Romney outlines his drilling-centric energy plan
Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaks during a campaign event at Watson Truck and Supply, Thursday, Aug. 23, 2012, in Hobbs, N.M.
/ AP Photo/Evan Vucci(CBS News) HOBBS, N.M. - Mitt Romney laid out his vision for achieving North American energy independence by 2020 today, in part through giving states control over energy development on federal lands within their borders while expanding off-shore drilling in places like Virginia and North Carolina.
"This is not some pie-in-the-sky kind of thing," Romney said of his goal for independence in the next seven years, to a crowd of around 200 people at a trucking and oil-services company in this oil-patch city near the Texas border. "This is a real, achievable objective."
With a bar graph chart next to him titled "North American Oil Production," Romney predicted that his administration would be able to increase the amount of oil barrels produced per day from 15 million to 28 million, by increasing drilling - offshore, in Alaska, and through hydrofracking - as well as boosting the production of natural gas and biofuels and importing more energy from neighboring North American countries.
In addition to Romney's speech focusing on the topic, his campaign released a 21-page white paper outlining his energy strategy, which was broken into six steps. In addition to giving states control over energy development on federal lands within their borders and expanding off-shore drilling on the coasts, a Romney administration will pursue a North American energy partnership that will include the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. They also plan to overhaul the permitting and regulation process and promote private-sector energy development through investments in research.
(Watch: Romney says energy independence by 2020 is achievable.)
On the stump in New Mexico, Romney promoted his energy plan as a job creator, telling the crowd that it would create three million new jobs. "That's a million in manufacturing. That's a lot of energy-related jobs," he said.
A white paper outlining Romney's energy plan points to several reports and studies that link drilling with job creation, including a March Citigroup report that says drilling could lead to 3.6 million new jobs. But some economists who have looked at the report have questioned whether Romney's plan would make a noticeable dent in the country's unemployment figures.
The Obama campaign dismissed Romney's speech as lacking in policy specifics and steps that would move the country toward energy independence.
"If anything, Romney's policies would take us backward," Obama for America spokesman Lis Smith wrote in an email to reporters. "He wants to keep giving billions of dollars in tax subsidies to the big oil and gas companies and recklessly open new areas for drilling, but turn our back on increasing energy efficiency and developing our clean, homegrown energy sources. That's not a recipe for energy independence- it would only ensure that big oil's profits continue to increase while we cede our clean energy sector, which is supporting jobs in states like Michigan, Ohio, and Iowa, to China."
While Romney's plan is sure to be embraced by the oil and gas industries, it is likely to be far less popular among those working in green and alternative energy fields. Although Romney supports investing in research for new energy technologies, he is not in favor of loan guarantees and subsidies for companies that are developing new technologies, which the Obama administration has pushed with differing levels of success. Romney likes to frequently point to the now-bankrupt solar panel company Solyndra on the campaign trail as an example of government investment run amok.
But Romney's lack of support for some forms of alternative energy - in particular his opposition to the wind tax credit - has ruffled feathers in some of the swing states he's courting, including Iowa and Colorado. In Iowa, several prominent Republicans have voiced there displeasure with Romney's position including Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad and its Senator Charles Grasley who said Romney's position was "like a knife in my back."
Romney adviser Ed Gillespie downplayed the effect that his boss's position on wind energy would have on the results of the election.
"The governor has been clear that we're for all of the above and we're for allowing for alternative means of energy to be produced," Gillespie told reporters in a conference call on Wednesday. "But we also think that energy needs to be on equal footing and that includes wind as well."
As for Iowa, Gillespie said the campaign expects to win in the Hawkeye state.
Popular in Politics
- The 4 remaining Supreme Court cases to watch
- FBI director acknowledges domestic drone use 156 Comments
- Next up for Obama: Major effort on climate change 50 Comments
- Senate deal seen near on key aspect of immigration reform
- Michelle Obama and daughters tour Berlin Play Video
- Immigration reform would cut deficit, analysis shows
- Obama and Berlin: Faded echoes meet new realities 77 Comments
- Top Democrat presses Pentagon on Gitmo force-feeding
That is true for the GOP, they want to take us back to the 1950s or 1890s, the good old days when everything seemed better.
.
So they destroy the land, including farms and pasture, kill the NATIONAL parks which belong to us the people, to make their keepers even richer than they are now, while we have nothing!
.
That should do it!
Too bad it's not in U.S. waters
August 18, 2009
You read that headline correctly. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil.
The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.
The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.
But look on the bright side. If President Obama has embraced offshore drilling in Brazil, why not in the old U.S.A.?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html
Now research George Soros, Socialist, major Billionaire Democrat Donor, and his stock holdings in Petrobras.
Soros Builds on Petrobras Holdings in First Quarter
5/17/2011
Billionaire investment manager George Soros built on his position in Brazilian oil and gas company Petrobras in the first quarter of 2011 for his Soros Fund Management firm.
He now owns 1.1 million shares of Brazil's state owned oil company.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/05/17/soros-builds-on-petrobras-holdings-in-first-quarter/
And who says that oil produced in Mexico and Canada will be used only in the US? Is he going to force companies to only use the oil doemstically? Is he going to have the government set prices?
simple econ 101
Something liberal have a hard time grasping.
Why are we giving money/loans to other countries for drilling then?
Why not keep the money here at home, for American jobs?
Baseload plant, (also baseload power plant or base load power station) is an energy plant devoted to the production of baseload supply. Baseload plants are the production facilities used to meet some or all of a given region's continuous energy demand, and produce energy at a constant rate, usually at a low cost relative to other production facilities available to the system.
This is the key: "continuous energy demand, and produce energy at a constant rate"
It's a 7 yr plan chicken little. Considering the following list of green energy companies that sucked up tax payer money,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
True, your posts mentions a lot wasted tax payer funding.
However, when Romney pays his corporate master's back at a 700 to 1 rate, (assuming he raises a billion dollars) his donors notably the Koch Brothers and others will realize roughly $ 700 billion courtesy of the middle class tax payers!
I am sick of the corruption, and plan to vote for Obama because owes less favors since he is raising less money.
Why does anyone believe this corporate puppet?
Pay attention to potential leaks from the IRS regarding this over next several weeks. Romney is hiding something and its going to come out.
Its just a matter of when.
Also, Hillz, how about all the subsidies that go to Big Oil? How come that doesn't result in lower gas prices?