Op Ed piece from the N.Y. Times on the current oil policy

[E30 Cabrio]

Gee, Nancy Pelosi said when the Dems get control of Congress, they would do something about gas prices. They sure did. Gas prices have gone way up since they took control.

The Democrats have done nothing but block Domestic drilling and exploration, block construction of nuclear and oil refineries, block any attempts for the US to become independent of foreign energy.

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/April06/Rubberstamp.html

Pelosi: ‘With Skyrocketing Gas Prices, Americans Can No Longer Afford Rubber Stamp Congress’

Monday, April 24, 2006

With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline – 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price than when President Bush first came to office.

“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.”

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

So what have they done? Nothing, that's what. Other then talk, blame, point fingers they've done nothing. Same with this idiot Obama. At least McCain, who I'm not a big fan of, wants to drill domestically and build Nuclear plants, which Obama and the Dems oppose.

[netcsk]

*Zing*
They aren't doing a very good job of blocking nuclear power, if that's what you meant by nuclear. Applications are at an all time high and we are entering a new nuclear renaissance (assuming we don't have anything to scare the public again).

Everyone in this country would kill for $2.91 again. It's amazing how quickly we can forget.

[parkerbink]

Six years of the Bush administration's mess can't be undone in under two, that is assuming the Dems could get anything done, but they can't with the President running interference.

How much was gas when Mr. Bush took office? an average of 1.55. The price of gas has gone up over .50 cents in a month. It went up .3cents OVERNIGHT from last Thursday to Friday. All while demand is down & output is up.

[E30 Cabrio]

Six years of the Bush administration's mess can't be undone in under two, that is assuming the Dems could get anything done, but they can't with the President running interference.

How much was gas when Mr. Bush took office? an average of 1.55. The price of gas has gone up over .50 cents in a month. It went up .3cents OVERNIGHT from last Thursday to Friday. All while demand is down & output is up.

The Republicans are trying to explore and drill domestically, while the Dems are trying to prevent it.

How hard is that for you to comprehend?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9d53lspwDeI

[netcsk]

I don't understand how our government can control the price of oil. I really don't.

I know this might be a lack of my understanding.

[parkerbink]

The Republicans are trying to explore and drill domestically, while the Dems are trying to prevent it.

How hard is that for you to comprehend?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9d53lspwDeI

The republicans have created the atmosphere in which the oil cartels are getting tax breaks, while earning outrageous windfall profits, government funding and freedom to manipulate the price of oil unhindered.

What part of DEMAND IS DOWN & PRODUCTION IS UP YET PRICES CONTINUE TO RISE CAN'T YOU COMPREHEND?

In a free market driven retail model the cost of a commodity is related to it's demand and rate of production, oil has been allowed to be priced based on many far more specious factors such as futures and it's speculation.

Let me ask you this: If Colonel Sanders were President and the cost of chicken were to rise three fold during his term wouldn't you suspect the possibility of some type of manipulation????

Here is a rebuttal to your youtube video

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1815884,00.html

Will More Drilling Mean Cheaper Gas?

On Wednesday morning President George W. Bush urged Congress to overturn a 26-year ban on offshore oil drilling in the U.S. and open a part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to petroleum exploration. Flanked by the secretaries of Energy and the Interior, Bush also proposed streamlining the construction process for new oil refineries, and explained that these moves would "take pressure off gas prices over time by expanding the amount of American-made oil and gasoline." Coming a day after Republican presumptive presidential nominee John McCain made a similar appeal to enhance domestic oil exploration, Bush was sending an unsubtle election-year message to the American public: I care about the economic toll of $4-a-gallon gas, and Democrats in Congress, who have opposed such an expansion, don't.

