleasant surprise and a good morning to see the most knowledgeable visionary leader posting on RS! I suspect you will not be dissapointed at all with our response! Way to go, Mr. President!

    Oh btw, please continue to call out for another debate before super Tuesday! Those cowards are afraid to debate you but the voters deserve to have more and not less debates!

    • clowngirl

      Going “bwak, bwak, bwak” and taunting them about bailing out of the Georgia debate.

      Just kidding, that’d probably freak out the secret service.

      Kinda wonder if Romney might be more amenable to debating after seeing how much damage Senator Santorum took last night and if the Senator might not want to try and redeem himself.

      But they’re both probably too afraid of Newt.

  • Viet71

    He sets policy and has the veto, but congress also has a say.

    Congress members, by and large, HAVE to at least APPEAR to be sensitive to environmental concerns. Environmental soothing is the lubricant for an energy-independence policy in modern-day America.

    • spinoneone

      is consumed in the U.S. [and the rest of the world, for that matter] in two forms: petroleum and its derivatives, and electricity. Coal is used in producing electricity but it is no longer significant nationally in producing heat for homes and buildings. Hydro power produces about 7% of our total electricty; wind, solar & biomass about 2%, coal and related products about 51%; nuclear about 19%; and various forms of oil and natural gas the rest.

      In transportation, as we all know, 99+% of the fuel is a petroleum product. The price of all petroleum products, liquid and gas, is set at the well-head on the basis of worldwide supply and demand. Oil and gas, like money, are “fungible” in terms of substitutibilty. That means the market place doesn’t really care if the product is produced in the U.S., Venezuela, Russia, or Saudi Arabia. If we add more product to the world supply, other things being equal, prices will fall. OPEC and other players might conspire to cut their production and support current prices, but, depending on our production surge capability, that might or might not work. The down side is that drilling wells and getting crude oil to the refinery is not a short-term solution to the problem. Note, also, that the 0 Administration has not replaced the amount of oil withdrawn from the SPR the last time he tapped it.

    • APA Guy

      Four letters: ANWR

      • jaydickb

        There are lots of other places where we could get oil. We could also consider making methanol from coal and natural gas if we need it.

      • citizenkh

        thrown to the Dems for Deepwater Drilling to begin. One major reason to open ANWR up is because TAPS needs more crude flow to keep the pipeline open.

    • azred

      The EPA, BOEMER, and all of the other Executive Branch agencies are the stongarm that use at the disposal of a president that is against development and production of our oil and gas industry.

      And particularly with this president, Congress has been a tool only for him to hide behind, blame or go around.

      • Viet71

        is that Newt Gingrich says he’ll do this, that, and the other thing as to energy once he’s president; but that he’ll have to work with the half-wits in congress to get his way.

        No disagreement.

        • dimondintherough

          Great job last night Mr. Speaker – if these guys are to scared to debate you, I think you should do exactly what you said you would do if Obama wouldn’t debate. Follow Mitt around for a few days and refute his comments point by point. It would drive him CRAZY and get you tons of press! After all, it was his team that started sending his aides to your events in FLA – this would do him one better!!!!!

          Please don’t get out of the race, the country needs you!

          • Archer

            but I’m not sure its the best use of the Speaker’s time. It’ll work in the general election because that only happens once. In the primaries by the time people in a state realize Newt is following Romney around, the election will be over and Newt would have to start building recognition for his strategy all over again.

          • Common_Cents

            Someone should appear at the Paul, Mitt, Rick events dressed up as a chicken and heckle them a bit.

            After all, Romney has hecklers at Gingrich events.

          • clowngirl

            (don’t they both live in AZ?)

            Offhand, I can’t think of any RSers who live in Michigan.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            “real job” and my “real employer” would not take kindly to me buzzing off. Other than that, I’d give my right arm follow Mitt – and especially the great pretender Santorum – around. Although I have a feeling I probably wouldn’t get into the second meeting :-)

          • clowngirl

            Quickly checked to see if there were any events on the weekend (when presumably you might be free to crash them) and it looks like Santorum is spending all his time in Michigan.

            Didn’t see any listing of Romney’s events on his website. (?)

  • mattyp

    I’d go through it paragraph by paragraph, but that would take it too long. I’ll just correct a few choice passages–some of them are certifiably incorrect and some that are just misleading.

