18
Jun

Bush to Congress: Drill Offshore

Posted by: Mike's America @ 9:02 pm in Uncategorized  | 105 views

Dems to Bush: Drop Dead!

As U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne looks on, President George W. Bush delivers a statement on energy Wednesday, June 18, 2008, in the Rose Garden of the White House. Calling on Congress to expand domestic oil production, the President said, “For many Americans, there is no more pressing concern than the price of gasoline. Truckers and farmers and small business owners have been hit especially hard. Every American who drives to work, purchases food, or ships a product has felt the effect. And families across our country are looking to Washington for a response.” White House photo by Luke Sharrett

President Bush Discusses Energy
White House Transcript
June 18, 2008

…In the long run, the solution is to reduce demand for oil by promoting alternative energy technologies. My administration has worked with Congress to invest in gas-saving technologies like advanced batteries and hydrogen fuel cells. We’ve mandated a large expansion in the use of alternative fuels. We’ve raised fuel efficiency standards to ambitious new levels. With all these steps, we are bringing America closer to the day when we can end our addiction to oil, which will allow us to become better stewards of the environment.

In the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil. And that means we need to increase supply, especially here at home. So my administration has repeatedly called on Congress to expand domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal — and now Americans are paying the price at the pump for this obstruction. Congress must face a hard reality: Unless Members are willing to accept gas prices at today’s painful levels — or even higher — our nation must produce more oil. And we must start now. So this morning, I ask Democratic Congressional leaders to move forward with four steps to expand American oil and gasoline production.

First, we should expand American oil production by increasing access to the Outer Continental Shelf, or OCS. Experts believe that the OCS could produce about 18 billion barrels of oil. That would be enough to match America’s current oil production for almost ten years. The problem is that Congress has restricted access to key parts of the OCS since the early 1980s. Since then, advances in technology have made it possible to conduct oil exploration in the OCS that is out of sight, protects coral reefs and habitats, and protects against oil spills. With these advances — and a dramatic increase in oil prices — congressional restrictions on OCS exploration have become outdated and counterproductive.

Second, we should expand oil production by tapping into the extraordinary potential of oil shale. Oil shale is a type of rock that can produce oil when exposed to heat or other process[es]. In one major deposit — the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming — there lies the equivalent of about 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil. That’s more than three times larger than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. And it can be fully recovered — and if it can be fully recovered it would be equal to more than a century’s worth of currently projected oil imports.

Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress are standing in the way of further development. In last year’s omnibus spending bill, Democratic leaders inserted a provision blocking oil shale leasing on federal lands. That provision can be taken out as easily as it was slipped in — and Congress should do so immediately.

Third, we should expand American oil production by permitting exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. When ANWR was created in 1980, Congress specifically reserved a portion for energy development. In 1995, Congress passed legislation allowing oil production in this small fraction of ANWR’s 19 million acres. With a drilling footprint of less than 2,000 acres — less than one-tenth of 1 percent of this distant Alaskan terrain — America could produce an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil. That is roughly the equivalent of two decades of imported oil from Saudi Arabia. Yet my predecessor vetoed this bill.

In the years since, the price of oil has increased seven-fold, and the price of American gasoline has more than tripled. Meanwhile, scientists have developed innovative techniques to reach ANWR’s oil with virtually no impact on the land or local wildlife. I urge members of Congress to allow this remote region to bring enormous benefits to the American people.

And finally, we need to expand and enhance our refining capacity. Refineries are the critical link between crude oil and the gasoline and diesel fuel that drivers put in their tanks. With recent changes in the makeup of our fuel supply, upgrades in our refining capacity are urgently needed. Yet it has been nearly 30 years since our nation built a new refinery, and lawsuits and red tape have made it extremely costly to expand or modify existing refineries. The result is that America now imports millions of barrels of fully-refined gasoline from abroad. This imposes needless costs on American consumers. It deprives American workers of good jobs. And it needs to change.

I know the Democratic leaders have opposed some of these policies in the past. Now that their opposition has helped drive gas prices to record levels, I ask them to reconsider their positions. If congressional leaders leave for the 4th of July recess without taking action, they will need to explain why $4-a-gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act. And Americans will rightly ask how high oil — how high gas prices have to rise before the Democratic-controlled Congress will do something about it.

Democrats to America: Pay More for Gas, We Don’t Care!

The response from Democrats was typical. They trashed the President’s ideas and then went on to spin away the benefits of drilling. The latest canard in their quiver is that we have already leased 68 million acres of offshore sites and the oil companies are not drilling there.

Well, guess what? That’s because the oil companies haven’t found any oil on those leased acres. One would think that companies earning tens of billions in profit would be only too happy to add more to their bank account if they found the oil.

If you don’t think that the congressional ban on offshore drilling has had much impact compare this chart from the Institute for Energy Research showing how the 1982 law impacted oil exploration with this table from the Energy Information Administration (U.S. Dept. of Energy) which shows a sharp decline in U.S. crude oil production.

Democrats response to President Bush’s call for new refineries was typical of the neosocialist approach they bravely trumpet these days. Some Congressional Dems went so far as to call for the nationalization of oil refineries. Does anyone really believe that our energy problems will be solved by a government takeover of refineries?

Newt’s New Ad
The battle over high gas prices will be a key part of the political debate this year. Newt Gingrich and his American Solutions outfit is at the forefront with their latest ad:



  • Share/Bookmark
Print This Post Print This Post
This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 18th, 2008 at 9:02 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Trackbacks

  1. Democrats to America: Pay More for Gas, We Don’t Care! « PaulSwansen’s Weblog
  2. Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » While we on the subject of nationalized oil….

82 comments so far

Scrapiron
 1Reply to this comment  

Dems have raised gas prices $2 per gallon in seventeen months and the price of everything else with it. What is the top line they are shooting for? $10 per gallon by Jan?

June 18th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
 2Reply to this comment  

Scrapiron: That reminds me of this chart:

June 18th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
luva the scissors
 3Reply to this comment  

we need to drill, all the idiots out there think that bush controls all oil in thenation, hell the world. if there was oil under the leased land we would have found it and drilled. so much for all of the election year promises that the dems promised to take the house. anyone with half a brain knows how oil is priced, and to think we let these morons who think this way have children.

June 18th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Dave Noble
 4Reply to this comment  

Scarpiron,

Please explain how dems have raised the price of oil.

June 19th, 2008 at 3:48 am
Aye Chihuahua
 5Reply to this comment  

“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices” – Nancy Pelosi (April 24, 2006)

The Dems either:

A) didn’t really have a “plan” that would work, if their “plan” existed at all,

B) didn’t implement the “plan” or,

C) implemented the “plan” and it failed miserably.

You get to choose which one you think it is.

They did try to pass a cap and trade bill which official estimates say will raise gas prices by $1.50 per gallon.

I’m not sure this bunch is smart enough to know up from down.

***

Dave,

Your query was not directed at me, but I will take the liberty of answering it.

The Dems have helped to raise the price of oil by continuing to stand in the way of additional production, thus limiting supply.

June 19th, 2008 at 4:07 am
Dave Noble
 6Reply to this comment  

Fine, Aye Chi, that’s an arguable position, but Scrapiron says the dems affirmatively raised the price of oil. That ignores the realities of the world economy, over which no one in the United States on either side of the aisle has control.

BTW, I am still having computer problems despite everyone’s tech assistance. I was unable to respond on what had become a global warming thread. Was that really your response on the other oil drilling thread? As soon as I find a fix or a workaround I will respond on that thread.

