What is the Dems Plan to Bring Down gas Prices?

[Rifleman]

[b]If you haven't figured it out by now, I'll just be Blunt: The Democrats have no plans to lower gas prices, because they want higher gas prices!

I haven't figured out what side Kes is on, his own I guess, but he is somewhat right about some things. Anyway, gasoline price is just one componant. However it is possible to lower gasoline prices in the near term, by removing the uncertainty, as well as goverment created "bottlenecks" in the system. The price of oil is volitile, because supply is cutting back, and demand is getting greater, and much of the oil is being supplyed by unstable countries. When the oil gets to the US, refining capacity has been discouraged by Democat policy, and thus what needs there are are delayed by the limited capacity. Importing refined products costs more and raises the price, as well as causing additional polution. With the Ethanol mandates, the supply of corn has been compromised, and now raises the price of food as well. Ethanol reduces the energy content of fuel as well, so mileage suffers too, and some vehicles don't perform as well either. Speculation is normally a perfectly ligitimate and desirable part of industry. It seems bad now because the price of fuel is higher because of the uncertainty of the market. For all we know, the US could pull out of Iraq next year, and the Iraqi oil supply could go back to the terrorists, and out of the world supply. Venuzuala could stop all shipm,ents of oil to the US and its allies. Iran could finish their nukes, and be taken out by Isreal. Canada already hates us, they could decide that we shouldn't have any Canadian Oil. The list goes on. In a rising market, oil futures help level off and preserve the oil comodities market. Agricultural futures help farmers finance their crop. A change in policy by the US Congress to allow oil exploration, would undercut specilation, and reduce the price, because US supply wouldn't be so volitile. So we pay $ per gallon of gasoline = cost + oil company profit (small) + taxes (high and bound to get even higher) + speculation (high because of uncertainty) + cost of regulations and artificial barriers(high and unnecessary) The US oil needs are high but the domestic supply is small and getting smaller, just like the Democrats want. We can't control cost, but we can end uncertainty, reduce taxes, and remove unnecessay regulaton and bottlenecks. In the meantime, there are no alternate fuels available that meet environmentalist demands and we can't change everything overnight, even if it existed. We need more oil, and the price can't rise much more either. While 10 years may be conservative estimate of actual oil production from opened oil fields, even much of that is due to regulation, and lawsuits filed by environmental whackoes. Confirmation of field output would begin much sooner. Coal Liquifying plants and refineries could open up much sooner, and taxes already in place could maybe discover an actual practical alternative fuel, that is, if those funds are actually used to find alternative fuels. As it stands now, the proposals given by the Democrats will ensure the US runs out of energy, and all but the most profitable of industry is going to shut down. The corn to ethanol debacle, has disrupted the food supply as well, and that's going to do much damage for the next two years, at the very least, and maybe permanantly unless the ethanol mandate is abandoned. After all, it's just a political Payoff by the Democrats to Archer Daniels Midland anyway. And before you laugh and fell good about yourself BUngaro, the US corn shortage, caused by the alcohol mandate and flooding in Iowa, is going to cause a world food shortage. We won't be able to eat or drive!

[mphare]

Yes, as David has pointed out in several threads, this is what politicians call a 'plan'.. "Well, gee, if we cut back usage, then we won't need as much and the price will come down".

This theory is broken on several levels. The major one being we are not the majority consumer of energy anymore. We used to be, so we could pretty much set the price how we wanted it. But now we have India and China going after an ever increasing piece of the energy pie. So US cutting back will do almost nothing to the price of energy (kinda like the US going more green will do almost nothing to world carbon. Heck, even Dick Gepbhardt says if US did everything called for it won't measure a difference in carbon).

But secondly.. I don't want to use less energy, I want to use more. I want more today than I had yesterday. I want more this year than I had last year. Energy is what drives the Industrial Revolution. The only way to continue to grow is to continue to consume more and more energy. If we cut back energy consumption, then we also cut back industrial progress, we cut back the economy. We'll find ourselves living in a 'Post Industrial World' and frankly I'm not ready for horse-n-buggy days.

Do I expect all energy to come from fossil fuels? Of course not. I believe in the power of the Sun and the power of Wind and the power of the Atom.

I like that McCain is calling for 45 Nuke plants by 2030. "2030? But that's 20 years from now.. what good is that going to do? That's no solution..." Well, it'll be mighty good in 20 years. If we do nothing, then we can't even look forward to that.

In the mean time, I'm glad to hear GWB calling on congress to open the outer Continental shelf for drilling and other sources of oil. I only hope he also repeals his fathers executive order to ban drilling in other locations.

Right now, oil is the best we got, so we might as well use it.

