It looks like good news. At last offshore drilling is to be permitted. America is to be allowed access to its own oil and natural gas.

But there’s a catch, as Michelle Malkin says. She reveals the whole story:

The Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time, officials said Tuesday.

The proposal — a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations — would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean.

If this were a sincere change of heart and an honest, stand-alone effort to wean America off foreign oil, it would be worth heralding.

But as always with this administration, there’s a catch, via the American Energy Alliance:

“One major flashpoint in the negotiations has been whether to share drilling revenue with states and to allow states to opt in or out of drilling along their coastlines. It was unclear late Tuesday whether Obama endorses revenue-sharing for states. ‘It appears the Northern Atlantic and entire Pacific Coast will now be under a de facto ban for drilling,’ said Patrick Creighton, a spokesman for the Institute for Energy Research. ‘Even if drilling is ultimately allowed in part of the Atlantic,’ Creighton said, ‘revenue sharing is an essential incentive for states.’ The administration’s plans could meet resistance from at least 10 Senate Democrats representing coastal and Great Lakes states who last week raised concerns about ‘unfettered access to oil and gas drilling’ that could jeopardize fishing, tourism and military exercises…”

GOP Rep. Mike Pence adds:

“As usual the devil is in the details. Only in Washington, D.C., can you ban more areas to oil and gas exploration than you open up, delay the date of your new leases and claim you’re going to increase production.

“The President’s announcement today is a smokescreen. It will almost certainly delay any new offshore exploration until at least 2012 and include only a fraction of the offshore resources that the previous Administration included in its plan.

“Unfortunately, this is yet another feeble attempt to gain votes for the President’s national energy tax bill that is languishing in the Senate. At the end of the day this Administration’s energy plan is simple: increase the cost of energy on every family in America and trade American jobs oversees at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.”

The American Dictator (yes, he’s the one we mean) is doing his utmost to keep Africa in poverty and despair.

Roy Innis, national chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality, writes today at Townhall:

“I see Africa as a … partner with America on behalf of the future we want for all of our children,” President Obama declared in Ghana last July.

However, three months later, the President signed an executive order requiring that the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and other federal agencies reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with their projects by 30% over the next ten years. The order undermines the ability of Sub-Saharan African nations to achieve energy, economic and human rights progress. 

Ghana is trying to build a 130-MW gas-fired power plant, to bring electricity’s blessings to more of its people, schools, hospitals and businesses. Today, almost half of Ghanaians never have access to electricity, or get it only a few hours a week, leaving their futures bleak.

Most people in Ghana are forced to cook and heat with wood, crop wastes or dung, says Franklin Cudjoe, director of the Imani (Hope) Center for Policy and Education, in Accra. The indoor air pollution from these fires causes blindness, asthma and severe lung infections that kill a million women and young children every year. Countless more Africans die from intestinal diseases caused by eating unrefrigerated, spoiled food.

But when Ghana turned to its United States “partner” and asked OPIC to support the $185-million project, OPIC refused to finance even part of it – thus adding as much as 20% to its financing cost. Repeated across Africa, these extra costs for meeting “climate change prevention” policies will threaten numerous projects, and prolong poverty and disease for millions.

Sub-Saharan Africa is home to 800 million people, 80% of whom live on less than $2.50 per day. Over 700 million people – twice the population of the USA and Canada combined – rarely or never have access to the lifesaving, prosperity-creating benefits of electricity …

Even in South Africa, the most advanced nation in this region, 25% of the populace still has no electricity. Pervasively insufficient electrical power has meant frequent brownouts that have hampered factory output and forced gold and diamond mines to shut down, because of risks that miners would suffocate in darkness deep underground. The country also suffers from maternal mortality rates 36 times higher than in the US, and tuberculosis rates 237 times higher.

And yet President Obama told his Ghanaian audience last July that Africa is gravely “threatened” by global warming, which he argues “will spread disease, shrink water resources and deplete crops,” leading to more famine and conflict. Africa, he says, can “increase access to power, while skipping – leapfrogging – the dirtier phase of development,” by using its “bountiful” wind, solar, geothermal and biofuels energy.

The President made these remarks before the scandalous “Climategate” emails were made public, and headline-grabbing claims about melting glaciers, burning Amazon rainforests and disappearing African agriculture were shown to be mere speculation and exaggeration from climate activists…

Literally thousands of scientists disagree with claims that we face an imminent manmade global warming disaster, or that warming is connected to disease or harvests. Africa has faced drought, famine and disease since before Biblical times, and armed conflict is far more likely where a lack of electricity perpetuates poverty, scarcity and dashed hopes.