    During the years I was speaker the average price for a gallon of gasoline was $1.13, and when President Obama took office in January 2009 the average price nationwide was $1.89 a gallon. Three years into the Obama presidency, the average is $3.47 a gallon.

    -I love how he assumes that Obama is all powerful when it it comes to gas prices. Firstly, there was a year-over-year drop of over a dollar a gallon between Jan 2008 and Jan 2009 (cite) due to the financial crisis and recession (ie: deflation due to reduced demand). As the economy improves and demand increases, the price will go up (look at the trend under GW Bush, 2001-2009). Furthermore several factors that Obama had no control over, such as the Arab Spring, tension with Iran, tension with Syria, increased demand in China and India, and speculation in commodities markets, have exerted upward pressure on oil markets. To simply assert that Obama took office and now prices are higher is misleading in its omission of key drivers of gas prices.

    He has stubbornly prevented the development of American of oil and gas resources that could be used to meet greater demand with increased production.

    -Here is a question of scale and timescale: We buy oil off of a global energy market, not a domestic one. While we do restrict our consumption from certain countries (like Iran), the price we pay at the pump is regulated by their supply. The price we pay for our domestic oil product is also tied to the price of the world market. This would be true of new production unless Mr. Gingrich is arguing for an extremely protectionist trade policy. But let’s assume for the moment that OPEC wouldn’t react in any way if we expanded our oil production. Even if we immediately started preparations for drilling everywhere there is oil to be drilled, that oil would not reach any market for several years, so it would have no (absent speculation) impact on our gas prices for years to come. Furthermore, unless we were able to instantaneously dump all of the oil in our tar sands and offshore wells on to the global market at once, our production would account for a swimming pool in the Pacific Ocean. How much of an impact do you think that such a tiny proportion of oil has on overall price in a global market?

    Implementing a bold American energy plan will bring down the cost of gasoline, eliminate our dangerous dependence on overseas oil and ensure that no American president is forced to confront Iranian threats to close the Straits of Hormuz or ever again bows to a Saudi king.

    -Once again… Global Market. If Iran closes the strait of Hormuz, or the Saudis get pissy, there would still be horrible ramifications for gas prices and our economies.

    $2.50 a gallon gas is not a dream. It?s achievable with the right policies.

    -You’re forgetting economists’ favorite assumption: ceterus paribus.

    Frankly, I believe that we should increase production of domestic energy of all types as long as it’s environmentally friendly and respects worker safety, but let’s not call “Drill Baby Drill” a panacea when it’s not.

    • WillWong

      Obama did stop the Keystone pipeline!
      Obsma did provided billions to Solyndra and other green energy companies.
      Obama did stop drilling in the gulf.
      Obama did restrict the development of local oil and gas industry.

    • APA Guy

      Obama most certainly has control over the BUDGETS he submits. Oil is a commodity priced in DOLLARS. When we run $1.1-1.6 trillion deficits, it weakens our dollar..resulting in increased oil and gas prices. Increased domestic production would certainly help, but Obama’s bloated budgets have nearly single-handedly caused the severe decline in the value of our currency and the accompanying spike in energy prices.

      This is why the country paid $1.13 a gallon for gas during a time of extreme economic uptick. Get an education on more than Newt bashing before you make a fool of yourself.

      • mattyp

        If you’re referring to 1999, you are the year that the tech crunch started. Remember Mark Barton on Atlanta? Extreme economic uptick is incorrect.

        Also, Where’s the inflation?. The inflation rates during the Obama administration (even excluding the deflation of 2009) has been well in-tune with historic norms. Why don’t you find an analyst that says that the weakening dollar, as opposed to increased global demand, is the primary driver of gas prices.

        • APA Guy

          If so, kindly provide evidence for your assertion. And as for facts, see my response to mattyp. Obama’s budgets have forced artificial increases in the money supply, thus devaluing it. Oil is priced in dollars. I could connect the dots for you, but I have a feeling you still won’t see the puzzle.

          As for finding an analyst who feels as I do, try Forbes Magazine…published today:

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/02/22/gasoline-prices-are-not-rising-the-dollar-is-falling/

          The analyst argues that the weak dollar is responsible for the high gas prices. Bloated budgets have weakened the dollar. During Gingrich’s Speakership, the dollar was strong and budgets balanced.

