Faster, Washington! Drill, drill!

[DarrinS]

A Denver Post op-ed piece.

----------------------------------------


Faster, Washington! Drill, drill!

By David Harsanyi
Article Last Updated: 07/17/2008 10:55:43 PM MDT


One day Americans are moaning about the harmful impact of cheap oil and the next they're grousing about the harmful impact of expensive oil.

Which one is it?

As a disreputable sort, I freely confess to having a fondness for oil. Actually, I have a mild crush on all carbon-emitting fuels that feed our prosperity. But I'm especially fond of cheap oil. For many years, those who spread apocalyptic global-warming scenarios have warned me that a collective national sacrifice was needed to save the world.

One option, we were told, was to make gas artificially expensive, forcing our ignorant, energy-gobbling neighbors to alter their destructive habits.

Well, here we are. At $4 a gallon for gas, we already have a flailing economy. Isn't it glorious? And isn't it exactly what many environmentalists desired?

The problem is that there is no feasible "alternative" fuel that can haul food from farms to cities, produce affordable electricity for your plasma TV and drive your kids to school. Not yet. It can happen, of course, but only (to pinch a word from enlightened grocery shoppers) organically.

The problem is that when "green" fantasies crash onto the shores of economic reality (as they did with corn-based ethanol), we all suffer.

Don't worry, though, congressional Democrats have a bold plan. Hold on for 10 or 15 years and they'll have a bounty of energy options. They promise. But no oil shale. No clean coal. No nuclear power. And definitely no more oil.

They will not enable your revolting, inefficient lifestyle. In the short-term, offshore drilling, especially, is a pie-in-the-sky fairy tale. Unlike, say, pond scum and hydrogen fuel packs.

On the bright side, it seems that reality is beginning to overtake fantasy. This week, Newt Gingrich's American Solutions for Winning the Future group delivered 1.3 million signatures to Congress, demanding that Washington allow more drilling. A recent Zogby International polls shows 74 percent of likely voters support offshore drilling in U.S. coastal waters, and 59 percent favor drilling for oil in the tundra of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

There are few issues in America that offer this kind of impressive "unity." But apparently when unity doesn't align with left-wing orthodoxy, we need more "leadership" to explain why we're wrong.

Presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama called offshore drilling a "gimmick." According to other Democrats, prices would not be affected for five years and oil companies probably would not use the leases anyway.

If oil giants won't dig, it surely can't hurt to allow leasing. Who knows? They may.

As for waiting? Well, rest assured an increase in domestic oil supply will involve a lot less waiting than the emergence of switchgrass as a viable alternative.

More importantly, oil is a traded commodity and, as everyone knows, the price can fluctuate for a number of reasons beyond supply.

Take President Bush's ceremonial lifting of the moratorium on offshore drilling this week. By happenstance, I guess, within the next three days the price of oil per barrel had fallen more than $15 — the largest such drop in five years.

So why can't Americans look forward to more domestic oil? Well, because carbon is bad for you. Because countless Democrats believe that high prices will help wean us off this terrible addiction.

For many, environmental concerns outweigh the economic well-being of citizens. For some, the migratory paths of caribou trump your selfish habit of heating and cooling your home.

No, drilling isn't "the answer." Yet, the potential positives from increasing domestic supply outweigh any concerns of the opposition. Certainly any they can talk about in public.

[ElNono]

A Denver Post op-ed piece.

----------------------------------------


Faster, Washington! Drill, drill!

By David Harsanyi
Article Last Updated: 07/17/2008 10:55:43 PM MDT


One day Americans are moaning about the harmful impact of cheap oil and the next they're grousing about the harmful impact of expensive oil.

Which one is it?

As a disreputable sort, I freely confess to having a fondness for oil. Actually, I have a mild crush on all carbon-emitting fuels that feed our prosperity. But I'm especially fond of cheap oil. For many years, those who spread apocalyptic global-warming scenarios have warned me that a collective national sacrifice was needed to save the world.

One option, we were told, was to make gas artificially expensive, forcing our ignorant, energy-gobbling neighbors to alter their destructive habits.

Well, here we are. At $4 a gallon for gas, we already have a flailing economy. Isn't it glorious? And isn't it exactly what many environmentalists desired?

The problem is that there is no feasible "alternative" fuel that can haul food from farms to cities, produce affordable electricity for your plasma TV and drive your kids to school. Not yet. It can happen, of course, but only (to pinch a word from enlightened grocery shoppers) organically.

The problem is that when "green" fantasies crash onto the shores of economic reality (as they did with corn-based ethanol), we all suffer.

Don't worry, though, congressional Democrats have a bold plan. Hold on for 10 or 15 years and they'll have a bounty of energy options. They promise. But no oil shale. No clean coal. No nuclear power. And definitely no more oil.

They will not enable your revolting, inefficient lifestyle. In the short-term, offshore drilling, especially, is a pie-in-the-sky fairy tale. Unlike, say, pond scum and hydrogen fuel packs.

On the bright side, it seems that reality is beginning to overtake fantasy. This week, Newt Gingrich's American Solutions for Winning the Future group delivered 1.3 million signatures to Congress, demanding that Washington allow more drilling. A recent Zogby International polls shows 74 percent of likely voters support offshore drilling in U.S. coastal waters, and 59 percent favor drilling for oil in the tundra of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

There are few issues in America that offer this kind of impressive "unity." But apparently when unity doesn't align with left-wing orthodoxy, we need more "leadership" to explain why we're wrong.

Presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama called offshore drilling a "gimmick." According to other Democrats, prices would not be affected for five years and oil companies probably would not use the leases anyway.

If oil giants won't dig, it surely can't hurt to allow leasing. Who knows? They may.

As for waiting? Well, rest assured an increase in domestic oil supply will involve a lot less waiting than the emergence of switchgrass as a viable alternative.

More importantly, oil is a traded commodity and, as everyone knows, the price can fluctuate for a number of reasons beyond supply.

