With rising gas prices, reluctance to drilling fades
By Steve Benen Friday Jun 20, 2008 7:00pmThis week, high-profile Republicans, many of whom had opposed coastal drilling, enthusiastically reversed course and began demanding that coastal drilling begin immediately. This was especially jarring in Florida, where Gov. Charlie Crist and Sen. Mel Martinez — both Republicans who had opposed offshore drilling as recently as last week — came out in support of the Bush/McCain policy.
It appears that the GOP is just following the political winds. Drilling, all of a sudden, is enjoying broader public support.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey — conducted before McCain announced his intentions on the issue — finds that 67% of voters believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. Only 18% disagree and 15% are undecided. Conservative and moderate voters strongly support this approach, while liberals are more evenly divided (46% of liberals favor drilling, 37% oppose).
Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that gas prices will go down if offshore oil drilling is allowed, although 27% don’t believe it. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of conservatives say offshore drilling is at least somewhat likely to drive prices down. That view is shared by 57% of moderates and 50% of liberal voters.
The Rasmussen poll comes around the same time as a Gallup poll that found a similar result: “Fifty-seven percent of Americans favor allowing oil drilling in coastal and wilderness areas that are currently off-limits. Forty-one percent of Americans oppose allowing drilling in those areas, and 2 percent have no opinion.”
So, is this a political problem for opponents of coastal and ANWR drilling? Perhaps, but it seems easy enough to move the needle in the other direction.
At first blush, it would seem the Bush/McCain policy is the politically salient one: if we increase supply, the price will go down. The environment’s nice, but paying less at the pump is even nicer.
Indeed, the wording of the poll questions prompted a predictable result. Rasmussen asked, “In order to reduce the price of gas, should drilling be allowed in offshore oil wells off the coasts of California, Florida, and other states?”
I wouldn’t say that's necessarily biased, but given the public’s point of view right now, if Rasmussen has asked, “In order to reduce the price of gas, would you be willing to get punched repeatedly in the face by the Heavyweight Champion of the World?” a majority would have probably said yes.
The point, of course, is that the public only has part of the story. Americans are under the impression that if we start drilling, we’ll get oil, and we might see some relief at the pump. The response, then, is simple — tell the public the truth. Even if we started coastal and wilderness drilling this morning, consumers wouldn’t benefit until 2017, if ever.
I suspect people are telling pollsters they support drilling because they’re just desperate. If there’s a chance prices would drop to, say, $3 a gallon, a lot of folks would accept drilling in their living room. So Dems and everyone else who cares about the policy just need to note reality — drilling won’t help, and wishing doesn’t make it so.
Login or Register to post comments.
There will be only one winner in the OIL wars and it not the people. It is those we know to be oil People and in Power at the same time.
No names are needed here.
So....
what can be done to help this? The longer this goes on, the worse it gets for much of the world, and if oil prices start constricting the Third World that currently is already having food problems...
God help us, cuz ain't nobody else who will. If the Neocons think terrorism's bad now, wait till this starts hitting places where people already have nothing to live for, and depending on the length of the food crisis, nothing to eat. This spells bad news for much of the world.
♠Bob on holiday in Laos♥ @ 1:
By pushing through the Oil Drilling idea that get to screw the people one more time before leaving office.
and no vaseline
Won't happen in Calif.
G W's brother is no longer governor of Florida so now offshore drilling may have open sailing.
Chalk up another victory for Big Oil in the never ending game of "How gullible are Americans?"
I read (somewhere--newspaper) that current facilities for gasoline storage are limited. American (world) gas tanks are the largest storage facility there is. By only filling your tank to the half-way point, there is more gasoline in the current storage facitilities, making the demand less, and an incresed supply waiting to be sold. It would bring the immediate costs, to you, down. (Lots of unsold gasoline sitting around.) Of course, it requires everyone participating. Pass it on. Fill only half way.
this is the easier explaination for the public to comprehend....the knee jerk reaction just drill for more several explainations have been offered
specualtion
lower production
inflation
weak dollar
geo political events
supply demand
this off shore drilling talk is a diversion and newt gingrich and others are using it as a wedge issue for people who are feeling it at the pump..here's hannity's cry it's the liberal enviromentalists causing this....i dare hannity to get the california govenor to comment on this issue....
All drilling offshore does is put a band-aid on a cancerous tumor.
Oil prices are high because of the "Enron Loophole" created by Phil Gramm (R-TX) McCain's campaign economic advisor and Republicans in Congress. Speculators are causing this mess using Bush and Israel's threats against Iran.
Until those loopholes are plugged Prices will not come down.
Drilling for oil is worthless.
The American people need to harvest solar, wind and geothermal energy.
The technologies in these areas need only an economic incentive.
At present, oil is being given way, way too many economic incentives.
karl @ 8:
Maybe the Governator could shove Hannity up Billo's Butt?
with that, I'm going for breakfast.
I live in Alberta where we have more than enough Oil to feed an ecomomical United States. The problem is that it is dirty oil and creates incredible problem in the enviroment when developed. The companies that mine the oil are also more interested in profits than they are in protecting the enviroment with better technologies.
Sadly Albertans are like Republicans and will bend over and do what ever their government tells them to do. And like Republican governments, our government serves the corporations not the people. So we will probably see drilling in the ocean, oil on the beaches, global warming, destruction of wilderness and general mayhem as long as the bottom line is healthy.
Edwin Hussein @ 7:
I don't understand the logic. Everybody would be filling (only to the half-way point), twice as often. Why not just drive less?
Just my two cents worth ...
Rasmussen is a tool of the right wing machine. Look at their web site ... any site that has articles written by Dick Morris is bent far to the right. Their polling is suspect.
I don't know much about offshore drilling except it is not good for the environment and climate change, with more violent storms would make it even worse.
I think an excise tax paid on the mpg of a vehicle instead of book value might help make people stop and thing about another SUV or 8 cylinder car.
Jo @ 16:
...stop and think!
don @ 15:
Mr. Dick, the old toe sucker. Yup. Suspect is the word.
What am I missing? Why dont we just kick the habit? We have had the science for many years... and now it is easy to find many many solutions already available? Where is the will to use our American scientists, engineers, and workers to get us off of oil? Hell I just saw a story the other day about genetically engineered organisms that eat left over plant material and secretes oil giving us a net negative carbon offset?
All I have seen over and over is people saying "dont drill for the oil"!!! Well how about throwing in there the idea that we have other ways of getting energy and giving details... hell any of you ever look into "Pebblebed nuclear reactors"? That would throw them for a loop... have the left calling for nuclear reactors... that is what republicans are always saying... then when peoples attention is peaked they can see that these types of reactors dont make liquid radioactive waste and CANT cause Chernobyls...
Let's drill. Those wind turbins in the country side look so promising, or solar panels on the roofs and fields. Why not stop the energy revolution, why not stop those 5 truckers who have jobs transporting the turbin components from one coast to another, or tell those workers who will assemble them on some ranch in Texas or New Mexico that they can wait 2 or 3 more decades because there's some US oil left offshore. Wow. There is nothing more pathetic and sad than looking at little oil pumps in Texas or Kansas scattered around, pumping and pumping the last remaining oil that's left there, while at the same time, there is a NASA robot digging through sands of Mars powered by solar energy millions miles away from Earth. As I said, let's drill, bottom lines count, not people and the future after all, right you republican pieces of shit??