June 19th, 2008 at 4:42 am
Aye Chihuahua
 7Reply to this comment  

Dave,

By continuing to stand in the way of an increased supply stream the Dems (and those who vote with them) are helping to increase the price of oil. Even when you consider the remainder of the big picture supply limitations are one of the big roots of the issue.

I cannot offer any computer advice above and beyond what you have already been offered.

I will suggest that the best thing you could ever do for yourself would be to download Firefox and get off of IE.

June 19th, 2008 at 5:21 am
 8Reply to this comment  

Dave Noble: Please check the links in the post above which compares the amount of offshore acreage available for exploration to the production of U.S. crude oil.

Here’s the chart in smaller form:

The arrow points to where the ban on offshore drilling was put in place. Larger image here.Democrats in Congress have done everything they could to choke off U.S. energy production.

June 19th, 2008 at 6:48 am
jainphx
 9Reply to this comment  

They raised the price of oil simply by doing exactly nothing. They do nothing and hinder those who want to do something. They tell us we can’t drill our way out, hell children stomp there feet and hold their breath to get what they want also. Stop with the lies, we have done it their way for way too long. Drill now, drill everywhere, build refineries, Nuclear plants, clean coal. This would also make JOBS and create wealth for our people and the Nation in general. I know the Caribu will be mad. STFU already people over animals that will survive.

June 19th, 2008 at 6:51 am
Buzz
 10Reply to this comment  

I know the Caribu will be mad

No they won’t. Caribou love the pipelines. It gives them warm places to mate.

June 19th, 2008 at 7:21 am
 11Reply to this comment  

Buzz: Here’s the photo from the Prudhoe Bay oil fields:

And with the newer technology, the footprint of oil production infrastructure would be even less intrusive in ANWR.

There is absolutely NO sound environmental reason not to drill EVERYWHERE.

June 19th, 2008 at 7:42 am
doug
 12Reply to this comment  

(AFP) Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday the US government was not involved in Iraq’s no-bid oil contracts that could see four major western oil firms start their first commercial work there since the war began five years ago.

“The United States government has stayed out of the matter of awarding the Iraq oil contracts. It’s a private sector matter,” Rice said in an interview on Fox news network.

But she did stress that the likely awarding of contracts “demonstrates that it’s starting to get interesting in Iraq and recognizes the potential for Iraq to become an even more major oil supplier.”

Sure. I believe her. We’re a passive people, not particularly interested in aggressively shaping Iraq’s energy designs –even during record oil prices– that will hinge on US affairs in Iraq and oil prices abroad for years to come, especially when billions are involved.

June 19th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Aye Chihuahua
 13Reply to this comment  

Sure. I believe her.

Any proof to the contrary or is your is that your partisan conjecture showing?

June 19th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Scott Malensek
 14Reply to this comment  

$4 a gal=the price of food going up, the price of goods going up, the effect of paychecks going down, and the effect of taxes going down.

Can I get a NO BLOOD FOR OIL? Anyone? Anyone?

Dude, where’s my oil? I blame Bush. I mean, he told us that the US needed to invade Iraq to get its oil. Where is it? Must be with those WMD’s that the Democrats told us Saddam had before the war, right?

June 19th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Fit fit
 15Reply to this comment  

Scott,

Your no bid oil contracts in Iraq are on the way…

These are only service contracts but they are expected to boost production.

June 19th, 2008 at 8:54 am
 16Reply to this comment  

Here’s amplification of the Dems nit wit idea to nationalize oil refining:

Link: sevenload.com

It’s amazing how many socialists come out of the woodwork when they sense an opportunity to totally control the use of energy in this country.

June 19th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Aye Chihuahua
 17Reply to this comment  

Americans drove 1.4 billion fewer highway miles in April than they did in April 2007, the Department of Transportation said Wednesday.

***

Peters expressed concern that the cutbacks have resulted in the collection of fewer taxes on gasoline. Such taxes are funneled to the federal Highway Trust Fund, which gets 18.4 cents per gallon from gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon from diesel fuel.

See where this is going?

Higher prices = Conservation = Lower demand = Lower tax revenue = Tax increases to compensate.

A vicious circle.

Ask some of those folks who have been on water restrictions what their water bills look like these days.

June 19th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Scott Malensek
 18Reply to this comment  

No bid contracts?! OMG! What’d those oil companies do? Give em free consulting for the past 5yrs or something?

June 19th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Aye Chihuahua
 19Reply to this comment  

I wonder if any of those EEEvil oil companies lost money or equipment during past/present conflicts in the region.

June 19th, 2008 at 10:02 am
 20Reply to this comment  

Dave Noble, we can’t have you cyber silenced, guy. If you can’t view all the thread comments, you can switch to the Wordpress classic or default view to respond. My problem for that was cured when I updated to IE7.

If you switch to one of those views to respond, but then want to return to the flashy view for the bells and whistles (recent comments, etc), you either find the selection between the three (usuallyin the frames on the right). Or do a clean out of your cookes under Internet Options, and refresh the screen.

And if this has already been pointed out to you in other threads that I’m not aware of, forgive the repeated info, please.

June 19th, 2008 at 10:15 am
crazy
 21Reply to this comment  

It’s time to “Buy American”

June 19th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Aye Chihuahua
 22Reply to this comment  

Feed the hamsters Dave.

Feed the hamsters.

They’re hungry.

June 19th, 2008 at 10:40 am
doug
 23Reply to this comment  

When you “break it, you own it;” it’s just that owning it is confined only to two groups:

Big oil companies flowing big campaign oil dollars into Republican coffers …at the rate of almost three to one over donations to Dems, a ratio still repeating itself in the McCain/Obama race.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01

““The United States government has stayed out of the matter of awarding the Iraq oil contracts.”–Rice

June 19th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Buzz
 24Reply to this comment  

Big oil companies flowing big campaign oil dollars into Republican coffers …at the rate of almost three to one over donations to Dems, a ratio still repeating itself in the McCain/Obama race.

As opposed to pretty much every union organization, Hollywood, and the MSM, where a ratio of 3 to 1 for Dems over Republicans would be an improvement?

But you of course believe that the Bush Administration has their hand in the cookie jar in the dealings between privately owned businesses and a foreign nation that needs assistance quickly in their lifeblood industry.

If only the Democrats idea of nationalizing the oil industry would go through. That would certainly keep the government out of awarding business contracts. And if you want to know how good the government is at running businesses just look into their time running the brothel in Nevada. They couldn’t even make money selling sex.

June 19th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Scott Malensek
 25Reply to this comment  

“organized labor” floods Dem candidates w moola. Who floods organized labor?

Have some fun, go to the Federal Election Commission website, look up a Dem, and see what groups paid em. It’s sad. Ohhhhhh, but oil companies are eeeeeeeevil.

June 19th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Aye Chihuahua
 26Reply to this comment  

If only the Democrats idea of nationalizing the oil industry would go through.

They cannot make money running a restaurant either.

June 19th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
DW 5000
 27Reply to this comment  

There’s obviously controversy surrounding oil companies. Let’s take them out of the equation. If the issue is getting the oil out of the ground, maybe a not-for-profit government-run operation would be the best choice for getting the job done. Oil drilling by the people, for the people.

The gas produced would be marginally cheaper because the government outfit would not be shooting for the record profits we’ve all heard about the oil conglomerates getting over the past few years.

Big Oil is doing fine on its own, isn’t it?

June 19th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Aye Chihuahua
 28Reply to this comment  

DW,

You want the gov’t, the same people who cannot run the Senate restaurant without a loss, to run an oil business?