Take President Bush's ceremonial lifting of the moratorium on offshore drilling this week. By happenstance, I guess, within the next three days the price of oil per barrel had fallen more than $15 — the largest such drop in five years.

So why can't Americans look forward to more domestic oil? Well, because carbon is bad for you. Because countless Democrats believe that high prices will help wean us off this terrible addiction.

For many, environmental concerns outweigh the economic well-being of citizens. For some, the migratory paths of caribou trump your selfish habit of heating and cooling your home.

No, drilling isn't "the answer." Yet, the potential positives from increasing domestic supply outweigh any concerns of the opposition. Certainly any they can talk about in public.

He fails to mention that Oil Co's are the ones not drilling, not Congress. States have actually been leasing out land for them to drill, they're just not doing it.

[DarrinS]

He fails to mention that Oil Co's are the ones not drilling, not Congress. States have actually been leasing out land for them to drill, they're just not doing it.


Then why did Bush have to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling?

[boutons_]

"high prices will help wean us off this terrible addiction"

High prices through fuel/heating taxes has worked, for 10+ years, to reduce demand and increase conservation in other industrial countries. Low prices in USA means 2% of the world's population consumes, wastefully, 24% of the oil.

Without high oil prices, US on/off shore drilling wouldn't be justifiable. Explains why the US oilcos have not explored/drilled in the 38M acres of leases when prices were low.

The only and still-secret Repug/neo-c*nt National Energy Policy was invade Iraq for cheap(er than US) oil.

OBL gave the Repugs a smoke screen for their GWOT/Iraq lies.

[boutons_]

"why did Bush have to lift the moratorium"

US oilcos control the US govt. dubya and dickhead are oil-whores employed to enrich the oilcos. Lifting the ban means only that the govt control of OCS is now given to the oilcos, nothing more. One of dubya's probably several parting gifts to the corps.

[DarrinS]

"high prices will help wean us off this terrible addiction"

High prices through fuel/heating taxes has worked, for 10+ years, to reduce demand and increase conservation in other industrial countries. Low prices in USA means 2% of the world's population consumes, wastefully, 24% of the oil.

Without high oil prices, US on/off shore drilling wouldn't be justifiable. Explains why the US oilcos have not explored/drilled in the 38M acres of leases when prices were low.

The only and still-secret Repug/neo-c*nt National Energy Policy was invade Iraq for cheap(er than US) oil.

OBL gave the Repugs a smoke screen for their GWOT/Iraq lies.


Hey dumbfuck, the two countries that supply the US with the most oil are Canada and Mexico (in that order).

[DarrinS]

"why did Bush have to lift the moratorium"

US oilcos control the US govt. dubya and dickhead are oil-whores employed to enrich the oilcos. Lifting the ban means only that the govt control of OCS is now given to the oilcos, nothing more. One of dubya's probably several parting gifts to the corps.


My name is boutons, and I approve this message.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/PostImages/200709/TinFoil_DB52B2F1-0E7F-A983-F0F9D799A20B06C8.jpg

[clambake]

Hey dumbfuck, the two countries that supply the US with the most oil are Canada and Mexico (in that order).

it's not about supplying the US.

are there any US oil cos in iraq? :bang

[ElNono]

Then why did Bush have to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling?

Because the value of an Oil Co is not based solely on the amount of Oil they pump. It's also based on the amount of places they have rights to explore. That's why none of these companies can be bothered to wait until Iraq is stabilized to jump in there. Once they're guaranteed rights to a parcel of land in the area, even before they find or pump a drop of oil, their value as a company goes up. Right now they're sitting on million of acres of land that have not ever seen drilling. And they're going to keep hoarding for as much land as we're willing to give them.

[ElNono]

it's not about supplying the US.

are there any US oil cos in iraq? :bang

Yes there is. Exxon was in the process of acquiring a parcel of land there (if they didn't already done so). We had a thread not long ago talking about that.

[DarrinS]

Just a coincidence that Bush lifts the moratorium on offshore drilling and the next day oil drops by $15-16 dollars a barrel?

[clambake]

Yes there is. Exxon was in the process of acquiring a parcel of land there (if they didn't already done so). We had a thread not long ago talking about that.

you missed the message of my post.

[clambake]

Just a coincidence that Bush lifts the moratorium on offshore drilling and the next day oil drops by $15-16 dollars a barrel?

yeah, without one drop of oil. i don't think you understand the objective of this game.

[ElNono]

Just a coincidence that Bush lifts the moratorium on offshore drilling and the next day oil drops by $15-16 dollars a barrel?

Exactly. You play nice for the Oil Co's, they play nice with you.

[boutons_]

"Just a coincidence"

the consensus was that Bernanke's doom and gloom Congressional testimony showed the world that the US economy will be on the downslide well into 2009, and probably 2010, depressing demand for oil. Anyione with a few neurons knows that the ban has nothing to do with current oil price movements, and will not affect gas prices in under 10 years, if ever.

DS, aka, "It's The Economy, Stupid"

[Anti.Hero]

I watched an hour of C-Span at 1 am this morning. Those idiot dems can't get over Bush and have absolutely no real reason why we can't open up ANWR.


Oh wells, at least the roads and boat ramps are less crowded!

[Nbadan]

yeah, without one drop of oil. i don't think you understand the objective of this game.

Thought you might find this 'amusing'

Ever since the President's Global War on Terror revved up and Iraq was invaded, Hunt Refining has quietly reaped major rewards. In addition to its Pentagon connections, Hunt Refining, too, has tight ties to President Bush.

by Nick Turse
(Tom Dispatch)


For years, "oil" and "Iraq" couldn't make it into the same sentence in mainstream coverage of the invasion and occupation of that country. Recently, that's begun to change, but "oil" and "the Pentagon" still seldom make the news together.