Something to read.
This is looking more and more like the same stampede mentality that led to support for the Iraq occupation. Turn off brain and panic!
I can't find any information on just how much money will come into the public coffers from these wells on public property. Without a public oil company, or adequate royalties, what purpose does drilling oil on public property sereve?
McCain Proposes Drilling in Anwar Sadat
Offshore drilling won't solve anything. Plus it will take a minimum of 5 to 10 years to see any results. IIRC, there's about 18 billion barrels believed to be in offshore reserves which sounds like a lot, but it really isn't.
A more prudent approach would be to save those reserves until supplies really do get tight because they are not going to have a significant effect on prices.
I have a question, why do they talk about an ecological disaster (oil spill) like it's a kitchen accident?
Even more curious than the lack of media attention to this report was its continued reference to Enron, a regular target of the press in the past five years. The Senate study strongly pointed an accusatory finger at “The Enron Loophole,” a part of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, approved by Congress and signed into law by former President Clinton on December 21, 2000.
Donaldd @ 10:
Don Davis @ 24:
Flim-Flam Gramm wants to be McCains' KKKarl Rove.
He is off to a good start..........he has the obtuse asshat gig down very well
How much land do the Oil Companies now control but do not yet drill on? I support "Use it or lose it" legislation. These creeps are just artificially reducing the supplies, and using the resultant shortages to EXTORT their way to more and more land rights.
We need more competition. And we need the oil companies to use the lands they already have been appropriated.
Once we have that, THEN and ONLY THEN will it make sense to drill off shore for riches we probably won't see in our own lifetimes.
mudshark @ 21:
Then of course you could look at this, Oil Spills.
the "teapot dome scandal" comes to mind.
please google it and read about it...its history repeating itself.
Now watch how the only beneficiaries are going to be big oil, while the gullible American will continue to pay $4, and $5 a gallon because "it's the Saudis' fault and they hate us". Even though, the United States gets a mere 14% of its oil from OPEC.
This reaction was predicted before "9/11":
http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml
Gas was $1.50/gal when Clinton left office and the GOP wanted to drill in Alaska and off the coasts then. Then 5 conservative activist judges installed a corrupt oil regime into power and gas has almost tripled since. The corrupt oil regime and it's allies in congress uses the high gas prices as an excuse to wear down public opinion about drilling in Alaska and off the coasts to "lower" gas prices and give Americans "relief".
Democrats cave.
It's all part of the plan.
yanno Iam all for it if it wasint for two things. The goverment and greedy oil companies.
Think they would really treat the protected area with regard to nature? hell no! massive spills, ruined land etc.
Shame we cannot as a ppl trust our own goverment to not screw up everything it gets it greedy hands on.
Least we not forget GE in the 70s dumping toxicns into the water ways which killed off alot of american bald eagles and made the fish toxic. Then came the acid rain in the 80s,, etc.
We are doomed, they are asking people that are ignorant of the issue what should be done.
let's go to the oil firms and tell 'em "we'll allow to drill in ANWR and off the coasts if you fix the gas prizes at the current level. sounds fair ?"
offshore drilling might start in ... what, 5 years ? sounds fair to me.
Increase the margin on oil commodities from 3% to 25% and watch the price of gas drop.
anon @ 36:
How many people in America possess not only a doctorate in geology, climatology, and ecology, but actually have that doctorate from something other than a diploma mill?
anybody else see this oil in montana .. the govenor is one of those terrible democrats
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05292008/business/montana_governor_is_sittin...
spiritcatcher @ 37:
Better yet...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/apr/03/venezuela.oilandpetrol
Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez is poised to launch a bid to transform the global politics of oil by seeking a deal with consumer countries which would lock in a price of $50 a barrel.
A long-term agreement at that price could allow Venezuela to count its huge deposits of heavy crude as part of its official reserves, which Caracas says would give it more oil than Saudi Arabia.
"We have the largest oil reserves in the world, we have oil for 200 years." Mr Chávez told the BBC's Newsnight programme in an interview to be broadcast tonight. "$50 a barrel - that's a fair price, not a high price."
The price proposed by Mr Chávez is about $15 a barrel below the current global level but a credible long-term agreement at about $50 a barrel could have huge implications for Venezuela's standing in the international oil community.
spiritcatcher @ 37:
No I don't think it sounds fair. They have manipulated prices at the $4.00 + and are ripping us off. If they want to fix them at $1.50 a gallon, it would be fair.
I live on the coast of Northern California. I can tell you one thing. The locals here will not put up with a bunch of oil companies trying to drill off the coast. These oil companies come around every couple of years, trying to drill here. They get ran out of town every time. The people here make money off the fisheries. One oil spill and they will be ruined forever. What happened in Alaska is not going to happen here.
zoom @ 14:
"Why not drive less."
That's what I have been doing but it does not solve the costs of other transportation issues.
General_Rennenkampf @ 39:
It doesn't take much. Just half a brain, an IQ between 100 and 110 and a natural desire for intellectual curiosity.
Seriously though, I don't have a Ph.D., but I bother watching the BBC and reading some news online to learn a thing or two. It's really not THAT complicated.
SCHRODINGER'S CAT @ 44:
There is not a shortage of oil people. It's another big lie.
I like pie @ 43:
------------------------------
Thats my worry as well. The US goverment shit on its own ppl during katrina and now with the flooding going on in Iwoa and other states. Should a large spill happen due to Greed , push more, the hell with OSAH and other forms that protect americas unspoiled spots. we can be looking at a disaster due to dollars. The feds want to over see wall street, fine, then I want National parks and wildlife groups overseeing the drilling.
MedfordTim @ 6:
More like how self serving are Americans. When you pinch their pocketbooks, and threaten the comfortability that we now have, we'll cave like a West Virgina coal mine to the pressure of energy irresponsibility.
So the solution to our oil addiction is drilling for more oil? That's madness. Put the money in alternative energy, instead! I'm so sick of the Republican quick-fixes to everything. They are the very definition of shortsightedness.
And the oil companies are reaping record profits. I don't think short supply is the real reason for high gas prices. That's trumped up. They'll charge whatever they can get away with, regardless of supply.
karl @ 40:
The Bakken formation?
Shell developed a thermal insitu process for removing (with out strip mining) oil from the Rocky oil shale reserves - approximately 1.5 trillion barrel equivalents. The process takes three years to start up and - according to shell (from a rand report) would be competative in a market where oil sold in the $30 range.
The BLM just completed a period of public comment (May 20th this year) on a plan to llease 164 acre lots for oil shale exploitation. You dont hear about it, but it has been the focus since 2005. Personally I think Anwar is a red herring. I think they are trying to get the environmental impact regs changed using Anwar so they can use it to exploit Colorado and Utah.