But there's a flaw in that logic: even if tomorrow we opened up every square mile of the outer continental shelf to offshore rigs, even if we drilled the entire state of Alaska and pulled new refineries out of thin air, the impact on gas prices would be minimal and delayed at best. A 2004 study by the government's Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that drilling in ANWR would trim the price of gas by 3.5 cents a gallon by 2027. (If oil prices continue to skyrocket, the savings would be greater, but not by much.) Opening up offshore areas to oil exploration — currently all coastal areas save a section of the Gulf of Mexico are off-limits, thanks to a congressional ban enacted in 1982 and supplemented by an executive order from the first President Bush — might cut the price of gas by 3 to 4 cents a gallon at most, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. And the relief at the pump, such as it is, wouldn't be immediate — it would take several years, at least, for the oil to begin to flow, which is time enough for increased demand from China, India and the rest of the world to outpace those relatively meager savings. "Right now the price of oil is set on the global market," says Kevin Lindemer, executive managing director of the energy markets group for the research firm Global Insight. President Bush's move "would not have an impact."

The reason is simple: the U.S. has an estimated 3% of global petroleum reserves but consumes 24% of the world's oil. Offshore territories and public lands like ANWR that don't allow drilling may contain up to 75 billion barrels of oil, according to the EIA. That may sound like a lot, but it's not enough to make a significant difference in a world where global oil demand is expected to rise 30% by 2030, to nearly 120 million barrels a day. At best, greatly expanding domestic drilling might eventually lower the proportion of oil the U.S. imports — currently about 60% of its total supply — but petroleum is a global commodity, and the world market would soak up any additional American production. "This is a drop in the bucket," says Gernot Wagner, an economist with the Environmental Defense Fund.

Still, with Americans hurting at the pump, it may be difficult for environmentalists and other opponents of increased domestic drilling to resist the push for more oil, whatever the cost. As recently as his 2000 presidential run, McCain had been against offshore drilling, but he changed that position Tuesday, arguing that individual states should decide for themselves. (He remains against drilling ANWR, however, pointing out that "we called it a 'refuge' for a reason.' ") The Republican Governor of Florida, Charlie Crist — considered a possible vice-presidential candidate — also flip-flopped, backing McCain's position. Though Democratic Senator Barack Obama and most of his party are against the proposed expansion, McCain and his supporters may have the public on their side: a recent Gallup poll found that 57% of Americans believe we should open up new territories to drilling. "It could help in the long term," says Bruce Bullock, director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University. Still, he acknowledges that even expanded drilling is unlikely to bring prices down much.

Though offshore drilling conjures up fears of catastrophic spills, the petroleum industry rightly argues that safety measures have improved considerably in recent years. A 2003 report by the National Research Council found that only 1% of the oil that polluted U.S. waters came from petroleum operations, like the offshore drilling platforms that run in the Gulf of Mexico — which also weathered Hurricane Katrina without massive spills. If it can be done in an environmentally friendly fashion — and with oil companies themselves footing the bill — opening up some new territory to drilling might be worth it. The reality is that our economy will run on petroleum for the foreseeable future, and that while investing in alternatives is the only way to secure truly low-cost energy over the long term, we'll still need oil for decades more. But any attempt to increase supply must be coupled with even heavier investment in energy efficiency and other methods to decrease oil demand — an approach that, to his credit, McCain has said will be a key part of his energy policy (although in the Senate he has skipped or voted against every fuel efficiency bill since 1990, according to the League of Conservation Voters). In any case, Bush's plan is unlikely to be realized — the Democratic-controlled Congress remains against it, and Bush can't open up the new territory on his own.

