America’s energy has two sides

Published 12:05am Thursday, May 26, 2011

There are many things that make the United States the great nation it is. Three of these relate directly to the debate over American energy production.

They include our bountiful natural resources, the freedoms established by our Founding Father, and the determination of the American people.

From the oil wealth of the Gulf Coast, to the coal reserves of Appalachia, from the hydroelectric power that characterizes much of the American West, to the oilfields of Alaska, America is blessed with an almost boundless supply of energy wealth. Since this nation’s founding, Americans have sought to explore and develop this bounty, and in recent decades we have become more responsible stewards. With gas prices averaging $3.75 per gallon in Mississippi according to AAA, we should unlock America’s supply to meet our needs.

Last week, the Senate debated and voted on two measures related to energy. Although neither proposal received the necessary 60 votes for passage, the debate did manage to highlight two very different approaches to our energy policy.

One, the Offshore Production and Safety Act, would have increased access to domestic oil and natural gas. This strategy would create jobs and spur economic growth, while increasing government revenues and improving industry safety.

Oil and natural gas reserves are abundant and accessible in the United States today.

Tapping these domestic resources is essential to lowering energy prices and making us more energy independent.

The Offshore Production and Safety Act is one part of the solution to decrease our unemployment rate, which is currently at 9 percent. America’s oil and natural gas sector is responsible for 9.2 million jobs in this country. Expanding that 9.2 million to a higher figure would be an important boost for our economy.

Senate Democrats offered the other measure, which I opposed because it would have raised taxes on American energy production, discouraging economic activity, taxing industriousness and putting more of our resources off-limits for development.

It makes little sense to suggest that the appropriate response to soaring gasoline prices is greater taxation on the companies that produce oil and gas.

In the larger picture, the Administration’s energy policy is not comprehensive. It fails to promote the utilization of proven domestic resources, and the production it does allow comes wrapped in bureaucratic red tape.

Our goal should be to increase our energy independence in the near term, but the White House seems to want to lead us in the opposite direction. Most Mississippians understand that higher taxes and more regulations will do nothing to encourage increased production.

I have supported, and continue to support, innovation in the area of biofuels, geothermal power, wind and solar energy. At the same time, we need to address current needs with available domestic energy resources, such as oil and natural gas.

Energy independence — a goal we all share — cannot be achieved without increased domestic exploration.

Sen. Roger Wicker is a Republican representing Mississippi in the U.S. Senate.

  • http://www.CTKellyisnotacommonist.com Charles Thomas Kelly

    Stupid

  • Anonymous

    Go take more lobbists money, and quit babbling on here.  You’re completely tedious!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y7AWXK54755LTL3Z74EP6U7EIY top dog

    The US government has been working on this for 10 years.   Please take 15 min and explore the links providedAndrea Rossi has given three demonstrations so far including with professors from Bologna University and the Swedish skeptics society and the Chairman of the Swedish Physics Union. This is an directory of Rossi efforts http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator.   This is a link to the LENR site where detailed information about cold fusion efforts is available. http://www.lenr-canr.org/News... The US Naval Research lab has been working on this with positive results for over 10 years and has confirmed it existence. Yet the major scientific magazines refuse to touch this issue since it was purportedly discredited by some researchers and an institution that stood to lose 10s of millions in funding per year in hot fusion.  
     
    Rossi has announced a 1MW Cold Fusion facility to be opened in Greece this Oct. Still top line periodicals have yet to publish even one article. This will change the economics of the world lifting many people out of poverty and it will also threaten many vested interests. 
     
     
    http://pesn.com/2011/05/17/9501827_Ampenergo_Amps_Up_Rossis_Energy_Catalyzer_in_America/
    “..Ampenergo was founded by Karl Norwood, Richard Noceti, Robert Gentile and Craig Cassarino. It is important to note that Robert Gentile was the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Fossil Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) during the early 1990′s. This helps confirm Rossi’s claim that tests of the E-Cat have been observed by the U.S. Department of Defense and the DOE. It is very likely that at least certain individuals in the DOD and DOE are aware and interested in the Energy Catalyzer. However, their silence is deafening. 

    It is unknown if any military or secret government research is taking place, but there are unsubstantiated rumors floating around the internet of the US Navy using a nickel-hydrogen cold fusion reactor to power a submarine. Although the rumor is not likely to be true, if they have known about the technology for a couple of years, it is possible testing is taking place. Trillions of dollars go missing from the DOD budget on a regular basis, and the money is obviously being spent on something…” 

  • Anonymous

    *REPUBLICAN REPRESENTING MISSISSIPPI IN THE U.S. SENATE*: ALL I CAN SAY ABOUT THAT ARTICLE: IS, I’LL BE GLAD WHEN THAT POSITION COMES UP FOR GRABS; AND I’LL KEEP MY FINGERS CROSS, THAT A DEMOCRAT  FILLS THAT POSITION. THAT WOULD BE ONE MORE STEP IN HELPING MISSISSIPPI TO IMPROVE ITS IMAGE.    

  • Anonymous

    Without having to read volumes of offered data on this subject, could you enlighten us in a few words whether this new mysterious top secret energy source can benefit us in the immediate future like producing cheap domestic fossil fuels could in the interim while the space age energy is being perfected and built?  I prefer not to pay the 5-6-7-8 dollar per gallon of gas while the new source is brought on line. You say they have been working on it 10 years already, not sure I will live to see the day!  I agree that development of alternative and green fuels need to be emphasized, but do it in a productive manner.  A beta model plant in Greece will likely have to be proven over several years before other funding sources kick in to expand this technology into a viable offset against fossil fuel consumption. Wicker is offering a near term solution, yours appears to be long term.

Editor's Picks