[kestrel]

Rifleman, I would like to think I'm on the side of reality. As opposed to say sucking down Democratic or Republican talking points.
Just because we haven't been building refineries doesn't mean refining capacity is stagnant. But I wouldn't expect that fine point to sink in, you seem more susceptible to the talking points. Refining capacity has been increasing.

The price of oil is volitile, because supply is cutting back, and demand is getting greater, and much of the oil is being supplyed by unstable countries.

Yes. But by saying 'is cutting back' you make it sound voluntary.

...as well as goverment created "bottlenecks" in the system

This is America, third largest oil producer in the world, first and most successful oil producer of all time, highly capitalist, most technologically advanced in terms of extraction techniques; there are fewer 'bottlenecks' in this system than in any other.

Speculation is normally a perfectly ligitimate and desirable part of industry. It seems bad now because the price of fuel is higher because of the uncertainty of the market.

That's what happens when you're not sure if supply is going to be there tomorrow: you pay a premium for your share. That would be the futures market working fine. In any case, the futures price has to converge on the spot price... period. So whoever is actively purchasing and selling physical oil sets the price. Excess contracts that do not result in physical delivery must exactly cancel one short for one long contract, resulting in no change for the spot price.

So we pay $ per gallon of gasoline = cost + oil company profit (small) + taxes (high and bound to get even higher) + speculation (high because of uncertainty) + cost of regulations and artificial barriers(high and unnecessary)

Taxes make up 18 cents per gallon, this is 4%. Gas company profits make up 10%. Permit and land costs are negligible. Labor and drilling make up most of the actual costs and then there is the shortage premium. Those who absolutely need oil, will pay more in an environment with less oil.

A change in policy by the US Congress to allow oil exploration, would undercut specilation, and reduce the price, because US supply wouldn't be so volitile.

No, the volatility in world supply is not in the US

In the meantime, there are no alternate fuels available that meet environmentalist demands and we can't change everything overnight, even if it existed.

No... there are simply no alternatives that are feasible to producing oil.

We need more oil, and the price can't rise much more either.

Well, you said it, we can't get it overnight.

While 10 years may be conservative estimate of actual oil production from opened oil fields, even much of that is due to regulation, and lawsuits filed by environmental whackoes.

No... there is a shortage of drilling rigs, people and all set in an extremely challenging environment: offshore drilling. Minimum project times for offshore are 5+ years, world wide pretty much. Don't blame this on environmentalists.

Coal Liquifying plants and refineries could open up much sooner, and taxes already in place could maybe discover an actual practical alternative fuel, that is, if those funds are actually used to find alternative fuels.

Coal liquefaction is not an alternative. Why don't you understand the concept of net energy? Nat gas + coal => oil. Net energy is lost, and the feedstock of natural gas is way more expensive than oil.


Like you said, the timeframe is all wrong.

The answer is prices are going to be high for a long time, even if peak oil doesn't immediately materialize. At the very least 3-5 years. The US recession is going to become extended and beaten down because of that. Welcome back stagflation.

No, you can't blame prices on the democrats. Or even America.

[kestrel]

Wow... just wow.

src

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently did a detailed study of the likely outcome of offshore drilling for their Annual Energy Outlook 2007, “Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).” The sobering conclusion:

And the impact of the projected 7% (!) increase in lower-48 oil production that might result in 2030 thanks to opening the OCS is … wait for it …

[kestrel]

By the way, no politician will dare utter a word that not a damn thing can be done about the supply-side oil situation. It would shatter the fragile belief that people deserve cheap oil and that it is only the evil *insert political party or activist group here* holding us back.

[schaabdl]

We can argue all we want on this issue but doing nothing is definitely not the answer. Who cares if OCS are ANWR only provides a little relief - it is still something.
***
We do not needs the like of Algore preaching is pseudo-science religion while he does nothing. His TN home consumes 213K kwh (Washington Times, June 19, 2008). And even after all his major GREEN conversions, his consumption is up nearly 1700 kwh per month. My worse years is 2005 at 27K and my last month bill shows less than 1700 kwh usage. Algore is worse than any hypocrit I've ever seen.
***
Sorry, no source material but MIT in Technology Review several years ago ran a study and didn't see a market place until change in alternative source for transportation until the price per gallon exceeded $5 and more likely closer to $7 per gallon. The $4 price hit a psychological nerve with the consumer - akin to the stock market hitting some multiple of 1000 - and now the sheep are bleating. The biggest problem is not alternative energy (windmills, nuclear, and solar will not solve the transportation issue) but infrastructure. We have gas stations - we don't have hydrogen stations!
***
4-day work week - sounds nice but do you think people will simply stay home on their new three day week-ends? I get every other Friday off - I do things on those three day weekends. That is about as useful as 55 mph.
***
Fuel efficiency - we have improved fuel efficiency and it is there if YOU want to buy it. I have 3 cars that all get 30+ mpg (4 drivers in family). Even a car that gets 50 mpg has a recovery period using fuel savings of 9 years. Since I buy my cars (no payments, no lease) and I keep them until they die (one of the three will reach 300K this week) - I personally have no incentive.
***
Electric cars - great maybe for commuters near the cities - sorry, I live in the hinterlands - 52 miles one way to work and I have no plans of trying to sell my nice home / land anytime soon - intend to retire here in North Texas and relax while I can.
***
Bottom line - if anyone is looking to DC or even their state governments for answers well quite frankly you are fools. If there was anytime for government to do nothing it is getting intimately involved with market forces. Get government out of the way and I for one will trust the market place, both for our comfort, consumption, and our environment.

