or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › New Republican coordinated plan to blame Democrats for high oil prices
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Republican coordinated plan to blame Democrats for high oil prices

post #1 of 297
Thread Starter 
There has been a lot of rumbling from the Republican noise machine lately about drilling for more oil as The Best Solution for High Gas Prices. Today, it reached a fever pitch, and a new level of message coordination:

1. John McCain does a complete flip-flop on his offshore drilling position:


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7b4c2270-3...nclick_check=1
Quote:
[On Tuesday afternoon, McCain] delivered a speech to the oil industry in Houston, calling for a lifting of the moratorium on offshore drilling in order to reduce petrol prices.

Mr McCains shift on offshore drilling which contrasts with his strong support for upholding the moratorium in his 2000 bid for the Republican nomination could further chip away at his reputation for being a straight talker.

Some even compare his shifting stances with those of John Kerry, the 2004 *Democratic candidate, who was skewered by Mr Bush for his contortions over the Iraq war.

John McCain was against Mr Bushs tax cuts before he was for them, and now he is in favour of offshore drilling after he was against it, says Thomas Mann at the Brookings Institution think-tank. If Senator McCain continues to try to appeal to the base and to the centre simultaneously in this way, then his straight-talk brand is going to suffer.


http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/c...ccains_dr.html
Quote:
Sen. Bill Nelson just told reporters on a conference call the he was surprised at what he called McCains flip flop on offshore drilling. Nelson noted that McCain opposed offshore drilling when he ran for president in 2000.

Nelson said the drilling issue would mark a clear difference between McCain and Barack Obama, who opposes offshore drilling and has called for greater investments in alternative energy sources.

"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that you cant drill your way out of the problem,'' said Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat who flew aboard the space shuttle as a congressman. "You have to go to alternative fuels.''

Nelson, asked today if opposition to oil drilling is perhaps not still "the third rail'' in Florida politics that it once was, suggested that there is a bigger problem with McCain's proposal.

"The politics is clearly going to be who is going to offer the vision and show the way of how we get out of this energy crisis that we're in,'' Nelson said. For a major candidate for president to say that his answer is to drill off the coast of the United States, it just shows a lack of vision and one that is not grounded in reality.

It shows a coziness with the oil companies and the big Wall Street investment banks that are fueling this run-up in speculation on the prices on an unregulated trading market, Nelson said. Barack knows this and that is why you are going to see a real contrast between John and Barack on just this issue.

Florida Democrats are confident that McCain is handing them a potent campaign issue in a state that has to be considered generally more favorable to the Republican in November.

"No one we know of has ever won a statewide Florida election without supporting a moratorium on offshore drilling,'' the St. Petersburg Times notes.

"Even former Gov. Jeb Bush disagreed with his brother on this issue. Florida cannot afford four more years of corporate welfare for oil companies,'' said Mark Bubriski, spokesman for the Florida Democratic Party.


2. Florida Gov. Charlie Christ, ON THE SAME DAY, does THE SAME FLIP-FLOP as McCain:

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news..._third_ra.html
Quote:
And now the [Florida Democratic] party is accusing Jeb Bush's successor, Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, of compromising his own opposition to off-shore drilling in the interest of promoting McCain.

"Crist has dropped his long-standing support for the federal moratorium on offshore drilling,'' the Associated Press reports. "The governor says the nation needs to look at all options in response to rising fuel prices."

"If John McCain jumps off a cliff, will Charlie Crist jump, too?" Bubriski asled. "This bald-faced flip-flop erases any lingering hope that Empty Chair Charlie actually cares about the people of Florida. It's simply shameful."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...a-gov-cri.html
Quote:
If one attribute John McCain wants in a running mate is a good soldier's mentality, it would seem Florida Gov. Charlie Crist has passed the test with flying colors.

As McCain revealed Monday that he now favored an end to the federal moratorium on offshore oil drilling Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain has changed positions and called for an end to the federal ban of offshore oil drilling -- a reversal for him -- and that he would flesh out his position in a speech today, much speculation immediately focused on the tough position in which Crist, an oft-mentioned veep prospect, would find himself.

The Washington Post wrote that the push by McCain to deep-six the ban as part of the response to raising gasoline prices and let each affected state decide the exploration issue "is sure to annoy two key Republican allies," California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Crist. Both have opposed coastal drilling.

In both states, support for the moratorium has been a given for most politicians (for more on how the issue plays in Florida, see this posting on the Chicago Tribune's Swamp blog).

MSNBC's First Read posting this morning noted the following: "No Republicans in Florida have gotten elected statewide without endorsing the moratorium on off-shore oil drilling, so McCain's decision is going to get its share of criticism even from VP wannabe" Crist.

But the item added that if "Crist tries to rationalize the McCain decision then we'll really find out just how much he wants on the ticket."

Apparently, very much.

A story posted by the Miami Herald a short while ago starts thusly: "Describing his position as evolving, Gov. Charlie Crist said he now supports exploratory drilling for oil and gas off Florida's coast because 'Floridians are suffering.' "
For more on Crist's change of heart, go here:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/brea...ry/573350.html

3. President Bush, ON THE SAME DAY, does THE SAME FLIP-FLOP as McCain AND Christ:


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/wa...hp&oref=slogin
Quote:
WASHINGTON President Bush, reversing a longstanding position, will call on Congress on Wednesday to end a federal ban on offshore oil drilling, according to White House officials who say Mr. Bush now wants to work with states to determine where drilling should occur.

The move underscores how $4-a-gallon gas has become a major issue in the 2008 presidential campaign, and it comes as a growing number of Republicans are lining up in opposition to the federal ban.

The partys presumptive presidential nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, used a speech in Houston on Tuesday to say he now favors offshore drilling, an announcement that infuriated environmentalists who have long viewed him as an ally. Floridas governor, Charlie Crist, a Republican, immediately joined Mr. McCain, saying he, too, now wants an end to the ban.