Even as Democrats and Republicans squabble over a relatively small amount of petroleum, we're missing out on the opportunity to truly break our addiction to crude. This week the Senate again failed to renew the tax credit for renewable energies like solar and wind; the credit, which expires at the end of the year, is key to the healthy growth of low-carbon alternatives. Without it, "the industry will simply stop," says Santiago Seage, CEO of the Spanish company Abengoa Solar. With energy demand skyrocketing, we'll need more oil, and alternatives like solar, and demand-side measures like toughened auto fuel efficiency standards or tax incentives for Americans to purchase less wasteful cars. We'll have to include action on global warming, like the recently defeated Warner-Lieberman carbon cap and trade bill. A study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that under the bill, U.S. petroleum consumption would have dropped by nearly half by 2030 — savings far in excess of the amount of oil we could ever pull from Alaska or the coasts. "We can't drill our way out of this and we can't conserve our way out either," says Bullock. "We need both." Fair enough. But the sad truth is that neither drilling nor conservation will have an immediate effect on rising gas prices, even if they do have an immediate impact on the presidential race

[parkerbink]

fwiw McCain does not endorse drilling in the protected Arctic National Wildlife Refuge which Bush is calling to drill. Here is another perspective:

Warner proposes crackdowns on oil speculators

By BOB LEWIS
AP Political Writer

RICHMOND, Va. - Democrat Mark R. Warner proposed crackdowns Wednesday on commodities speculators and offered measured support for offshore oil and gas exploration.

As fuel prices shot to the top of the national political debate, the former governor attacked Republican proposals for immediate drilling offshore and in an Alaskan wilderness as shortsighted and ineffective.

"Right now, my opponent's only solution is drill here, drill now," Warner said, noting that Republican Jim Gilmore's support for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling is not shared by the GOP presidential nominee, John McCain.

Gilmore, Warner's predecessor as governor, has said for weeks that frightening spikes in gasoline prices, now averaging more than $4 per gallon, would become the election's decisive issue.

The idea took hold Tuesday in the presidential race as McCain reversed his opposition to offshore drilling on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts in response to skyrocketing energy prices, a position President Bush advocates.

Warner, however, said that approach would take years to yield new fuel, and it would only reduce prices by a few cents per gallon by 2018. Quicker relief, he said, would result from federal action against speculators who have made billions by inflating crude oil prices on overseas markets, from aggressively using U.S. trade leverage to pressure oil cartel nations to increase production, and from "enforcement action" against nations and corporations that collude to drive up oil prices.

"Make no mistake about it: what has happened over the past few months has not been the result of the market. Actually driving demand in the United States and consumption has fallen and we've seen record increases in the price of gas," Warner told a group of technology investors Wednesday morning.

More than one-third of the $135 price of a barrel of crude oil _ more than $1 of the cost of a gallon of gasoline _ was the result of predatory commodities speculators, he said.

Other short-term relief ideas he offered called for wiser stockpiling of the nation's strategic petroleum reserves and incentives for employers to make greater use of telecommuting or flexible four-day work weeks for their employees.

Long-term solutions he suggested called for boosting automotive mileage standards to 40 miles per gallon, boosting the number refineries, large increases for research and development of new energy sources such as solar, wind, nuclear, clean coal and biofuels other than corn-based ethanol, and making tax credits for research into those fuels permanent.

Others jumped into the debate in Virginia on Wednesday. Del. Christopher Saxman introduced a bill to be considered at next week's special legislative session on highway funding to commit all royalties from future drilling off Virginia's coast to the Transportation Trust Fund.

Warner made his position on offshore drilling clearer, though not definitive. He said he supports lifting a federal moratorium exploration in coastal waters. He said states should have the final say over whether to allow offshore exploration. He said the environmental threshold for exploratory oil drilling should be higher than for natural gas because of the danger of crude oil fouling beaches.

He did not voice support for offshore oil and gas production, noting environmental concerns that would have to be addressed first.

[E30 Cabrio]

Oil companies are making the same 10% profit margin they've been making for years, while taking the risks and having to deal with ever-increasing regulations.

They're making record profits because they are selling more product then ever, partly due to the 2.5 billion people in India and China running up the demand for oil.

Meanwhile, in the state of California, taxes are about 2-3x as much on a gallon of gas as the profit of what the oil companies make. Where's the outrage from the NYTimes regarding that fact?

It's OK for the Government to tax the hell out of us, but not OK for the oil companies to make a modest profit, which is what 10% is - modest.

But uninformed people see all those big numbers and flip out, not having a clue as how much money it takes to make those profits, not to mention the risk.

The oil companies don't set the price of a barrel of oil.

But it's easy for the intellectually lazy to blame the oil companies.

Never mind that they don't set the price of a barrel of oil, have any control over supply, or anything else. They buy it, refine it, and sell it.

Worldwide demand is up, that's why OPEC has agreed to increase production and to open up the taps to help meet the demand.

I don't know who is telling you that demand is down, because it's not. Domestic demand may be down, but that not relevant as the price of a barrel of oil is determined by worldwide demand.

As long as the Dems are obstructing domestic drilling and exploration, prices will continue to rise.

A few years from now, we'll be fondly looking back at the days of $5.00 per gallon gas.

The argument that starting to explore and drill now won't help until X amount of years from now is a stupid argument, as is "drilling ANWR won't make us oil independent"

No, it won't, but it will help as will drilling offshore and extracting the shale in the Dakotas.

We have enough oil under our own feet to become energy independent if we combine it with nuclear, solar, wind and other sources of energy.

But remaining dependent on foreign oil like the Dems have kept us is the definition of stupidity.

Start exploring and drilling domestically now, so we can begin to reap the benefits in a few years.

And if we did start, the speculators would stop running up the price of a barrel of oil as well once they realize that we are serious about reducing our dependency on foreign oil.

But somehow, the Dems believe that not drilling domestically will somehow not make the situation worse.

[E30 Cabrio]

Six years of the Bush administration's mess can't be undone in under two, that is assuming the Dems could get anything done, but they can't with the President running interference.

How much was gas when Mr. Bush took office? an average of 1.55. The price of gas has gone up over .50 cents in a month. It went up .3cents OVERNIGHT from last Thursday to Friday. All while demand is down & output is up.

How much has the price gone up since the Dems took control of Congress, along with their empty promises of lowering prices?

Yeah, blame it on Bush, as if he has some control over the price of oil and worldwide demand.

Just what exactly have the Dems done to increase supply, to help lower the price of gas and just how has Bush interfered with that?

Please tell me, I'm dying to know. And please, no more biased opinion pieces from the NYTimes either. Let's see some facts.

[parkerbink]

Oil companies are making the same 10% profit margin they've been making for years, while taking the risks and having to deal with ever-increasing regulations.

They're making record profits because they are selling more product then ever, partly due to the 2.5 billion people in India and China running up the demand for oil.

Meanwhile, in the state of California, taxes are about 2-3x as much on a gallon of gas as the profit of what the oil companies make. Where's the outrage from the NYTimes regarding that fact?

It's OK for the Government to tax the hell out of us, but not OK for the oil companies to make a modest profit, which is what 10% is - modest.

But uninformed people see all those big numbers and flip out, not having a clue as how much money it takes to make those profits, not to mention the risk.

The oil companies don't set the price of a barrel of oil.

Worldwide demand is up, that's why OPEC has agreed to increase production and to open up the taps to help meet the demand.

As long as the Dems are obstructing domestic drilling and exploration, prices will continue to rise.

A few years from now, we'll be fondly looking back at the days of $5.00 per gallon gas.

The argument that starting to explore and drill now won't help until X amount of years from now is a stupid argument, as is "drilling ANWR won't make us oil independent"

No, it won't, but it will help as will drilling offshore and extracting the shale in the Dakotas.

We have enough oil under our own feet to become energy independent if we combine it with nuclear, solar, wind and other sources of energy.

But remaining dependent on foreign oil like the Dems have kept us is the definition of stupidity.

Start exploring and drilling domestically now, so we can begin to reap the benefits in a few years.

And if we did start, the speculators would stop running up the price of a barrel of oil as well once they realize that we are serious about reducing our dependency on foreign oil.

But somehow, the Dems believe that not drilling domestically will somehow not make the situation worse.

I am not a dem, I do not oppose responsible offshore drilling. We should have started years ago. Big oil gets huge tax breaks and the administration just refused to reduce them while there are HUGE (18 BILLION) per 1/4 profits being made.

I agree business has the right to REASONABLE profit in exchange for their risk however these are not reasonable profits and nowhere near 10%.

Who is keeping us from seeking alternative forms of energy? Who has been in power for six of the last 7.5 years? Where are our resources going? We are spending billions of dollars in Iraq meanwhile New Orleans remains devastated.

How much has the price gone up since the Dems took control of Congress, along with their empty promises of lowering prices?

Yeah, blame it on Bush, as if he has some control over the price of oil and worldwide demand.

Just what exactly have the Dems done to increase supply, to help lower the price of gas and just how has Bush interfered with that?

Please tell me, I'm dying to know. And please, no more biased opinion pieces from the NYTimes either. Let's see some facts.

I covered this in response to one of your previoius posts. There is nothing that can be done as long as the President blocks Congress.

The only real change is the administration can't "rubberstamp" their agenda as they did for years.

I suggest you find your own data. Clearly you have no interest in facts or reality. Oil men are running the country and the price of oil has increased by a wide margin what more needs be said?.

[E30 Cabrio]

So I guess Nancy Pelosi flat-out lied when she said that by electing Democrats, that they would lower gas prices?

[E30 Cabrio]

And do some research. Oil companies are making about 10% profit, give or take a few percent.

I don't have time to correct all of your inaccuracies. Do some research and from some reasonably neutral sources.

[parkerbink]

And do some research. Oil companies are making about 10% profit, give or take a few percent.

I don't have time to correct all of your inaccuracies. Do some research and from some reasonably neutral sources.

Clearly you know everything and are unteachable. Obviously you believe everything you are spoon fed.

Do your own research and come back and ammend your erronious statements when you have.

You are a font of misinformation and I wash my hands and feet of you.

[netcsk]

My quick research actually sides with e30 Cabrio. Interesting.

[Lair]

My quick research shows that George Bush is completely full of shit.

WASHINGTON -- With his brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, looking on, President Bush sealed a deal Wednesday to prevent further oil and gas drilling off the white sand beaches of the Florida Gulf Coast and in the cypress swamps near the Everglades.

The unexpected announcement would require the federal government to repurchase $235 million worth of oil and gas leasing rights in the Destin Dome area, about 25 miles south of Pensacola, and in three wildlife areas including Big Cypress National Preserve.
Jeb Bush acknowledged that the Oval Office announcement would boost his re-election campaign in Florida, the swing state in the 2000 presidential election and a tourism mecca where polls show 75 percent oppose offshore drilling.

Afterward, the clearly buoyed governor spoke to Florida reporters on a car phone and was not at all flustered by a suggestion that his brother George W. Bush was only mining environmental votes in Florida and oil contributions in Alaska, where the president supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

"I disagree with that, but you know what?" Jeb Bush said. "I don't really care. How about that? I'm the governor of Florida and I am incredibly proud that this historic day has come."

President Bush said Wednesday's action "once again demonstrates that my administration will take seriously the views of local communities. The federal government should continue to work closely with states and local communities in solving issues that affect energy security, the economy and the environment."

Jeb Bush and Interior Secretary Gale Norton told reporters after a brief meeting with the president that the actions will help preserve the Florida Panhandle's pristine coastline.

"It just didn't seem right that 25 miles off that coast there would be the possibility of drilling, and today that possibility no longer exists," Bush said.
...
Last year, Interior Secretary Gale Norton had floated a proposal to expand drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, but she agreed to a moratorium within 100 miles of the Florida coast after Gov. Bush objected.

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/pf.asp?date=053002&ID=s1156519