Last year, for instance, according to Department of Defense (DoD) documents, the Pentagon paid more than $70 million to Hunt Refining, an oil company whose corporate affiliate, Hunt Oil, undermined U.S. policy in Iraq. Not that anyone would know it. While the hunt for oil in Iraq is now being increasingly well covered in the mainstream, the Pentagon's hunt for oil remains a subject missing in action. Despite the staggering levels at which the Pentagon guzzles fuel, it's a chronic blind spot in media energy coverage.

Let's consider the Hunt Oil story in a little more detail, since it offers a striking example of the larger problem. On July 3, 2008, according to the New York Times, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found that Hunt Oil had pursued "an oil deal with the regional Kurdistan government that ran counter to American policy and undercut Iraq's central government." Despite its officially stated policy of warning companies like Hunt Oil "that they incur risks in signing contracts until Iraq passes an oil law," the State Department in some cases actually encouraged a deal between the "Texas oil company with close ties to President Bush" and Kurdistan that "undercut" Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government in Baghdad.

Asked if the White House was aware of Hunt Oil's negotiations with Kurdistan's largely autonomous regional government, President Bush's press secretary Dana Perino replied, "I don't know of anybody who was aware of it."

It turns out that wasn't exactly the truth of the matter. The Times noted that the company's chief executive, "Ray L. Hunt, a close political ally of President Bush, briefed on his contacts with Kurdish officials before the deal was signed." In fact, in a July 2nd letter, Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: "Documents obtained by the Committee indicate that contrary to the denials of Administration officials, advisors to the President and officials in the State and Commerce Departments knew about Hunt Oil's interest in the Kurdish region months before the contract was executed."

For the Times, however, the hunt for the story ended with Hunt Oil. No attention was paid to its corporate twin, Hunt Refining, with its own major financial ties to the Pentagon, the President, and the U.S. occupation forces in Iraq. This despite the fact that the company proudly promotes itself as "a significant supplier of jet fuel to the U.S. Department of Defense" in the Southeastern United States.

And why not be proud? Ever since the President's Global War on Terror revved up and Iraq was invaded, Hunt Refining has quietly reaped major rewards. While the company was a defense contractor back in the 1990s, according to DoD documents, Hunt did not receive any funds from the Pentagon in 2000 or 2001. From 2002-2004, however, the company began garnering contracts and collected an average of just over $15.5 million a year. And only then did the good times begin to roll. In the last three years, records show that Hunt has taken in increasingly larger sums of taxpayer dollars from the Pentagon -- $39.6 million in 2005, $52.2 million in 2006, and, in 2007, a whopping $70 million. (Hunt Refining did not return telephone or email messages seeking comment for this article.)

Hunt's largest 2007 Pentagon contract was for the delivery of both aviation turbine fuel and JP-8 jet fuel -- the latter a product used by the Army and Air Force that is very similar to commercial jet fuel. That deal was awarded just months before Hunt Refining and its affiliate Hunt Southland Refining agreed, according to Department of Justice documents, "to pay a $400,000 civil penalty and spend more than $48.5 million for new and upgraded pollution controls at three refineries" as part of a settlement to resolve "alleged violations of the Clean Air Act."

Linky (http://www.mathaba.net/rss/?x=598877)

[ese]

Fuck Bambi, lets drill that shit wide open.

[Nbadan]

'We are the Saudi Arabia of OIL'... :lmao


w6wiaTIjWMM


Bachmann's coffee klatch with the caribou..


http://i25.tinypic.com/qpkjk7.jpg

[DarrinS]

Fuck Bambi, lets drill that shit wide open.

These caribou in Prudoe Bay (about 60 mi east of ANWR) seem pretty distressed by the drilling going on there.

http://www.anwr.org/gallery/images/17-Caribou_no_impact.jpg

[DarrinS]

'We are the Saudi Arabia of OIL'... :lmao



The country we import the most oil from is Canada. In fact, the worlds single largest oil reserve is called the Alberta tar sands. Hmm, Canada has a lot of oil, Alaska is up there by Canada. Hmm, better not drill in Alaska, huh?


By the way, most of the ANWR coastal plain is a freakin wasteland.

Here's what most of it looks like in the summer.

http://www.anwr.org/gallery/images/48-Coastal_Plain_summer.jpg

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

"why did Bush have to lift the moratorium"

US oilcos control the US govt. dubya and dickhead are oil-whores employed to enrich the oilcos. Lifting the ban means only that the govt control of OCS is now given to the oilcos, nothing more. One of dubya's probably several parting gifts to the corps.

Does that make Pelosi and Obama even bigger oil whores, seeings their policies, should Obama be elected, will only put more money in the pockets of big oil?

Question..

[boutons_]

"There he goes again", going partisan and assuming I'm a Dem or Dem supporter.

[ElNono]

Does that make Pelosi and Obama even bigger oil whores, seeings their policies, should Obama be elected, will only put more money in the pockets of big oil?

Question..

Could you list those policies? Honest, I haven't heard about them.

[boutons_]

factcheck.org:

"Are the Democrats correct in stating that oil companies are leasing 68 million acres in the U.S. that are not being used?"

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/are_the_democrats_correct_in_stating_that.html

[jochhejaam]

Just a coincidence that Bush lifts the moratorium on offshore drilling and the next day oil drops by $15-16 dollars a barrel?



Blame Dems on gas prices
By Jack Kelly
Toledo Blade - July 19, 2008

IN THE six years between President Bush's inauguration in 2001 and the Democrats' assumption of control of Congress in 2007, the price of gasoline rose an average of 14 cents a year. Since the Democrats took over Congress, the price of gas has doubled, the inflation monster has reawakened and the recession wolf is sniffing at our door.

I know. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after, therefore because of) was the first logical fallacy they taught back when logic was taught in school. It may merely be coincidence that things went to hell in a hand basket since the Democrats took over.

Or maybe not. Here's another coincidence. On July 15, President Bush announced he was lifting the executive branch moratorium on offshore drilling. In the 24 hours that followed, crude oil futures plunged $9.26 (6.3 percent), the biggest oil price decline in 17 years.