Even before the disclosure of Mr. Bushs decision, the drilling issue caused a heated back-and-forth on the campaign trail on Tuesday, as Mr. McCain sought to straddle the divide between environmentalists and the energy industry, while facing accusations from his Democratic opponent, Senator Barack Obama, that he had flip-flopped and capitulated to the oil industry.

In Washington, the White House press secretary, Dana Perino, said Mr. Bush would urge Congress to pass legislation lifting the Congressional ban on safe, environmentally-friendly offshore oil drilling, adding, The president believes Congress shouldnt waste any more time.


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...tIVqwD91C5HI00
Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) President Bush plans to make a renewed push Wednesday to get Congress to end a long-standing ban on offshore oil and gas drilling, echoing a call by GOP presidential candidate John McCain.

Congressional Democrats have opposed lifting the prohibitions on energy development on nearly all federal Outer Continental Shelf waters for more than a quarter-century, including waters along both the East and West coasts.

With oil prices soaring and motorists paying $4 a gallon for gasoline, political pressures have been growing for more domestic oil and gas production.

Democrats, as well as some Republican senators from coastal states, have opposed lifting the drilling prohibitions, fearful that energy development could harm tourism and raise the risk of oil spills on beaches.

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president, opposes lifting the ban on offshore drilling and says that allowing exploration now wouldn't affect gasoline prices for at least five years.

Congress imposed the drilling moratorium in 1981 and has extended it each year since by prohibiting the Interior Department from spending money on offshore oil or gas leases in virtually all coastal waters outside the western Gulf of Mexico and in some areas off Alaska.

President George H.W. Bush imposed a separate executive drilling ban in 1990, which was extended by President Clinton and then by the current president until 2012.


This is not going to play well in Florida for all three of them. Furthermore, they're going to have a hard time explaining exactly how drilling for more oil that we might see anywhere from 5 to 10 years from now is really going to substantially affect gas prices either now, or in the future. The fact that we currently EXPORT 10% of our domestically-produced oil doesn't help their argument much, either.

Most voters outside of the 30% Republican base are going to see this as exactly what it is - a calculated, coordinated, political, and cynical hit attempt on Obama and Democrats in Congress.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #2 of 297
Boo hoo.

It's a simple fact that the reason that we are so dependent on Middle East oil is one thing: the Democratic Party. Their environmentalist wing has successfully prevented us from getting the oil we have right here, making us ever more at the mercy of people who WILL go get their oil when we cannot go get ours.

I'll say it again... be proud, liberals. Get out there and tell us why we should not get domestic oil. And why we should have to be subjects of sheiks and dictators in this dangerous world for the stability of our economy. Tell us point blank why this is the best policy for the America you love. And while you are at it... continue to bury the voices in your own party who, for decades, have supported high gas prices for ecological reasons... to "change people."

Regarding how long it takes to get oil out of the ground... we'd have oil from ANWR already had Clinton not vetoed it. It takes actual planning ahead... and having some foresight for those "unintended consequences" that liberals conveniently blow over in situations like these. Congrats, Bill Jeff... we have a tiny little sliver of untouched Alaska... and those "working families" (whose pain you feel) paying over $4 a gallon. Smarts, don't it?

And as far as McCain goes... he's already said so much stupid shit that hail-mary flip-flops are about all he's really got in terms of getting back on the right side of the issues. He's already come out for so many things that HRC and the left like that he's a sitting duck for these kinds of critiques. Critiques that are completely deserved, BTW.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #3 of 297
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Boo hoo.

It's a simple fact that the reason that we are so dependent on Middle East oil is one thing: the Democratic Party. Their environmentalist wing has successfully prevented us from getting the oil we have right here, making us ever more at the mercy of people who WILL go get their oil when we cannot go get ours.

I see! So, that being such a "simple fact" and all, then I'm sure you can answer a simple question for me....

If having more domestically-produced oil would lower our gas prices, then why don't we start by cutting our exports of domestic oil from 10% to 0%?
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #4 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Boo hoo.

It's a simple fact that the reason that we are so dependent on Middle East oil is one thing: the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party made everyone buy SUVs? Amazing! Do I need to show that damn graph again of US oil use and how well it tracks with the popularity of the SUV?

Do I have to show, once again, that we cut US oil use 15% over a few year in the early 80s just from conservation?

Do I need to point out again that 69% of US oil comsumption is for transportation?

We use 9M barrels per day for motor gasoline out of 20M bpd total petroleum consumption.

Quote:
Their environmentalist wing has successfully prevented us from getting the oil we have right here, making us ever more at the mercy of people who WILL go get their oil when we cannot go get ours.

1) I have no real issue drilling on the shelf except there really isn't that much oil there. Plus Canada is one of the cuban lease holders. There's a lot in the Gulf but no one is stopping us from drilling there. Of course the water is pretty deep.
2) Drilling is partially stopped by an executive order...which Bush could nix anytime...and was put in place by...Bush in 1990. And has not. Bush renewed the 1977 treaty to split the oil with us and Cuba. He's a democrat?
3) Which many tourist based states aren't too keen on anyway.
4) Jeb Bush objected to drilling within 100 miles of Florida (and nixed it while governor). Is he a democrat?

I call bullshit.

ANWR is a different story. That's oil in territory no one else can drill from. It's a national strategic reserve.

Quote:
I'll say it again... be proud, liberals. Get out there and tell us why we should not get domestic oil.

We do. You do realize that we get 5.1M bpd right? Here's the deal though...we've passed peak oil production for the US. More holes in the ground in the US won't produce the same bbd rates as more holes in the ground from fresh fields. There's a good amount of oil left but the rates are nowhere as nice as say in Saudi Arabia.