          • clowngirl

            I’ve occassionally (ok, very rarely) seen people argue that “Speaker Gingrich is a lot like Barack Obama. They’re both good speakers, both professors, etc” the difference- aside from Grand Canyon sized gaps in ideology and ability – is that you’ve still retained your common sense.

            It’s hard to imagine *anything*, within the realm of what an American President might actually fail to do, that could hurt America more than Barack Obama’s policy on energy and particularly the keystone pipeline.

            You’re policy is right on the money. THANK YOU for your leadership on this issue. And, while I’m at it thank you for running for President and for your leadership through most of my lifetime!

        • Juggernaut

          Obama.

          • APA Guy

            This clown said the following down below:

            “You chastise me for not knowing monetary policy (which Obama has minimal control over)”

            Yes…Obama’s bloated budgets, which forced the central bank to print money hand over fist, have NOTHING to do with the devaluing of our currency…which is not impacting the price of a commodity priced in DOLLARS.

            High gas prices also caused milk jump from $1.49 to $3.49, but there’s no inflation…remember that Juggernaut :)

          • Juggernaut

            There are several libs who meltdown defending their messiah. One of the mods nailed DeathoftheDonkey and banned him. Denial is their coping mechanism.

          • APA Guy

            Obama has minimal control over monetary policy? Gee, I thought the president submitted the budgets in this country. I guess that must have been our OTHER president…VP Biden :)

            Trolls are easily spotted and dispatched if people here are vigilant and point them out publicly. The mods on this site are excellent in this respect.

            Obama has single-handedly wrecked this nation’s monetary policy and the value of the dollar right along with it. That and his lack of willingness to open up domestic oil production have been the single biggest determinants in dragging this economy.

      • mattyp

        You chastise me for not knowing monetary policy (which Obama has minimal control over) and then go on a rant about fiscal policy.

        Talk about not knowing monetary policy!!!

        • APA Guy

          …the actions of a central bank, currency board or other regulatory committee that determine the size and rate of growth of the money supply

          The money supply has been artificially increased to accommodate Obama’s bolated budgets. Ergo, he has been THE central figure responsible for our abysmal monetary policy.

          Try again…

        • APA Guy

          …the actions of a central bank, currency board or other regulatory committee that determine the size and rate of growth of the money supply

          The money supply has been artificially increased to accommodate Obama’s bolated budgets. Ergo, he has been THE central figure responsible for our abysmal monetary policy.

          Try again…

          • Archer

            yet another debate.

            I’m astounded at the number of republicans, especially in the supposedly conservative sector of the press, who are in fear of Obama and who think that nominating an Obama clone is the surest path to conservative victory. I can only suppose that they thought the best way to defeat the Soviet Union was to elect our own Stalin.

            In any case, thanks for continuing to be in the race so we aren’t forced to choose only between TweedleDum and TweedleDumber.

          • Archer

            There’s couple of things you could do to shake up the race before Super Tuesday.

            1) People have responded very positively when you have talked of auditing the Federal Reserve and asking for the resignation of Bernake. Have you thought about taking the next logical step: announcing the end of Richard Nixon’s temporary suspension of the gold standard?

            Nixon isn’t exactly known for his economic brilliance in the first place and turning to a modern gold standard has been extremely popular within the republican party as a whole and among the Tea Party and in the south in particular.

            Its a policy that needs to be done at some point and announcing your own further economic plans might divert some attention from Romney’s desperate last minute turn-around on economic plans.

            2) Have you thought about selecting a running mate while the nomination is still up in the air?

            There’s a couple of issues involved here, not the least of which is whether a VP candidate would be willing to jump aboard at this point. But selecting a running mate at this point in the race would definitely be novel in American politics and dominate the news cycle heading into Super Tuesday.

            If you chose someone who doesn’t hold elected office at the moment, you could have a proxy who could hold his or her own radio talk show interviews, Sunday news interviews, other press events, and campaign appearances.

            I don’t know exactly how federal election law works but, if your VP pick has his or her own PAC money or own personal wealth, it might be possible that they could funnel it into your presidential campaign without federal interference.