[Osiris]

The above storyline, "I got mine to hell with anyone elses".

[kestrel]

Originally Posted by Mphare

"Well, gee, if we cut back usage, then we won't need as much and the price will come down".

This theory is broken on several levels. The major one being we are not the majority consumer of energy anymore. We used to be, so we could pretty much set the price how we wanted it. But now we have India and China going after an ever increasing piece of the energy pie. So US cutting back will do almost nothing to the price of energy (kinda like the US going more green will do almost nothing to world carbon.

Read the bolds: the claim was never that it would lower price, only that it wouldn't hurt as much. You set up a red herring from the correct premise.

...and... not only that but you fail in your economics. The consuming nation only sets the price of oil when oil production is unlimited and marginal supply can be grown on a whim-a so called competitive market. When marginal supply cannot be grown, suppliers can make buyers pay a scarcity premium, because no one supplier can force down prices by marginally growing their own supply and undercutting the market.
The problem is inadequate supply for the demand. The minute increases in supply the last few years are result of the onset of peak oil. Live with it. Non-Opec supply to flatline this year (amid record prices).

[Rifleman]

kestrel wrote: Rifleman, I would like to think I'm on the side of reality. As opposed to say sucking down Democratic or Republican talking points.
Just because we haven't been building refineries doesn't mean refining capacity is stagnant. But I wouldn't expect that fine point to sink in, you seem more susceptible to the talking points.

I know, but not enough to meet seasonal demands and federal mandates for "reformulated" gasoline. we are increasingly forced to import refined products. There is also transportation costs and ncreased risk and polution problems when increased capacity is concentrated in a limited number of locations.

kestrel wrote: Yes. But by saying 'is cutting back' you make it sound voluntary.

It depends. Some may absolutely be voluntary, or intended to raise world prices.

kestrel wrote: This is America, third largest oil producer in the world, first and most successful oil producer of all time, highly capitalist, most technologically advanced in terms of extraction techniques; there are fewer 'bottlenecks' in this system than in any other.

But there are bottlenecks, and most of them relate to government regulation. But the same line of thinking, since the US is a premeir oil producing technology country, why not develope ALL the known sources? Why not build coal plants and increase clean coal technology? We have plenty of coal, in spite of AlGore's program to shut down all the coal mines. Natrual Gas is also a problem, since we import natural gas as well.

[b]kestrel wrote:['b] That's what happens when you're not sure if supply is going to be there tomorrow: you pay a premium for your share. That would be the futures market working fine. In any case, the futures price has to converge on the spot price... period. So whoever is actively purchasing and selling physical oil sets the price. Excess contracts that do not result in physical delivery must exactly cancel one short for one long contract, resulting in no change for the spot price.

That doesn't happen because of the uncertainty

kestrel wrote: Taxes make up 18 cents per gallon, this is 4%. Gas company profits make up 10%. Permit and land costs are negligible. Labor and drilling make up most of the actual costs and then there is the shortage premium. Those who absolutely need oil, will pay more in an environment with less oil.

No, that's just federal taxes on gasoline, not the entire bill of taxes that ultimately make up the price of gasoline, and that tax is not even being used as intended. The costs of production vary with the particular oil field and of course there are substancial transportation costs to import oil.

kestrel wrote: No, the volatility in world supply is not in the US

Volatility of the oil market is increased because the US is still the largest consumer, and thus the uncertainty of what the US congress is going to do will affect world market price.

kestrel worte: No... there are simply no alternatives that are feasible to producing oil.

Not quite sure what you mean, but if it means xcurrently able to replace oil in a practical way, I agree.

kestrel wrote: No... there is a shortage of drilling rigs, people and all set in an extremely challenging environment: offshore drilling. Minimum project times for offshore are 5+ years, world wide pretty much. Don't blame this on environmentalists.

Why not? Lawsuits and frivilous regulations, as well as puting certain known oil fields off limits, increase the time and cost of producing oil from a particular field.

kestrel wrote: Coal liquefaction is not an alternative. Why don't you understand the concept of net energy? Nat gas + coal => oil. Net energy is lost, and the feedstock of natural gas is way more expensive than oil.