Sure that 20 billion barrels reserve looks nice on paper. We just have a maximum extract rate on the known fields.

Quote:
And why we should have to be subjects of sheiks and dictators in this dangerous world for the stability of our economy.

I was unaware that Canada was run by sheiks or a dictator. Yes, Canada is our top crude supplier at 1.8M bpd and our top petroleum supplier at 2.3M bpd. Saudi Arabia is 3rd or something at 15%.

Quote:
Tell us point blank why this is the best policy for the America you love. And while you are at it... continue to bury the voices in your own party who, for decades, have supported high gas prices for ecological reasons... to "change people."

High gas prices reduce gas use which reduces energy dependence from middle east countries. Not so good for the economy though but 2008 will see the first decline in oil use in the US since...um 1991 or something.

Quote:
Regarding how long it takes to get oil out of the ground... we'd have oil from ANWR already had Clinton not vetoed it. It takes actual planning ahead... and having some foresight for those "unintended consequences" that liberals conveniently blow over in situations like these. Congrats, Bill Jeff... we have a tiny little sliver of untouched Alaska... and those "working families" (whose pain you feel) paying over $4 a gallon. Smarts, don't it?

ANWR's peak production would peak at 780K bpd in 19 years from start. A nice number but trailing out to 650K bpd by the 25th year. Again, this is our best reserves. Something to look into drilling into in a few years but not a decade ago under Clinton.

It is also less than the oil that could be saved from conservation. So...what you're advocating is the equivalent of rather than decrease expenditures on cable TV, eating out and new toys we should dip into our 401Ks and spend that first instead. And when it's gone we then should start thinking that maybe SUVs are such a great idea for the US.

Brilliant.

Which is why I say the Republican party is full of idiots today that can't plan for the country's future. Instead, they listen to big oil interests who are trying to optimize profits for the next set of quarters for the benefit of their shareholders. Which is fine because it their job. But it's not in the best interests of the country.

You may think $4/gal sucks now. Just wait. In a decade these will be the good ole days.
post #5 of 297
Oh, and while I don't care all that much about carbon footprint or greenhouse gasses one thing is for sure: if Al Gore had been elected president and hugged some trees, saved some whales, gave more Solar and Hybrid tax breaks and reduced the US carbon footprint blah blah...WE BE IMPORTING A LOT LESS OIL TODAY. We also wouldn't be importing any less from Canada or Mexico because, hey, they're right there. We WOULD be importing less from the Middle East...which you may have noticed is halfway around the world.

That kinda goes hand in hand you know?
post #6 of 297
I don't buy the Democrat line that oil futures speculation erroneously drove up the cost of oil.

Plus I don't know why we think our shores and wilderness should be drilling free but every third world country would be exploited. It's kind of arrogant. At least in Alaska the population gets a cut. Maybe we should bring that to the lower 48.


This flip flop is a winner for McCain. It polls well and he can make Obama look like someone that wont yield to the reality of oil prices. Obama is already saying "This wont help for 5 years." which of course is correct but then McCain can say "That's why we need to start now".
post #7 of 297
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

I don't buy the Democrat line that oil futures speculation erroneously drove up the cost of oil.

Does that mean that you buy the Republican line that offshore drilling bans "erroneously drove up the cost of oil"?

Or that ending the offshore drilling bans will have a significant impact on US gas prices?
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #8 of 297
Just like to point out that Fox has this on the top of their site, complete with shamelessly partisan by-line:

http://www.foxnews.com/
post #9 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Just like to point out that Fox has this on the top of their site, complete with shamelessly partisan by-line:

http://www.foxnews.com/

Quote:
Bush to Congress: Drill
President to urge offshore oil development
Congressional Dems have opposed offshore drilling for decades, president says they 'shouldn't waste any more time'

1. Is this factually incorrect?
2. How would YOU phrase it, Hassan?

Quote:
"Impeachable Asshole to the only people with lower approval ratings than him: Rape the Earth
Selected President to urge killing polar bears, baby seals, and polluting beaches
Congressional Dems have safeguarded oil from human pillage for decades, chimp in chief says "lets make some money."
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #10 of 297
The US has a grand total of 2 or 3 years of supply off-shore... that's it.

Drilling off-shore would only be a short-lived fix, just in time for an election.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #11 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

1. Is this factually incorrect?
2. How would YOU phrase it, Hassan?

Quote:
Barack Obama: Filthy Muslim Shithead?

Something like that.

The point is that this is suddenly news because it gives the Republicans traction on Obama. It's a coordinated election ploy, and Fox is a news outlet serving to disseminate this sort of thing on behalf of the Republican party.

Doesn't it make you feel a bit ashamed? It's got to, just a bit, no?
post #12 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

This is not going to play well in Florida for all three of them. Furthermore, they're going to have a hard time explaining exactly how drilling for more oil that we might see anywhere from 5 to 10 years from now is really going to substantially affect gas prices either now, or in the future. The fact that we currently EXPORT 10% of our domestically-produced oil doesn't help their argument much, either.

Most voters outside of the 30% Republican base are going to see this as exactly what it is - a calculated, coordinated, political, and cynical hit attempt on Obama and Democrats in Congress.

First how well do you think $5 gas is playing in Florida or anywhere else for that matter? Of course when Democrats in Congress said they would find a way to lower the price from Bush and his oil buddies that was a "solution" instead of playing politics.

By the way, when we might see it 5-10 years from now... and you and others have used that line for 25 years or so, some smart people realize eventually that you are full of shit.

We export and import oil. The market sets the price and it is mostly about how local the oil happens to be to the market.

As for the last part imagine that... a calculated, coordinated and political action by a group of people. Next you'll suggest that they are a political party or something like that. Amazing!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #13 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

Does that mean that you buy the Republican line that offshore drilling bans "erroneously drove up the cost of oil"?