That’s funny.

Here’s a little research project for you:

Do you know what the profit percentage is for an oil company?

How does that compare with other industries?

Do you know how many millions of dollars are paid in taxes by oil companies every year?

Please do better coming back with an answer than you did on the Haditha thread.

June 19th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
 29Reply to this comment  

Sounds oh so good in theory, DW. As a matter of fact, I’m on a PUD for my electricity, and it’s among the most inexpensive in the nation. Then again, that’s a small peanuts operation (probably under 20k households), and not a national entity. Socialism is always more effective in intimate family/community settings.

So perhaps the best example of a nationalized energy plan (oil companies as well as utilities) is Chavez and Venezuela. And that’s an oft tried experiment that isn’t going so well. While they’ve always had a high poverty rate, the equalization has merely brought more people down to almost poverty level, and raised only a few. The wealthiest are, of course, Chavez and his thug buddies who believe that the communist manifesto only applies to the populus, and not to their personal finances. (Note: linked to my own posts to avail you of the multiple source articles I used)

Lest ye think we might be a different critter, a President Obama’s suggested policies are also socialistic in nature. Revenue income from a nationalized oil company not only contributes to a gas guzzling mentality, would a POTUS then be inclined to drop that govt cash into a welfare state? And when most of the nation exists on govt subsidies, and oil revenue output starts declining for lack of private production investment (again, as is happening in Venezuela), where’s the cash to support the nation’s citizenry?

So I must disagree on an economic level. While the failures of a socialist system are not apparent at the outset, history has proven it time and time again to be a losing proposition in the long run. By that time, reversal is a painful, if not impossible, endeavor (ala Russia) Prices and quality are always superior with private enterprise competition than monopoly… govt or otherwise. Even price caps (ala Carter) were devastating for the nation.

I can’t blame the oil companies. They are the primary driving force to this nation’s rise to superpower, our superior technological advances (oil’s used in plastics, PC boards, medical… tons of places besides energy), and our quality of life. We owe much to the “big oil” evil industry. Yet as our demand for more benefits increase, they have faced opposition for expansion, exploration and development by prohibitive legislation. We are here by our Congressional failings, beholding to the environmental lobby … no refineries, no domestic oil production by private firms. It cannot be any more simple than more supply (including refining) = lower prices.

Lastly, oil companies are in the business of energy. If they are believers in peak oil (and they cannot afford to ignore that possibility), they too are looking to utilize what not so windfall profits they reap to fuel alternatives R & D… a very expensive proposition. It’s what also holds back the more profitable industry, prescription drugs, from making the gains they could. The R&D and long approval time kills the end profit structure. So they do not embark on the path to fruition.

.

June 19th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
DW 5000
 30Reply to this comment  

You want the gov’t, the same people who cannot run the Senate restaurant without a loss, to run an oil business?

I thought that the issue was getting the oil out of the ground so we could use it and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

The oil companies can continue to do what they do around the world and in whatever domestic deposits they’re currently drilling. We’ll take their taxes, they’ll continue to make money. We’ll get slightly cheaper oil because we’re cutting out the middle man.

Obviously, if we drilled in ANWR, we’d need to keep whatever we get off the world oil market. Selling off our domestically-produced oil would not go very far toward reducing our foreign dependency.

Do you know what the profit percentage is for an oil company?

No I don’t. It doesn’t matter. “Record profits” are record profits. If they don’t like their margin, they can get into some other line of work.

June 19th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
DW 5000
 31Reply to this comment  

Mata Harley:

Nothing credible I’ve seen suggests that drilling the oil in ANWR would be a long-term proposition.

June 19th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
 32Reply to this comment  

DW, 4-8% of a larger number is always a “record”. But on a P&L statement, 4-8% is still 4-8%. Most companies will not survive at that rate. Rule of thumb is more like 30%.

So hardly “windfall”. As the profit structure rises, so does the cost of doing business. It’s a number relative to the overall increase on both debt and income.

ADDED: INRE ANWR, it is not the only location, nor should it be. However over 9-12 bil barrels is nothing to snooze at. It would help Alaska’s economy.. who is for it, BTW. And, as I said, it should not be the only location. Relieving max output demands because of multiple sources elongates the term of operation.

June 19th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
 33Reply to this comment  

If they don’t like their margin, they can get into some other line of work.

The same could be said for the airline industry, DW. And should the privateers remove their business, what do you suggest?

June 19th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
 34Reply to this comment  

DW said: “I thought that the issue was getting the oil out of the ground so we could use it and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”

Yes, and anyone who thinks that big government can do that more effectively and efficiently at a lower cost might be interested in some stock for a buggy whip corporation I am selling.

Why is it that the libs first answer to every problem is more and larger government and an attack on private enterprise?

I’ve worked in the heart of big government and I can tell you that if it can’t even manage a restaurant, I don’t want it determining how, when and at what cost I get gas.

And if you think oil companies make too much money maybe you would also like to nationalize these guys:

June 19th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Buzz
 35Reply to this comment  

maybe a not-for-profit government-run operation would be the best choice for getting the job done. Oil drilling by the people, for the people.

You mean like the rest of the world which is almost all government run oil companies, typically larger than any of our private companies.

The gas produced would be marginally cheaper because the government outfit would not be shooting for the record profits we’ve all heard about the oil conglomerates getting over the past few years.

Yeah because the government never tries to make money. That’s why we never pay them anything. Come on use your brain. The only reason the government doesn’t shoot for record profits is because they have no clue how to spend less than they take in. Any money that would qualify as profit to a private company would be wasted like a baby eating spaghetti by the government.

Obviously, if we drilled in ANWR, we’d need to keep whatever we get off the world oil market. Selling off our domestically-produced oil would not go very far toward reducing our foreign dependency.

You really don’t have a concept of supply and demand do you.

June 19th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Aye Chihuahua
 36Reply to this comment  

DW,

No I don’t. It doesn’t matter.

I hate to be crass, but you really don’t have a clue do you?

In order to have an intelligent conversation here you’re going to need to have some sort of grasp on at least the basic facts and a willingness to learn and fill in the blanks as you go along.

Saying that a key factor of the discussion “doesn’t matter” does not foment progress. Furthermore, if it doesn’t matter as you say, then why are you complaining and why are we even discussing it?

The answer to the profit percentage question is that it varies from 4% to 8%.

“Record profits” as reported in the press means record dollars, not record percentages.

Let’s say you sold 100 mangoes in June @ $1.00ea. Then, in July you sold 125 @ $1.00ea. In each month you made 5% profit. July would be a “record profit” month even though your selling price and percentage stayed the same. Only your volume (demand) increased.

Tell me, if you will, what makes 4-8% excessive? (This is an opinion so there is no research necessary here.)

What percentage would be acceptable in your eyes? (Same as above, this is your opinion.)

If they don’t like their margin, they can get into some other line of work.

The oil companies like their profits just fine. They’re not the ones complaining.

Maybe you, and those like you, should get out of their business.

June 19th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
 37Reply to this comment  

BTW, Mike’sA… great graphic for visual impact. I’ve see the line up of the highest profit industries in text, but have had a hard time finding the same documentation when looking for the link. That’ll teach me not to archive something… for a change!

I knew pharmaceuticals was #1. Forgot banks were #2.

Which, of course, makes it more than interesting for Obama, whining about “big, bad oil” money and the GOP. Yet the PACs that launched his Prez campaign? (and those “private funds” he’ll be depending on now that he’s abandoned his “principles” for the general…) Primarily banking… the #2 big money industry and lobbyists.