            You obviously have your own thoughts on VP picks but Steve Forbes, Sarah Palin, and JC Watts all come to mind as being committed reformers and/or supply siders and each would bring something unique and beneficial to the ticket.

          • Jeff

            on one of those 1-855-ASK-NEWT tele-townhalls. The caller made the same arguments for it as you did. The caller specifically recommended Allen West.

            Newt sounded somewhat open to the idea during the call. He said the key thing you have to think about is you get all the positives as well as the negatives of the VP pick, and you get a few 24 hour news cycles churning and digging through that person’s past.

          • Common_Cents

            Gas pump sticky note

        • radicalrighty

          Merely indroducing legislation which opens up federal land for oil and natural gas production will cause oil futures to plummet which would cause oil prices then gasoline prices to fall dramatically.

          So, actually a US president, by either banning energy production, or by demanding of the congress to open up fed lands for production, actually does have a role in gasoline prices.

          The question is whether President Newt would be forceful or not. Perry would have, but Newt has cuddled up with tree huggers before . . .

          • mikelindell2

            -

          • Ann2012

            Speaker Gingrich and Senator Santorum it?s wonderful to see you both writing here. I?m going to post this on the topics that each of you started.

            I really admire and respect both of you, in fact during the 1990s when I became interested in politics, the two of you along with John Kasich were my three favorite people in politics. And now two of you are running for president!

            At first I supported Newt and wanted to see Rick as VP. but have recently changed to supporting Rick as president and would love to see Newt as VP. I wrote and explained my reasoning for this change of heart in another topic. In actuality, I would be happy whichever one was at the top of the ticket, it?s just that I think Rick has a better chance of winning the general election at this point.

            Why I?m writing today is not to comment on your respective posts but to implore you both to team up and stop splitting the conservative vote. When delegates are proportioned this may not be as much of a problem since you can combine your delegates at the convention. But for winner take all states, you just make it much easier for Mitt Romney to win.

            After super Tuesday whichever one of you has the most delegates and/or state wins and higher poll number please work together by making a deal behind the scenes to team up either as President/V.P and/or with the promise (in writing if necessary) to leave the race and endorse the other if you are given the opportunity of working on a project that is most meaningful to the one that will step down from the race. I noticed that Rick Perry was promised the opportunity to work on a 10th amendment project if Newt became president. This is the type of thing I?m referring to.

            Please don?t let ego stop you two from combining forces and winning in November. It?s obvious that Mitt Romney and Ron Paul have made some arrangement with each other. Ron Paul only attacks Newt or Rick. If they did team up, Romney as President with Ron Paul as Vice President it would make perfect sense.

            Since Romney knows he will never have the enthusiasm of the conservative base he will compensate with Ron Paul?s base, namely the youth vote who are usually moderate to liberal, and they are almost cult-like in their devotion to Ron Paul.

            It?s a great strategy actually, that?s why I worry so much that our conservative candidates will not do something similar to ensure that they win the primary. I?m sure I?m not writing anything that you both haven?t considered but what concerns me is that I remember when Newt was in the lead awhile back, he mentioned on television making common cause with Rick Santorum but didn?t elaborate further. I don?t know if Rick Santorum will start to get overly confident and think he doesn?t need Newt.

            Just remember, ?pride goeth before the fall.? You need each other, so work together and you can reach your collective goals, don?t work together and you may lose to a better organized Romney/Paul collaboration and end up with nothing more than speaking tours over the next few years. It?s up to you to appreciate each other?s strengths and abilities, combine them and win!

    • Ann2012

      Mattyp, here is the difference between you and how a visionary such as Newt thinks. You take things as they are and list the reasons why something cannot change. A visionary looks at how things should be and works backwards from that goal changing or inventing the means to reach that goal.

      For example you write: ?We buy oil off of a global energy market, not a domestic one.?

      Would that still be the case if we could produce all our own energy domestically. The whole point is to no longer be dependent on OPEC.

      Use the mobilization for World War II or the Manhattan Project as a model for what our country can or cannot do when faced with a challenge.

      With the intelligence, creativity, and innovative thinking in the country, virtually anything is possible, especially in light of the abundant natural resources we have been blessed with. But it takes a visionary to make that happen.