The oil companies have capped wells that sit on something like 18 billion barrels of oil. (One of the naval reserves in alaska) This is about speculation not production ... just like Enron.
McObama @ 45:
It's more complicated than it sounds. Dealing with this crisis would not only require respecting the geological integrity of the region, but also the resources available, how to protect local wildlife, and how to deal with the local humans that may not appreciate the foreigners.
Not that the above is usually done in times like this, but it would be nice for a change.
A coup then nationalize the oil companies. If you drive across the US Mexican border now, gas is half what it is here. Something to make Lou Dobbs head explode, smuggling gas from Mexico.
*sigh*
Let's say they get oil wells in these areas going.
How long before a mysterious drop in production elsewhere like say ... OPEC results in a price rise that completely cancels the savings.
OPEC sells less oil for the same amount of money, leaving them with more oil and the United States has a whole bunch of polluting holes destroying the wildlife in all of these areas which once could have made a lot of money through tourism.
Eventually you're left with no oil, no wildlife and still no more money.
Oh and one more thing,, stop making shitty suvs that get 0 gas per milage and start investing autos that have alot more mileages. I mean, who said that a soccer mom has to have a suv complete with mini dvd screens hanging from the backs of seats so the kids will behave? America has become the sow of the world. sucking off this and that and tossing things away . Its a nation of junk and bigger is better and more money means more cars etc.
If americas elected officals cannot take charge and care of its own ppl, i seriously doubt the life of a snow fox or artic seal will mean shit to anyone in washington. After all that is what Zoos are for. Soon to see a middle income class family one will have to visit a human zoo.
Later all , danke C&L for a kick ass blog and heres to you and the readers and have a good weekend.
Best regards,,
I think I just realized something: humans were actually designed to destroy the world.
What in the hell is wrong with people? Oh yeah, they're ignorant and/or stupid.
Three simple facts that Americans need to know:
1. We consume ~21 Million barrels of oil per day (21 Mbpd).
2. We import about 14 Million barrels of oil per day. That's easy to remember since 14 is 2/3 of 21. From those 2 facts, you see that we produce 7Mbpd here in the USA.
3. The USA peaked its oil production in 1973 so that 7Mbpd is going to go down.
Please tell everybody you know these basic facts.
I heard John McCain talk about the 21 BILLION barrels of oil a few days ago. If we stopped importing tomorrow and were able to magically bring it online tomorrow, AND we could pump at the highest rate possible that would replace our existing imports, AND consumption continues at its current rate, that would be about 1500 days, or 4.1 extra years of extra supply in addition to what we already pump here (21x10^9 barrels / 14x10^6 barrels used per day). Gee, that would make us oil independent for only 4.1 years.
I've also heard Republicans use another figure. They compare the figure to what we produce here currently, 7Mbpd. If you divide 21x10^9 by 7x10^6, you get 3000 days, or 8.21 years. They use this figure because it SOUNDS better. Oh yeah, they round it up to "about 10 years" as well, which seems even more dishonest.
But the Republicans don't even explicitly mention the assumptions like I did! There's no way we could produce an extra 7 or 14 Mbpd tomorrow, or even in 10 years! Estimates I have seen say it would take 5-10 years to bring all this new production online. Then, they would only be able to pump 100,000-300,000 Bpd, not 7 million, which would stretch out production much further in time, but make no significant difference on prices! Juan Cole pointed out the Saudis have essentially pledged to raise production by 500,000 Bpd (a mere 0.5 Mbpd out of a world production of 85 Mbpd), and the futures oil markets just "yawned".
America, wake up!
anon @ 50:
You all talking about the oil non crisis?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147
Corey Carroll@56
Thank You for that.
two words : carbon tax.
We have to start making legislators accountable to us. X has started a blog in a desperate last ditch effort to STOP THE SENATE FROM APPROVING FISA and failing that to repeal it at
http://repealfisa.wordpress.com/
Methinks that one of us should start an opinion poll asking "Would you support drilling in ANWAR and off the coasts if it meant in 2017 you would pay less for gasoline? Would you support legislation requiring autos to get minimum 40 mpg by 2010?
MedfordTim @ 6:
What an absolute bunch of dumbasses. I cannot believe that a majority of Americans believe this shit. Yet we continue to let oil companies make the biggest profits in history?
Cap their damn profits and apply a windfall profits tax. Secondly, we need the government to MANDATE a move to alternate fuels. Automakers and oil companies are NOT going to do this on their own. No CEO that wants to keep his job is going to do anything that prevents him from making his EPS number for the next quarter!
So, you mandate that automakers move away from the internal combustion engine, and offer them incentives for doing so (quickly) to offset the cost of retooling. If they refuse to do it, fine them, heavily.
Automakers were making cars in the 80's that got 50 MPG. Now they want me to get excited by 35 MPG? As technology has improved, they have chosen to up the horsepower rather than making the engines more efficient. Who needs a 400HP vehicle these days? No one. It's disgusting when you see the size of some of the vehicles they are making (remember the small, economical, Toyota and Nissan pickups from years ago........now they make pickups that are 2-3 times that size. Why?.
It irritates me that I have no viable alternatives. I want a plug-in commuter vehicle that has a 100 mile range, but no such car exists. Why? They should have been perfecting plug-ins, fuel cells, etc., years ago.
The free market will not take us where we need to go............we need to be forced to do so.
Ron @ 57:
I dont know.
I read the Rand study (2005) on the subject and the BLM environmental impact statement whose period of public comment ended May 20th. The naval reserve figures are (apparently) common knowledge.
My conclusion is that this offshore issue is about speculation while the Anwar issue is about environmental regs which would impede exploitation of the Rockies oil shale.
A barrel of oil is worth $130 ... I just lied to you ... a barrel of oil is worth ~$10,000 (plastics, drugs, chemicals etc).
I want to see the burning of carbon for energy ended. Its bad for the ... well just about everything. But oil has many other uses that are - IMO - more important.
mudshark @ 4:
Except it's already underway here, near Santa Barbara.
This involves a land swap - beachfront property traded
for drilling rights.
if they keep the price of gas as high as it has been, it is in their plan to next create a false impression that domestic drilling is needed and restrictions on refineries should be lifted to make building them, with tax payers money, easier.
this then is the end game of the oil industries stranglehold on america's money. this is what will be bush's last big grad for his "base", the haves and the have mores.
dems had better get the message out , loud and often, that this will do nothing to ease anything in the near, 10 years, future.
this is a typical repube sales pitch and the better salesman have been the repube machine. it is their M.O. to create or exploit hardship, panic, fear and then roll out the solution. unfortunately the solution is usually something few wanted to do before the introduction of created hardship,panic and fear. we have seen it too many times in bushco's years to not recognize it for what it is.