Wind and solar power are too costly, intermittent and land-intensive to meet the needs of emerging economies…

That is why rapidly-developing nations like China and India are building power plants at the rate of one per week… Nearly all this electricity must be based on coal.

Wind power is constrained by high cost and limited reliability. Nuclear energy faces major cost and political obstacles. To electrify India in the absence of coal, the country would have to find 14 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, build 250 nuclear power plants, or construct the equivalent of 450 Hoover Dams, Penn State University professor Frank Clemente calculates. Those alternatives are unrealistic.

Blessed with abundant supplies of coal, South Africa has applied for a World Bank loan to continue building its 4,800-megawatt Medupi power plant. The Medupi plant would be equipped with the latest in “supercritical clean coal,” pollution control and “carbon capture” technologies. However, the project and loan have run into a buzz saw of opposition, led by the Center for American Progress, Africa Action, Friends of the Earth and Sierra Club. These radical groups claim to champion justice and better health for Africa, but oppose the very technologies that would make that possible…

The proposed Ghana and South Africa power plants already leapfrog dirtier development phases, by providing state-of-the-art pollution control technology. The energy alternatives President Obama envisions would do little to address the desperate crises that threaten Africans’ health, welfare and lives.

China and India are showing Africa the way forward. Those of us in already developed countries should support Africa’s aspirations – and help it address real health and environmental problems, by using affordable, dependable energy that truly is the lifeblood of modern societies, and the key to a better future for children everywhere.

From the Investor’s Business Daily:

Oil prices jumped to nearly $58 a barrel Thursday in Singapore in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Benchmark crude for June delivery was up $1.31 at $57.68 on expectations for a global economic recovery by year’s end and rising demand for the fossil fuel.

As oil prices rise again, the Guardian reports that Russia is planning a fleet of floating and submersible nuclear reactors to provide power for drilling and exploration for oil and natural gas in Arctic areas that Moscow claims as its own…

A prototype floating nuclear power station being constructed at the SevMash shipyard in Severodvinsk is due to be completed next year. Four more 70-megawatt plants, each of which would consist of two reactors aboard giant steel platforms, are planned.

The self-propelled vessels would store their own waste and fuel and would need to be serviced only once every 12 to 14 years. Russia’s stimulus program for energy includes planned submersible nuclear-powered drilling rigs that could allow eight wells to be drilled at a time.

The U.S. Geological Survey believes the Arctic holds up to 25% of the world’s undiscovered oil and gas reserves, leading some experts to call the region the next Saudi Arabia. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin underscored that point at an April 14 Interior Department field hearing in Anchorage chaired by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

Palin testified: “The world-class potential of Arctic Alaska was verified in the recently released Circum-Arctic Oil and Gas Assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey, which highlighted that Arctic Alaska was second only to the West Siberian Basin in total Arctic petroleum potential and the highest Arctic potential for oil.”

The Russians fully intend to develop the West Siberian Basin and any other Arctic areas their technology can reach. We may someday find ourselves importing Russian oil extracted off the Alaskan coast by Gazprom instead of Exxon or Shell.

As Palin pointed out to Salazar, the USGS assessment “estimates that Arctic Alaska has mean technically recoverable resources of approximately 30 billion barrels of oil, 6 billion barrels of natural gas liquids and 221 trillion cubic feet of conventional natural gas.”

Continued Arctic exploration is also necessary for the continued viability of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Production at Prudhoe Bay is in decline. North Slope production is one-third of its peak, and unless we are allowed to produce oil and gas from ANWR and in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, Palin said, reduced flow will cause the pipeline to close.

The [US] administration’s game plan is to force energy prices to “skyrocket” to make alternative sources of energy more competitive. We don’t see the Russians dotting Siberia with wind turbines and solar panels. They recognize the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow.

Alaska’s environmentally friendly natural gas, according to the Energy Information Agency in its 2009 Energy Outlook, would lower the cost to consumers by 63 cents per thousand cubic feet in 2002.

The only way we might be able to get at these resources may be to sell Alaska back to the Russians.

