O'Reilly claimed "when Katrina hit, none of the oil rigs spilled in Louisiana," but didn't note that 5,552 barrels spilled into Gulf
SUMMARY: On his radio program, Bill O'Reilly stated, "Remember when Katrina hit, none of the oil rigs spilled in Louisiana." However, O'Reilly did not note that according to a report prepared for the federal government by an international consulting firm, Hurricane Katrina resulted in 70 spills from outer continental shelf structures with a total volume of approximately 5,552 barrels of oil and petroleum products, including 27 spills from platforms and rigs that resulted in the spilling of approximately 2,843 barrels of petroleum.
While discussing offshore oil drilling with a caller on the July 9 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor, host Bill O'Reilly stated, "[Y]ou have to have a sane environmental policy when it's 25 miles offshore that no one'll see and you've got technology that will prevent pollution." He added, "Remember when Katrina hit, none of the oil rigs spilled in Louisiana. So we have the technology. And in Norway, which is one of the most green countries in the world, they drill offshore, and it's a self-sufficient country now." However, O'Reilly did not note that according to a 2007 report prepared for the U.S. Minerals Management Service by the international consulting firm Det Norske Veritas, Hurricane Katrina resulted in 70 spills from outer continental shelf structures with a total volume of approximately 5,552 barrels of oil and petroleum products, including 27 spills from platforms and rigs that resulted in the spilling of approximately 2,843 barrels of petroleum.
The report included the following chart of oil spill statistics for damage to outer continental shelf (OCS) structures related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita:
Media Matters for America previously noted that during the June 27 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, former Republican presidential candidate and Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee falsely asserted, "When Katrina, a Cat-5 hurricane, hit the Gulf Coast, not one drop of oil was spilled off of those rigs out in the Gulf of Mexico." Additionally, on the June 24 edition of MSNBC Live, NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell failed to challenge Sen. Richard Burr's (R-NC) false assertion that "there wasn't a drop" of oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico during "a Category 5 hurricane in the Gulf that really came twice."
From the July 9 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Let's go to Dwight in Orlando, Florida. What's going on, Dwight?
CALLER: Hey, Bill, how are you today?
O'REILLY: I'm good, sir.
CALLER: You know, first of all, I've got a new definition for Ph.D. now.
O'REILLY: Go ahead.
CALLER: That's a pinhead Democrat.
O'REILLY: All right, Dwight. I mean, you know, you're a Republican, so I expect you would say that, but what's on your mind?
CALLER: You know, back in 1984 --
O'REILLY: Mm-hmm.
CALLER: -- Chevron had the leases for the Gulf of Mexico. And they found enough natural gas 25 miles off the coast of Pensacola to heat every home in the United States for the next 60 years. And I hear all these guys coming on your show saying, "Well, you know, we need to drill on the reserves that they've already got, on the grants that they've already got." And Chevron's had this for 30 years, and they can't drill because of a presidential --
O'REILLY: But that's a Republican play. That's a Jeb Bush play, Dwight.
CALLER: It was.
O'REILLY: Yeah.
CALLER: It's not now.
O'REILLY: Well, no, he's gone now. But president backed him up -- his brother backed him up. And look, you're right that you have to have a sane environmental policy when it's 25 miles offshore that no one'll see and you've got technology that will prevent pollution.
Remember when Katrina hit, none of the oil rigs spilled in Louisiana. So we have the technology. And in Norway, which is one of the most green countries in the world, they drill offshore, and it's a self-sufficient country now.
So, look, I'm with you. I'm with all of you guys, that we have to bring sanity into the debate. But part of the debate is alternative fuels. And that's an important part of the debate. And conservatives and Republicans tend to diminish that. I don't know why.
Let's go to Spencer in Vero Beach, Florida. What's going on, Spencer?
"So, look, I'm with you. I'm with all of you guys, that we have to bring sanity into the debate."--BO
Why don't you start with correct facts...and we'll go from there.
I will give BO credit for at least correcting the caller about why we haven't been drilling in Florida. Of course, O'Reilly did not mention that Crist now says he wants it.