(think...torture, irag war, fisa changes, executive powers, amnesty for corporations, the patriot act)
"It is the international system of currency which determines the vitality of life on this planet. THAT is the natural order of things today. THAT is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today. And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature. And YOU WILL ATONE. Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up on your little 21-inch screen and howl about America, and democracy. There is no America; there is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. "
Network 1976
anon @ 62:
Understood, but it's going to take time. In the meantime they chose to rip us off by creating the impression that there is a shortage. Watch the video. You will get a real education.
often the economy has a lot to do with the elections. this election is no different...obviously this is a stratgey to get to voters and a possible diversion from iraq/iran/afghan strategies. there using this off shore drilling as a divider...in the mean time four western drilling companies are pressuring iraqi on terms for their oil. this may help the NEOCONS keep this election close so they can continue with their unfinished business. maybe oil prices will drop after labor day and give a boost to mcBlame....it could have an impact on undecided voters
every entry.......why is that
Billy @ 63:
How many offshore rigs are there in the channel now? 9-13 something like that? Those have been grandfathered in for old contracts many moons ago. I hate seeing those things out there. I remember the spill of 69. My mom would flip out when we got home from the beach. Tracking tar across her carpet. We use to take lighter fluid to clean it off of our feet.
There was some speculation about 5 years ago about an offshore bank off of the Big Sur coast. They tried to get it started. But failed in their attempts. but they still do own the rights to drill there. The bank is about 35miles off the coast(I think)
When was the last time they installed a new rig in the channel?
Donaldd @ 10:
Correct.
Details are widely available. Here is one good writeup:
Billy @ 63:
Where are you talking about, somewhere near Gaviota?
mudshark @ 67:
I don't know, but I read about the land swap and additional drilling platforms in the LA Times sometime within the last month or so.
Billy @ 71:
North of SB around Gaviota there is a lot of undeveloped coast line there. The OIl companies have owned that land for as long as I remember . In the Bixby ranch there used to be a giant oil tank (actually there was two of them) they were pulled out must be going on 5 years now(Cojo). Ever wonder why no one has ever developed all that coast between Gaviota and Isla Vista?
karl @ 8:
Odd...everything UNDER the word "speculation" have all gotten worse - much worse - as a result OF "speculation."
Maybe the FIRST step shouldn't be looking for a new place to dig a hole.
I'm shocked. Shouldn't we be subsidizing our brave oil buddie's dangerous adventure in offshore drilling??
Ron @ 66:
I watched part of it. Interesting.
Even if it is entirely wrong ... the DOE certifies that the BLM is sitting on 1.5 trillion (with a T) barrel equivalents of oil in the OIL shale reserves in Colorado and Utah. Shells new process - which involves lowered heaters into the formation to liquify the oil , which then pools and can be pumped --- no strip mining --- costs $12 to $19 per barrel (according to a Rand report) which makes it competative in a $30 market. I have read that perhaps only about 800 billion barrels could be removed in this fashion. Even if that is true, that is 4 times larger than proven Saudi reserves.
... and we have even more natural gas.
Do you have natural gas at your home? If so, consider converting your car (about $1000) to CNG and installing this ...
http://www.myphill.com/
This is a device made in Europe (and asia). And it uses a fuel that is cleaner (by about 30% or so), cheaper and more abundant than oil.
In the end, what is happening in Washington is about money not serving the publics interests.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.pdf
http://ostseis.anl.gov/index.cfm
http://www.blm.gov/nhp/news/releases/pages/2006/pr060117_oilshale.htm
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oilshale_2.html
... none of that is tin foil hat territory. The only potential issue involves the time to ramp up to ~1million barrels per day. I personally believe their estimates are high.
mudshark @ 70:
Yes. I found the on-line copy of the article.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/11/local/me-oil11
Billy @ 75:
Thanks for the Link Billy. This will go over like a lead balloon. I still say it won't happen. Just wait till the enviornmental activists
get organized. Some of that land is National Forest. Won't happen.
Alaska’s Gull Island Oil Fields Could Power U.S. for 200 Years
But Americans will never hear about huge oil and gas reserves in the United States, which, if ever tapped, would bring today’s fuel prices at least as low as $1.50 per gallon and make America more energy independent.
http://tinyurl.com/2n2e9f
drill anywhere you want as long as I can drive my 7000lb suv.
Gull Island -- Michigan
http://www.gullisland.org/
It's no surprise that Sean Hannity loves Rasmussen.
I suppose if you give people a loaded question that assumes that lower gas prices will occur with off-shore drilling, then yes, a lot of people are going to say "do it".
What if people were asked, should hundreds of polar bears be wiped out so you can pay 25-cents less than you normally would at the pump 10 years from now?
Polls never really take into account how informed people are on a topic and it doesn't help when a question from Rasmussen 'informs' people of an assumed result that is unfounded.
I believe the margin for speculating on energy futures is about 3%. Raise that to 25% and you will see less speculation and a drop in gas prices. It is estimated that between 25% and 50% of the current price for oil is due to speculation.
SCHRODINGER'S CAT @ 44:
Here in the heartland we're screwed. This area is small towns, most of which are about 11 to 15 miles apart. No public transportation of any kind. I work 11 miles from home. My husband works 54 miles from home. Our schedules are not regular due to the type of jobs we work, so digging up someone to carpool with is out of the question. Moving closer to work is not an option either - we couldn't possibly sell our home in this economy nor could we afford housing in the area that would be equidistant for both commutes. And we would still be commuting! As for jobs in our community, well, there are none.
Add in the fact that we both freelance outside of our regular jobs. Lately we've been turning down gigs because of the cost of the commute, which means we're paying more for gas for the regular commutes, higher food and utility prices with less income. We're watching people who were living much closer than us to the margin go deeper in debt each month. Wages certainly aren't going up. Your average factory worker around here can't pay bills and buy groceries.
We're already driving less but we're approaching the point where we can't cut back on the driving any more. If we had a rail system (such as Germany) it would be easy. We all know that isn't coming. Drilling in ANWR won't solve anything. Taking a deeper look at speculators would help in the short term, but I'm afraid once prices come down everyone will be back to business as usual.
Oil people are grabbing everything they can here before Bush and Cheney have to leave.
L.A. Confidential @ 83:
bingo
L.A. Confidential @ 83:
I've said that for the past 7 years. So painfully obvious - why is everyone ignoring it?
I would go a little further and say if Rasmussen had asked PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA OR FLORIDA I'm not sure the results would be the same.
How about we phrase the question "If Big Oil could build a giant rig in your backyard to reduce the price of gas, would you let them?" Again, I think the results would be different.
Plain and simple, this is one final grab by the oil barons for a chunk of what we the taxpayers and citizens of this country own. That's OUR oil. Ratzenfratzen, if Big Oil wants it they're going to have to come up with some serious sheckels for my piece of it. When oil really does run out in several decades that sh*t is going to be worth a large fortune.
A few small reasons not to drill offshore. These aren't the biggest. They get wayyyy bigger.
When we decide to take a rational approach to energy, prices will go down and not until.
As long as we allow the superstition of the 'market' god to talk through the mouths of its priests in the energy corporations, we will be ripped off.