But of course, that’s probably an “off limits” subject like his pastors, his business associates, his middle name, his ears, his wife, etc etc.

June 19th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
 38Reply to this comment  

MataH: That link between Obama’s fundraising and big money interests would be especially timely to post on considering his decision to reject public financing. I’m reading on the subject now, but feel free to post on it before I do. I was more interested in the hypocrisy of Obama claiming to be such a supporter of public financing but then dumping it when he sensed a political advantage.

P.S. I like the London Times headline: “Barack Obama accused of ‘betrayal’ for spurning public cash”

June 19th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
DW 5000
 39Reply to this comment  

Mike’s America:

And if you think oil companies make too much money maybe you would also like to nationalize these guys:

I didn’t know we were in a telecomm crisis. Or a food and beverage crisis. And I’m not talking about totally nationalizing the industry. Before you accuse me of saying something that I didn’t say, read my post.

June 19th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
 40Reply to this comment  

Hmmmm… so what you are saying DW is that anytime we have a crisis (or Dems can manufacture one) it would be ok to nationalize industries and seize the private property of individuals?

Well, let’s look at the chart again:

The top of that list is the pharmaceutical industry. Aren’t we also in a health care crisis? Don’t drugs cost too much? Shouldn’t the government seize that private property too?

And what about 2nd and 3rd on the list: banks and diversified financial institutions. Aren’t we suffering from a mortgage crisis and didn’t Bear Stearns financial almost go under? Shouldn’t we seize all that private property too?

Again, you the first thing you people think of to address a problem is to create a BIGGER problem by getting big government involved.

After working for government for a number of years I can tell you from personal experience that whatever government touches, it screws up.

June 19th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
DW 5000
 41Reply to this comment  

The answer to the profit percentage question is that it varies from 4% to 8%.

“Record profits” as reported in the press means record dollars, not record percentages.

Oh. Which would you rather have–4% of one hundred dollars, or 4% of, say, a trillion dollars? By your reasoning, it wouldn’t matter, because 4% is such a teeny tiny number.

Tell me, if you will, what makes 4-8% excessive? (This is an opinion so there is no research necessary here.)

What percentage would be acceptable in your eyes? (Same as above, this is your opinion.)

Actually, I never said that 4-8% was excessive. In fact, I said that the oil companies should go ahead with what they’ve been doing that has yielded their apparently minuscule profits.

What I wrote was that if we’re in a genuine oil crisis that requires rescinding the drilling ban in various places around the country, and if this is a matter of national survival, why should any of the dollars go to a private corporation? How about a tradeoff where Lefties say, “go ahead and drill in these previously out-of-bounds areas, but, since this is an emergency, the money shouldn’t be going to a for-profit outfit?”

June 19th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
DW 5000
 42Reply to this comment  

Hmmmm… so what you are saying DW is that anytime we have a crisis (or Dems can manufacture one) it would be ok to nationalize industries and seize the private property of individuals?

Wow. Are you being deliberately obtuse? “Seize the private property of individuals?” I challenge you to find a quote where I said we should do that.

June 19th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
DW 5000
 43Reply to this comment  

Buzz:

You really don’t have a concept of supply and demand do you.

Yeah, I get it just fine. But isn’t the idea that we’re in a crisis? Don’t we have to rescind the ban on drilling in these places because we’re having some kind of emergency? If the only way we’re going to survive is to get that formerly off-limits oil out of the ground, why on earth would we sell it abroad? Where do supply/demand and profit/loss work into the equation? We need the oil, right? Isn’t the idea that we use it once it has been taken out of the ground?

June 19th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
 44Reply to this comment  

You keep going around in circles comrade DW… I’ve decided to award you the order of Laika, the Space Dog:

And since you’ve gone around in so many circles I wonder if you might be getting dizzy?

Don’t stare at that image too long. You might do yourself an injury and with government provided healthcare you are likely to die before being treated.

P.S. Nationalizing industry means you are seizing private property for government use against the will of those who own it. Understand?

June 19th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
DW 5000
 45Reply to this comment  

Well, Mike, it would mean something if you could back it up with something I actually wrote, rather than something you wish I’d written.

June 19th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
DW 5000
 46Reply to this comment  

P.S.: Please tell me which part of this sounds like nationalization:

The oil companies can continue to do what they do around the world and in whatever domestic deposits they’re currently drilling. We’ll take their taxes, they’ll continue to make money.

Or this:

Actually, I never said that 4-8% was excessive. In fact, I said that the oil companies should go ahead with what they’ve been doing that has yielded their apparently minuscule profits.

Are you saying that keeping ANWR off-limits to oil companies is “nationalization?” If so, it’s a definition I never encountered anywhere.

You seem to be suggesting that the only acceptable drilling in ANWR would be drilling conducted by a private corporation. Why would that be? I thought that the whole point was that we needed the oil for our domestic use. I don’t see why you’d want to reduce our bang-for-buck ratio by pissing some of the benefits away into private coffers.

June 19th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
 47Reply to this comment  

DW:

You make less sense with every comment. How old are you anyway?

June 19th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
 48Reply to this comment  

Mike’sA #38… feel free to post away on the Obama “change” with his no public financing. The combo of the two is a great theme about the boy who hates big oil, but has no problem taking the bucks from big banking…. which of course is a bigger, badder industry than oil.

Here’s a few archived articles I had to help you on your way.

This first one is possibly my favorite. (that’s why it’s saved! :0)) From, believe or not, the very socialist/progressive Common Dreams site, where they rip him a new one for misrepresenting his acquisition of lobbyist money…. You’ll get the gist after you read it.

These two SourceWatch pages are chock full of links, which is a good start to tracking down some original source material. Since Congresspedia is editable, like Wiki, I may read, but verify thru more traditional sources with better credibility. But it gets your head to thinking…

The Big industry contributors

PACs, bundlers, etal, going back to his Senate run in 2004

June 19th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
 49Reply to this comment  

Thanks MataH. I already jumped the gun and posted a short one on the subject.

And just to amplify, here’s the list of Obama’s big PAC contributors from Open Secrets.org…

Goldman Sachs $571,330
University of California $437,236
UBS AG $364,806
JPMorgan Chase & Co $362,207
Citigroup Inc $358,054
National Amusements Inc $320,750
Lehman Brothers $318,647
Google Inc $309,514
Harvard University $309,025
Sidley Austin LLP $294,245
Skadden, Arps et al $270,013
Time Warner $262,677
Morgan Stanley $259,876
Jones Day $250,725
Exelon Corp $236,211
University of Chicago $218,857
Wilmerhale LLP $218,680
Latham & Watkins $218,615
Microsoft Corp $209,242
Stanford University $195,262

June 19th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
 50Reply to this comment  

So, Mike’sA… you do know how to use that FA “edit” button, right?? LOL You really should add this stuff in to your post when you get a chance so it’s all archived in one place. You’d be surprised how handy these archives are a few months down line.

June 19th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
 51Reply to this comment  

You seem to be suggesting that the only acceptable drilling in ANWR would be drilling conducted by a private corporation. Why would that be?

Our government is not, and should not be, in the oil drilling business. As Mike’sA points out, if there’s one thing the government proves consistently, it’s that they can’t manage a budget and produce quality performance.

Unless you’re selling ANWR leases to China, most the small oil firms like Exxon and Chevron, will sell to the US because of proximity and lower overhead for shipping the product. Think, DW, think. You have a natural spring in your back yard. Want to sell your bottled water to the local community? Or ship it to France? Which is the wisest business move?