I think the best politics here is for the Democrats to say they want to turn the authority over to the states and lift the ban. That shifts all of the pressure onto Crist and Schwarzeneger. If their citizens are okay with it, then let them drill.
Personally, I don't think drilling will make much difference except the oil companies will be able to rake in a much higher profit margin through access to $4 or $5 oil that they can sell for themselves on the open market instead of the state getting all of the profits like it is in the Middle East and elsewhere.
I wonder if the people clammoring for this even know that they are just being useful tools for the Oil industry and it won't change the price at the pump or our dependency much at all.
DRILL HERE DRILL NOW PAY LESS
DRILL HERE DRILL NOW PAY LESS
DRILL HERE DRILL NOW PAY LESS
DRILL HERE DRILL NOW PAY LESS
DRILL HERE DRILL NOW PAY LESS
DRILL HERE DRILL NOW PAY LESS
Is it working on you yet?
"DRILL HERE DRILL NOW PAY LESS"--Col
That is the chant from the oil company stooges, but this is what Oil Company execs are dreaming:
DRILL HERE DRILL NOW PAY THE SAME MASSIVE PROFITS
First off, the oil companies do not set the price of oil - only the price of gasoline. There is an 8% profit margin on gasoline (before the service station gets their cut).
If gasoline is $4/gal and currently at $140/barrel, the profit would be roughly $28/barrel - however, the cost, although low, of refining and transporting that fuel will also come out of that $28.
The real profit is made by the state owned companies that do the physical drilling, such as Saudi Arabia. They can sell gasoline for $.45/gal because they drill, refine, and sell it themselves.
Now, take the profits that oil companies make off that $28/barrel, and imagine how much the OPEC countries are making. Good reason for them NOT to want to increase supply.
According to OPEC's mission statement, which is a joke I might ad, it says:
The OPEC MCs coordinate their oil production policies in order to help stabilise the oil market and to help oil producers achieve a reasonable rate of return on their investments.
OPEC doesn't want prices this high. They've simply hit peak and lost control of the market. Check it out: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/STEO_Query/steotables.cfm?periodType=Annual&startYear=2004&startMonth=1&endYear=2008&endMonth=12&tableNumber=7
Don't look at the italicized 2008 numbers -- they're projections based on what OPEC says they're going to do. Look at the actual, known figures. OPEC peaked in 2005. They're producing as much oil as possible, can't keep up with demand, and are lying about conditions to avoid panic and real runaway prices -- $200-$300/barrel.
The problem is simply how desperate we are for oil. It runs everything. The value we get from oil is so much higher than the price that we're willing to pay a great deal for it -- we'll grumble, but we'll pay. Imagine 10 hungry people were in an auction for 9 loaves of bread. The second-poorest guy will bid as high as he has to in order to price guy #10 out of the market. If there were 12, 11, or 10 loaves of bread, the market-clearing price might be $2 or whatever, but if there is simply not enough supply to meet demand of a required good, the price will go up until guy #10 is priced out.
How much is guy #9 willing to pay for that bread? $3? 4? Probably whatever he has to. Thus, a 10% reduction in supply can cause a rise in the equilibrium price that's far higher than 10%.
OPEC's production has fallen at least 2.7% since 2005 -- to say nothing of falling British, Norwegian, Russian, Mexican (our #3 supplier), and, of course, American oil, all adding up to a significantly higher decline. How much is the poorest 4-6% who used to have easy access to oil willing to pay to keep that access? How much are you willing to pay?
"First off, the oil companies do not set the price of oil - only the price of gasoline. There is an 8% profit margin on gasoline (before the service station gets their cut)."--science101
Well, there is a little fuzzy math in there, but I would agree that is mostly true for oil that is bought on the foreign markets from national oil companies.
"If gasoline is $4/gal and currently at $140/barrel, the profit would be roughly $28/barrel - however, the cost, although low, of refining and transporting that fuel will also come out of that $28."--science101
This is where your math gets pretty fuzzy. You are forgeting that in the case of oil drilled in America, the Oil companies are buying the oil from themselves. It is called vertical integration. I like the attempt at math though. However flawed, it is an encouraging sign.