A truly rational approach is to seize the resources, all of them including distribution and delivery as well as sources, and administer them by rational allocation. That means that we have to allow the capitalist fantasy of unlimited greed and growth to die its natural death - as all foolish deities must eventually die.
karl @ 8:
I agree. It's Naomi Klein's 'Shock Doctrine,' where criminal governments exploit a crisis--or create one--in order to further goals that otherwise would be unthinkable. Another (recent) example is how the criminals/propagandists used fear of 'terrorists' to revile the recent supreme court decision on detainees' rights. Never in all my years have I witnessed such overt, aggressive talk that championed smashing everything that was ever good about this country.
The cons are out in force and they won't stop until they wring every last drop of liberty from the constitution and every last dime from our pockets.
Of course the Republicans are lying. There's plenty of oil. The problem is that this oil is being horded so that it can be sold later at a higher price. They can drill all they want and it will not bring down the cost of oil. Think ENRON and you will get the picture.
P.S. And Shock Doctrine tactics will be used to ensure the criminals get to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
And this unregulated oil commodities market... this was all part of the super secret Dick the traitor Cheney's energy policy along with the illegal invasion into Iraq.
As for the 5 oil companies that are making a deal with Iraq, well they didn't do their homework. Russia made a similar deal and so did Chad and guess what happened. Once the oil fields were in tip top operating condition, the countries decided to take back their oil and give a very small percentage back to the investors. Duh. Do these oil companies really believe that Iraq will let them re-colonize their country?
If you want to lower the price of gasoline, then drive less and use less gasoline. Mow the lawn less frequently, stop going to races, get rid of the skydoo and motor boat. The oil commodities market is based on supply and demand and their thieves, I mean investors have scarfed up the oil reserves with the hope that the demand will make the price higher. So if the demand is lower then what was speculated, then the price decrease because now these thieves, I mean investors, are stuck with barrels of oil that they need to divest.
I want one!
Japanese invent car that runs on water ! (VIDEO)
A Japanese company has invented an electric-powered, and environmentally friendly, car that it says runs solely on water.
Genepax unveiled the car in the western city of Osaka on Thursday, saying that a liter (2.1 pints) of any kind of water — rain, river or sea — was all you needed to get the engine going for about an hour at a speed of 80 km (50 miles).
http://www.onlines.ws/?p=642
L.A. Confidential @ 77:
They won't hear about it because this is a hoax as is the premise that the US has huge "untapped reserves". The US has 3.3% of known worldwide oil reserves, the Middle East 66%.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
There is no way we will ever drill our way out of the current contrived "shortage," furthermore, continuing to promote our consumptionist paradigm is a huge disservice to future generations. Conservation and living within our means are the answers, not an entitlement mentality that assumes that our resources are endless and defers the heavy lifting to the future.
Here is an example solar plant operated by Tucson Electric Power
http://www.tep.com/Green/GreenWatts/SolarOutput.asp
mudshark @ 4:
I wouldn't be so sure. At first, I thought it will be the state's choice--which would be DOA. Then it dawned on me--the Repugs have nothing to gain in CA and why not just malign us as tree hugging liberals who would say screw you to the rest of the country, to maintain our coast line. Personally I would say that as I'm still pissed at what happened to my beach by the Costco Busan (after it hit the bridge). We still have crap from that surfacing after storms.
Friar Tuck @ 47:
Yea, right--what we want won't even be allowed into the discussion, let alone allowing these groups any oversight role. I really wish we'd have something to say on the matter, but the Repugs will shove it down our throats, so folks across the country can continue to drive their SUV's and the only way to stop it would be to leave the union (which ain't gonna happen).
Coincidentally, this exact same number turn out to have no idea how the oil markets work.
Who'd have thought.
People want relief at the pump - it's that simple. SURELY someone can come up with the fucking facts about whether or not gas and oil prices will OR will not come down if we drill the fuck out of America.
If they WON'T come down I'd say EVERY DAMN LIBERAL and at least half of moderates WOULD NOT be in favor of giving oil companies a green light to drill in places like ANWR.
WILL SOMEONE PLEASE ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS AND PRESENT THE RIGHT ANSWERS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?!
people have very short memories
during the "energy crisis" here in california, people were screaming that they needed to build more energy plants....that is, until they found out how enron and others were raping us
do the people know that most of the oil pumped from california and alaska goes to japan?
and they wont even start drilling for at least 2 years....first its exploration
and anwar will provide the country with exactly 5 years of oil.....5 years....and that is only if it all stays here
8 years and bush never came up with a comprehensive energy policy...except to give tax breaks if you bought an suv for your biz
bmw 528 @ 97:
And you can toss this into the hoax bin, too:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147
It's the same guy (Lindsey Williams). Beware of anyone hawking his books.
Or, we can steal all of Iraq's oil, which is exactly what we're now trying to do.
who owns the most oil for the future? chevron....nope exxon nope...........morgan stanley
http://www.321energy.com/editorials/fox/fox061808.html
Made For Order Conservative Polls
With just a little close observation, you can see the current polls showing people want us to drill off the cost of our nation's states are made to order. Gallup polls are so bad, I would not even call them polls. At the rate in which they support the CNN conservative taking points, these so-called polls are much closer to a chemic. Take a look at the many conservative polls and how they dominate the averages. There are seven polls listed in the general election poll. One of them, Newsweek, is the only poll not linked to the controlling group. But that poll has Barack Obama leading by 15%. In affect, the Republicans have taken over the polls. This means you really can believe what you see from most polls. Whenever you see a poll outside of the conservative group, you can bet the numbers will be closer to the truth. Survey USA is one of the most accurate polls in the business. Throughout the primaries, they were within the margin of error most of the time.
Throughout the primaries and the last presidential election, I noticed these polls have been grouping together to control the averages. Gallup polls have always been favorable for this administration and the Republicans. If I have to hear CNN use the phrase "according to a new CNN/Gallup poll" one more time I will tear my ears off. Clearly CNN/Gallup/USAtoday work together. If need be, they will release a CNN alone poll and in a few days release a CNN/USAtoday poll with similar numbers. Most of the time, Zogby, ABC/Wp, or Cook strategies will release polls with the same made to order numbers.
Nowhere was grouping bad polling numbers more evident then in the 2008 New Hampshire primary polls. At least, 13 polls were off. That is when my observations came to life with evidence the polls were creating data and not reporting it.
Joseph
Its too damn bad they want lower gas prices. Next time don't vote for the AWOL coke-snorting fratboy drunk for president. I don't want oil-soaked beaches strewn with dead wildlife just so these assholes can drive around in Hummers and SUV's. The poll they took as I recall was flawed anyway because they asked "If gas prices would be affected, would you be in favor of offshore drilling?" Republicans can take their poll and shove em up their ass. I'm tired of new lies every day by republicans.
First of all I don't believe the poll data. I believe this is just another framed story to try to get YOUR interests to be those interests of corporations. If the data is true then we (Americans) are so stupid that the worst imaginable fate SHOULD befall us. Second, if anyone thinks that having oil companies drill anywhere is going to bring down oil pricing they're simply mistaken. Regardless of whether incredibly large amounts of oil were found or not. If anything it will only ensure that oil prices stay high. The oil companies want to drill off shore and in Alaska so that they can continue to control all commodities. Oil, humans, food, transportation...you name it.