Maybe if we’re lucky, China will sell us the oil their drilling off Key West. Gawd this Congress is dumber than dirt…. I vote for *term limits* please! PLUS annual evalutions too.

June 19th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
 52Reply to this comment  

MataH: I linked the open secrets list in my post, but was going for the “less is more” approach instead of printing it all out.

June 19th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
DW 5000
 53Reply to this comment  

Think, DW, think. You have a natural spring in your back yard. Want to sell your bottled water to the local community? Or ship it to France? Which is the wisest business move?

You want to sell it to whoever will pay the most for it, unless something has changed in the way capitalism works. The price is set at “whatever the market will bear.” Whatever the price is, it’s going to be higher than “at cost.” Why? Because a private company is in business to make money, and they don’t sell their product at cost.

China and India are growing markets and would undoubtedly love to have access to ANWR oil. Why would OilCo (not to point any fingers at a particular firm actually in existence) pass that up if those guys are willing to pay more for it than we are here?

Conversely: let’s imagine that the U.S. wins the bidding war. Hooray! We’re willing to pay more for the oil than someone else! Well, that puts us right back in the same situation that we’re in now: high gas prices.

Why turn these drilling leases over to private companies? If we’re going to break thirty years of protection for ANWR and conceivably destroy it in the process, why figuratively bend over and ask the oil companies to shove a splintery stick up our backsides on top of it all?

The point is this: if we’re in a desperate situation, and this desperate situation is caused by high petroleum prices, it doesn’t make any sense to deliberately set out to pay more for the crude than we have to, and that would be the result of letting OilCo do the drilling. Being driven more by the profit motive than by the patriotic motive–having their own best interests at heart, rather than those of the U.S.–we would wind up paying more than we needed to for the petroleum, and there’s even a chance that we could be outbid on it, and that it would wind up in some other country anyway.

My proposal was simple, and I’m sorry if “simple” equals “too complex for Mike to understand.” Oil companies go ahead and do what they do–no nationalization of the oil industry. But if we’re going to break our pact with the people and drill on protected government land, then the government will do it and guarantee that we get all the proceeds, at cost.

June 20th, 2008 at 5:58 am
 54Reply to this comment  

Ignoring the laws of free market economics and fair trade are a sure prescription for shortages and higher prices DW… How do you think we got into this mess in the first place.

You just do not get it do you?

How old are you?

June 20th, 2008 at 8:00 am
DW 5000
 55Reply to this comment  

How old are you?

You’ve used that one already. Try something else.

It would seem, Mike, that your interest in drilling ANWR is not based on getting oil to Americans at the lowest possible cost, though you make noises to that effect.

Please explain how keeping the oil we drill to use for ourselves will lead to higher prices for that oil.

This ought to be interesting, assuming you can actually answer the question, rather than flailing about repeating “You just don’t get it” or “How old are you?” or “I’ve pooped my pants. What do I do now?”

June 20th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Buzz
 56Reply to this comment  

It would seem, Mike, that your interest in drilling ANWR is not based on getting oil to Americans at the lowest possible cost, though you make noises to that effect.

It seems that you think putting the government in charge of that is the way to do that. Because you know government organizations are just so efficient and cost effective in their methods.

June 20th, 2008 at 8:51 am
BSE53
 57Reply to this comment  

The solution to oil company profits is to invest in oil company stock.
Any other solution is antithetical to the free enterprise system.
Am I a fan of corporations? NO. Corporations serve the needs of one constituency– the shareholders! Become one.
Captialism is a horrible system– until you compare it to any other ism.

If it hasn’t become crystal clear to folks– the Democrats (or anybody that buys into anthropogenic global warming) have no intention of producing one more barrel of oil. They will block it at every turn, they will lay down in front of the drilling rigs, they will lie, cheat and dissemble to prevent one more barrel of oil from coming out of the ground!
And they will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER allow any production of oil shale or increased use of coal, since they produce more C02 than crude oil.

So prepare for gas prices to stabilize at $6.00 – $8.00 a gallon if the Democrats get their way.
Remember when Jimmy Carter proposed a 50 cent increase in the federal tax on gasoline in the 1970’s when gasoline was $1 a gallon– all in an effort to ‘wean’ us off of oil?

TIME Magazine, Dec 19, 1979- “Gasoline consumption is the root cause of the nation’s petro-woes, and any move to curtail it substantially would have broad and deep economic consequences. Though rising prices and the slowing economy have cut gasoline use by 4.7% this year, the fuel still accounts for just under 40% of the 18 million bbl. of oil that the U.S. burns each day. The Administration estimates that an immediate 50¢ boost in the cost of gasoline, which now sells at an average for all grades of $1.04 per gal., would cut consumption by 7%, the equivalent of about 500,000 bbl. of crude per day.

Though advocates of continued price controls often dispute the point, evidence proves that rising gasoline prices reduce consumption. Studies by Economist Alan Greenspan and others show that when prices go up 10%, gas sales from 1.5% to 2% per licensed driver. Argues Greenspan, “It is clear that a very large part of the driving public consciously or unconsciously is quite sensitive to price.”

A cut in consumption of the size that would result from a 50¢ per gal. tax would pay important dividends both domestically and internationally. In the U.S. it would amount to an immediate and forceful warning to all Americans that energy conservation is now a national imperative. Overseas it would help loosen the world market for petroleum, make it at least somewhat more difficult for OPEC to raise prices, reduce prices on the spot market and send a signal to the U.S.’s increasingly skeptical allies that the nation is exercising leadership to curb energy use. Even with a 50¢ tax, Americans would still have a comparatively easy ride; most Europeans, Japanese and other non-Americans pay $2 or more for the fuel.”

The Democrat solution? Corn based ethanol– which may be the worst possible solution available– unless you consider a potential world-wide food shortage (and the attendant reduction in the world’s population) and $8 a gallon gasoline a good thing.

Remember– ideologues are now in control of Congress– and try as they might to blame Bush for everything– it is Congress that will now set the energy policy for the country.

So tighten your belts Americans, because your future is going to be a lean one.

June 20th, 2008 at 9:02 am
 58Reply to this comment  

DW, you said:

Please explain how keeping the oil we drill to use for ourselves will lead to higher prices for that oil.

Mike never said keeping the oil we drill would lead to higher prices. What he said was:

….anyone who thinks that big government can do that more effectively and efficiently at a lower cost might be interested in some stock for a buggy whip corporation I am selling.

Now why do you think the government, owning a single ANWR oil patch would cure our energy independence? What’s the point in the US owning a single oil source to feed our nation? With reasonable daily output, it would not serve the entire nation (can only physically pump so much at a time, ya know…). So who gets the cheap fuel? Who decides who the beneficiaries are of something we would be paying for as a nation?

We’d have to contract the drilling and refining out to the pros anyway, and that will set the cost of supply. Add the federal agency and employees that will manage this new government industry to the costs.

What will happen is just like what happens in the free market. The feds will assess the costs of the subcontractors drilling and refining, add the costs of the new govt expansion, then turn around and raise our taxes in order to cover the costs to provide *some* of us with cheap oil from a single source.

Nothing from the govt is free, and the cost will always be borne by us. You may feel better paying $3 for a gallon of gas at the pump, but you’ll actually be paying for it with less in your weekly paycheck. It not only all comes out in the wash, but the govt is then acting as “the middle man”. Now how bright is that in a pure business sense?

June 20th, 2008 at 9:08 am
 59Reply to this comment  

I really do want to know how old DW is. Next, I want to find out which public school system he is a product of.