"The real profit is made by the state owned companies that do the physical drilling, such as Saudi Arabia. They can sell gasoline for $.45/gal because they drill, refine, and sell it themselves.
Now, take the profits that oil companies make off that $28/barrel, and imagine how much the OPEC countries are making. Good reason for them NOT to want to increase supply."--science101
You were so close. Of course, that is true. And that is why the US oil companies want to drill for $4/$5 per gal. gas themselves as well. They want the kinds of profits they are getting in the Middle East...and they are using right-wing talking heads to get what they want - classic bait and switch. Tell people the price will drop if they just let you drill - knowing that it won't and reaping the massive profits. The irony is that conservatives believe they understand economics better than everyone else.
You almost figured it out on your own. So close.
If you think drilling for oil in the US can lower prices at the pump, I would have to ask you a couple simple questions:
1)Can you think of a relevant example of a country (like the US) that produces less than 8% of a commodity that was able to dictate the global price of that commodity to a group (OPEC) that produces well over 40% of the same commodity?
2)Assuming you somehow think US meager oil production will allow us to dictate the price of oil, what is stopping OPEC from reducing oil production to compensate - assuming they want to keep the price high - thus negating the additional supply as a factor in pricing?
"According to OPEC's mission statement, which is a joke I might ad, it says:
The OPEC MCs coordinate their oil production policies in order to help stabilise the oil market and to help oil producers achieve a reasonable rate of return on their investments."--science101
What is a crock about that? Do you deny that they can almost single-handedly combine to help set the price of oil? Or at least that was true for many years, but I would say that it seems futures speculation is a bigger factor right now.
Do you expect OPEC to look out for what you think is reasonable? Why do you expect that?
Personally, I think it is in OPEC's best interests to make sure the US and the rest of the world doesn't slip into a global recession. That would be bad for business. I don't think they really want prices this high.
except the oil companies will be able to rake in a much higher profit margin through access to $4 or $5 oil that they can sell for themselves on the open market instead of the state getting all of the profits like it is in the Middle East and elsewhere
Just a few small corrections, not to disagree with your points.
First, there are companies in the US that do domestic drilling, many of which are in Texas for example. Their oil still goes on the open market. However, if the oil companies did drill it themselves and not put it on the market, it would make a direct case for cheaper fuel - since countries like Saudi Arabia sells their gasoline for $.45/gal and Mexico for $2.50/gal.
However, in regards to their profit margins, they wouldnt change on the gasoline sector, and havent for quite some time. They make rougly 8% profit, thats a very very low margin in terms of corporate profit. However, their sales are exponentially higher than any other corporation sector. 8% on $4 is much larger than 8% of $3.
I'm definately not an advocate for what I consider "gouging" by oil corporations, but there are so many factors in fuel pricing that its hard to pin in all on one function.
-- "Sour" crude costs more -- snoopy
Not hardly...
-- Most refiners prefer premium oil, described as light, sweet crude. It is low in sulfur and easy to process, and yields the most volume per barrel of the transportation fuels in greatest demand...
But as the world's oil thirst swells...the extra supply being brought onto the market, primarily by Saudi Arabia, is the heavy, sour variety. Not all refiners have the equipment to process it...
As a result, the high price of light, sweet crude has risen...By contrast, there is a relative abundance of medium to heavy crudes that sell for much less. -- WashTimes
Firstly, I never claime anyone was gauging. Secondly, the gasoline retail market is only one component of the way Big Oil gets their money. It is really a moot point considering they are vertically integrated and can make higher profits in other stages of their production.
Catch 22 gives a great example of this in Milo Minderbinder re-selling eggs.
A Jihad for those wonderful folksie oil Barons?
State's rights would also had to take State's responsibiltys if things go wrong beyond the State's boundries. An insurance policy would be needed. If they can't find/afford one then the nation will get the responsibilty. So I see some States shinning on responsibility and its cost. I see good ole boys slapping themselves on the back. When it goes wrong their piority will be pardoning each other of a responsibility and any need to consider lawyers or court time.