I am familiar with the concept of net energy, but we are talking costs and supply here. Coal and Natural Gas should be used as most efficient whenever possible. The strategy is to make use of coal liquifying plants when there is a strategic need, like the Germans did in WWII, or as a limited substitute when there isn't enough oil. So, you use nuclear and coal for electricity, freeing up natural gas and oil for more efficient and appropriate uses. We should also use wind and solar, and hydroelectric when practical and actually efficient, and not attempt to rely on them when they are not capable.

kestel wrote: The answer is prices are going to be high for a long time, even if peak oil doesn't immediately materialize. At the very least 3-5 years. The US recession is going to become extended and beaten down because of that. Welcome back stagflation.

No, you can't blame prices on the democrats. Or even America.

Sure I can, because it is true! The Democrats do exactly the wrong thing at the wrong time. Windfall profits taxes will raise prices and stifle supply, and thuis increase price as well. Cap and trade wil raise fuel prices, and so does every little EPA regulation. Reformulated fuels raise prices AND lower energy content.

schaabdl wrote: Sorry, no source material but MIT in Technology Review several years ago ran a study and didn't see a market place until change in alternative source for transportation until the price per gallon exceeded $5 and more likely closer to $7 per gallon. The $4 price hit a psychological nerve with the consumer - akin to the stock market hitting some multiple of 1000 - and now the sheep are bleating. The biggest problem is not alternative energy (windmills, nuclear, and solar will not solve the transportation issue) but infrastructure. We have gas stations - we don't have hydrogen stations!

That is an overgeneralization. The Democrats are trying to switch to alternative form of transportation and fuels, when it isn't even clear if there IS a practical and economical alternative fuel. Since it is quite obvious, the Democrats are more interested in control rather than actually solving the problem, and thus we already have ethanol mandates, which have huge indirct costs, can't be produced in the quantity necessary to replace oil in a meaningful way, and actually make polution and the energy crisis worse!

schaabdl wrote: 4-day work week - sounds nice but do you think people will simply stay home on their new three day week-ends? I get every other Friday off - I do things on those three day weekends. That is about as useful as 55 mph.
***
Fuel efficiency - we have improved fuel efficiency and it is there if YOU want to buy it. I have 3 cars that all get 30+ mpg (4 drivers in family). Even a car that gets 50 mpg has a recovery period using fuel savings of 9 years. Since I buy my cars (no payments, no lease) and I keep them until they die (one of the three will reach 300K this week) - I personally have no incentive.
***
Electric cars - great maybe for commuters near the cities - sorry, I live in the hinterlands - 52 miles one way to work and I have no plans of trying to sell my nice home / land anytime soon - intend to retire here in North Texas and relax while I can.

That is a roundabout way of describing the problem. The fuel prices inflict suffering according to the need and resources of the particular individual. I switched jobs and now use about 1/4 the fuel I did, so it is not impacting me very much. And fuel "efficiency" is relative. Large eighteen wheel trucks, are actually more efficient than even hybrid cars, in what they do. The price has gone up so much, even more so with diesel fuel, the costs have severly gone up. What will happen, even though you don't drive much, the high prices for fuel or transportation will be reflected in everything you buy, in spite of personal driving habits. As it stands now, it would be quite an over reaction to exchange my current vehicle for another more efficient model, and even then the increase in fuel mileage would still be higher than the current vehicle at the old fuel price. Basically, the years of neglect and power plays involving energy are going to make it very difficult for the next couple of years.

[joe]

I give up. There is no sense in wasting anyone's time and money. We should all just bend over backwards and accept what is coming next. No price is too high for anyone to pay. We can't blame the politicians or the oil companies. They are all innocent. The only way to solve the problem is for the consumer to make adjustments in their lifestyle. Find a bicycle for at least four people to commute back and forth to the grocery store. Sell the house, take a loss if need be, and move closer to work where the homes cost more. Find a less paying job and move to a small town where the cost of living is lower. Hell, maybe I will become a tutor. I heard they earn a great living.

[kestrel]

That doesn't happen because of the uncertainty

What are you talking about? The uncertainty is in the availability of imports, worldwide, for importing countries. The world supply of exports is tight and uncertain (i.e. the import market for the US). The demand is huge. The price is therefor high. There is no uncertainty in the demand. Because nobody has an alternative to oil.

Volatility of the oil market is increased because the US is still the largest consumer, and thus the uncertainty of what the US congress is going to do will affect world market price.

When are you going to learn that I am talking about supply? This is a supply side issue. Not a demand side issue. There is absolutely nothing the US will do to affect the price of fuel. Demand will drop under price pressure but there is nothing that congress will do, democratic or republican that will lower US demand enough to make a price impact. Congress will never ask businesses for a 4 day workweek, or lower the speed limit, or do anything to practically lower demand.