      • sharrondeer

        Whoever that own the oil will always sell to the highest bidder, whoever that may be, including Americans. That’s part of the free market, after all. The only way to become energy-independent vis a vis oil would be through government policies; i.e., more government regulation. Corporations may be people, but they owe no allegiance to the US nor are they motivated by patriotism.

        I say this not to argue against capitalism or the free market, but merely to point out why it can’t happen.

        • Ann2012

          Your argument is similar to mattyp, you take what already exists and explain why it can?t be changed. That?s why strong leadership is so important. Leadership, by definition, leads and changes what is to what can be. We are not bound by the present, we can change, we are free. It all depends on the foresight and strength of those we elect.

          With respect to the oil market being a free market. It is not free. Oil production and prices are largely determined by a cartel.

          Definition of cartel:
          A cartel is a formal agreement among competing firms. It is an organization of producers and manufacturers that agree to fix prices, marketing, and production. Cartels usually occur in an oligopolistic industry, where there is a small number of sellers.

          According to OPEC?s statutes, one of the principal goals is the determination of the best means for safeguarding the organization’s interests, individually and collectively. It also pursues ways and means of ensuring the stabilization of prices in international oil markets, giving regard at all times to the interests of the producing nations and to the necessity of securing a steady income to the producing countries.

          Regarding our own U.S. oil companies. The government owns much of the land that is leased to the oil companies. It is a regulated industry.

          For example, in the U.S., extraction of oil and gas is generally regulated by the individual states through statutes and common law. Federal and constitutional law apply as well. Oil and gas rights to a particular parcel may be owned by private individuals, corporations, Indian tribes, or by local, state, or federal governments. Oil and gas rights offshore are owned by either the state or federal government and leased to oil companies for development.

          For our own national interests if public lands are being used by oil companies then obviously they need to first ensure that we have energy at a low enough price before they sell to the world market at a higher price.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            contact@redstate.com

            Neil is the one who would attend to your request.

            However, might I suggest first that you delete your RedState cookies and cache files and try to write a new diary – it’s possible the source of your problem lies there rather than in RedState’s system.

            Good luck.

          • Ann2012

            civil truth, thanks for the advice. I did try removing items from the cache, that did not work. I will contact them again to see if they can assist me.

    • Kyle-MI

      Last I checked that is foreign policy and the responsibility of the President. A stronger President would make Iran think twice about threatening the Straight of Hormuz, and a stronger President would be more reassuring to the Saudis.

      The President is held accountable for the economy a large part of which is influenced by energy. He is not all-powerful with respect to energy and no one expects him to be. (Although isn’t this the same guy who promised to stop the rising of the oceans?) However, a President should be man enough to take responsibility. Remember FDR’s famous quote, “the buck stops here”. I don’t agree with his policies but at least he was responsible. You and Obama are all about making excuses. Neither of you even try. It is always not enough or ten years down the road. Excuses, excuses, and more excuses.

      • lizzie

        in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming in the text if not the excellent 29 minute speech, which I enjoyed this morning because it was the connect-the-dots speech I had been hoping Rick Perry would make after his energy plan announcement.

        I already knew, months ago, about the ONE TRILLION barrels of shale oil – well, actually I had read that Colorado alone has 1.25 trillion barrels of shale oil, which is five times the known reserves of Saudi Arabia, and about 300 years of USA consumption at current levels. I had read about the USA shale oil in an article about the shale oil reserves in Israel, about 250 billion barrels, which would make Israel equal to Saudi Arabia in oil reserves, quite the geo-political gamechanger too.

        I did not realize how much of that USA shale oil is on Federally owned land.

        Certainly hope Speaker Gingrich’s 29 minute energy talk is seen by millions of Americans in the next week. This truly is what the debates should ALL have been about, but, better now than never.

        • citizenkh

          by linking Keystone XL to Venezuela. But Newt knew the public was dumb enough to think that the “Houston Refining Complex” was going take most of Keystone XL when in fact it would go to Lake Charles, Norco, Chalmette, Corpus Christi, Sweeney & Port Arthur with a small fraction going to the only refinery on the Houston Ship Channel which is refining heavy crude.

          Everyone in the biz has known about Colorado Kerogen deposits for decades. The problem with producing it is water rights.

    • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

      had no problem blaming President Bush for the high oil prices during his administration. Funny how today’s prices are not his fault now that he’s the POTUS.

