Three interesting commentaries on energy: Part I

It is rare that I remark over the typical opinions printed in the local newspaper, and I note that other bloggers appear to have done so with more frequency. Over the next couple of days, however, I'm going to post three commentaries from local residents that were in the Delaware State News.

Each presents a different vantage point on energy plans and oil drilling. I'm not sure whether I have anything intelligent to add to theses commentaries, but in light of my suggestion that more prominent national figures have been floating ideas into the general public and mainstream media, why not include some suggestions from Delaware into the mix.

The first commentary appeared in the Monday, June 30, 2008 edition of the Delaware State News (page 5) as a letter to the editor. I have attempted to add links where I found them to support the author's points.

Drilling Answer to Gas-Price Woes
Franklin T. Wright, Milford, Delaware

I had thought that national security would be the main fighting ground for the upcoming general election, but it seems that, as hard as this is to believe, I was wrong. The main issue will be oil, or more specifically, what to do about its price. Whatever candidate can get out in front of this issue will likely win the presidency.

Republicans and Democrats have two very distinct solutions. The Republicans have long argued that we need to be more self-sufficient and that we should drill offshore, in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and at other locations in the country that have oil and natural gas. This is nothing new.

A New York Times article, dated May 18, 2001, outlines President Bush's plan, stating: "President Bush began an intensive effort today to sell his plan for developing new sources of energy to Congress and the American people, arguing that the country had a future of 'energy abundance if it could break free of the traditional antagonism between energy producers and environmental advocates.'" President Bush also talked about how we could be blackmailed by foreign oil suppliers. Imagine that.

President Bush, of course, lost out to the environmentalists and liberals, and of course, now the liberals say that it is because of Bush's policies that we are in this mess.

We have not built a refinery in this country since 1976. We have not built a nuclear power plant since before 1979. President Clinton had a chance to open ANWR to drilling in 1995, but he vetoed the bill presented to him by the then-Republican controlled Congress.

In this country, enhancing our own energy supply will create more jobs, boost the economy, lower the dependence on foreign oil and, hopefully, lower the gas prices. At $4-plus a gallon, I could care less about preserving the mating habitat of some sort of subspecies of fruit fly that I have never heard of.

I know that we cannot drill our way out of this mess and that once we begin drilling, it is estimated that we will not see the results for 10 years. But think were we would be now if we had started long ago when we knew this was going to happen.

Obama, on the other hand has a different view. He says that the Republican plan is just pandering to the big oil companies. These would be who? The same big oil companies whose executives contributed to Obama's campaign.

In April of 2006, Nancy Pelosi proclaimed: "Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices, taking America in a new direction that works for everyone, not just the few." The Democrats have controlled both the Senate and House since then. What have they done so far to implement this plan?

Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-NY, a member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most ardent opponents of offshore drilling, had this to say Wednesday: "We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market."

Is this Pelosi's plan? There is a word for that: socialism. This is a very scary proposition. An industry gets too good at making money, adn the government seizes their business. Maybe the dictator Chavez in Venezuela can get away with nationalizing the refineries, but we cannot.

Here is the bottom line. Politicians on both sides of the aisle make money off of the oil companies, both in stock and campaign contributions. To argue that one side or the other has the right to proclaim a moral advantage in this argument is like two fleas arguing over which one owns the dog.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, this is how capitalism works. You provide a product that people need and you make a profit. If you make obscene profits, as the oil companies have been doing recently, then, there is definitely something wrong that needs to be fixed.

Are we really at the point that we are so intent on not letting the oil companies make a profit that we continue to hurt ourselves to accomplish our goal? Yes, I know. Drilling for more oil in this country and opening refineries will mean the oil companies will make more money. Next time you fill up, if you can affort to without taking out a loan, ask yourself this:

Are you satisfied with paying out the ying-yang for gas as you try to keep the oil companies from making money off of new refineries, when building the refineries will actually bring the price down? That is like an oxymoron, with the emphasis on "moron."

I guess it comes down to this: Whom do you want making money off our gas, U.S. oil companies, or foreign dictators and monarchs? We cannot snap our fingers and the entire country will magically be driving hybrids that get 200 miles to the gallon with zero emissions. That may be your vision of the future, but we still need gas until we get there from here to there. I say drill, drill and drill some more. Maybe if we do it fast enough, Sheik What's His Name over there in Saudi Arabia will have to settle for a gold-plated Rolls Royce instead of a second diamond-encrusted one.