Or that ending the offshore drilling bans will have a significant impact on US gas prices?

Not exactly, why would you assume that? Oh maybe because you are so locked in to partisan bullshit group think that anyone that doesn't march in lock step with the dem's must be one of them.

What I think is that demand is up and supply is flatish and there is a war going on. Add to that the weak dollar and here we are.


I do think it's silly that we expect other countries to drill drill drill while we declare our areas as untouchable.
post #14 of 297
Even if congress gives the green light, nothing will change overnight, but the sheep will think that it will because they just aren't smart enough to know it won't.

There has been little or no exploration to find the good fields worthy of drilling.

The platforms need building.

We are looking at several years before the fields would even start producing, and then they would only produce for several years at best.

A quick fix at best.

And an election year ploy that feeds on the ignorance of the masses.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #15 of 297
BTW... anybody recall who was in the WH when the moratorium on drilling went into effect?

It was back in 1981...


The guy was Ronald Reagan...

The VP was GHW Bush.


Mmmm...... last time I checked, they were Republicans.

Then there was Carter's plan, which Reagan axed:
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs....ION02/80606041

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #16 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Boo hoo.

It's a simple fact that the reason that we are so dependent on Middle East oil is one thing: the Democratic Party. Their environmentalist wing has successfully prevented us from getting the oil we have right here, making us ever more at the mercy of people who WILL go get their oil when we cannot go get ours.

I'll say it again... be proud, liberals. Get out there and tell us why we should not get domestic oil. And why we should have to be subjects of sheiks and dictators in this dangerous world for the stability of our economy. Tell us point blank why this is the best policy for the America you love. And while you are at it... continue to bury the voices in your own party who, for decades, have supported high gas prices for ecological reasons... to "change people."

Regarding how long it takes to get oil out of the ground... we'd have oil from ANWR already had Clinton not vetoed it. It takes actual planning ahead... and having some foresight for those "unintended consequences" that liberals conveniently blow over in situations like these. Congrats, Bill Jeff... we have a tiny little sliver of untouched Alaska... and those "working families" (whose pain you feel) paying over $4 a gallon. Smarts, don't it?

And as far as McCain goes... he's already said so much stupid shit that hail-mary flip-flops are about all he's really got in terms of getting back on the right side of the issues. He's already come out for so many things that HRC and the left like that he's a sitting duck for these kinds of critiques. Critiques that are completely deserved, BTW.

The reason for high prices is the war in Iraq ( OPEC doesn't appreciate us there ) plus George Bush's own miss management ( the dollar stinks out there ). We had a budget surplus before he took office and going into a recession. Alot of jobs were lost. And now here we are again teetering again on the edge of another one ( so soon? ). Only now we're in debt up to our eye balls and still spending.

And then there's a the oil futures speculation aspect. Driving up the price. I know you don't like big government but maybe this is a good example of how somethings should be controlled. Of course there's China and their emerging demand but they're not really the reason for the rapid rise in price.

It's not a supply and demand thing. It's a manipulation thing. When Bush goes to the Saudis and asks for increased production and they say " We can't because ther isn't enough demand. We can't be responsible for the U.S. mismangement " somethings's rotten. I recently heard now they're upping production for the summer.

The democrats? Huh uh! They haven't been in charge for 8 years remember? And several administrations before that. Sure Clinton was in charge for 8 years but the republican's were in charge for 12 before that. They've been in recent times more in charge than the democrats. A fact that the consevatives were so gleeful to report after Dubya's last win. Now that same fact is coming back to bite them in the ass ( and it's got sharp teeth ). Hummm? I seem to remember we were in the in the recession cycle the last time we transitioned between republicans and democrats. Remember?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #17 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

1. Is this factually incorrect?

Yes. Because for 6 years it was:

"Republican Congress to Bush: Can the executive order dumbass."

His dad wrote the executive order. He could have nixed it.

He could have not renewed the 1977 treaty with Cuba. (Splits the straits halfway)

That would make the straits disputed territory and a much higher risk for oil companies to drill there. The Chinese aren't dumb enough to piss us off right off the coast of Florida any more than we're likely to piss them off about Taiwan.

Quote:
2. How would YOU phrase it, Hassan?

"Election year politics causes both parties to posture in stupid ways...unfortunately the American public is dumb enough to buy it"
post #18 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

There has been a lot of rumbling from the Republican noise machine lately about drilling for more oil as The Best Solution for High Gas Prices. Today, it reached a fever pitch, and a new level of message coordination:

1. John McCain does a complete flip-flop on his offshore drilling position:


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7b4c2270-3...nclick_check=1



http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/c...ccains_dr.html



2. Florida Gov. Charlie Christ, ON THE SAME DAY, does THE SAME FLIP-FLOP as McCain:

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news..._third_ra.html


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...a-gov-cri.html


3. President Bush, ON THE SAME DAY, does THE SAME FLIP-FLOP as McCain AND Christ:


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/wa...hp&oref=slogin



http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...tIVqwD91C5HI00



This is not going to play well in Florida for all three of them. Furthermore, they're going to have a hard time explaining exactly how drilling for more oil that we might see anywhere from 5 to 10 years from now is really going to substantially affect gas prices either now, or in the future. The fact that we currently EXPORT 10% of our domestically-produced oil doesn't help their argument much, either.

Most voters outside of the 30% Republican base are going to see this as exactly what it is - a calculated, coordinated, political, and cynical hit attempt on Obama and Democrats in Congress.


OH MY GOD! The Republicans are trying to exploit Democrats' weaknesses for political gain!!!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #19 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Boo hoo.

It's a simple fact that the reason that we are so dependent on Middle East oil is one thing: the Democratic Party. Their environmentalist wing has successfully prevented us from getting the oil we have right here, making us ever more at the mercy of people who WILL go get their oil when we cannot go get ours.