"Traders took a look at a feisty and aggressive George Bush and started selling the market well before a new drop of oil has been lifted," said financial analyst Lawrence Kudlow. "If Congress moves to seal the deal, oil prices will probably keep on falling. That's the way traders work. They discount the future. Psychology and expectations can turn on a dime."

Oil prices fell again the next day when the Bureau of Land Management overrode the objections of environmentalists and opened 4.9 million acres of land in Alaska to oil exploration.

Oil prices are high chiefly because Democrats in Congress won't let us develop oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (10.4 billion barrels, equivalent to 37 percent of our proven reserves), on the Outer Continental Shelf (86 billion barrels, nearly four times our proven reserves), or the oil shale in the Green River Formation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (800 billion barrels, more than the proven reserves of the rest of the world).

Democrats also oppose the most promising intermediate-term alternatives to oil: coal-to-liquid plants that convert coal to gasoline and diesel fuel (one using mostly U.S. technology will open in China this fall) and nuclear power plants.

Democrats say developing the oil resources we have in this country is not a solution because it would take five to 10 years for the additional oil to come on line. This isn't true.

"A new report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if [the congressional ban on offshore drilling] were lifted," Mr. Kudlow said. "The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium. They're talking about 10 billion barrels worth off the coast of California."

But even if it were true, Democrats are being hypocritical. The primary reason they oppose developing our oil and natural gas resources and pursuing clean coal technologies (we're the Saudi Arabia of coal) is their concern for global warming.

"Coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick, it's global warming, it's ruining our country, it's ruining our world, we've got to stop using fossil fuel," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said last month.

Global warming exists only in computer models. In the real world, global temperatures peaked in 1998, have been declining for the last four years and are projected to remain flat or decline further for the next decade.

Even in the computer models, global warming doesn't pose a serious problem for at least half a century. But the "cap and trade" emission-control systems Democrats are proposing to combat it would have immediate negative effects on the economy.

A Heritage Foundation study estimated that Senate Bill 2191 would reduce the gross domestic product by at least $155 billion a year. All this to produce what the computer models say would be only a negligible reduction in carbon emissions - none at all if China and India don't go along, as they've said they won't.

So Democrats demand we cripple our economy now to deal with a threat that may not exist and which computer models indicate wouldn't manifest itself for 50 years or more, but they refuse to take action on the real economic crisis we face today - a crisis they are largely responsible for creating - because it could take five to 10 years to turn things around.

This may make sense in Hyde Park or Berkeley, but not in those portions of America where people use their heads for something other than to hold up their hair.
Jack Kelly is a member of The Blade’s national bureau.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080719/COLUMNIST14/807190326

[ElNono]

That tool of a writer fails to mention that when Iran did their missile tests, Oil spiked up again. Whose fault is that? Democrats?
This Democrat Congress has been terrible. But you can't blame them for the Oil speculation.

[jochhejaam]

That tool of a writer fails to mention that when Iran did their missile tests, Oil spiked up again. Whose fault is that? Democrats?
This Democrat Congress has been terrible. But you can't blame them for the Oil speculation.


If that statement about missle tests causing a spike was intended to debunk the thrust of his article, it failed miserably.

The sum total of calling him a tool, without refuting even 1 of his contentions, amounts to nothing more than childish name calling.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Blame Dems on gas prices
By Jack Kelly
Toledo Blade - July 19, 2008

IN THE six years between President Bush's inauguration in 2001 and the Democrats' assumption of control of Congress in 2007, the price of gasoline rose an average of 14 cents a year. Since the Democrats took over Congress, the price of gas has doubled, the inflation monster has reawakened and the recession wolf is sniffing at our door.

I know. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after, therefore because of) was the first logical fallacy they taught back when logic was taught in school. It may merely be coincidence that things went to hell in a hand basket since the Democrats took over.

Or maybe not. Here's another coincidence. On July 15, President Bush announced he was lifting the executive branch moratorium on offshore drilling. In the 24 hours that followed, crude oil futures plunged $9.26 (6.3 percent), the biggest oil price decline in 17 years.

"Traders took a look at a feisty and aggressive George Bush and started selling the market well before a new drop of oil has been lifted," said financial analyst Lawrence Kudlow. "If Congress moves to seal the deal, oil prices will probably keep on falling. That's the way traders work. They discount the future. Psychology and expectations can turn on a dime."

Oil prices fell again the next day when the Bureau of Land Management overrode the objections of environmentalists and opened 4.9 million acres of land in Alaska to oil exploration.

Oil prices are high chiefly because Democrats in Congress won't let us develop oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (10.4 billion barrels, equivalent to 37 percent of our proven reserves), on the Outer Continental Shelf (86 billion barrels, nearly four times our proven reserves), or the oil shale in the Green River Formation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (800 billion barrels, more than the proven reserves of the rest of the world).

Democrats also oppose the most promising intermediate-term alternatives to oil: coal-to-liquid plants that convert coal to gasoline and diesel fuel (one using mostly U.S. technology will open in China this fall) and nuclear power plants.

Democrats say developing the oil resources we have in this country is not a solution because it would take five to 10 years for the additional oil to come on line. This isn't true.

"A new report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if [the congressional ban on offshore drilling] were lifted," Mr. Kudlow said. "The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium. They're talking about 10 billion barrels worth off the coast of California."

But even if it were true, Democrats are being hypocritical. The primary reason they oppose developing our oil and natural gas resources and pursuing clean coal technologies (we're the Saudi Arabia of coal) is their concern for global warming.

"Coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick, it's global warming, it's ruining our country, it's ruining our world, we've got to stop using fossil fuel," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said last month.

Global warming exists only in computer models. In the real world, global temperatures peaked in 1998, have been declining for the last four years and are projected to remain flat or decline further for the next decade.