      The Speaker is right.

    • richtfan

      the whole point of the “futures” market is to predict what will happen in the “future”, thus the name. decisions made today that will, in the future, add to our supply will definitely cause a decrease in the price. New discoveries cause fairly fast drops in the price. I can guarantee you hands down that if the natural gas act were signed into law today, the price from OPEC would go down instantaneously due to an “anticipated” future price reduction. that’s the way the speculative market works.

      • Common_Cents

        A confident expression of energy development that Gingrich has will largely tamp down futures bullish speculation. That can have a near immediate effect on the markets and prices of gasoline.

        Not to mention foreign policy efforts to stabilize ME.

        Only idiotic Democrats use the old “gee it takes 10 years for oil to come on line”. Morons.

    • jaydickb

      I say as long as we’re not doing substantial damage to the environment, go for all of it. Moreover, I don’t think CO2 emissions do substantial damage to the environment and I think it has no place in setting energy policy. “Drill baby drill” may not be a panacea, but it sure won’t hurt.

    • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

      is worth your thousand words.

      From Townhall here

      gv022312dAPR20120223054527

  • tngal

    And a good, bold, energy policy. More bold is needed. (Nice to see cain is rubbing off on you) PS, squash romney like a bug.

  • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

    Keep pummeling and come out on top!

  • davecatbone

    keep up your positive message, continue to hit Obama, and we’re going to stay with you Mr. Speaker. Please, please continue to call out, confront and battle the Enemedia, they are hurting the USA as much as the Democrat party.

  • rogershru2

    Keep up the positive campaigning with specific ideas to turn the country around. This makes the other candidates’ platforms seem negligible by comparison. That is what sparked your prior rises in the field in my opinion.

  • WillWong

    That was a great line and sounds so original….very Newtlike…so refreshing compared to “courageous, consistent, and resolute” which were designed to play to the audience and the base!

    • clowngirl

      And it’s nice to see that you’re still “cheerful” at this point in the race!

      That really does say a lot.

      It’s funny to think that when we get to the General Election the press coverage of you will actually be LESS negative overall.

  • sandollar

    For me & my family, you are the ONLY choice!

  • Common_Cents

    With your reform DC stance, and buttressed by Gov Perry it’s time to call conservatives to arms and get involved in the local party apparatus. Approx half of all precinct spots are still vacant. This is how we can rebuild the Republican party, reboot states rights/power against the DC centralized establishment.

    This is right up the tea party’s alley, as well as America in general.

    Please start talking about this. We need a Gingrich revolution ;)

    • Common_Cents

      Use your resources of Team Gingrich.

    • dimondintherough

      Re the Speakers time, but even if he just shadowed him for a day he would get tons of press for it and Romney deserves it for pulling out of the debate!

      • Scope

        Here we are again with the liberals saying that opening up drilling is not a short term answer. I’ve heard them saying that the reason why gas prices are going up is because of the tensions in the middle east. Well, hell’s bell’s, when hasn’t there being middle east tensions? Steve Moore was on CNN this weekend, and the liberal host said that getting drilling up and to the point of actually producing fossile fuels won’t help our current situation. Moore laughed and said that we have been going back and forth on drilling in ANWAR for 30 years, and they said back then, it will take too long. If we started drilling in ANWAR 30 years ago we would be reaping those benefits now, and long in the past as well. I would pay big bucks in order to be able to take a bucket of pond scum, and pour it over Obama’s head.

  • texasref

    I appreciate so much how you take it to Obama and have bold ideas. I look forward to your leadership in Washington, D.C.

    And I didn’t just put this footer on, it’s been on here for weeks.

    I will be signing up soon to make phone calls for you for Super Tuesday.

    You are our only hope. Please fight on!

    • rightland1111

      and this country needs to have that or we’re done. You showed some of that in the debate. I realize that you have been blacked out by most of the media. However, when asked who I thought won the debate…there was no hesitation…YOU DID!

      So..get Adeleman (sp) to keep pumping the $$ in and make some 30 minute spots and get your message out…otherwise America is done..cooked…over. You know it…I know it…and even though many of the people on the board don’t like to hear it…they know it.