I am familiar with the concept of net energy, but we are talking costs and supply here.

Yeah, and so was I, but you didn't actually read what I said:

Coal liquefaction is not an alternative... Nat gas + coal => oil. Net energy is lost, and the feedstock of natural gas is way more expensive than oil.

The price of nat. gas is intrinsically tied to oil, as oil costs go up, so does natural gas. So while it is physically possible to convert coal to oil, the energy involved comes primarily from natural gas. It's a receding cost horizon: oil goes up, nat gas goes up, not economical. This is the same reason oil shale has been a lead ballon for 100 years.

[joe]

Rifleman,
Just retreat. Kes is infallible.

[Rifleman]

kestrel wrote: What are you talking about? The uncertainty is in the availability of imports, worldwide, for importing countries. The world supply of exports is tight and uncertain (i.e. the import market for the US). The demand is huge. The price is therefor high. There is no uncertainty in the demand. Because nobody has an alternative to oil.

Not all of the oil supply is uncertain, Canada's oil sands, for instance. Since the price of oil is high, some reserves which are harder to extract become economical to do so. with the high price of oil, there is already a reason to lower demand, unless the economic benefit of a critical need exceeds the cost. Otherwise, severe economic damage is going to result, and is not necessarily going to just impact one particular area. hat is the point.

kestrel wrote: When are you going to learn that I am talking about supply? This is a supply side issue. Not a demand side issue. There is absolutely nothing the US will do to affect the price of fuel. Demand will drop under price pressure but there is nothing that congress will do, democratic or republican that will lower US demand enough to make a price impact. Congress will never ask businesses for a 4 day workweek, or lower the speed limit, or do anything to practically lower demand.

You insist stating problems on a simplistic level. The US IS a significant slice of world demand, but that slice is declining as a proportion of world demand, and we will soon be surpassed. While increasing US production of oil would be less significant, reducing US demand is also becoming insignificant to the system. No one solution is going to solve the problem. We need a systematic solution, one that could have been in place for at least 25 years, yet has been sabotaged, and is still being sabotaged by Democrats. The US needs to increase production, by opening up all known oil fields, especially oil shale, ANWR, and offshore. Certainly the Cubans and the Chinese aren't wringing their hands over "peak oil" and talks of "Doom", they are increasing production and developing oil fields all over the world, including off OUR coast. In addition, US coal reserves, some of the largest and most clean on Earth, need to be used to substitute for oil and natural gas whenever possible. It's not going to take 10 years to open a coal fire power plant, and the Natural Gas can be used elsewhere. Conservation and Democrat rationing schemes are enough, and ethanol mandates has increased the problem. Nuclear power can substitute for both coal and natural gas. Personally, I think hydrogen is a dead end and hybrids don't save enough and is really an olod technology. Solar and wind power are not economical nor practical alternatives either, but where they are, they should be used. I would like to see homeowner owned, solar and wind energy supplemental sources, but I don't see the government encouraging that because were it to happen, the government wouldn't have control. Anyway, considering the low benefit of hybrids, verses conventional powered vehicles, it won't make a big enough difference to warrent a change as fuel goes even higher. At some point, when gasoline price hits a critical mass, the Democrats are going to relent anyway, since it will have gotten out of hand, as it almost did with Jimmy Carter. By that time, the US economy will have already suffered serious damage and even more time will have been wasted.

kestrel wrote: The price of nat. gas is intrinsically tied to oil, as oil costs go up, so does natural gas. So while it is physically possible to convert coal to oil, the energy involved comes primarily from natural gas. It's a receding cost horizon: oil goes up, nat gas goes up, not economical. This is the same reason oil shale has been a lead ballon for 100 years.

That's the point! OCs drilling will increase Natural Gas supplies as well, making the US self sufficient in NG. The Barnett shale, being exploited here aroung the DFW area, has helped, but is insufficient. Yes, with a "static" situation, anything is out of the question. The technology isn't static and neither are the known reserves, only the Dmeocratic party agenda is static, and it will do us in, if allowed to continue. As I have shown, the Dem taling points about polution are misleading and false, and result in more pollution not less.

[David]

All lose with Democrats’ anti-power play
By Michael Graham | Thursday, June 19, 2008 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Op-Ed

Oil: the most powerful substance in the world. It heats our homes, powers our cars and turns our smartest citizens into blithering idiots.

Please tell me I wasn’t the only person shaking my head in open-mouthed astonishment as Democrats in Congress literally screamed their objections to offshore drilling.