June 20th, 2008 at 9:28 am
DW 5000
 60Reply to this comment  

Mata, I appreciate your addressing the actual issues of the thread.

Mike also wrote this:

Ignoring the laws of free market economics and fair trade are a sure prescription for shortages and higher prices DW

I’m assuming that he wrote this in response to my proposal, although that’s not a given. So far in this thread, he has posted some version of this three times:

I really do want to know how old DW is.

…And that doesn’t really seem to be directly addressing anything at all. Positing for the sake of argument that he is truly on topic, what he’s saying is that the laws of the free market and fair trade would raise the price of oil already in our possession. That’s like saying that an increase in the price of furniture would mean that I have to ante up more cash for a La-Z Boy that I already paid for. That’s not the way things work.

Now why do you think the government, owning a single ANWR oil patch would cure our energy independence? What’s the point in the US owning a single oil source to feed our nation?

Ah. Now we come to the point. Why do you think that OilCo, drilling a single ANWR oil patch, would cure our energy independence? If ANWR won’t do the job that everyone on the Right insists it will, what’s the point?

However much oil is in ANWR, be it six months’ or ten years’ supply, at the end of that time, we’re right back in the same place we were. The issue is not our dependence on foreign oil; the issue is our dependence on oil. Period. It’s a finite resource, and demand is not going down, or even leveling off–it’s increasing.

I’m feeling the high cost of gas–maybe more than a lot of people who are reading this. I live in California, so my price at the pump is already near the highest in the nation. On top of that, I have a car that gets middling gas mileage and a 90-mile-per-day round trip commute. Lord knows I want the price of gas to come down, but there are also other things I want, and preserving some little stretches of wilderness is one of them.

June 20th, 2008 at 11:10 am
 61Reply to this comment  

UGH!

June 20th, 2008 at 11:16 am
DW 5000
 62Reply to this comment  

Mike. Dude.

I know it’s your blog, but one would think that some little shred of personal integrity would get you to address things like a grownup.

So far in this thread, you have done the following:

1. Attacked me in consecutive posts for a position that I never took;

2. Repeatedly namecalled;

3. Fallen back full-length on meaningless platitudes on the order of “THE INVISIBLE HAND RULEZ!!!ELEVENTY!!.”

Nowhere, though, have you directly addressed the actual thing I wrote. MataHarley did, and interacting with her is worthwhile and interesting.

Again, I know that it’s your blog, but have some pride, man. When you get like you are here, you’re an embarrassment to Michaels everywhere.

June 20th, 2008 at 11:17 am
DW 5000
 63Reply to this comment  

UGH!

As if on cue, you illustrate my point. Well done.

June 20th, 2008 at 11:20 am
 64Reply to this comment  

DW (stands for?): If I really wanted to get started on the namecalling you make it too easy.

You make next to no sense and seem oblvious to the rules that govern economics and trade.

I apologize if you are offended by my pointing this out but it is irrefutable.

Perhaps MataH can take you in hand and find something useful in your comments. She has a much higher tolerance for………. than I do.

June 20th, 2008 at 11:22 am
DW 5000
 65Reply to this comment  

DW (stands for?): If I really wanted to get started on the namecalling you make it too easy.

Now I’m afraid. Mike might start really, really, really calling me names now! Yikes!

At any rate, it’s easier than addressing the topic at hand.

June 20th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Aye Chihuahua
 66Reply to this comment  

what he’s saying is that the laws of the free market and fair trade would raise the price of oil already in our possession.

No, that’s not what he is saying.

This is what he said:

Ignoring the laws of free market economics and fair trade are a sure prescription for shortages and higher prices

The meaning of the entire statement changes when you drop off that one inconvenient word.

Economics 101 is really very basic. Any time you insert an external pressure or influence into supply and demand, prices will be influenced.

June 20th, 2008 at 11:27 am
 67Reply to this comment  

DW (stands for): I have already addressed the topic at hand at length in the post on which you are commenting and the subsequent comments.

However, that does not mean I am obligated to indulge your ignorant fantasies on the nature of markets and proper role of government ad nauseam.

June 20th, 2008 at 11:30 am
BSE53
 68Reply to this comment  

DW 5000 makes my point:

“However much oil is in ANWR, be it six months’ or ten years’ supply, at the end of that time, we’re right back in the same place we were. The issue is not our dependence on foreign oil; the issue is our dependence on oil. Period. It’s a finite resource, and demand is not going down, or even leveling off–it’s increasing.”

“…but there are also other things I want, and preserving some little stretches of wilderness is one of them.”

The Democrats are going to fight any attempt to increase our oil production– because they think it is the wrong thing to do. And they are in control!

‘It won’t make that much difference’– so let’s do nothing!

We need a rational energy policy– one that includes increased production, while rewarding conservation– something like a tax credit for driving a fuel efficient car.

We are making strides toward new technology– remember Bush’s proposal for Hydrogen powered cars? Bio-desiel has some promise. Wind? Suffering from NIMBY, plus storage issues (right now can only help peak demand). Solar? Might make a small contribution.
Nuclear? Has huge potential to reduce greenhouse gas emmisions but the Democrats will block any efforts to make new nuclear initiatives viable.

So in the end, the liberals will give lip service to the gasoline prices– “Lord knows I want the price of gas to come down”, but they will block any meaningful proposal that would actually offer practical solutions.

The Europeans pay $8 for a gallon of gas– and we know the Democrats pine to be liked by the Europeans. I wonder if $8 a gallon will make them like us?

June 20th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Buzz
 69Reply to this comment  

Now why do you think the government, owning a single ANWR oil patch would cure our energy independence? What’s the point in the US owning a single oil source to feed our nation?

Vs.

Ah. Now we come to the point. Why do you think that OilCo, drilling a single ANWR oil patch, would cure our energy independence?

That should be simple to understand why one is better than the other. Given your idiocy though DW, you can’t figure it out. The private sector is a whole hell of a lot more efficient at doing things than the government. They will get that oil out at a cheaper cost than if the government was in charge of it. You actually think the government would do a good job at running something they have zero experience in than companies who have been at it for decades?

Creating more bureacracy is not a good thing and that’s what your idea entails. Your idea of getting the oil for “free” would wind up costing us more.

June 20th, 2008 at 11:52 am
 70Reply to this comment  

DW, no one is suggesting ANWR alone is a cure. Dang, Mike, Curt and others have posted mondo graphics showing all the places that offer possibilities. Let me suggest my thoughts, since I can only speak for myself. But I would guess my attitude is shared.

INRE: Drilling for oil in general:

ANWR is only one of many places we should start because we *know* there is ample supply there to help offset some of the needs. With it’s proximity, we are the likely market for the best price. Because of the North Slope, we already have distribution lines reasonably in place. Think of it as building the second home on the block, after the first home already mandated the road and infrastructure were in place for the neighborhood.

However there are other places that should be explored and developed. Those that take priority are those where we know there is a supply. The secondary priority is exploration of the likely existance. All locations together should help ease the passage into the future.

And speaking of the future, and those of you who believe that 10 years from now, we’ll be in the same boat. I counter with this:

The combustion engine and petroleum based products aren’t going anywhere. When the wind doesn’t blow, the rain doesn’t fall, and the sun doesn’t shine… not to mention our limitations today on capacitance, we will always need oil.