Even in the computer models, global warming doesn't pose a serious problem for at least half a century. But the "cap and trade" emission-control systems Democrats are proposing to combat it would have immediate negative effects on the economy.

A Heritage Foundation study estimated that Senate Bill 2191 would reduce the gross domestic product by at least $155 billion a year. All this to produce what the computer models say would be only a negligible reduction in carbon emissions - none at all if China and India don't go along, as they've said they won't.

So Democrats demand we cripple our economy now to deal with a threat that may not exist and which computer models indicate wouldn't manifest itself for 50 years or more, but they refuse to take action on the real economic crisis we face today - a crisis they are largely responsible for creating - because it could take five to 10 years to turn things around.

This may make sense in Hyde Park or Berkeley, but not in those portions of America where people use their heads for something other than to hold up their hair.
Jack Kelly is a member of The Blade’s national bureau.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080719/COLUMNIST14/807190326

No mention of the time when the GOP was in control of all three branches. Seems to be a little dishonest to blame the dem congress for blocking anything when the GOP was in control for a much longer time and didn't drill anywhere. I guess it was an oversight for the rightwing organization..

[ElNono]

If that statement about missle tests causing a spike was intended to debunk the thrust of his article, it failed miserably.

The sum total of calling him a tool, without refuting even 1 of his contentions, amounts to nothing more than childish name calling.

This thread already explained what most likely happened. If you didn't bother to read, it's your problem. Not to mention he diligently forgets that this wouldn't have been a problem when Republicans had full control of Congress and failed to do shit about this. So yeah, I'd say he's a political biased tool.

[jochhejaam]

No mention of the time when the GOP was in control of all three branches. Seems to be a little dishonest to blame the dem congress for blocking anything when the GOP was in control for a much longer time and didn't drill anywhere. I guess it was an oversight for the rightwing organization..

It was $2.25 when the Dems took over, a little less anxiety than at $4.08, don't you think?

April, 2008

In a 2006 press release, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed that Democrats had a common sense plan to bring down skyrocketing fuel prices. The average price for a gallon of gas when Democrats took control of congress that November was $2.25 - a price that Pelosi and other liberals claimed amounted to "price gouging". The average price of a gallon of gas today is now up to a record $3.61 (actually $4.08 July 16th), and in Speaker Pelosi's home Congressional district in the California bay area, the price tops $4 a gallon.


http://fromtheduke.blogspot.com/2008/04/gas-prices-out-of-control-and.html

[jochhejaam]

This thread already explained what most likely happened. If you didn't bother to read, it's your problem. Not to mention he diligently forgets that this wouldn't have been a problem when Republicans had full control of Congress and failed to do shit about this. So yeah, I'd say he's a political biased tool.

:lol Again, $2.25 a gallon when the Reps were in control.


And of course I read it, and he put the blame squarely on the Dems. You refuted nothing he said, but still claim he's a tool.

I don't mind you looking foolish, if you don't mind looking foolish.

[ChumpDumper]

What specifically did the Democratic congress do to make the price of oil so high?

All the drill bans were already in place long ago, and I don't remember the Republican controlled congress doing anything to lift them in all their years in power.

As Kelly said, post hoc, ergo propter hoc

[PixelPusher]

What specifically did the Democratic congress do to make the price of oil so high?

All the drill bans were already in place long ago, and I don't remember the Republican controlled congress doing anything to lift them.

As Kelly said, post hoc, ergo propter hoc

Its so obvious! The Democrats taking control of congress caused India and China to increase their demand for oil.

DUH! :lmao

[jochhejaam]

What specifically did the Democratic congress do to make the price of oil so high?
What did the democratic congress to prevent if from spiraling out of control?

What was this from Pelosi?:

Monday, April 24, 2006

Washington, D.C. – House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today...

“With record gas prices, record CEO pay packages, and record oil company profits, Speaker Hastert and the Majority Congress continue to give the American people empty rhetoric rather than join Democrats who are working to lower gas prices now.

“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”
He** of a plan <what was the plan? :lol>, don't you agree?
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/April06/Rubberstamp.html




All the drill bans were already in place long ago, and I don't remember the Republican controlled congress doing anything to lift them in all their years in power.
$2.25 a gallon vs $4.08 a gallon. Who's more at fault for sitting on their collective tushes, the congress that didn't lift the bans at $2.25, or the congress that's still doing nothing at $4.08? (hint, the do-nothings at $4.08).
Maybe Pelosi should have got with Hillary to find out how she was planning on "smashing OPEC". :lmao

[PixelPusher]

$2.25 a gallon vs $4.08 a gallon. Who's more at fault for sitting on their collective tushes, the congress that didn't lift the bans at $2.25, or the congress that's still doing nothing at $4.08? (hint, the do-nothings at $4.08).
Maybe Pelosi should have got with Hillary to find out how she was planning on "smashing OPEC". :lmao
Repeating a logical fallacy over and over again isn't winning you the argument.

[ChumpDumper]

So you don't have an answer.

Thanks!

[jochhejaam]

Repeating a logical fallacy over and over again isn't winning you the argument.

The numbers speak for themselves, making a statement such as yours surely isn't winning any talking points.

Thanks for playing though.

[ChumpDumper]

The numbers speak for themselvesWhich numbers?

Could you show me the numbers that say gas would be exactly the same price today as it was in 2006 if only the Democrats allowed drilling in places that wouldn't be developed in ten years even though the Republicans did absolutely nothing about it when they controlled every aspect of the US government?

I'll wait for that link.

Thanks in advance.

[jochhejaam]

So you don't have an answer.

Thanks!

Apparently the problem is just as much a matter of what they didn't do, that is, they didn't execute Pelosi's plan to; "bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels".

Why is it that they haven't delivered on that promise?

<misdirection coming up in 3,2,1...>

[ChumpDumper]

That wasn't what your article or your original claim was about.

Yours is the misdirection.

Are you claiming the Pelosi plan would have worked, or are you just being disingenuous again?

Don't bother, we know you are being disingenuous again.

[jochhejaam]

Which numbers?

Could you show me the numbers that say gas would be exactly the same price today as it was in 2006 if only the Democrats allowed drilling in places that wouldn't be developed in ten years even though the Republicans did absolutely nothing about it when they controlled every aspect of the US government?

I'll wait for that link.

Thanks in advance.


The numbers are what they are, $2.25 under the Reps, and $4.08 shortly after the Dems took over.

Link's already been provided.

<you're welcome>

[jochhejaam]

misdirection is how I roll


acknowledged

[ChumpDumper]

The numbers are what they are, $2.25 under the Reps, and $4.08 shortly after the Dems took over.

Link's already been provided.

<you're welcome>Nope, not the question -- but thanks for proving to be an evasive, lying twit.

You've been a great help in showing how the Republicans did absolutely nothing about lifting drilling bans when they had the chance.

[ChumpDumper]

I lie.

A lot.Acknowledged.

[ElNono]

:lol Again, $2.25 a gallon when the Reps were in control.

And of course I read it, and he put the blame squarely on the Dems. You refuted nothing he said, but still claim he's a tool.

I don't mind you looking foolish, if you don't mind looking foolish.

I meant if you read the thread. The original article that started the thread was just as stupid as yours, blaming Congress for the Oil prices. Now go back and read the responses.
In a nutshell:
1) Congress did nothing to increase the demand for oil worldwide
2) Oil Co's are not drilling in the acres they already leased. Congress have nothing to do with that.
3) This Congress has actually been trying to pass legislation preventing further land leases until Oil Co's explore the acres already leased. So it's not like the Dems are against drilling, they're just against land hoarding by Oil Co's. Interestingly enough, Republicans opposed this measure.

Again, go back and read the thread. The arguments from that political hack have been refuted already.

And BTW, correlation is not causation. You need to demonstrate the cause, otherwise you can blame anything on anybody.

[ChumpDumper]

If every inch of the US is open to drilling, how much will that lower the price of gas?

[PixelPusher]

The numbers are what they are, $2.25 under the Reps, and $4.08 shortly after the Dems took over.

Link's already been provided.

<you're welcome>

Gas was $1.10 before Reps took over congress in 1994, ergo they are to blame for the rise of gas prices since then.

<your welcome>
[/jochejaam logic]

:lol

[ElNono]

Gas prices doubled since the Spurs won their 4th title. It must be their fault. We should have let Lebron win and gas would still be $2.00...

[PixelPusher]

Gas prices doubled since the Spurs won their 4th title. It must be their fault. We should have let Lebron win and gas would still be $2.00...

The numbers are what they are.
(drops mic Chris Rock style and walks off...)

But thanks for playing though.

:lmao

[jochhejaam]

The thread's finally startin' to warm up a bit, I knew it had potential.



June 16, 2008
Top 10 reasons to blame Democrats for soaring gasoline prices
By William Tate
This started out as an attempt to create a light and humorous, Letterman-esque Top 10 list. But the items on the list, and the drain Americans are seeing in their pocketbooks because of Democrats' actions (sometimes inaction) are just too tragic for that.


10) ANWR If Bill Clinton had signed into law the Republican Congress's 1995 bill to allow drilling of ANWR instead of vetoing it, ANWR could be producing a million barrels of (non-Opec) oil a day--5% of the nation's consumption. Although speaking in another context, even Democrat Senator Charles Schumer, no proponent of ANWR drilling, admits that "one million barrels per day," would cause the price of gasoline to fall "50 cents a gallon almost immediately," according to a recent George Will column.


9) Coastal Drilling (i.e., not in my backyard) Democrats have consistently fought efforts to drill off the U.S. coast, as evidenced by Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's preotestation against a failed 2005 bill: "Not only does this legislation dismantle the bi-partisan ban on offshore drilling, but it provides a financial incentive for states to do so."
A financial incentive? With the Chinese now slant drilling for oil just 50 miles off the Florida coast, wouldn't that have been a good thing?


8) Insistence on alternative fuels One of the first acts of the new Democrat-controlled congress in 2007 was an energy bill that "calls for a huge increase in the use of ethanol as a motor fuel and requires new appliance efficiency standards." By focusing on alternative fuels such as ethanol, and not more drilling, Democrats have added to the cost of food, worsening starvation problems around the word and increasing inflationary pressures in the U.S., including prices at the pump.


7) Nuclear power Even the French, who sometimes seem to lack the backbone to stand up for anything other than soft cheese, faced down their environmentalists over the need for nuclear power. France now generates 79% of its electricity from nuclear plants, mitigating the need for imported oil. The French have so much cheap energy that France has become the world's largest exporter of electric power. They have plans in place to build more reactors, including an experimental fusion reactor.


The last nuclear reactor built in the United States, according to the US Dept of Energy, was the "River Bend" plant in Louisiana. Its construction began in March of 1977.


Need I say more?


6) Coal "The liquid hydrocarbon fuel available from American coal reserves exceeds the crude oil reserves of the entire world," writes Dr. Arthur Robinson in an article on humanevents.com. The U.S. has approximately one-fourth of the world's known, proven coal reserves. Coal would be a proven, and increasingly clean, source of electric power and--at current prices--a liquified fuel that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Yet Dems and their enviro friends have fought, and continue to fight, both coal-mining and coal plants.


5) Refinery capacity "High oil prices are still being propped up by a shortage of refinery capacity and there is little sign of the bottleneck easing until 2010," according to Peak Oil News. And, while voters in South Dakota have approved zoning for what could become the first new oil refinery in the United States in 30 years, the Dems' environmentalist constituency vows to oppose it, just like environmentalists opposed the floodgates that could have saved New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina.


4) Reduced competition With consolidation in the oil industry, has come reduced competition. Remember, most of the major oil company mergers -- Shell-Texaco, BP-Amoco, Exxon-Mobil, BP-ARCO, and Chevron-Texaco -- happened on Clinton's watch. The number of oil refiners dropped from 28 to 19 companies during Clinton's two terms.


3) The Global Warming Myth At a Group of 8 meeting this week, host and Japanese Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Akira Amari "described the issues of climate change and energy as two sides of the same coin and proposed united solutions ... to address both issues simultaneously". As a result of Global Warming hysteria, the Al Gore-negotiated Kyoto Protocol created a worldwide market in carbon-emissions trading. Both 2005 --the year that trading was initiated--and this year --when the trading expanded dramatically -- saw substantial and unexpected price spikes in the cost of oil, leading us to reason Number...


2) Speculation "Given the unchanged equilibrium in global oil supply and demand over recent months amid the explosive rise in oil futures prices ... it is more likely that as much as 60% of the today oil price is pure speculation," writes F. William Engdahl, an Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. According to a June 2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report, US energy futures historically "were traded exclusively on regulated exchanges within the United States... The trading of energy commodities by large firms on OTC electronic exchanges was exempted from (federal) oversight by a provision inserted at the behest of Enron and other large energy traders into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000." The bill was signed into law by Bill Clinton, in one of his last acts in office.


1) Defeat of President Bush's 2001 energy package According to the BBC, "Key points of Bush('s 2001) plan were to:


-Promote new oil and gas drilling


-Build new nuclear plants


-Improve electricity grid and build new pipelines -$10bn in tax breaks to promote energy efficiency and alternative fuels


A New York Times article, dated May 18, 2001, explained:
<go to link for the explanation>
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/top_10_reasons_to_blame_democr_1.html


I should think it would take some time to absorb the info presented (especially if you open the link), any quick responses will be taken worth a grain of salt (as the majority of the previous responses were :lol)

Open-mindedness is helpful, but I realize that most can't help themselves.

[jochhejaam]

Gas prices doubled since the Spurs won their 4th title. It must be their fault. We should have let Lebron win and gas would still be $2.00...


The numbers are what they are.
(drops mic Chris Rock style and walks off...)


Good Laurel and Hardy routine, and substance wise, on par with what you attempted to pass as off as serious replies. :toast

[PixelPusher]

Good Laurel and Hardy routine, and substance wise, on par with what you attempted to pass as off as serious replies. :toast

The numbers are what they are, $1.10 under the Dems, and $2.25 after the Reps took over.

:toast

[jochhejaam]

The numbers are what they are, $1.10 under the Dems, and $2.25 after the Reps took over.

:toast



(ignorance is bliss)


And $4.08 now, shortly after the Dems promised to do something about the higher prices. :toast

[ChumpDumper]

So you wanted the Democrats to do something about higher gas priced and claim their plan would have worked.

You're pretty stupid.

[PixelPusher]

(ignorance is bliss)


And $4.08 now, shortly after the Dems promised to do something about the higher prices. :toast
Ah, so you agree the Republicans are responsible for the rise of gas prices since 1994? I mean, it's all there in the numbers...

(logical fallacy is sanctuary)

[PixelPusher]

So you wanted the Democrats to do something about higher gas priced and claim their plan would have worked.

You're pretty stupid.

Sure. They have that secret magic wand Bush keeps rambling on about.

[jochhejaam]

So you wanted the Democrats to do something about higher gas priced and claim their plan would have worked.

You're pretty stupid.

I never claimed it would work <other than perhaps with sarcasm because she/they didn't come throuhg on their grandiose promises>, obviously whatever they had in mind failed miserably.

RIF (unless your stupid)

[ElNono]

I'll give you another cause, that the current Fed chairmain acknowledged in his last economic report, and we already discussed in another thread:
The depreciation of the dollar under this administration. Thanks to the billions we spend monthly in the stupid Iraq war. Interesting it didn't make your top 10 list, considering it has had more direct impact than all that global warming nonsense that made it on the list.

[ChumpDumper]

I never claimed it would work <other than perhaps with sarcasm because she/they didn't come throuhg on their grandiose promises>, obviously whatever they had in mind failed miserably.

RIF (unless your stupid)Oh, so you never believed anything you said and you were just wasting everyone's time with your stupid lies.

Thanks for nothing.

[ElNono]

I'll give one more cause for rising oil prices that have nothing to do with Congress. Requests for drilling permits have gone down in the last few years. Oil Co's are still sitting on acres of land that are producing absolutely nothing. Some of them haven't even been explored yet.

What you make of that? What does Congress has to do with that?

You keep posting political propaganda but actually don't refute anything we counter with. I can just as easily go to some Dems blogs and start posting political garbage like you do.

Do you actually have anything to say, or you just going to keep on moving on to the next blog when your arguments are shown to be weak sauce?

[PixelPusher]

I'll give you another cause, that the current Fed chairmain acknowledged in his last economic report, and we already discussed in another thread:
The depreciation of the dollar under this administration. Thanks to the billions we spend monthly in the stupid Iraq war. Interesting it didn't make your top 10 list, considering it has had more direct impact than all that global warming nonsense that made it on the list.

Because I was open-minded enough to read jochhejaam's link, I learned that


Even the French, who sometimes seem to lack the backbone to stand up for anything other than soft cheese

I look forward to jochhejaam posting more of these intellectually rich insights from this, uh, "American Thinker" in the future.

[jochhejaam]

The numbers are what they are, $1.10 under the Dems, and $2.25 after the Reps took over.

:toast
Let's see, from January 1994, when the Reps took over, gas rose roughly $1.25, or about 10 cents per year.
From January of 2006, when the Dems congress took over, gas rose roughly $1.85 per gallon, or about 70 cents per year.
That's a 7 fold increase per year, and you believe that's a point in favor of the Dems? :lmao

That's great Pixey, keep 'em comin'. :lol

[jochhejaam]

Oh, so you never believed anything you said and you were just wasting everyone's time with your stupid lies.