Guys, I don’t know if your limo drivers have mentioned this to you, but we’re paying more than $4 a gallon for gas right now. Heating oil is nudging up toward $5 this fall. And thanks to a huge jump in natural gas prices, some Bay State businesses will see their electric bills go up 40 percent.

And you think drilling is a bad thing?

Someone ask Professor Al Gore if one of the side effects of global warming is sudden loss of brain function. Because the left’s attitude about energy borders on unhinged.

Take, for example, Sen. Barack Obama. Smart guy, Harvard Law Review, but when you mention “oil,” his brains fall out.

It is Obama’s position that “we can’t drill our way out of this problem.” This is the intellectual equivalent of saying “you can’t eat your way out of your hunger problem.”

Making more oil is the only rational solution to the problem of not having enough. Just ask Mexico, whose oil production is up 64 percent since 1980. Or, for that matter Canada (up 85 percent), China (up 100 percent) or India (oil production up 375 percent)!

But not in America. Since the oil crisis of the early 1980s, our oil production is down by 22 percent. And the Democrats’ solution? Stop new drilling, massive new tax increases on oil companies and spending $150 billion in tax-funded research into Obama’s preferred energy sources, magic pixie dust and unicorn hair.

There’s a similar strategy from Democrats in Massachusetts. As John Regan of the Associated Industries of Massachusetts wrote here yesterday, we pay the highest average retail prices for electricity in the continental U.S. Now, higher natural gas prices are driving electricity prices for businesses even higher, killing jobs and hurting our economy.

Gov. Deval Patrick’s solution? To sign Massachusetts onto a regional global warming boondoggle that will add an estimated $100 million to our electric bills.

Democrats, could you propose one idea that doesn’t make the problem worse?

Instead, they’ve turned us all into orphans - oil-starved Oliver Twists, begging for just a little relief:

“More, sir? More oil please?”

“Bah!” say the Democrats.

“Then nuclear, sir? Could we build more nuclear power?”

“Never!” they cry.

“Then please, could we have a wind farm off Nantucket?”

“What? And ruin the view of all those rich people?”

Why do Democrats shoot down every solution to high energy prices? Because they don’t believe your $4 gas is a problem. They think you are.

As Obama told CNBC, drilling for oil won’t solve the real problem of greedy Americans who’ve “been consuming energy as if it’s infinite.” That’s why he actually supports higher gas prices, but - being a man of the people - says he “would have preferred a gradual adjustment.”

So the only problem with $4 gas is that it shouldn’t have happened until next year? I wonder how many Massachusetts moms and dads, struggling to buy groceries and fill the tank, feel the same way?

One last question: If Democrats oppose drilling today because it will take 10 years for our new oil to hit the market, doesn’t that mean their opposition to drilling 10 years ago was a mistake?

And isn’t the definition of insanity “doing the same thing, but expecting a different result?”
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opi...icleid=1101705

[Irish flu]

Originally Posted by Rafael

That's it? Cut back? And you call yourselves progressive! You've never met a progress that you liked.

Cut back is the short plan. The long plan is to use our remaining fossil fuels to develop a network using solar and wind that could sustain itself -- heat collecting solar is way cheaper than photovoltaics. And have you heard of the solar chimney idea? Would work well in winter also.

http://alt-e.blogspot.com/2004/08/solar-chimney.html

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ear...es/s381152.htm

[Irish flu]

Originally Posted by David

What a bad joke. They don't have any answers. None. Tax oil companies to a greater degree. How will that lower prices or create energy independence? Subsidize alternatives? Tried that with Jimmah. Alternative sources will come to the fore if government gets out of the way. Offers tax incentives. CAFE standards? Already occurring with market reaction to higher gas prices.

Fact remains, they like this situation. The whackos desire a neo luddite existence for all of us. Those on the lower rung of the economic ladder will get clobbered. Little chance of economic mobility. But, if you notice, vast majority of people pushing these changes are upper middle class white folks who worship at the alter of Greenpeace and Rachel Carson.

I am sure glad our ancestors in this country didn't hold these attitudes. US is a can do nation. We will again.

Turn that inquisitor's gaze back around big guy. Recoverable oil is running out -- count on it. Offshore oil in the US is a fraction of worldwide reserves and would probably be sold to the highest bidder anyway. ANWR would provide 3 months of worldwide usage -- and that's at today's rates, to say nothing of the rates of usage as car ownership goes up in China and India.

The challenge is to learn how to be prosperous with dramatically less energy. It's coming whether we like it or not. Nothing we come up with will be anywhere near as cheap as petroleum. Usage will go down by necessity.

[Irish flu]

Originally Posted by kestrel

It's time to give up the ghost.

This time I believe republicans are right for the wrong reasons. The general public, not very well informed, thinks that gas prices are going to go down if we tap these sources. They are deluded.