Also, it would take years to locate, drill, and produce from any new wells or sites, so how will that help anything that's going on now? Well, it won't. Now is the time to become completely independent of oil and oil based products. Will it happen? Of course not. Why? Because our government leaders and the scheming maniacal morons who act as the marionettes of this planet will not allow it. You are all about to suffer. Beyond your wildest expectations.
Now its time to put this stupid ANWR myth and the conservatives who keep bringing it up to bed once and for all.
Assuming the US Geological Survey is accurate and that there is 3.2 Billion barrels of oil there - The hell with it. I'll grant the conservative whiners an additional 1.8 billion barrels and make it an even 5 billion.
Assuming the estimates are accurate that the reserve would take 50 years to pump completely.
Assuming this oil is of high enough quality to be used without any costly purification.
Assuming our consumption for oil stays at a constant 20 million barrels a day for the next 50 years.
Assuming the price of Gasoline somehow magically stays at $4.00 per gallon for those 50 years.
Assuming the oil in the AWNR could somehow magically appear in the gas pumps tomorrow instead of the estimated 10 years it would take to set up the pumps and oil lines necessary.
Assuming that our supply is always adequate to match our consumption.
Assuming we continue to get the same supply of oil from all other suppliers - who will magically never dry up or sell more oil to other nations - for the next 50 years.
Assuming no other gas refineries close down because of obsolescence or no existing refineries expand in the next 50 years.
And finally Assuming, the economic bullshit about supply and demand is actually a law of the physical universe that actually forces what people do in the market instead of merely suggesting what could be done as long as every company is in fair competition with each other.
5 billion barrels over 50 years (365.25 days each) works out to about 273,785.08 barrels a day.
Add that to our standard rate of consumption and we now have 20,273,785.08 barrels of oil to use each day. Just over a single percent increase. Golly, I'm so impressed.
Since a current demand rate of 20 million barrels a day has given us $4.00 per gallon prices, what would an additional 273,785.08 barrels every day do to solve that dilemma?
The answer is ( 20000000 / 20273785.08 ) * 4 = 3.945
Congratulations, you ANWR droolers. You've managed to save the American public a lousy 5.5 cents per gallon. WOW!!! With the money I could save at my next refilling, I could buy *half* a snickers bar.
Gas was cheaper than that less than a month ago.
Oil at $200 a barrel, underneath America, will be enough for folks to kill to get at it. And they just might (hire Blackwater).
There's an interesting report from the House Committee on Natural Resources. http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=388&Itemid=70
It talks about the minuscule effect drilling in ANWR will have, which seems to be fairly commonly known. It also talks about the 47.5 million onshore acres that are already leased, of which 13 million are being drilled. There are similar numbers for offshore leases, 44 million acres leased and 10 million acres drilled. In the last 4 years, BLM has issued 28k drilling permits, and only 18k have been used; there are about 10k permitted wells that haven't been drilled. "In fact, according to the Minerals Management Service, of all the oil and gas believed to exist on the Outer Continental Shelf, 82% of the natural gas and 79% of the oil is located in areas that are currently open for leasing."
I fail to see how opening more areas to drilling benefits anybody. The oil companies wouldn't profit, at least not in the near term, because they are already under-utilizing their leases. The government doesn't profit, because, I've heard, it is a not-for-profit organization, and the income from the leases would go to the general fund. Consumers don't profit because if they aren't already drilling what they have available, why should we assume new leases would be drilled and start producing immediately. I'm not terribly bright, but I haven't been able to see the angle in this. I'm sure there is one, because I'm cynical, but I don't know what it is.
Why do people think this will solve the price problem? Whenever our "allies" the Saudis increase production, the price still stays up fairly high and the oil companies change from "lack of supply" as the reason prices are so high to "we're at maximum capacity at our refineries."
Word of advice to the general populace believe their ****: a constant increase in their profit margin means their costs aren't going up but the money they are taking in is which means those profits, are not being passed onto us.
I'm at a complete loss for words about how much the willfully ignorant can influence the course of this country.
most americans are greedy imperialists. end of story.
I just happened to publish a post about this a few minutes ago (without knowing C&L wrote about this): ANWR: Too Little, Too Late
with temperatures in the west at 104 and the midwest under water, it's hard to even imagine that our president is thinking the solution to this
crisis is to drill more oil and to affect some of the few pristine eco-systems we have left...well, I guess it isn't hard to imagine, but some of us
didn't think he could dishearten us any more than he had already, that we were somehow inured, that he was lame duck...no?
could you correct the link to our web-site please, I misstyped it. Thanks.
Because we're a country of big, fat disgusting pigs.
i actually think this is a form of political extortion; after all, the price really didn't spike until the 2008 campaign year. this is a last ditch arm twist to get the drilling underway.
You know, if thenation had enacted Jimmy Carter's energy plan when he proposed it we wouldn't be having this discussion now.
Paul @ 119:
Amen, brother.
Now That You Think About It
The way this story was written favored advancing the myth drilling is what the people want. Steve Benen used Republican talking points without noting any counter arguments regarding polls, especially Gallup and Rasmussen polls. Many organizations don't even acknowledge Rasmussen polls. There were strong counters to Benen's story:
Momentum is unseen but a very useful tool when you have it. Our current oil problem favors the oil companies and the Republican oil men in the executive branch of government. To present a story that lends to a defeated posture is counter to building the right attitude to do something about it. Don't get me wrong; I am not saying C&L has an unchecked conservative element within its organization. However, I am saying this story could of left the readers feeling the next step, which could be outrage or writing their congressmen, is within our means. Every little bit helps.
Joseph
As an ex pat from the great white north, a few things to consider..
Canada has been drilling offshore near Newfoundland now for about 20 years. No environmental disaster, but lots of oil. Created a complete turnaround of Newfoundland from a have not province to an above average province.
The simple truth is that their is no political will on behalf of the electorate to reduce demand in an aggressive and meaningful way. If there was, it would have happened already (remember the late 70's??).
Offshore drilling has been done safely in the North Sea and off the coast of Newfoundland for some time.
I suggest a simple solution:
1. Present legislation that includes ALL the following items:
a) Mandatory fuel economy standards of 40 MPG from all fleet sold by 2010.
b) Mandatory taxation on any non-commercial vehicle over a certain weight and fuel economy standard.
c) Mandatory Bond posted by any exploration company for any offshore drilling incident - equal to $5B.
d) Use all taxation from vehicle sales to fund a matching grant program for Solar and wind power.
e) Create mandatory power transmission right of ways to eliminate power companies from blocking the transmission line needs from high wind areas to high use areas
f) Create federal incentives for homeowners and builders to improve internal energy efficiency
g) Re-introduce the 55 mph speed limit.
With all this, open drilling up - in controlled ares - with the State's agreement first.
Let's get serious and stop the polarized nonsense. You can drill and you can incent energy conservation.
You can't demand one over the other.
With oil at 135 dollars a barrel, people's opinons change. With oil threatening to go to 200 dollars a barrel, people's opinons change. What was unacceptable becomes acceptable.