I'll say it again... be proud, liberals. Get out there and tell us why we should not get domestic oil. And why we should have to be subjects of sheiks and dictators in this dangerous world for the stability of our economy. Tell us point blank why this is the best policy for the America you love. And while you are at it... continue to bury the voices in your own party who, for decades, have supported high gas prices for ecological reasons... to "change people."

Regarding how long it takes to get oil out of the ground... we'd have oil from ANWR already had Clinton not vetoed it. It takes actual planning ahead... and having some foresight for those "unintended consequences" that liberals conveniently blow over in situations like these. Congrats, Bill Jeff... we have a tiny little sliver of untouched Alaska... and those "working families" (whose pain you feel) paying over $4 a gallon. Smarts, don't it?

And as far as McCain goes... he's already said so much stupid shit that hail-mary flip-flops are about all he's really got in terms of getting back on the right side of the issues. He's already come out for so many things that HRC and the left like that he's a sitting duck for these kinds of critiques. Critiques that are completely deserved, BTW.

End of thread.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #20 of 297
I like this part:

Quote:
[On Tuesday afternoon, McCain] delivered a speech to the oil industry in Houston, calling for a lifting of the moratorium on offshore drilling in order to reduce petrol prices.

He stood up in front of the oil industry and told them they could dig up more oil? How courageous and mavericky!

As a solution to the current high gas prices, this goes to a whole new level of gimmickiness than even the gas tax holiday (that straight-talker McCain also supports). Do these guys support any actual substantive policies, or is it all this kind of nonsense?
post #21 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

OH MY GOD! The Republicans are trying to exploit Democrats' weaknesses for political gain!!!

Well it doesn't look like it's going to do them much good.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/


Poll: Obama leading in swing states
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #22 of 297
... forever. Regardless of how much U.S. domestic oil reserves actually exist, or how fast these reserves are brought online. This talk is just one small step removed from McBush's "gas tax holiday."

U.S. Proven Oil Reserves

[CENTER]
Quote:
United States proven oil reserves declined to a little less than 21 billion barrels (3.3×109 m3) as of 2006 according to the Energy Information Administration, a 46% decline from the 39 billion barrels (6.2×109 m3) it had in 1970 when the huge Alaska North Slope (ANS) reserves were booked. With production of around 5 million barrels per day (790×103 m3/d) as of 2006, this represents about an 11 year supply of oil reserves at current rates of production.

If the United States had to supply its entire demand of 21 million barrels per day (3.3×106 m3/d) without resorting to foreign imports, existing US reserves would last only three years at the current rate of consumption.

No oil fields of similar size to the ANS reserves have been found in the US since 1970. With over 2.3 million wells having been drilled in the US since 1949, there are very few unexplored areas left where a similar size oil field is likely to be found. US oil reserve numbers are very accurate compared to those of most other countries.

As a result of the decline in reserves, United States crude oil production also has been declining for nearly 30 years. Production peaked in 1970 at 9.6 million barrels per day (1.53×106 m3/d), but declined 47% to 5.1 million barrels per day (810×103 m3/d) by 2006. At the same time, US imports of oil and petroleum products increased by 400% from 3.4 million barrels per day (540×103 m3/d) in 1970 to 13.6 million barrels per day (2.16×106 m3/d) in 2006. The largest suppliers of oil and products in 2006 were Canada and Mexico, which supplied 2.3 and 1.7 Mbbl/d (370×103 and 270×103 m3/d), respectively.

Imports of oil and products account for nearly half of the US trade deficit. As of 2007, the Energy Information Agency (EIA) of the US Department of Energy projected that in 2007 oil consumption would rise to 20.9 million barrels per day (3.32×106 m3/d), while oil production would fall to 5.1 million barrels per day (810×103 m3/d), meaning that oil consumption would be nearly four times as high as oil production.

In April 2008, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) released a report giving a new resource assessment of the Bakken Formation underlying portions of Montana and North Dakota. The USGS believes that with new horizontal drilling technology there is somewhere between 3.0 and 4.5 billion barrels (480×106 and 720×106 m3) of recoverable oil remaining to be discovered in this 200,000 square miles (520,000 km²) formation that was initially discovered in 1951. If accurate, this reassessment would make it the largest continuous oil formation ever discovered in the U.S. However, it would represent only a five to seven month supply of oil for the United States at current (2007) rates of consumption.

A 1993 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5% probability) barrels (0.9 to 2.5 km³) of technically recoverable oil exists in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 area, with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (1.7 km³). In addition, in the entire assessment area, which covers not only land under Federal jurisdiction, but also Native lands and adjacent State waters within three miles (5 km), technically recoverable oil is estimated to be at least 5.7 billion (95%) and as much as 16.0 billion (5%) barrels (0.7 to 1.9 km³), with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels (1.2 km³). Economically recoverable oil within the Federal lands assuming a market price of $40/barrel (constant 1996 dollars - the highest price included in the USGS study) is estimated to be between 3.4 billion (95%) and 10.4 billion (5%) barrels (0.5 to 1.7 km³), with a mean value of 6.8 billion barrels (1.1 km³).

[/CENTER]

Arctic Refuge drilling controversy

[CENTER]
Quote:
The U.S. consumes about 20 million barrels (3,200,000 m³) daily. If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil reserves were used to supply 5% of the U.S. daily consumption the reserves, using the low figure of 4.3 billion barrels (680,000,000 m³), would last approximately 4300 days, or almost 12 years. Using the high estimate, the reserves would last approximately 11800 days, or 32 years. Using the increasing price of oil this supply (with 10.5 billion barrel mean and crude oil at over $120 a barrel) would be worth $1.26 trillion.