However, since I firmly believe that global oil supply will be in constrained even more within 1-3 years, we as an importing nation need to have some fallback in place. If we start now, at the most optimistic estimate we could see a bump in domestic supply by 2013-2015, well after peak oil but it could be just enough to make a difference if our imports start to fall off a cliff.


I can tell you right now exactly what opening up ANWR and offshore drilling will due to gas prices: absolutely nothing. The timeframe is too long for too little oil.

Exactly right but I don't imagine too many here are going to go along with you on this one.

Just out: Iraq to sign no-bid contracts with US oil companies.

What? I didn't think we were there for the oil . . . .

[David]

Wash Post

McCain's Oil Epiphany

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 20, 2008; A19

Gas is $4 a gallon. Oil is $135 a barrel and rising. We import two-thirds of our oil, sending hundreds of billions of dollars to the likes of Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. And yet we voluntarily prohibit ourselves from even exploring huge domestic reserves of petroleum and natural gas.

At a time when U.S. crude oil production has fallen 40 percent in the past 25 years, 75 billion barrels of oil have been declared off-limits, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That would be enough to replace every barrel of non-North American imports (oil trade with Canada and Mexico is a net economic and national security plus) for 22 years.

That's nearly a quarter-century of energy independence. The situation is absurd. To which John McCain is responding with a partial fix: Lift the federal ban on Outer Continental Shelf drilling, where a fifth of the off-limits stuff lies.

This is a change for McCain, but circumstances have changed. When the moratorium was imposed in 1982, gasoline was $1.20 and oil was $30 a barrel. Since the moratorium was instituted, we've had two wars in the Middle East, and in between a decade of garrisoning troops in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE to preserve the peace and keep untold oil riches out of the hands of the most malevolent of our enemies.

Technological conditions have changed as well. We now are able to drill with far more precision and environmental care than a quarter-century ago. We have thousands of rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, yet not even hurricanes Katrina and Rita resulted in spills of any significance.

McCain's problem is that he's only able to go halfway on energy production because he has locked himself into opposition to the other obvious source of domestic oil -- the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

His fastidiousness on this is inexplicable. "I believe that ANWR is a pristine area," he explains. Is it more pristine than the ocean, where he now wants to drill? More pristine than the Arabian Desert from which we daily beg the Saudi princes to pump more oil?

The entire Arctic refuge is one-third the size of the United Kingdom (which includes Scotland and Wales). The drilling site would be one-seventh the size of Manhattan Island. The footprint is tiny. Moreover, forbidding drilling there does not prevent despoliation. It merely exports it. The crude oil we're not getting from the Arctic we import instead from places like the Niger Delta, where millions live and where the resulting pollution and oil spillages poison the lives of many of the world's most wretchedly poor.

Our environmental imperialism does not just redistribute pollution to people who can least afford it. It generally increases the total overall damage because oil extraction in the wealthier and more technologically advanced United States is far more environmentally sensitive.

McCain's unwillingness to include ANWR lacks even political logic. His policy on offshore drilling is a flip-flop from his past positions. Perfectly justified, but a reconsideration nonetheless. If you are going to take the hit for flip-flopping and for offending environmentalists, why go halfway?

The oil crisis handed McCain an unexpected and singularly effective campaign issue. A majority of Americans now favor drilling in the Arctic and offshore. Democrats stand in the way of increased production, just as they did 13 years ago when President Bill Clinton vetoed drilling in ANWR. Domestic oil production would be about 20 percent higher today if the Republican Congress had been allowed to prevail.

As expected and right on cue, Barack Obama reflexively attacked McCain. "His decision to completely change his position" to one that would please the oil industry is "the same Washington politics that has prevented us from achieving energy independence for decades." One can only marvel at Obama's audacity in characterizing McCain's proposal to change our policy as "old politics," while the candidate of "change" adheres rigidly to the no-drilling status quo.

McCain is a lot of things, but the man who opposed ethanol in Iowa -- as Obama shamelessly endorsed the most abysmally stupid of our energy policies -- is no patsy of the energy producers. Americans know that increased production is needed to complement reduced consumption as the only way to get us out from oil shocks, high prices and national security blackmail.

Alas, McCain's proposed reform is only partial. Still better than Obama, however, who refuses to deviate from liberal orthodoxy. But that is the story of his campaign, is it not?

SOURCE

[David]

All libs offer is why we can't. Good thing they weren't there to tell the oil companies to quit the exploration after 70 dry holes were drilled in the North Sea. Always doom and gloom. Plenty of experts disagree. Won't know unless we try.

What we do know is the libs have NO answers. None. In fact, they are a big part of the problem.