The clowns on the right like to say ... Lookie here, we had this big hurricane and there wasn't a drop of oil spilled. See, technology has improved.
Ignoring the fact that it's not true ... the one thing nobody seems to focus on ... when we've had big spills that have fouled coastline for years, it's not been because we've had a day or two warning and can shut everything down. It's happened because of an accident. Accidents will still happen and accidents will cause big spills. No matter how much better the technology is.
It was still an accident, no matter if it was inadvertant or negligent.
Also, Hazelwood was not found to be "getting drunk on the job" and the alcohol test he was give was botched. The jury at the trial acquitted him of all charges related to alcohol.
5,552 Barrels leaked into the Gulf? OMG. More polution is caused by recreational boaters in a year then that occurence.
If we do not stop depending on foreign oil we shall be doomed. And screw those that think the environment will be in danger or their precious view of the Ocean will be obscured. We have had 45 years to correct this problem and have done nothing. And Ethanol? What a waste of money. It will not make gasoline cheaper at all and at the same time will increase the price of food using Corn as part of it's ingredients.
Nothing wrong with O'Reilly's statement at all. What is wrong you pay attention to this when you should really be worried when you don't have a platform here any longer.
5,552 Barrels leaked into the Gulf? OMG. More polution is caused by recreational boaters in a year then that occurence.(BVDs)
This is the sort of sketchy statistic that people fall for all the time. It's about concentration and dilution, and time frames. If I offered you a hamburger, and promised that it contained less dangerous bacteria than all of the hamburgers consumed by Americans in a year, would you tuck in and thank me?
I wasn't accepting the stat, as there was no backup for it, I just didn't care if it was accurate or not.The reasoning was still faulty, even if we handicap the statistic as true. That's always fun, to concede a lie or allow the begging of a question, and show that even spotting them a couple points, they still can't stay in the game.
This is what Rush Limbaugh imagines he does when he constantly brags about "half his brain tied behind his back". Of course, it's just the opposite. With all of his omissions, strawmen and purposefully misleading paraphrasing, Rush only argues with people who aren't there, and he gives himself all sorts of Mulligans.And he still loses his arguments much of the time.
Imagine if the neocons had to compete for real. They'd be extinct in a week.
"Imagine if the neocons had to compete for real. They'd be extinct in a week."--Col.
I think that is what conservatives have noticed. McCain is really a pretty decent guy who apparently doesn't have as much lust for fighting dirty as the rest of them. I think that has many conservatives in disarray. If anyone doesn't believe that, go read Michelle Malkin's popular literary vomit.
They apparently don't know how to fight straight-up and they have been panicking about it for the last month or maybe longer.
I imagine I got it from the exact same orifice bcvb1949a got his information.
And 99% of the population would agree with your point. ;)
"or their precious view of the Ocean will be obscured."
A fair point, friend. I mean it's not like there are living beings swimming in that precious ocean or anything. And it's not like those living beings are consumed by the American people as food. And it's not like people actually live by that precious ocean and would prefer to keep from having their property polluted.
And good lord, O'Reilly, Norway is NOT going to be hit by a freaking hurricane. I'm guessing the whole "Norway drills off-shore, we can, too!" is going to be the new neocon mantra, because Newt Gingrich wrote an article on how he and his wife visited the lovely and apparently tropical Norway to find that they are constantly drilling off-shore without any government or environmental agency poking their nosey noses around. According to him, Norweigan off-shore drilling isn't even regulated!
And in Norway, which is one of the most green countries in the world, they drill offshore, and it's a self-sufficient country now. - O'Reilly
That may very well be the case, but it's funny - O'Reilly didn't mention that a gallon of gas in Norway (conversion from liters, and all), is over $9.00. While self-sufficiency is nice, look what it does. We need a combination of home-drilling and world oil - but not at too high a cost.
$9/gallon gas would cripple our economy...look what $4.50/gallon is doing!
I should qualify my statement above: I'm not for tearing up our environment and drilling wherever Jed Clampett aims his shotgun.
We need alternatives to petroleum based fuel. We can rebuild our energy policy. We have the technology. ;)