In total, the deposits in ANWR contain enough oil to solely support U.S. consumption for 7 months (4.3B estimate) to 19 months (12B estimate), presuming U.S. could shut off all imports and other domestic suppliers for that period, and presuming oil could be transported from ANWR to market at the rate of 20 million barrels (3,200,000 m³) per day. If used to completely replace oil imported from the Persian Gulf (775M barrels in 2007), oil from ANWR would last from approximately 5.5 years (4.3B estimate) to 15 years (12B estimate).

[/CENTER]

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #23 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well it doesn't look like it's going to do them much good.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/


Poll: Obama leading in swing states

But there's just 100% NO WAY he can win in those states. I mean, he didn't win the primary. I talked to some people in the break room who "don't trust" Obama. My logic is air tight!*

*note, this sarcasm is not to imply that Obama couldn't loose Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. It's a long way from the election and he clearly could. I'm just mocking the idea proffered by SDW that it's an essentially a done deal for McCain.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #24 of 297
Frank, there is no way you believe what you just posted. Is there?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #25 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Frank, there is no way you believe what you just posted. Is there?

... belief with respect to how much domestic production could offset current oil consumption/imports.

Push those numbers any which way you want, just remember that this isn't a magic act, and that total domestic production can not exceed the amount extracted from the ground. \

Give me a clue on how much increasing domestic production will offset imports and for how long.

And the current domestic production goes for the same price as the global market price, even if it's extracted at one tenth the current global market price. That's how the major U.S. oil producers make their ever increasing profits (and profit margins). D'oh!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #26 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Frank, there is no way you believe what you just posted. Is there?

Why? Because they are founded on data rather than wishful thinking?
post #27 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Frank, there is no way you believe what you just posted. Is there?

Frank is going to play word games with the word PROVEN. See there is a specific series of hopes to jump through to make a find proven. However since we can't actually undertake those actions... well it isn't proven so it doesn't exist.

I'm betting for example that even though there are wells actually drawing oil from the Bakken Formation that it might not yet meet the definition for proven reserves and as such cannot be added to the Frank pile. It is likely called probable even though oil is coming out of the ground since the techniques are called technically recoverable. As the link explains, it isn't a scientific definition, but a legally defined definition. If the U.S. wants to call oil shale proven reserves, it has 110 year supply just using shale.

It is interesting to look at Canada in this regard since it allows most to remove the BushHate™ blinders.

Quote:
Including the portion of oil sands reserves considered by government regulators to be producible at current prices using current technology, Canada's proven oil reserves were estimated at 179 billion barrels (28×109 m3) as of 2007, placing it second only to Saudi Arabia.[16] Over 95% of these reserves are in the oil sands deposits in the province of Alberta. [17] Although Alberta contains nearly all of Canada's oil sands and about 75% of its conventional oil reserves, several other provinces and territories, especially Saskatchewan and offshore Newfoundland, have substantial oil production and reserves.[18] Total Canadian oil production was about 1.2 billion barrels (190×106 m3) in 2006, giving Canada about 150 years of reserves at current production rates.

Over 99% of Canadian oil exports are sent to the United States, making Canada, not Saudi Arabia, the United States' largest supplier of oil.[19] The picture is complicated somewhat by the fact that Canada has a highly sophisticated energy industry and is both an importer and exporter of oil and refined products. In 2006, in addition to producing 1.2 billion barrels (190×106 m3), Canada imported 440 million barrels (70×106 m3), consumed 800 million barrels (130×106 m3) itself, and exported 840 million barrels (134×106 m3) to the U.S.[17] The excess of exports over imports was 400 million barrels (64×106 m3).

The addition of 174 billion barrels (28×109 m3) of the vast Alberta oil sands deposits, mostly in the Athabasca Oil Sands, to proven reserves by the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB),[20] was controversial at the time because oil sands contain a semisolid form of oil referred to as bitumen by Canadian government authorities, rather than conventional crude oil.[20]. The existence of the deposits (historically referred to as "tar sands") has been known for centuries since major rivers cut through the sands to reveal the bitumen in the river banks, but their development had to wait for high prices and the invention of new technology. In recent years technological breakthroughs have overcome the challenges of producing it and most Alberta oil is now non-conventional production from oil sands rather than conventional oil fields. The AEUB estimates that by 2016 Alberta oil sands production will triple to amount to 86% of the province's total oil production, and Alberta will by then be one of the largest oil producers in the world.[20]

The difference between crude bitumen and crude oil is somewhat arbitrary since bitumen is really just an unusually thick and viscous grade of crude oil, and many U.S. oil refineries have been modified to handle it in recent years as domestic U.S. oil production declines. The main problem is that it must be heated or diluted with solvents before it will flow through pipelines.

A problem for companies trading on U.S. stock markets is that U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules do not allow them to report oil sands production as an oil and gas activity, so they cannot report their oil sands reserves as oil reserves.[21] Companies such as Petro-Canada with large oil-sands operations claim this can seriously underestimate the value of their assets. [22] As of 2008 the SEC was reported to be looking at putting oil sands reserves on the same footing as conventional crude oil.[23]

As I noted earlier, the U.S. doesn't export oil to screw itself over. It is about closeness to the source. Also Frank wants to get hung up on proven/probably..etc definition and will not even admit that regulation affects this. We cannot build refineries and thus when you cannot refine the oil product, the field it comes from cannot be called proven. Off-shore drilling is prohibited and thus the reserves there are not booked or proven.


Canadian conventional oil production peaked in 1973, but oil sands production is forecast to increase to at least 2020

You change the rules, you change the results. In the U.S. we need to change the rules.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #28 of 297
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

OH MY GOD! The Republicans are trying to exploit Democrats' weaknesses for political gain!!!

No - the Republicans are trying to manufacture a Democratic weakness for political gain.