      We need a person that can look into the future. We know the past. We know Romney’s record (which btw…he lied again last night)…I know that Santorum is a spender. Even with his Article 10.. I think it was an Article, wherein he put in Article 20…shows that he will spend even more. Neither of these programs needs to be in the Federal Government’s control.

      You wiped out our deficit in one swoop…keep telling America about it…even to the point of telling them that we will regain our Triple A credit rating if we get our house in order.Oh…and don’t forget to tell them how it will affect their lives…not the government’s…but theirs.

      Keep Perry in something…he is too good a man to be thrown to the ground.

  • SoFiMil

  • Common_Cents

    But do nothing to get it started.

    then Obama tells us solar, wind, and now algae are the answer. When? in 50 years if we are lucky?

    • jamesm

      nt

    • Ausonius

      They have no intention of increasing domestic oil supplies because they want America weakened, and bellieve in the Romantic Rousseauistic dream of people living “in harmony with nature.”

  • Pingback: Resource

  • d_lamar

    As everyone who thinks about it knows, high energy prices take money out of everyone’s pocket, not just as the gas pump, but also in the inflationary impact upon practically all products which we buy.

    From food, manufactured products, packaging, etc., everything costs more which either contains oil, or consumes oil in the manufacturing process.

    Also, I would request that you re-examine your support for ethanol mandates in our gasoline. As you probably know, ethanol is a negative energy product. (It takes more energy to produce it than is derived in the final product when mixed with gasoline).

    It is damaging to many types of gasoline engines, including boats, motorcycles, aircraft, and lawn equipment.

    I love your support for a market driven energy policy. should we Americans be able to decide for ourselves whether we want to put pure gasoline or an ethanol blend in our vehicles?

    Great message. Hang in there!

    David

  • mikelindell2

    Only you could have withstood the vicious assaults on you by Romney, the establishment, and Fox News (same thing as establishment at this point). Good point by above poster, make sure to tie oil prices into not just prices at the pump, but also prices for everyday products. Make sure to cast yourself as the ONLY ONE TO HAVE TAKEN ON AND FIXED THE SAME PROBLEMS THAT WE FACE TODAY (deficits, entitlements, growth, unemployment, gridlock). This not only ties into your ability to solve problems, but also your electability against Obama. It would be an election about 4.2% unemployment vs 9% unemployment, balanced budgets vs $1 trillion dollar + deficits, runaway entitlements vs entitlement reform, and whining about gridlock vs getting things done even with Democrat president. In short, an era of prosperity vs an era of despair.

  • mikelindell2

    I feel the idea of a flat tax is very appealing, especially in primaries. Make sure to note that you are the only one who has proposed one, and emphasize the low rate. Romney’s plan is weak and timid, Santorum’s calls for government picking winners and loser. 15% flat tax, because no one should have to give more than 15% of their money to Washington.

  • d_lamar

    And when I say a flat tax, I mean a real flat tax – where everyone pays the same percentage of their income, regardless of whether it’s one dollar or one million dollars.

    I have for a long time thought that ten percent should be the maximum that anyone should have to pay in taxes.

    Let’s tax the 49% that now pay no taxes, and have them have skin in the game. Maybe they won’t be so quick to vote for someone like Obama who promises them gifts from the government if they might think that their taxes would increase along with everyone else’s.

    Also, eliminate all deductions and credits. No more reverse income tax like the Earned Income Tax Credit, where people not only don’t pay any tax, but get a refund.

    I know my suggestions will never be reality. There are too many people who benefit from our current system.

  • Common_Cents

    It’s astonishing the level of bias in the media. Some saying you have given up, but then blast you if you get aggressive. Drudge is a total romney hack. It’s obvious much of the rest of the media is biased either negative headlines or ignoring your campaign. Be yourself, be genuine and it will always show through.

    Keep up the good fight, Mr. Speaker. Stay on the big issues that are important to America. Energy, jobs, national security, healthcare, border control etc… You are good at pointing out obama’s failures and how you will go about helping to fix things.

    People need optimism and something to look forward to.

    Santorum and Romney looked like two little kids with petty arguments back and forth.

    How spineless it was of Santorum, Romney, Paul campaigns to contact each other to drop out of the Georgia Debates. The only one cancelled? Please call them out on that and challenge them to Lincoln Douglas debates to make up for it. That was despicable.