Congressman Weldon nails it.

orlandosentinel.com/services/newspaper/printedition/thursday/opinion/orl-weldon1908jun19,0,1852307.story
OrlandoSentinel.com

Rep. Weldon: Drill here, drill safely, drill now

U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon

Special To The Sentinel

June 19, 2008

When I was first elected 14 years ago, one of the many issues I began to work on was the critical issue of energy supply. America's economy was growing, and with it the demand for fuel.

Also, nations such as China and India were throwing off the shackles of socialism. As they prospered, global demand for fuel rose even more. Today, with $4-a-gallon gas, American families and businesses are suffering while Middle Eastern dictators get richer.

Some will try to tell you this was inevitable, and the days of cheap oil were going to end sooner or later. Don't believe them. We still have a lot of oil and natural gas here in America. If the American people can rise up and silence the anti-energy Chicken Littles in Congress, we can get off our dependence on foreign energy.

One of the things that frustrates me most in Congress is that those who do the most to reduce supply often voice the greatest outrage about high prices. Congress has placed bans on three important areas of exploration that should be lifted immediately. They are:

* Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: It is estimated that there is so much oil in ANWR that it would expand our known reserves by 50 percent, which is equal to 30 years' worth of imports from Hugo Ch�vez. And the drilling footprint required is small. If ANWR were the size of a basketball court, the drilling site would be no bigger than a business card.

Ten years ago, Congress passed just such a bill but President Bill Clinton vetoed it. Today, we have a president willing to sign such a provision but a Congress unwilling to bring up the bill.

* Drilling: The next thing we need to do is lift the ban on exploration off our coasts, where right now 85 percent is off-limits and where lies enough oil to fuel 60 million cars in the United States for 60 years and enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years. Rigs can be placed over the horizon, where we can't see them. Katrina plowed through a large area of oil and gas rigs on the Gulf Coast without a major spill. The oil companies today know how to do it safely.

I know there are many Floridians opposed to this idea, but China and Cuba are already talking about this. Castro is working with the Chinese to begin oil exploration off the coast of Cuba. Drilling technology allows the drills to go sideways under the ground. So, we effectively would be allowing our oil to be sucked away by Castro and sent to China.

* Oil shale: The U.S is the Saudi Arabia of oil shale. To put this in perspective, the world has used 1 trillion barrels of oil since that first rig in Pennsylvania in 1859. America is endowed with more than 2 trillion barrels of oil in its shale. But of the 700 million acres of federally owned land, only 6 percent is being leased for any exploration, and in 2007 the Democratic majority, for environmental reasons, attached a rider on an appropriations bill that placed this huge domestic resource off-limits. Estonia -- a country half the size of Maine -- produces vastly more oil shale than we do.

We also need to start building nuclear-power facilities to augment our coal and natural gas plants. We can do it safely, freeing up oil for our cars and businesses instead of using it to generate electricity.

Yes, we need conservation and development of geothermal, solar and wind sources. But these sources currently supply only 7 percent of our power needs. Ignoring the supply side of this crisis is a dangerous gamble with America's future. It's time to tell Congress: Drill here, drill safely, drill now.




U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon represents Florida's 15th Congressional District.

[David]

Dallas MN
SOURCE

Editorial: Yes, drill - but research, too

12:00 AM CDT on Friday, June 20, 2008

President Bush now calls on Congress to expand offshore oil drilling. John McCain, who used to oppose it, flip-flopped to support the president. Good for both of them. Come on in, Barack Obama, the flip-flopping is fine. Four-dollar-a-gallon gas has a way of focusing the mind.

In fact, we'd go both candidates one better: It's time to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling – if opening the refuge is coupled with, as we've suggested before, measures to systematically promote conservation, efficiency and alternative fuels.

But let's be clear: Opening the new reserves alone would solve nothing. At current rates of consumption, estimated reserves would cover only about four years of U.S. oil needs.

What new drilling buys us is time – time to go all-out in trying to find alternatives to crude oil. At present, there isn't a viable replacement for oil – and none on the horizon. The economic and national security imperative to find replacements is stark and urgent.

That's why any new oil drilling must be accompanied by a powerful and sustained federal commitment to researching and developing alternative energy. It's here that Mr. Obama's proposals exceed Mr. McCain's. In the current issue of The American Interest, Johns Hopkins professor Charles Doran says government energy R&D funding has been astonishingly miserly and short sighted over the past few decades. It's now one-fifth what it was in 1979, in the last energy crisis.

Corporate and university R&D programs depend on a steady government commitment to succeed, Dr. Doran contends: "Only a high level of funding will enable all research facilities to expand in a systematic and committed fashion so as to get serious results."

Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain have good ideas, but neither sees the whole picture. According to a Reuters/Zogby poll released Wednesday, 60 percent of those surveyed favor more domestic drilling – and an equal number favor conservation measures. Americans know this crisis requires a comprehensive government response. They need a leader who does, too.