They're going to find even less takers than they did for their Gas Tax Holiday. The American People aren't buying Politics As Usual. They're more in the market for Hope and Change - and some REAL "straight talk". This is only going to hurt them among independents, moderates, and swing votes. You base-dwelling 30-percenters are lapping it right up, though, aren't you?
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #29 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Frank is going to play word games with the word PROVEN. See there is a specific series of hopes to jump through to make a find proven. However since we can't actually undertake those actions... well it isn't proven so it doesn't exist.

I'm betting for example that even though there are wells actually drawing oil from the Bakken Formation that it might not yet meet the definition for proven reserves and as such cannot be added to the Frank pile. It is likely called probable even though oil is coming out of the ground since the techniques are called technically recoverable. As the link explains, it isn't a scientific definition, but a legally defined definition. If the U.S. wants to call oil shale proven reserves, it has 110 year supply just using shale.

It is interesting to look at Canada in this regard since it allows most to remove the BushHate™ blinders.



As I noted earlier, the U.S. doesn't export oil to screw itself over. It is about closeness to the source. Also Frank wants to get hung up on proven/probably..etc definition and will not even admit that regulation affects this. We cannot build refineries and thus when you cannot refine the oil product, the field it comes from cannot be called proven. Off-shore drilling is prohibited and thus the reserves there are not booked or proven.


Canadian conventional oil production peaked in 1973, but oil sands production is forecast to increase to at least 2020

You change the rules, you change the results. In the U.S. we need to change the rules.

... domestic production? And even if Canada and Mexico had infinite supplies (metaphorically speaking of course), do you think that they would take less than the going price for global oil?

You're the one stuck on the word "proven" go ahead and double or even triple U.S. proven oil reserves, it's still a drop in the bucket, compared to our consumption/imports. Nothing that the USofA has in the ground will change that fundamental fact. Nothing.

Oh, and I'm an engineer and a pragmatist, and I say drill, drill, drill, as long as it's done in a "reasonable" environmentally safe manner (presumably the current standard practice in the U.S. oil industry).

We currently drill offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, from Texas to Alabama, in water depths currently at ~6.000 feet. That production gets booked.

And U.S. refining capacity (we're currently at about ~90% of maximum) has nothing to do with the global price of a barrel of oil. D'oh!

Oh, and oil sands are not the same as oil shale. D'oh!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #30 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

No - the Republicans are trying to manufacture a Democratic weakness for political gain.

They're going to find even less takers than they did for their Gas Tax Holiday. The American People aren't buying Politics As Usual. They're more in the market for Hope and Change - and some REAL "straight talk". This is only going to hurt them among independents, moderates, and swing votes. You base-dwelling 30-percenters are lapping it right up, though, aren't you?

Yea and the democrats are trying to manufacture a populist notion of "windfall profits" and "greedy speculators" for political gain. Story not at 11.

McCain has a winner here. People are for this.
post #31 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... domestic production? And even if Canada and Mexico had infinite supplies (metaphorically speaking of course), do you think that they would take less than the going price for global oil?

You're the one stuck on the word "proven" go ahead and double or even triple U.S. proven oil reserves, it's still a drop in the bucket, compared to our consumption/imports. Nothing that the USofA has in the ground will change that fundimental fact. Nothing.

Of course they won't take less than the market rate. However the assertion was that the U.S. didn't care about the market rate since they were exporting oil. Try to keep up here.

As I already noted, if we stop sticking the industry into a corner shale becomes a 110 year reserve at current rates of consumption. We unshackle nuclear and do as France does and soon we need even less oil and that reserve time-frame goes up even more.

Also reserves cannot be proven until they are booked which is based on market conditions. If the oil costs $20 per barrel to obtain and the market price is $10, then those reserves are not booked and not proven. If the price becomes $130-140 (as it is now) then lots of wells and fields suddenly become proven because it is economically feasible to pump the oil.

Here is a nice biased oil from that conservative beacon, NPR.

Quote:
A study by the Rand Corporation estimates the sedimentary rock in the corner where Utah borders Colorado and Wyoming holds about 800 billion barrels. That's three times the size of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves.

We can be the largest producer of energy in the world if we just stop exporting our needs due to environmental concerns.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #32 of 297
McCain the flip-flopper? Why did he oppose it last time around?

Hmmm... He'll support whatever is seemingly good for him right now.

If the people are for it, then the country needs more than oil; it needs serious help.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #33 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


Here is a nice biased oil from that conservative beacon, NPR.



We can be the largest producer of energy in the world if we just stop exporting our needs due to environmental concerns.

Speaking of environmental concerns, you forgot to add this quote from the same article:

"All of that worries environmentalists, who fear that mining and baking thousands of tons of shale would pollute the air, tax the water supply and destroy the fragile Western terrain."

Not to mention what the population influx to make it happen would do.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5424033

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #34 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Of course they won't take less than the market rate. However the assertion was that the U.S. didn't care about the market rate since they were exporting oil. Try to keep up here.

As I already noted, if we stop sticking the industry into a corner shale becomes a 110 year reserve at current rates of consumption. We unshackle nuclear and do as France does and soon we need even less oil and that reserve time-frame goes up even more.

Also reserves cannot be proven until they are booked which is based on market conditions. If the oil costs $20 per barrel to obtain and the market price is $10, then those reserves are not booked and not proven. If the price becomes $130-140 (as it is now) then lots of wells and fields suddenly become proven because it is economically feasible to pump the oil.

Here is a nice biased oil from that conservative beacon, NPR.



We can be the largest producer of energy in the world if we just stop exporting our needs due to environmental concerns.

... never made such a claim.

This thread is about increasing U.S. oil production now, is it not? That's the McBush solution de jour, is it not? In fact, it's mostly about offshore oil production, is it not? Stop moving the goal posts, and stick to the current debate, not something that will occur a decade (or two or three or four or five or ...) from now.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #35 of 297
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that, from a long-term strategic perspective, we don't really want to use less foreign (and more domestically) sourced oil (right now).