Thanks for nothing.

Nope, never said it, you're too comprehensively challenged to figure that out, that's on you.



How many of the 10 points did you refute? None? Okay that's an F grade, but on your behalf, in light of the fact that I didn't lie at all, you get an A+ grade for senseless name callling (not that it's anything to brag about, but I didn't want you to leave the thread empty handed). :lol

[PixelPusher]

Let's see, from January 1994, when the Reps took over, gas rose roughly $1.25, or about 10 cents per year.
From January of 2006, when the Dems congress took over, gas rose roughly $1.85 per gallon, or about 70 cents per year.
That's a 7 fold increase per year, and you believe that's a point in favor of the Dems? :lmao

That's great Pixey, keep 'em comin'. :lol

:wow Wow, what a spectacularly epic fail on your part. There is no "point in favor" of either party, because I never accepted your logical fallacy regarding Congress's magical power to control gas prices. I wasn't trying to co-opt your argument, I was mocking it.

[ChumpDumper]

Nope, never said it, you're too comprehensively challenged to figure that out, that's on you.



How many of the 10 points did you refute? None? Okay that's an F grade, but on your behalf, in light of the fact that I didn't lie at all, you get an A+ grade for senseless name callling (not that it's anything to brag about, but I didn't want you to leave the thread empty handed). :lolThanks for never answering any of my questions and simply lying about everything you said before.

I can't think of a stupider poster right now, and that's saying something.

Please get back to us when you can say how much unlimited drilling in the US would decrease the price of gas. Otherwise, go fuck yourself.

[jochhejaam]

go fuck yourself.

:lmao Good luck getting those panties unwadded. :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao Good luck making a salient point someday. :lmao

[PixelPusher]

Here's a partisan, ad hominem laced left-wing blog screed I found to explain the rise in prices.


http://wallstreetpit.com/with-global-demand-rising-oil-production-remains-flat/ (psyche!!!!) :lol

With Global Demand Rising, Oil Production Remains Flat

By Ron Haruni · June 28, 2008

Economics clearly support the notion that in a functioning market economy, increases in revenue are likely to lead to investment in the industry, expansion of supply, and ultimately moderating prices for consumers in the longer term. If this self-correcting process is not working, as seems to be the case with oil lately, then - this could be a rather strong indication, that factors other than profit and investment incentives are at work. This unavoidably, as we have experienced with crude, will result in additional long term increases in price and profit for the industry.

The international conference of oil producers, which was held in Jeddah , Saudi Arabia on June 23, kept as its focal point not only the unprecedented hike in oil prices, but also the role of speculators in shooting up prices in world markets. Now, and quite honestly here - this game of “let’s blame the speculators” has gotta stop. Speculators are not the driving force behind rising demand for oil in the emerging economies and they are certainly not the reason the current Saudi production of 970K barrels a day is not an all-time high. Oil producers are the ones that ultimately determine the long-term price trend, not speculators.

Frankly, not only is the speculator-argument unrealistic and without base, but it’s outright - laughable.

Even U.S. energy secretary Bodman last week said “There is no evidence that we can find that speculators are driving futures prices” for oil. I agree with energy secretary’s assessment. All we have to do is look at commodities such as iron ore or coal which are not traded on the futures exchange and are not influenced by speculation. Both of these commodities have risen at a higher rate than oil since the end of fiscal ‘02. And it’s not just oil, prices are up across the board and that’s a fact.

Another interesting aspect is OPEC’s constant claim that there is significant speculative premium in oil prices. Well, let’s take a look at some data. - Our imports from Mexico, and Venezuela are running more than 30% below year-over-year basis. Libya keeps threatening to cut back on their production. Nigerian exports are way off due to political instability. Saudi exports are running below fiscal ‘05 levels, (true - the Saudis pledged to add 200K barrels a day to the market, but let’s face it - that’s just a drop in the bucket in the context of global consumption), and Russian production is starting to fall.

Furthermore, the U.S. Congress has convened at least 40 hearings on the issue of skyrocketing energy prices in the first half of fiscal ‘08. At least 160 witnesses have been sworn-in and questioned and yet nothing has been done, in terms of effectively addressing energy issues let alone finding solutions. In fact, many of the experts called to testify were rather misinformed about how the markets realistically function.

Meanwhile, more than 73 million new cars hit the road last year.

It is a persisting and irrefutable fact - world demand continues to rise while the production has remained flat since fiscal ‘05. With output at several major oil exporters in decline and no big fields slated to come on steam anytime soon. Let’s face it. This is not about speculation, it’s just good old supply versus demand. Whether we like it or not, price will function to equalize the quantity demanded by consumers.

Interestingly, after OPEC President Chakib Khelil predicted on June 28, that the price of oil will climb to $170 p/b before the end of the year, several analysts came out saying that they expected the ‘oil bubble’ to burst soon. In fact, they called for a 25%-30% drop in oil prices over the next six months.

While, this would certainly help return oil prices to more practical levels, a 25%-30% drop in oil prices is only a correction. A 30% correction in a commodity or even a blue chip stock is not uncommon. That’s why we don’t understand the ‘bubble’ analogy used by different analysts, including an article published by Barron’s recently where oil was analyzed in bubble terms.

The essence of a bubble is that it involves a sharp rise in the value of an asset that inevitably destroys the reason behind the rise. Tech was a classic example. That’s not the case however, with oil. We don’t have a scenario in which newly issued shares are diluting earnings and funding capital investment that could lead to vast overcapacity and ultimately earnings collapse. Many energy stocks are cheap by any measure, whether relative or absolute.

What's all this crap about global production and demand? Doesn't this guy realize Nancy Pelosi has the magic wand?!!!

[ChumpDumper]

Damn those Democrats for building all those cars in Asia.[/joch]

[George Gervin's Afro]

I will give the conservatives some props in this whole debate for what they are not saying. That more drilling will bring the price of oil/gas down.