Democrats oppose deficits, but signed on to a deficit spending drug program, the only complaint being that it was not generous enough. Democrats oppose deficits, but signed onto a 158 billion dollar deficit spending economic stimullous package.
reminder @ 118:
---------------
Isn't politics extortion? We have a (name crisis here) and the government has to step in and do something about it.
"The government needs to raise fleet milage standards"- the public is already ahead of the government, buying high milage cars. The gas guzzlers are already gathering dust on the lots.
The Big Three are running to retool to build more fuel efficient models.
Oil analyst 'Zapata' George Blake says we are past peak oil. The price is spiking because supply can not keep up with demand. Blake predicts that we will see gas rationing in the U.S. within 3 years and it could be less. 2009 and 2010 are not presidential election years.
I expect Blake will be correct in his forecast.
If you want to cut your nose off to spite your face, don't complain about what is coming.
Alternative fuels need to be developed, but oil will be needed for some time to come.
I live close to work, i drive very little compared to most of my co-workers, i have always driven a compact or sub compact, i do not live in a McMansion and have no interest in doing so.
Are you ready for gas rationing?
Idiotland @ 117:
--------------------
I see the compassion and tolerance oozing from your being. Are you for samller government, too?
Regarding offshore drilling, most of the news reports make it sound like we don't have offshore drilling now (done in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas). The ads don't point out that Florida and California (due to long coastlines) are primary targets of offshore drilling.
Additional drilling isn't necessary, just tariff reform.
Brazil is itching to sell us their sugar cane based ethanol that has made them energy independent. But we have tariffs in place supposedly to protect our own ethanol production. Primarily the production is in the hands of Archer Daniel Midland (ADM).
There may be safe new ways of drilling as they claim. But once it proves unprofitable, or they can make a claim of an emergency, they'll use the less safe ways, as Texas tried to add 11 new power plants of the dirtiest variety. Additionally what about the hurricanes Florida is prone to?
Any accident at sea would disrupt fish life, already disrupted by sea currents of the wrong temperature. That would not only kill a lot of the fish, but make the survivors probably inedible, thus increasing prices even more so for edible fish, and the increased demand on non-marine protein sources.
The watchdogs must be ever vigilant. As the price of a gallon of gas shoots ever higher, the resistance of all to drilling for oil in our most pristine of resources is lessoned. Just as people who slaughter whales or beat to death baby seals or kill sharks for their fins or those people who cut down trees of the rain forest are not and cannot be concerned with the environment, they are concerned with feeding their family. So now with the price of gas reaching new levels, the resistance to drilling in Alaska or the Pacific Ocean will be lessoned. It will be more about how much will it cost to fill our tanks today and be able to get to work as opposed to thinking about what we are doing to our environment. The winds, the tides, and the sun all generate power. Should not our emphasis be on harnessing that power and determining if by doing so what will be the effect on the ecosystem. But the designers who are in charge of shaping our thoughts have chosen quite selfishly to concentrate on drilling and producing more oil which has far more negatives than positives.
I for one won't be holding my breath waiting for Dems to note reality on this.
125 Ron.j
I see the compassion and tolerance oozing from your being. Are you for samller government, too?
____________________________________________________________________
One could argue your statement is nonsensical, Argumentum Ad Absurdam as well as Argumentum Ad Hominem.
But taking your statement prima facie, I'd say the oil crunch is indicative of a need for bigger government. One that will regulate the markets, so no one industry can practically bring the entire nation's economy to it's knees.
Laissez-faire marketplaces or Communism is a False-Dichotomy. Keyesian economics with it's regulations and government oversight is the synthesis to the others thesis-antithesis. This is not just to protect the common folk from the elites, but also to protect elites from other predatory elites.
Let's hurry up and kill the planet and get this entire farce over with.
Offshore drilling is a great idea because it's a permanent solution, not just a weak stopgap. It is well known that the offshore oil fields contain an infinite amount of petroleum.
ysbaddaden @ 127:
Here's some recommended reading about oil drilling:
The Terrible Lie of "Drill, drill, drill."
Among other things pointed out here, it says:
And, guess who has predicted US$150/bbl oil by the Fourth of July?
That's right - Morgan Stanley. This article goes on to say:
The title tells the whole story, doesn't it?
Oil companies want to drill ANWR for the money they'll get for all of the work and investment in doing so. How? Make it painful for consumers, then tell them they'll get relief from drilling, then you get what you want. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
The idea for big oil is not to drill more now, but rather to "lock-up" the right to drill at some unspecified future time to insure that prices stay sky high. The game has always been to control supply and stimulate demand. Increased demand combined with waning capacity and higher prices have largely tamed OPEC overproduction. The result should be ever higher demand competition for artificially rationed supply. Potential flies in this monopoly ointment are the U.S military, which is showing great reluctance to conquer anymore oil turf, and China, which is not only a consumer and producer of oil but is increasingly a global competitor for it and lends us the cash to pay the interest on the debt we owe to wage oil war and to maintain a huge balance of trade deficit.
General_Rennenkampf @ 2:
First, conservation. Second, conservation. Third, conservation. By all means necessary, through any means possible. Reduce consumption by shaming people into it, regulating people into it, rewarding people for practicing it. Corporations too.
It is estimated that raising CAFE standards would go further toward saving oil than drilling ANWR would.
I have also heard that gas consumption could be reduced if there were mandatory tire-pressure checks required of drivers. I'd like to see a whole ad campaign devoted to getting better gas mileage--there's about six ways you can improve it that don't require new laws or deprivation.
Hell, if everyone would slow down by 5 mph gas would be saved. Doesn't everyone know that, and if not, why not?
Create a Marshall Plan, a Manhattan Project on reducing our energy footprint: Radical Conservation Chic.
Zenrage @ 109:
Great stuff, Zenrage, hope you'll let me quote that.
V LaRoche @ 136:
I agree, but I think it requires more drastic means. We've proven we can't be shamed into conservation because a Cayenne or an X5 or a Tahoe are still positive status symbols. We've proven we can't be scared into conservation with predictions of mass extinctions and epic natural disasters due to global warming, or a bleak and barren future for our children and grandchildren. The only thing we seem to understand is economic pain. It should be painful to drive a vehicle that gets below a certain mileage, more painful than it already is at the pump. (Hey, Durango drivers, how do you like paying $100+ to fill a tank?) It should be more painful to drive a vehicle when viable public transportation is available. London has a congestion fee for vehicles entering The City, why not do the same here?
Oh, and George Bush should have to watch Cheney be drawn and quartered, right before he's waterboarded and run over by a Prius for wasting 8 years of R+D on clean coal and supply-side measures.
So drilling for oil will not help for 15 years? Guess what? I expect to be alive in 15 years. And guess what? So will my kids. So if we are paying $10 a gallon for gas then, maybe it will go down to $9.00 because we drilled now.
Or maybe we should never drill or mine for anything anymore because it takes time to extract and get things to market. Maybe stop planting trees because it take 20 years to be able to harvest them. Yeah, I can see your logic. Stop sending kids to the 1st grade because it will take 20 years before they can become doctors. Yeah I think I see It all so clearly now. JUST LIVE FOR TODAY! Oh yeah I got it now. To hell with the future. It's that 1960's hippie thing that was so, so, . . . OVER!
I hope you loony liberals keep pushing this assinine "drilling won't help" meme.
Let's see: Back in the mid-90s, BJ vetoed drilling in ANWR because it wouldn't help for 10 whole years, and the world would be gone by then. Now here we are, and man, wouldn't that oil in ANWR have been nice to have.
Oh, and I love Chuckie Schumer's position too: 800,000 more barrels a day from Saudi Arabia will lower the price by $30-40/bbl, but a million barrels a day from ANWR would lower the price by mere pennies.
You idiots keep pushing your up=down crap.
Well Well, The Republicans Are In The House
I guest the Right have shredded their liberal disguises for this lie. These Republicans bastards really want to drill. Drill drill drill, like little kids banging on a tin pot: "I want to drill." They are up in this room strong.
The Republican marching orders are clear. They have fine tuned their talking points and seem to want to go all out on this one. Their orders come from the "Druge Report." They are not guided by the truth and need apathy and ignorance, you know the same kind of ignorance that allowed them to invade Iraq with made up facts. If they can get people to think 67% of the population want to drill, they may have a chance to keep the money flowing in the futures market. By that time, many of those on the right will get a chance to make a killing trading in this market. During the hearings, it was talked about the traders not needing the full amount of cash to trade. They only need to verify they have 5% of the trade. "Be quiet, there is enough of the people's money to go around, especially if they let us drill for more oil," says their collective.
Wrong, there are enough facts on this site to counter this lie about drilling. We need to unite in more ways then one. The vision must be multifaceted and detailed. We have to unite to kick these oil barons out of this country. Think about it: They are taking billions away from our economy. This country deals in "billions" of dollars. So, If you commit 5 billion from the 5 major oil companies, you can set up your own damm government. They already have their Blackwater army to provide the muscle.
We live in scary times. This drilling drive must be defeated and we need to elect Barack Obama and be ready to nationalize oil if necessary. As it stands, Bush seems to be raiding the US wealth before he leaves. Impeachment must be placed on the table if we want to stop this president.
Joseph
I don't think anybody said drilling wouldn't help. The report I cited stated that if current unused leases were developed, they would probably produce about 4.8 million barrels a day. ANWR would produce 780,000 at peak. That's 4.8 million birds in the hand vs. 780,000 birds in the bush. There are 80 million acres open to leasing in Alaska that haven't been leased by oil companies. Why aren't they being leased and drilled? Why the clamor to open up more land to drilling when so much that is already available is already unused? The math really isn't that hard.
What the Democrats should do is make a counteroffer. Drill everywhere and I mean nothing, not even the ground under the White House is off limits, but only after you agree to
1. Raise CAFE standards for all cars, light trucks, SUVs to 50 mpg (deadline 2011).
2. Fund the construction of 100 solar thermal plants.
3. Fund the construction of several refineries. Government owned and operated. Oil companies have to use them when they hit 85 percent capacity.
4. Continue all the tax credits for wind, solar, geothermal through 2040.
5. Provide 50 billion dollars in zero interest loans to the auto industry to construct 50 auto plants producing nothing but electric cars.
6. Fund the completion of the two coal plants currently dead in the water that will have zero emissions using underground storage of the gasses.
7. Fund a national high speed rail system modeled on the interstate system.
8. Mandate in new construction green technology. Give dollar for dollar tax breaks to homeowners and businesses in existing buildings any improvements they take to cut down on energy consumption (geothermal, photovoltaic, rainwater runoff collection systems, waterless lawns)
9. Rescind all ethanol subsidies.
10. Rescind all oil subsidies.
The answer to the oil crisis is:
a.) continue to operate like a parasite and devour the planet till we're living in our own feces.
or
b.) grow up and learn to live together and use our brains to come up with new stuff like we always have.
DUH!!
140 JB
Who are you responding too. We're talking immediate help in uncapping unused wells, capped only to manipulate the market, and sugar based ethanol from Bolivia.
You must be a whore for the oil cartel.
Do you eat Dunkin Donuts, and wear checkered scarfs too?
ysbaddaden @ 130:
---------------
The ad hominem was from the person i was referring to. He was referring to people as being fat disgusting pigs. Thus there was no tolerance on his part. Why do we need bigger government to solve an oil crunch? The oil companies are not bringing the country to its knees, much as you would like to imagine that being the case. People do not buy vehicles based on CAFE standards. People buy vehicles based on their defined needs and wants. People now want fuel efficient cars, with oil prices high. People will use less fuel. Alternative fuels will be sought after, as they are needed and become an economicly viable method to power transportation needs.
You are the one referring to Laisse-faire vs communism. Since the poster i was referring to Americans as being big fat disgusting pigs, it seems to me that he/she should favor smaller government as well. The more the government takes from the people, the less the people have in order to take care of their own needs. Farm susidies make milk more expensive.
Affordable housing programs make housing less affordable, by artificially inflating prices.
Market manipulation, whether by corporations or government or individuals, has unintended consequences.
Ryoko @ 25:
------------------
Peak Oil is here now. Major oil fields are in depletion. The UK went from being an oil exporter, because of the North Sea, to an importer, because of its depletion rate.
Mexico is our 3rd largest foreign supplier, expected to no longer be exporting oil as of 2014.
Saudi Arabia's Shura Council is meeting to discuss whether they should cut back oil output in order to preserve for future domestic needs rather than consumer nations needs. this is an indication that Saudi Arabia is reaching the point of no longer being able to pump oil at will.
Oil analyst 'Zapata' George Blake predicted two weeks ago, on Financial Sense News Hour, that we would see gasoline rationing within 36 months, and it could be sooner, according to him. I take his prediction seriously.
Supplies are tight. According to Blake, Australia has had at least two unplanned refinery shutdowns because there was no oil to process. Recent reports state production is 85 million barrels a day and demand is 87 million barrels a day.
Thus, i would guess, Blakes prediction of gasoline rationing by 2011. If it takes 5 years to see any results from drilling, we are 2 years behind shedule already, if Blake is correct.
PERTH (Reuters) - Oil was slightly lower on Monday after Saudi Arabia said it was ready to increase oil output capacity and Nigerian militants announced a unilateral ceasefire, with Middle East tensions putting a floor under the price.
At 0022 GMT U.S. light crude for August delivery was down 34 cents at $135.02 a barrel after falling as much as $1.05 at the start of electronic trade to nearly $134 a barrel.
---------------
I just checked 321energy.com. The price is back up to 135.65. As far as i am aware, Saudi Arabia was talking of raising output 200,000 barrels a day. The apparent shortfall is around 2 million barrels a day, which still leaves supplies in the negative.
Ron.j @ 148:
I may be wrong about this, but the report I heard was that the Saudis are going to boost production from 1 billion barrels a day to 1.7 billion barrels a day. I know that sounds crazy, but thats the report I heard. It must be wrong or I must be hearing things.
Login or Register to post comments.