The reason for this is quite simple actually. If oil resources are truly finite, and we use up all of the oil elsewhere in the world, then guess who is sitting the catbird seat?
post #36 of 297
Why don't we really set about improving energy efficiency and developing alternative sources in earnest? Why are the first hydrogen cars for lease made outside the USA?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #37 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

We can be the largest producer of energy in the world if we just stop exporting our needs due to environmental concerns.

... Kazakhstan!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #38 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that, from a long-term strategic perspective, we don't really want to use less foreign (and more domestically) sourced oil (right now).

The reason for this is quite simple actually. If oil resources are truly finite, and we use up all of the oil elsewhere in the world, then guess who is sitting the catbird seat?

Exactly. Or at least in a less screwed seat.
post #39 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... belief with respect to how much domestic production could offset current oil consumption/imports.

Push those numbers any which way you want, just remember that this isn't a magic act, and that total domestic production can not exceed the amount extracted from the ground. \

Give me a clue on how much increasing domestic production will offset imports and for how long.

And the current domestic production goes for the same price as the global market price, even if it's extracted at one tenth the current global market price. That's how the major U.S. oil producers make their ever increasing profits (and profit margins). D'oh!

See trumptman's comments. By the way, your contention that domestic drilling will not help the situation we are in is utterly laughable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Why? Because they are founded on data rather than wishful thinking?

See below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Frank is going to play word games with the word PROVEN. See there is a specific series of hopes to jump through to make a find proven. However since we can't actually undertake those actions... well it isn't proven so it doesn't exist.

I'm betting for example that even though there are wells actually drawing oil from the Bakken Formation that it might not yet meet the definition for proven reserves and as such cannot be added to the Frank pile. It is likely called probable even though oil is coming out of the ground since the techniques are called technically recoverable. As the link explains, it isn't a scientific definition, but a legally defined definition. If the U.S. wants to call oil shale proven reserves, it has 110 year supply just using shale.

It is interesting to look at Canada in this regard since it allows most to remove the BushHate™ blinders.



As I noted earlier, the U.S. doesn't export oil to screw itself over. It is about closeness to the source. Also Frank wants to get hung up on proven/probably..etc definition and will not even admit that regulation affects this. We cannot build refineries and thus when you cannot refine the oil product, the field it comes from cannot be called proven. Off-shore drilling is prohibited and thus the reserves there are not booked or proven.


Canadian conventional oil production peaked in 1973, but oil sands production is forecast to increase to at least 2020

You change the rules, you change the results. In the U.S. we need to change the rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

No - the Republicans are trying to manufacture a Democratic weakness for political gain.

They're going to find even less takers than they did for their Gas Tax Holiday. The American People aren't buying Politics As Usual. They're more in the market for Hope and Change - and some REAL "straight talk". This is only going to hurt them among independents, moderates, and swing votes. You base-dwelling 30-percenters are lapping it right up, though, aren't you?

They are not manufacturing anything.

The Democrats have consistently opposed energy exploration in the name of environmentalism. They have opposed nuclear power, coal power, etc. They have supported "alternative fuels" like ethanol, helping to quadruple the price of corn, raise the price of milk, eggs, etc. They have gone after the "evil oil companies," who make less on a gallon of gas than the government does. They want to impose a windfall profits tax, which will do NOTHING to reduce gas prices...it will make them go higher. They have blocked construction of new refineries in the United States for 30 years.

Most Republicans favor adding supply to the market. Most favor building more refineries, turning to nuclear power, coal power, drilling ANWR and off the coasts, etc.

These are facts, and you cannot change them. Democrats are responsible for our current situation.

Edit: Speaking of exploiting the issue for political purposes, what are the Democrats doing? Back when gas was $2.80 a gallon, Pelosi said that the prices were the result of the Republican Congress. She had a "commonsense plan" to lower gas prices. What happened? Let me guess...Republican obstructionism? No. The answer is Democrats are beholden to the environmental lobby, who opposes adding supply that is readily available. Now that it's election time though, it's the Republican's fault...even though Democrats have been running Congress for 2 years. The whole thing is laughable. Democrats created this situation almost entirely on their own. Now they are the ones shifting the blame...not just to the GOP, but to the oil companies as well. Their "commonsense" plan includes passing a ridiculous windfall profits tax, ending subsidies, etc. What they don't understand is that corporations don't pay taxes. People pay taxes. Those costs will be passed on the the customer. Do you really think that oil companies are going to lower gas prices to avoid a windfall profits tax? Of course not.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #40 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... never made such a claim.

This thread is about increasing U.S. oil production now, is it not? That's the McBush solution de jour, is it not? In fact, it's mostly about offshore oil production, is it not? Stop moving the goal posts, and stick to the current debate, not something that will occur a decade (or two or three or four or five or ...) from now.

I never said you did. I said I was responding to such a claim. It was made by FormerLurker. That is why I said to keep up.

The thread isn't about increasing oil production now. It is about how Republicans are trying to exploit the oil issue. One of the reasons cited as proof of this is the fact that efforts begun now won't yield immediate results. The reality though is that never beginning anything regardless of timeframe always has the result that doing nothing will have. Addressing a problem now or with a solution that gives results five years from now is still better than nothing.

I suspect that drilling offshore will bring about much quicker results, but honestly just being open to exploring for energy on our own shores again would probably scare any speculators out of oil prices. Most reports have said that there isn't a true justification for the current prices and they are the result of needing a guarantee when there is so little margin of error in in the current supply. You don't alter the supply today but guaranteeing there will be more supply in the future will likely cause some to look else where for gains.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › New Republican coordinated plan to blame Democrats for high oil prices