*None* of the alternative technologies are 100% ready and affordable for today’s times. Thereby we need to buy more time to put the nose to the grindstone to finesse the technologies. Buying 10 years of R&D time, even if ANWR alone – of which many of you naysayers suggest we can do that – can make beaucoup difference in how far along other alternatives are. In the 80s, only a few had computers. A decade later, they were sitting in homes everywhere. One day we were using vinyl records, VHS and Beta. A decade later and CDs and DVDs were in the home.

10 years makes day and night difference with the discovery and progress it can bring.

Drilling for oil, gas, using shale, coal, nuclear PLUS the added growing and improving technologies of wind, solar and hydro promises a less stressful future. We tap into the alternatives when the wind blows, the sun shines and when the water flows. When it doesn’t, we fall back on good ol’ fashioned oil/coal/shale generated fuels. This is the only way our energy will be stable.

The problem here is everyone thinks too extreme. To *not* drill and refine is just as short sighted as banking on a future of oil energy *alone*. The answer is, and will always be, a combination. But we are not ready today to supplement that combo. And we don’t know that 10 years from now, it will be ready either. We can strive for it, but we also need to bank on what we know works today to maintain growth… hang, even stability.

But again, and I cannot stress this enough… we need to buy time. Cleaner technology is in place now for drilling and refining. They can do these tasks quicker than they used to… especially if you can cut thru the red tape and Congressional crap.

And we need to get it going now. When they get to a point where alternatives are more stable, and affordable, it will take time to ramp that production up to speed as well. Then, if the peak oil is hitting dangerously low levels, our demands on that supply will be greatly reduced.

June 20th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
 71Reply to this comment  

DW, in response to your #53 post:

You want to sell it to whoever will pay the most for it, unless something has changed in the way capitalism works. The price is set at “whatever the market will bear.”

Sorry… wrong answer. You sell it where ever it yields the most profit. If France will pay $15 US more for a gallon than your local community, but it costs you $14 US to ship it, plus import taxes and licensing, you sell it local. It is not about high price. It is about P & L.

Why turn these drilling leases over to private companies? If we’re going to break thirty years of protection for ANWR and conceivably destroy it in the process…

First of all, the North Slope has proven we will destroy nothing. Secondly, we’ve made tech strides even since them. As for private vs govt? That brings us to your next comment:

Oil companies go ahead and do what they do–no nationalization of the oil industry.

You keep ignoring an ugly fact INRE prices, oil companies and governments. 93%… do I need to repeat this louder? 93% are directly or indirectly controlled by governments. If your argument had a lick of logic, it is blown here. Were the majority of the oil controlled by the free market, history proves life would be considerably different.

To add yet another government to screw up the works only compounds the problem.

June 20th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
DW 5000
 72Reply to this comment  

MataHarley:

Thereby we need to buy more time to put the nose to the grindstone to finesse the technologies.

I don’t see that the will is there right now to make this happen. The Right blogosphere is focusing myopically on ANWR, as if it will be the solution to all problems–most of the Righty posters I read are not looking at the big picture, the way you are.

The way people work is this: “Ah, now we’re drilling up there in Alaska. Problem solved! Money for alternative energy research? What are you, some kind of Commie? Next up on The Factor: ‘Solar power generation–an Islamofascist plot?’”

The sweet, sweet irony is that I have people here ridiculing my lack of understanding of supply and demand, then turning around and saying, “Yeah, baby! There’s no doubt that the increasing demand for this diminishing supply of oil will, like, totally lower the price! Adam Smith himself told me so!”

June 20th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
 73Reply to this comment  

I don’t see that the will is there right now to make this happen.

DW, you don’t know what’s going on behind the scenes. There is a will by any private company to fill a marketing need. And the marketing need for alternative energy is massive. If they are not addressing it full bore, it’s because government constraints are making it cost ineffective. Again, I must point out how many drugs do not make it to the market because of licensing, R&D and government regulations.

ANWR is not a myopic focus. It is, however, a grand poster child of what is wrong with Congress…. i.e. refusing to opt for solutions to a looming problem. This is why it dominates the blogs. Not that it’s supposed to be the “only” source.

The sweet, sweet irony is that I have people here ridiculing my lack of understanding of supply and demand, then turning around and saying, “Yeah, baby! There’s no doubt that the increasing demand for this diminishing supply of oil will, like, totally lower the price!

Maybe I’ve missed something, but I’ve seen no one saying increasing demand for diminishing product lowers prices. What they’re repeated over and over is increased output by add’l production sources lowers prices. I think you agree with that, as a foundation.

The main argument with you is that you believe the government should take control and direct it to the US market for cost. And I’ve pointed out the “cost” to you will be masked, and offset, by a rise in your taxes. You’ll pay less at the pump, and more in taxes. Private companies will steer clear, and production output will diminish… just as demonstrated by Venezuela.

Reality is: The supply is diminishing because the demand from developing nations is increasing, and there is the same ol’ production facilities supplying the same ol’ amount. The Middle East guards their output because they know once their oil is depleted, they will return to being a sand dune, with little to offer the world. I’m not wholly surprised the Saudis finally agreed to increase output. They know if the world’s economy (and the US is not the only gas “crisis” location) is in the toilet, their market and profit fails anyway. What good is having rare expensive oil if no one can afford to buy it?

The cure is to increase production output worldwide…. which will lower the prices, and buy time for other technology R&D to catch up.

Our peak oil is not the cause of the lack of supply now. Peak oil is still debatable in many circles. But for safety’s sake, I’ll go with the idea that it takes a long time for Mother Nature to create it, and we may be pulling it out faster than she can keep up.

Oil companies are energy companies. They are more aware than you or I of any possible finite supply of their financial bloodline. As I said, they are in the energy business. When they can provide the market with what it demands, and still make enough to remain in business and continue progress on technology, they will do just that.

But not with a Obama presidency and this Congress.

June 20th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Aye Chihuahua
 74Reply to this comment  

The reality is, no matter how much we may want to do it, we are years away from widespread alternative energy.

What the future holds, most likely, will be a mixture of all sorts of different options, blended together to make a workable, effective whole.

A great deal of the mess that we find ourselves in today could be alleviated rather easily by getting the obstructionist mindset out of the way.

Until we can do that, we are going to continue digging ourselves into a rut.

There’s nothing I would like better than to see this country send a message to OPEC which says “Screw you….we don’t need you anymore!”

ANWR is one piece of the puzzle. Offshore deposits are another. Coal to oil is a third. There are lots of different options. Some have horizons that are further out than others. The coal to oil option seems to have the shortest lead time.

The point is that there are tons of different options out there. None of them alone will totally replace oil but meshed together we could see our dependence, even on our own oil, dramatically reduced.

The ANWR and offshore options will give us some breathing space to get the other things done.

The sweet, sweet irony is that I have people here ridiculing my lack of understanding of supply and demand, then turning around and saying, “Yeah, baby! There’s no doubt that the increasing demand for this diminishing supply of oil will, like, totally lower the price! Adam Smith himself told me so!”

Ummm…. you’re gonna have to show your work on that one.

June 20th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
DW 5000
 75Reply to this comment  

Ummm…. you’re gonna have to show your work on that one.

Okay. Here were a couple of my main points in this thread:

1. Oil is a limited resource, even if we do open new areas up for drilling.

2. Demand is increasing for oil, not leveling off or dropping.

Except for one or two thoughtful and detailed posts in reply, most blew that off and rhapsodized about the wonders of the free market and how everything would be all right if we would just get off the oil companies’ backs.

Oil is the problem. Opening new areas up for drilling just postpones the inevitable. Arguing about friggin’ free market economic policies over this issue is like fighting over who gets to choose the next CD when your car is driving off the cliff. The priority needs to be to steer the car away from the cliff.