From The Heritage Foundation, by Dan Holler:

“On this Earth Day,” President Obama declared April 22, “[I]t is time for us to lay a new foundation for economic growth by beginning a new era of energy exploration in America.” 

Sure, the current era of energy exploration — oil, gas, coal and nuclear — has been marred by lousy government policy and radical environmentalists. But it’s hardly over. America’s ability to harness affordable, abundant and reliable energy sources created a strong foundation for the world’s largest, most dynamic economy.   

If the energy of the “past” were scarce or prohibitively expensive, starting a new chapter would make sense, but that isn’t the case. Rather, the President’s desire to scrap our economy’s current foundation in favor of expensive, unproven technologies is colored by his stated belief that human activity is causing global warming. 

Bizarrely, in his Earth Day address, the President said, “We still need more oil, we still need more gas.” Although Obama seems to recognize the essential role carbon-based fuels play in our economy, he clearly wants to see them phased out as quickly as possible. His $3.6 trillion budget request makes seven significant changes in the tax code and essentially declares war on domestic oil and natural gas production!

The most outlandish is a tax on production in the Gulf of Mexico, from which the nation produces significant quantities of oil and natural gas. Several tax deductions are targeted for elimination…

The budget also takes aim at what many consider the only silver bullet in the debate on energy and climate: nuclear power… But nuclear energy is critically important to our future…

It’s important to note that nearly 85% of our nation’s energy is carbon-based … Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is doing his part to  reduce energy by shutting off access to many of our nation’s most promising energy reserves. One of those reserves, the Green River Formation, contains an estimated 1.2 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels of shale oil. Saudi Arabia’s official reserves pale in comparison, with a mere 289 billion barrels of oil.

Why does Salazar believe more R&D into this vast resource is unnecessary? Again, the answer is simple: He realizes we cannot have a new energy economy if the “old” is nowhere close to being depleted. Salazar has also repealed valid leases in Utah without a hearing and constructed hurdles that could prevent natural gas exploration in Colorado and oil exploration on Alaska’s North Slope.         

As if that weren’t enough, the President’s chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Jon Wellinghoff, believes coal and even nuclear may be things of the past, saying, “We may not need any, ever.” Combined, those two sources provide nearly 70% of our nation’s electricity supply. At least Wellinghoff acknowledges, “Natural gas is going to be there for a while, because it’s going to be there to get us through this transition that’s going to take 30 or more years.”

Enter House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). He’s on a back-door mission to stop natural gas production in the Marcellus shale of Pennsylvania. A process known as “hydraulic fracturing” is necessary to gain access to the trillions of cubic feet of natural gas there. The state has regulated that process for the past 60 years, but Waxman would like to use the Safe Drinking Water Act to regulate it, thus giving the final authority on its use to the anti-carbon Environmental Protection Agency.

In less than four months in office, the President has laid the groundwork to transform our energy infrastructure by making “clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy.” Of course, all that requires making traditional energy more expensive to struggling American families and businesses.

Some very powerful individuals, Wellinghoff included, believe we can increase our renewable electricity generation 23-fold with almost no economic or consumer pain… In truth, no one knows exactly how much renewable energy will cost or if it is even possible. But the fact that vast amounts of conventional resources remain available at a much lower price suggests the government will have to engage in severe market manipulation if it hopes to achieve its goal. 

Last summer’s record gasoline prices should serve as a reminder of how a misguided energy policy can weaken America. For nearly four decades, the federal government has placed restrictions and outright bans on both onshore and offshore energy deposits. A systemic abuse of the legal and regulatory systems by radical environmentalists has been equally as damaging. According to the Chamber of Commerce, environmental groups “have organized local opposition, changed zoning laws, opposed permits, filed lawsuits, and bled projects dry of their financing.”

Ironically, these radicals oppose projects that will actually produce cleaner energy than today’s infrastructure, including relatively clean coal, nuclear and windmills. Their obstruction combined with inept government policies has undermined economic growth, weakened American energy security and actually prevented pollution-saving technology from being implemented. A radical, government-mandated, expensive conversion to renewable resources will create many more problems than it pretends to solve…

 Europe has allowed itself to become dependent on Russia for energy. To put themselves in such a position was folly beyond comprehension, and the Europeans only now beginning to realize it.  From Front Page Magazine:

Growing prosperous and confident on energy proceeds, Russia became increasingly assertive. It did not take the Kremlin long to figure out that it could use natural gas as a powerful lever. The idea is simple, but very effective: Friendly countries receive discounts, the less compliant are charged a premium, and troublemakers risk having their supplies cut off.

 

The last option especially causes cold shivers in Europe’s capitals given how vulnerable they are to such blackmail. To give an idea, Germany’s imports from Russia account for 43 percent of the country’s natural gas consumption. The figure is 70 percent in Greece and the Czech Republic, 60 percent in Austria, 83 percent in Lithuania, 46 percent in Poland, and 100 percent in Finland.

 

Three years ago Russia showed how serious it is about wielding its gas stick. On January 1, 2006, following months of bickering, the Kremlin suddenly cut off supplies to Ukraine. Since Ukraine is one of the world’s foremost consumers of natural gas of which a substantial portion was coming from Russia, the supply interruption in the middle of winter portended a national disaster. Even though the valves were reopened three days later, the episode sent a chilling message: “If you cross us, we will leave you out in the cold.”

 

Europe’s politicians got the point. The prospect of cutoffs and subsequent heat and electricity shortages looms like a nightmare in their minds. If they should be so afflicted in the middle of a winter, there is little chance they could politically survive the anger of their populations.

 

The situation is likely to grow worse in the years ahead. Should the EU continue in its misguided energy policies – chasing after inefficient renewable energy such as wind power – their dependence on Russian natural gas will only increase in the future. A recent paper by The George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies offered a bleak prognosis:

 

“Looking 25 years out, it is estimated that 80% of the EU’s natural gas will be imported, with Russia providing up to 60%, equating to one fifth of the overall EU energy mix coming from Russia in the form of pipeline natural gas.”

 

The Europeans’ cravenness at the Nice summit can thus largely be explained in terms of their dependence on Russian energy. Hard hit by the financial and economic crises, an energy squeeze is the last thing they need. With winter approaching, they know all too well that cutoffs would have devastating consequences. Conscious of its power, Moscow is making high demands even though it would rightly deserve the opprobrium normally reserved for international pariahs. Sadly, its EU “partners” have not choice but to go along, their initial indignation over Georgia discarded for the sake of energy security and political expediency.

 

The EU’s humiliation should serve as a warning to us. Energy is the lifeblood of modern nations, and countries are not really free as long as they depend on others for their crucial needs. If we fail to make ourselves energy independent, somewhere along the line we will end up just like the Europeans: weak, spineless and pathetic. Like them we will have our strings pulled by some wayward regime, and we will have no choice but to march to the tune of its drumbeat.

 Europe has allowed itself to become dependent on Russia for energy. To put themselves in such a position was folly beyond comprehension, and the Europeans are only now beginning to realize it.  From Front Page Magazine:

Growing prosperous and confident on energy proceeds, Russia became increasingly assertive. It did not take the Kremlin long to figure out that it could use natural gas as a powerful lever. The idea is simple, but very effective: Friendly countries receive discounts, the less compliant are charged a premium, and troublemakers risk having their supplies cut off. The last option especially causes cold shivers in Europe’s capitals given how vulnerable they are to such blackmail. To give an idea, Germany’s imports from Russia account for 43 percent of the country’s natural gas consumption. The figure is 70 percent in Greece and the Czech Republic, 60 percent in Austria, 83 percent in Lithuania, 46 percent in Poland, and 100 percent in Finland.Three years ago Russia showed how serious it is about wielding its gas stick. On January 1, 2006, following months of bickering, the Kremlin suddenly cut off supplies to Ukraine. Since Ukraine is one of the world’s foremost consumers of natural gas of which a substantial portion was coming from Russia, the supply interruption in the middle of winter portended a national disaster. Even though the valves were reopened three days later, the episode sent a chilling message: “If you cross us, we will leave you out in the cold.” Europe’s politicians got the point. The prospect of cutoffs and subsequent heat and electricity shortages looms like a nightmare in their minds. If they should be so afflicted in the middle of a winter, there is little chance they could politically survive the anger of their populations. The situation is likely to grow worse in the years ahead. Should the EU continue in its misguided energy policies – chasing after inefficient renewable energy such as wind power – their dependence on Russian natural gas will only increase in the future. A recent paper by The George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies offered a bleak prognosis: “Looking 25 years out, it is estimated that 80% of the EU’s natural gas will be imported, with Russia providing up to 60%, equating to one fifth of the overall EU energy mix coming from Russia in the form of pipeline natural gas.”The Europeans’ cravenness at the Nice summit can thus largely be explained in terms of their dependence on Russian energy. Hard hit by the financial and economic crises, an energy squeeze is the last thing they need. With winter approaching, they know all too well that cutoffs would have devastating consequences. Conscious of its power, Moscow is making high demands even though it would rightly deserve the opprobrium normally reserved for international pariahs. Sadly, its EU “partners” have not choice but to go along, their initial indignation over Georgia discarded for the sake of energy security and political expediency.

The EU’s humiliation should serve as a warning to us. Energy is the lifeblood of modern nations, and countries are not really free as long as they depend on others for their crucial needs. If we fail to make ourselves energy independent, somewhere along the line we will end up just like the Europeans: weak, spineless and pathetic. Like them we will have our strings pulled by some wayward regime, and we will have no choice but to march to the tune of its drumbeat. 

From Investor’s Business Daily:

It’s as if "Saturday Night Live" satires of Sarah Palin are better cues for gauging media coverage than a possible vice president whose Alaskan leadership is drawing attention from powerful international players.

Media coverage wasn’t entirely absent, but the visit Monday of a delegation from Gazprom in Moscow to Palin’s energy aide didn’t draw attention the way a shouter at a Palin rally or speculation about Palin’s shoes did. But in the Kremlin, Alaska’s on the radar and the media is missing it.

Gazprom is a $107 billion Russian gas giant that controls 17% of the world’s natural gas reserves. It’s controlled by Vladimir Putin’s government, and some of its KGB-trained corporate leaders switch jobs in and out of Russia’s government like musical chairs.

"They made no bones about wanting to be the most highly capitalized company in the world, and their business is gas," said Marty Rutherford, deputy commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, one of the Alaskans asked by Gazprom officials for the visit.

"Gazprom wants to have as much power and monopoly leverage as possible," explained Anders Aslund, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute. "You can’t produce gas without Gazprom visiting you."

According to Alaska Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Tom Irwin, the Russians’ interest was piqued by Palin’s move to develop state energy resources, after decades of inaction. The Russians were "very professional," showing what what they could do for Alaska as gas producers. They didn’t bring up Palin or the election.

"But what’s significant," Irwin said, "is what the governor has done. Under her leadership, the state has made a major decision that the best use of our resources is in a natural gas pipeline through Canada."

Rutherford explained that they’ve seen an upswing in international interest ever since Palin signed off on a plan to build a 1,715-mile pipeline across Canada to the Lower 48 and then got it passed in Alaska’s legislature in August.

Irwin and Rutherford said they thought the Russians seemed most interested in new projects for liquefied natural gas terminals, which could eventually make natural gas part of a global market and less attached to long-term contracts and fixed pipelines.

The risk is that it could also make gas supplies more vulnerable to global petro-tyrants who control gas supplies and prices based on politics — as has happened with oil.

Gazprom is the main tool used by Russia to control its neighbors through energy.

Last year, for instance, Russia cut off gas to western Europe to intimidate it. And last summer, Russia unleashed war on Georgia to gain control of Europe’s only energy pipeline independent of Russia. It’s now sending naval ships to patrol the Caribbean’s narrow sea lanes through which 64% of the U.S.’s imported energy must pass.

Gazprom is also at the heart of Russia’s plan to form a global gas cartel, like OPEC for oil. But so far, Gazprom has a habit of gaining control of resources but not boosting output: "Production has not increased," noted Aslund, "and they are not developing their own gas resources."

The Alaskan officials politely told the Russians America’s energy needs would come first. "We think our nation needs our gas and we think (the Alaska TransCanada pipeline) is the most appropriate thing to do," said Irwin.

Could Gazprom eventually get a foothold on Alaska’s energy through the Alaska TransCanada pipeline? Not likely. The pipeline license requires the operator to produce gas. And, Irwin explained, the state would keep firm control over the mission to deliver the 4 trillion cubic feet to the U.S. each day through the Canadian pipeline route.

"We set the pipeline up with open access so that there would be no monopoly," said Irwin. "It’s critical for Alaska to maintain open access (to producers) to keep prices down. We’ll make money off volume, and sending gas to the U.S. market that badly needs gas brings the volume."

So even if Gazprom produced natural gas, it wouldn’t be able to get control of energy supplies to exert political control, the officials said.

"There’s worldwide interest," Irwin said. "But our country can’t keep being subservient to foreign suppliers. Look at the history of Gazprom: They say ‘if you don’t do this, we will raise your prices’ " — or cut supplies, Irwin said.

Alaska’s re-emergence as a major world energy player tells us a lot about how a Palin vice presidency could shape up. Alaskans in the energy sector say Palin has been a far-sighted leader in developing the state’s energy resources.

"I wish other people in other states would get to see her as we get to see her," Irwin said. "The bottom line is we will get the gas line in operation and there will be bidders, and we have the strong will of the governor who has made this happen."

 In relation to the issues of energy and national security, Alaska is right now the most important state in the US, not only for America but also for its allies in Europe and the Far East. In this consideration alone, Palin is an excellent choice of McCain’s to be his running-mate. 

 Investor’s Business Daily explains:  

Palin knows energy. She’s already figured out how to deliver energy to the U.S. without Congress — by championing state legislation to create a 1,712-mile natural gas pipeline across Canada to the U.S.

It was a major feat, negotiating with the Canadian government, educating lawmakers and getting the public behind her. In a decade, the $30 billion project will ship 4.5 million cubic feet of gas a day from the North Slope to Houston’s air conditioners, Iowa’s farm machines and Boston’s winter furnaces.

There’s little doubt this is the kind of leadership the U.S. needs. Not only will getting serious about Alaska help the economy, it will also help our allies in Europe and the Far East whose economies are severely battered by high energy prices and who are seeing some of the most direct threats from the petrotyrants.

John McCain’s pick of Palin shows he’s serious about energy — and about securing America’s future. Congress mustn’t ignore Alaska any longer. Petrotyranny is moving beyond economics and becoming a national security issue. Alaska is a big part of the answer.

 

 Nancy Pelosi does not know that natural gas has to be drilled for. 

Power Line reports and comments:

So it’s beyond dispute: Nancy Pelosi really does not understand that natural gas is a fossil fuel. This is truly shocking. Pelosi is one of the principal people responsible for setting the nation’s energy policy. In the House of Representatives, she has blocked exploration and development of natural gas resources as well as other fossil fuels, thereby raising the price of gasoline at the pump and energy costs across the board. And she has wielded this immense power while being ignorant of the most basic facts about energy. She is not qualified to carry on an intelligent conversation about energy, let alone set the nation’s energy policy.

The folks at the Institute for Energy Research have prepared a primer on energy for Mrs. Pelosi’s benefit:

Natural gas is colorless, odorless fossil fuel that is prized for its cleanliness and its many uses – including energy. It is produced in much the same way as oil – by drilling for it – and is often produced in conjunction with oil.

Pelosi’s ignorance is deadly; she says she is a big booster of natural gas, but she literally fails to understand that to get natural gas we have to drill for it, onshore and off. Hence this exchange yesterday:

BROKAW: Sounds like we’re going to have offshore drilling.

PELOSI: No, no, no.

 

Nancy Pelosi’s ignorance is costing every American money, impairing our economy, depriving us of untold hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs, and endangering our national security. One wonders how long voters will be willing to put up with Democratic control of Congress.

 Why did Nancy Pelosi refuse to allow a vote that could have resulted in the bringing of more US oil to the US market and a consequent lowering of the price of gas? 

Michelle Malkin supplies the answer:

As reported on dontgomovement.com, Speaker Pelosi bought between $50,000 and $100,000 worth of stock in [T. Boone] Pickens’ CLNE Corp. in May 2007 on the day of the initial public offering:

"She, and other investors, stand to gain a substantial return on their investment if gasoline prices stay high, and municipal, state and even the Federal governments start using natural gas as their primary fuel source. If gasoline prices fall? Alternative fuels and the cost to convert fleets over to them become less and less attractive."

CLNE also happens to be the sponsor of Proposition 10, a ballot initiative in Pelosi’s home state of California to dole out a combined $10 billion in state and federal funds for renewable energy incentives – namely, natural gas and wind.

Follow the money. Or, to put it in economist’s terms as energy analyst Kenneth Medlock III did in an interview with The Dallas Morning News about the Pickens multibillion dollar wind farm investment: "A lot of what he’s trying to do is add value to a stranded asset he’s obviously got millions of dollars on the line."

And so, potentially, does the Democratic Speaker of the House – all the while wagging her finger at the financial motivation of others.