Of course I would fight drilling in ANWR, even if it were conducted by the government. I was interested, though, in seeing whether Mike’s push for opening up drilling there was motivated by a real desire to get more petroleum to Americans who need it or if it was motivated by a desire to do whatever he could to see big business get even bigger (4% margin or not–the oil companies are doing fine).

Given a situation in which he fished his wish–theoretical drilling in ANWR, albeit by (gasp!) a government drilling operation–he blew that off and fought for OilCo. The point for him is not acquiring the oil; clearly, it’s all about lining people’s pockets. Figuratively speaking, I offered Mike the option of choosing the next CD if we could just turn the car away from the edge of the cliff. He wasn’t interested.

June 20th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
 76Reply to this comment  

So, DW, can we assume you’re not much on capitalism in general? Or is it only capitalism that is “too successful”?

June 20th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
 77Reply to this comment  

It’s like banging my head into the wall to try and get through to that DW (stands for…).

How much more clear could I have made it than to present President Bush’s four part plan for the immediate future which leads to this goal:

In the long run, the solution is to reduce demand for oil by promoting alternative energy technologies. My administration has worked with Congress to invest in gas-saving technologies like advanced batteries and hydrogen fuel cells. We’ve mandated a large expansion in the use of alternative fuels. We’ve raised fuel efficiency standards to ambitious new levels. With all these steps, we are bringing America closer to the day when we can end our addiction to oil, which will allow us to become better stewards of the environment.

In the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil.
–President Bush

President Bush has been beating this drum for YEARS! What do I have to do, reprint every White House press release on the subject?

Meanwhile, Congress has done NOTHING!

Here’s some more news in case DW missed it:

President George W. Bush talks about energy issues and the importance of developing and using alternative fuels Thursday, Sept. 28, 2006, during a visit to the Hoover Public Safety Center in Hoover, Ala. The city has just opened an alternative fueling station to provide E85 (ethanol) and biodiesel fuels for public agency vehicles.


President George W. Bush and Dr. Subhendu Guha, President of United Solar Ovonic LLC, tour the company’s solar cell production area in Auburn Hills, Michigan, Monday, Feb. 20, 2006.


President George W. Bush views a hybrid vehicle powered by Lithium-ion batteries during a tour by Johnson Controls’ CEO John Barth, far right, and employee Mike Andrew at the Johnson Controls’ Battery Technology Center in Glendale, Wisconsin, Monday, Feb. 20, 2006.

President George W. Bush listens to AC Transit Employee Jamie Levin while standing in the doorway of a bus powered by fuel cell technology during a tour of the California Fuel Cell Partnership in West Sacramento, California, Saturday, April 22, 2006.

President George W. Bush gestures as he addresses an audience at the Limerick Generating Station in Limerick, Pa., Wednesday, May 24, 2006 , urging the the advancement of nuclear energy as part of a diversified U.S. energy policy that will make America less dependent on foreign sources of oil and more dependent on renewable sources of energy.

President George W. Bush greets audience members after his remarks on energy initiatives at Hotel Du Pont in Wilmington, Del., Wednesday, Jan. 24, 2007.


President George W. Bush holds a jar of spruce wood chips during a tour of the labs at Novozymes North America, Inc., Thursday, Feb. 22, 2007 in Franklinton, N.C., during a demonstration on how cellulosic ethanol can be produced from bio mass materials.


President George W. Bush talks to the media after a demonstration Monday, March 26, 2007, of alternative fuel vehicles on the South Lawn drive of the White House. Standing with him from left, are: Rick Wagoner, Chairman and CEO, General Motors Corporation; Alan Mulally, President and CEO, Ford Motor Company; Tom LaSorda, President and CEO, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, and Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters.


President George W. Bush stops to talk to the manufacturers of a converted plug-in hybrid electric vehicle during his tour of the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference 2008 Wednesday, March 5, 2008, at the Washington Convention Center in Washington, D.C.


President George W. Bush delivers his remarks on energy initiatives following his tour of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Athens, Ala., Thursday, June 21, 2007. Speaking about the energy needs of the nation President Bush said, “Nuclear power is America’s third leading source of electricity. It provides nearly 20 percent of our country’s electricity. Nuclear power is clean. It’s clean, domestic energy.”

President George W. Bush is shown alternative fuel development technology Tuesday, July 10, 2007, during his visit to GrafTech International, Ltd. in Parma, Ohio. GrafTech is developing new fuel cell components from natural graphite to increase efficiency and reliability.

Is that enough or would anyone like more?

The point is that Bush has been pushing, AGGRESSIVELY, for alternatives to petroleum, but fully realizes that until those are viable we MUST use the oil we have right here, right now!

June 20th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
 78Reply to this comment  

Opening new areas up for drilling just postpones the inevitable. Arguing about friggin’ free market economic policies over this issue is like fighting over who gets to choose the next CD when your car is driving off the cliff.

Postponing is the game of life, DW. We postpone death in terminal cancer treatments using known remedies – all in the hope that a real cure would come along in the interim.

I cannot agree with your analogy that because something appears inevitable today (of which we really don’t know this about peak oil), we abandon the “chug along” solutions prematurely while seeking to advance alternatives. All indicative of a defeatist attitude towards life.

Mike’sA… stop running into the wall. I believe DW’s last “confession” post said it all. “Of course I would fight drilling in ANWR, even if it were conducted by the government. ” Reminiscent of a college student or professorial mentality. Only time and events can change it.

In the meantime, most of us would prefer your head stay intact…

June 20th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Aye Chihuahua
 79Reply to this comment  

OK DW, maybe I missed it. I’ll put all of it right here together so you can sort it out.

You said:

The sweet, sweet irony is that I have people here ridiculing my lack of understanding of supply and demand, then turning around and saying, “Yeah, baby! There’s no doubt that the increasing demand for this diminishing supply of oil will, like, totally lower the price! Adam Smith himself told me so!”

I replied:

Ummm…. you’re gonna have to show your work on that one.

To which you gave me:

Okay. Here were a couple of my main points in this thread:

1. Oil is a limited resource, even if we do open new areas up for drilling.

2. Demand is increasing for oil, not leveling off or dropping.

So, where did anyone tell you that:

increasing demand for this diminishing supply of oil will, like, totally lower the price

That’s what you claimed, so where is it?

Then we have this tidbit:

Of course I would fight drilling in ANWR, even if it were conducted by the government.

You. DW, are the perfect example of the obstructionist mindset.

You have no good reason not to drill, you just don’t wanna.

Sort of like a two year old child.

June 21st, 2008 at 2:46 am
 80Reply to this comment  

We know that oil production in existing fields is declining. But what we are learning is that there are VAST deposits of oil in areas which we are now only discovering. And we are finding new ways to recover oil economically (and ecologically safe) from oil shales that we previously could not have recovered.

There is enough oil from known deposits in the United States to provide all our petroleum needs with imports limited only to Canada. Those sources could fuel us easily for the next 20 years as we transition to petroleum alternatives using the taxes and royalties from our own domestic prouction to pay for the transition.

But if we follow the course libs have laid out, we won’t be able to afford to transition to an economic alternative and massive increases in energy cost will further constrict the economy preventing the growth which would make that transition possible.

June 21st, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment

If your comments get caught in spam a lot please log into your registered account before trying to comment again. You can email me if your comment is caught in spam

 

Identity Verification: If you wish to verify your commenter identity, so no one can steal it, click the below button: