Times reported that Dems argue "coastal exploration would have no immediate impact on gas prices," but not that the Energy Dep't agrees
SUMMARY: The New York Times reported that "leading Democrats" argue "that allowing additional coastal exploration [for oil] would have no immediate impact on gas prices." But the article did not note that it is not only "leading Democrats" who have pointed out that access to currently off-limit areas would have no immediate impact on prices: The U.S. Department of Energy has estimated that allowing the congressional and executive moratoriums on certain off-shore drilling to expire in 2012 "would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."
In a July 24 New York Times article, reporter Carl Hulse stated: "On the one side is the Democratic leadership, pushing its view that oil companies must be pressed to explore their current holdings and that the nation should pursue more alternative energy sources without opening areas now off limits to drilling. On the other are Republicans with their dominant message: Drill." Hulse further reported that "leading Democrats also say they believe Mr. [Sen. Barack] Obama can carry a debate with Senator John McCain over offshore drilling, arguing that allowing additional coastal exploration would have no immediate impact on gas prices." But Hulse did not note that it is not only "leading Democrats" who have argued that access to currently off-limit areas would have no immediate impact on prices. In fact, in 2007, the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) considered the likely effects of allowing the congressional and executive moratoriums on certain off-shore drilling to expire in 2012 and estimated that access to offshore areas currently off limits "would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030," as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented.
In a May 2008 report, the EIA also considered the effects of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and concluded that oil drilling in ANWR would not impact the U.S. oil supply for at least a decade.
From the July 24 New York Times article:
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Republicans and Democrats agree that high gasoline prices are the driving domestic political issue of the moment, spurring new campaign advertisements and maneuvering almost every day. But that is about all they can agree on when it comes to the national panic at the pump.
Making it increasingly clear that the Congressional debate is more a matter of political positioning than policy creation, the Senate failed Wednesday to come to terms on the ground rules for considering an energy bill, delaying a proposal to curb speculation in oil futures and stymieing a broader review of energy initiatives.
The stalemate is drawing sharp contrasts for the November election. On the one side is the Democratic leadership, pushing its view that oil companies must be pressed to explore their current holdings and that the nation should pursue more alternative energy sources without opening areas now off limits to drilling. On the other are Republicans with their dominant message: Drill.
"We should come out for developing more American energy, and not rely on expensive foreign sources," said Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, senior Republican on the Appropriations Committee. "We can develop our offshore resources far from the coastline in the Gulf of Mexico, for example, and add to our energy supply."
Republicans say they are willing to back alternative energy proposals and conservation as well but drilling has been their priority. And in an election season when the terrain has been steeply tilted against them, Republicans say they have finally struck pay dirt on an issue they can exploit with some success. Polls show that Americans want cheaper gasoline and that many are willing to embrace new drilling if it can bring down the price.
[...]
Some Democrats grudgingly concede that Republicans have finally gotten a little traction on an issue after struggling for months to find their footing. But they say it is far from enough to fundamentally alter the election landscape.
And they point to the fact that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are closely identified with the oil industry, a tie that makes it unlikely the high price of gasoline is going to be pinned on Democrats, especially when Republicans had full control of Washington for much of the current Bush era.
"With the election now set between change versus status quo, drilling is not the silver bullet for our energy policy or the Republicans' political misfortunes," said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.
Democrats also say that most voters can be persuaded that expanded offshore domestic drilling is no solution to a gas price crunch that calls for innovation and exploration of new ways of powering America.
"Why are they clinging to this?" asked Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, referring to the Republican emphasis on drilling. "They are mired in the past."
As they step up their cooperation with Senator Barack Obama's campaign, leading Democrats also say they believe Mr. Obama can carry a debate with Senator John McCain over offshore drilling, arguing that allowing additional coastal exploration would have no immediate impact on gas prices. They say the energy issue can be cast as a generational one, with Mr. Obama representing a shift away from a focus on oil while his opponent, Mr. McCain, is embracing new drilling as the chief solution to gas prices.
Incorrect assumption. The US is not short on fuel, as you don't see anyone lining up for it, nor do you see any "out of gas" signs at service stations.
Drilling will add oil to the GLOBAL MARKET thus helping meeting the worldwide demands and increases of consumption by India and China. The world, not just the US, will be at an oil shortage without an increase in supply. This is not a 1:1 ratio with refining capacity currently, although a new refinery has just started the building process in the northern part of the US.
More oil is not the solution. More oil is the problem.
That's the one thing that bothers me about journalism these days. Here's the New York Times, the nation's newspaper, not mentioning a primary source corraborarating the Democrat's opinions. It could have only taken a paragraph or two to mention this as well.
From your response it sounds like you believe that increasing supply would lower the cost - in line with the republican thinking.
The reason the existing leases go undeveloped is because the cost of extracting that oil is not profitable at this time. Perhaps if oil ever gets to $200 a barrell it would be. For now though, if you have acccess to land containing reserves that could be developed for $50 a barrell would you not be wise to pursue that opportunity before you develop the higher cost fields?
The reason the existing leases go undeveloped is because the cost of extracting that oil is not profitable at this time.
While true, the break even point in some of the fields is not considered profitable yet, there is also another reason that many leases go undeveloped. Much of the land is sold on a grid basis. You can buy 4 grids, for example A, B, C, and D that are all connected. Chances are, but not always, than you can drill on grid A and get all the oil under the 3 remaining grid sites.
http://bachmann.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=97963
This woman just LOVES oil. Just watch one of late-night c-span speeches. She is so in love with the black gold, the texas tea, why I think she just might marry it!
The real solution is to get off oil. I don't buy the bogus argument that we don't have the technology to do it or that it is too expensive.
40 years ago there was no such thing as a cell phone. Now, you can text message somebody from one part of the country to the other by bouncing radio waves off satellites. We can accomplish that, but yet we can't figure out how to make our major mode of transportation run efficiently and inexpensively from something besides a petroleum based product? The answer is that Big Oil has coerced the major automakers into NOT developing new technologies. Why is it that I remember little Toyotas being imported here in the 70s that got around 50 mpg? Now, you're lucky if you can get a car that gets 30 mpg.
We're being duped into believing the answer is to keep drilling until we have no natural resources left. Bulls&*%. The technology is there; we just need to demand that it be put to use.
Why is it that I remember little Toyotas being imported here in the 70s that got around 50 mpg? Now, you're lucky if you can get a car that gets 30 mpg.
You're obviously out of touch with the auto industry and modern technologies associated with it. In the 1970's, the 50mpg toyotas you speak of, did not have nearly the safety standards nor the quality of todays autos. Not to mention that with added safety, comes added weight, and that cars are only emitting 1/1000th of the emissions of the 1970's while still getting the modern day efficiency is amazing in itself.
Pick your side: safety + performance + low emissions, or small + junk matierals + low safety + high emissions
Those Hummers, Cadalac Escalades, Lincoln SUVs are nothing more than civilianized tanks. More efficient? Hardly. You are obviously lacking in life experience.
The answer is that Big Oil has coerced the major automakers into NOT developing new technologies.
Might be the most ridiculous thing I've heard all weekend. The tens of billions of dollars of losses over the last decade for Ford and GM - they must've done it because their "in the bag" for big oil. Wake up.
because existing refineries are operating to their max capacity.
All the better to get started now.
We know how accurate government forecasts can be.
"The truth is many permits for refineries accross the country have been granted. They're just sitting on those too."
Do you have a source on that statement?
It is my understanding that the refinery part is the least profitable of oil industry endeavors...
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/ref_image_prof_rate.htm
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/refining_text.htm
Refining oil is one of the lease profitable, and cheapest, areas of creating gasoline from oil. However, refinery expansion is one of the largest headaches for companies to try to expand on.
Two large reasons for the few refineries that we have online.
And who was in control of every branch of government at that time? Looks like someone was asleep at the wheel as the tanker crashed into the reef.
The truth is many permits for refineries accross the country have been granted. They're just sitting on those too.
While initial permits may have been granted, there over thousands of actual permits required before a refinery can actually be built and brought online. Many times, its not the initial permits that block the expansion.
Democrats also say that most voters can be persuaded that expanded offshore domestic drilling is no solution to a gas price crunch that calls for innovation and exploration of new ways of powering America.
I doubt that. We are smart enough to know that if we grow tomatoes, we can have them for less cost than buying them in the store. We also know that if we all start growing tomatoes the cost of tomatoes will come down. Granted the oil markets are a bit more complicated than that - but the basic premise holds true - and that's an easy sell to the common man. The democrats position is challenged with the task to argue against common sense.
Most everybody agrees that America needs to develop alternative means of energy and that will take some time. Bridging the gap between now and then is the issue. Obama can argue that drilling may not immediately lower costs, but he has proposed nothing that immediately lower costs either. Republicans can now link that since Bush lifted the executive order on drilling the price of oil has fallen almost 10%. Whether the lifting actually led to the price decress is arguable - however the inference that it did can be easily sold.
Agreed, the problem is the easy part to see. The solution is much different. Advocates for alternatives as the only fuel source are far from reality in seeing that we need cheap energy to expand national wealth and keep the economy running strong. This mentality accepts expensive energy during the period of time to bridge the gap to alternatives. However, this is not a smart solution any way you decide to cut it.
A formal plan to lower prices in the short term, and gradually migrate to alternatives while keeping the economy and national wealth in mind needs to be the focus.
however the inference that it did can be easily sold.
Who cares about the truth when you sell a lie. You're a piece of work.
You cannot disprove his theory. There are supporting arguments for and against it. Its similar to Global Warming. Is there a climate change going on? Many scientific facts point to yes, but is it man made is questionable at best.
The point is that somethign is happening in both arguments, but you cannot disprove any more than you can prove your right.
The idea that allowing new drilling in ANWAR or off the US coast will not produce any usable oil for 10 years is irrelevant. Look, on July 14, GWB lifted the ban on US off-shore oil & gas drilling. In the week that followed, the price for a barrel of oil drops to below $125. The very thought that we will step up oil production has OPEC worried -
He didn't say OPEC determined the price, he said they would be worried.
That would be because the $$$ stay here, just like ethanol.
That would be because the $$$ stay here, just like ethanol.
While true that more money would stay in the domestic economy by increasing US supplies, that would not be the #1 reason for OPEC to break pause. The main reason would be that non-OPEC countries, like the US as the #1 demander of oil, would start having more say in the actual amount of excess capacity on the market, removing OPEC's ability to control pricing.
But to compare that to Ethanol is silly, but not to be demeaning about it. Ethanol has proven to be a terrible decision, not because using renewable sources in conjunction with oil is bad though. Its terrible because E85 fuel provides much less efficiency at a price that is not deemed worthy by consumers. Once you remove the enormous subsidies associated with it, Ethanol actually costs much much more per gallon than gasoline, while delivering much less mileage per gallon.
"In the week that followed, the price for a barrel of oil drops to below $125. The very thought that we will step up oil production has OPEC worried - "
And...incidentally...PROVING there is NO shortage of supply. This is NOT a "supply and demand" problem. Get back with that argument when we have "odd even day" rationing, and hours long waits at the pump for gas that might not be there by the time you GET to the pump. Been through that already.
We are NOT in a low supply situation. NOT. More oil, even if it could be brought online in the markets in the next 5 minutes would not affect the price appreciably. Not as long as you have investors betting on short supplies IN THE FUTURE. That's what they've been doing...and some of the future has already arrived: according to the report on NPR this morning gas supplies are HIGHER than expected.
PROVING there is NO shortage of supply
Not entirely correct. The problem is that oil production has not risen at the same pace as demand. We are not waiting in line for fuel, or being subjected to filling up on odd days, much like the 70's, however if we keep production constant then you can expect to see those scenarios again.
The second problem with it is that the only countries in the world with the current ability to expand production to outpace demand are OPEC members. Obviously, this is not a good thing. By having other non-OPEC members expand production - the US, Brazil, Canada, etc - it helps supply outpace, or at least keep pace, with rising demand and helps reduce the stranglehold that OPEC can have on supply manipulation.
even if it could be brought online in the markets in the next 5 minutes would not affect the price appreciably
Absolutely it would. The global market is operating on about a 1M barrel per day excess. I believe thats out of roughly 85M barrel per day demand. Having only 1% excess supply means that if any considerable disruptions were to occur, or if OPEC felt the urge to decrease supply for price manipulation, that we'd all be in big trouble.
Its true the commodities market executes on more than just supply & demand principals, however they are a major factor. Take the recent week of price drops due to a 2.4% decrease in US demand. However, keep in mind the last oil embargo - which has shown that once prices go back down to a position seen as reasonable by consumers, their consumption habits will change, thus proving that conservation is always temporary in terms of pricing. Therefore, by increasing the supply "in the next 5 minutes" would decrease prices - regardless if demand went up or down. But if demand continues to go down, prices will decrease further because of excess stockpiles - as seen last week by the massive 2 day, $10/barrel drop when reports hit of a 3M barrel stockpile of reserves in the US.
OPEC does not set the price, the global trading market sets the price. Thus all countries who buy on the market pay the same price - US, France, etc. The difference in prices at the pump are dictated by the amount of taxation.
Countries such as Venezuela have the ability to control their own pricing because they socialize and subsidize the oil from their own borders. Even countries like Iran dont necessarily control their own fuel prices because they export their oil and import their refined fuels.
OPEC does however have the ability to control high and low prices due to the fact that they control roughly 40% of the worlds oil supply, and are the only countries who have the ability to increase capacity at will. Other non-OPEC countries are operating at maximum capacity.
I see you conveniently forgot that the fed gave a speech that day that is largely credited with the drop in oil.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil prices plummeted by the second-largest margin on record Tuesday as investors feared a further decline in U.S. demand after hearing comments from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.
And let's not forget this juicy little tidbit:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The government charged an oil trading firm Thursday with manipulating oil prices in the first complaint to be announced since the regulators began a new investigation into wrongdoings in the energy markets.
Nice try at rewriting history, too bad about those pesky little things called facts.
Its ok J.H.....
We all know that the only the Democrats are the bad guys...... If all else fails..... they can always blame Bill Clinton!
Wait a second..... I thought the NYT was a liberal haven?? hmmph
From a pol on FDL yestaday: 76% prefer new technologies over new drilling, 63% believe drilling in ANWR will do more for oil companies than consumers.
From the business section of the Seattle PI July,22,2008.
Oil profits still at record levels. Exploration has been in single digit expense percentages for years. Most money these days, 55% is going to stock buybacks and pay dividends. Up from 30% in 2000,1% in 1993.
While increasing stock value, investor owned oil now controls 10% of gobal oil supplies. State owned companies currently own 80% of the golbal oil supply.
Corporate oil will squeeze us as long as they are allowed to.They look like losers to me.
From a pol on FDL yestaday: 76% prefer new technologies over new drilling, 63% believe drilling in ANWR will do more for oil companies than consumers.
Those are quite funny, as well as meaningless poll figures.
Most people would prefer to have a free car than buying one. But that doesn't mean anything when the preference is not currently acheivable. There are no current alternatives that could supply the nations transportation needs, much less other energy needs.
People would also view electric companies as benefitting more than the consumer when it comes to building new plants. However, and more importantly, the consumer realizes what a free market is and accepts whatever solution there is to bring their bottom line spending prices down.
Exactly why majority of Americans favor off short drilling. Also why the percentage of Americans who favor drilling in ANWR is increasing in every weekly poll.
Right my pols are meaningless, while yours are the breathless truth. Neat trick nothing supports your position but your right anyway. Further points ignored as usual.
There is no free car, so this rates as a possible course how? If nothing else it counts as income and you'll pay incometaxes on its worth. Just because your 20-300 vision cannot find options does not preclude their existence.
Next para shorter. We feel we can continue to delude our customers, and make obscene profits till we take all our money and move it and our selves to some nice despot lead country and help defile it.
Last para, figures and sources dipstick, and I mean that corporatly.
You offer nothing good for the energy comsumer but more of the same. It is not a helpful or sustainable policy. If you had anyone's interest at heart besides the oil companies. you might see the most amazing things.
Futile you might think, as you'll continue to spew "pro oil" regardless of what anyone might say in reply.
What makes you think I'd expect you to actually an support an arguement. Historically you do not. The arguments are for those whose soul isn't sold to oil.
My soul is sold to the economy of the US, maintaing and growing our current standard of living, and building upon the wealth of the most prosperous nation in the world. None of which is viable without cheap energy - no matter how you spin it.
Whether its the oil companies, windmill companies, solar companies, etc...someone is going to make a huge profit off energy. No way to circumvent that outside of slashing free market and implementing socialism. If alternative energy sources were actually viable, and as cheap as oil, they'd already be mainstream. But to actually try to argue and promote alternatives which cost exponentially more money, while delivering multiple times less energy as a way to "grow" the economy is pure nonsense.
You offer nothing good for the energy comsumer but more of the same.
You mean more of the same cheap energy that transformed a 200 year old country into the most powerful, and wealthy nation in the world? Yeah, you're right. More of the same is exactly what I'm in favor of, until something else comes along that provides equal, or greater energy output at a lower price.
Geothermal fills your requirements. By the bye we've dropped in several catigories of wealth and power. True this is of concern to large parts of the population that you have no empathy for, so again this is really for them not you.
1% of our population has aquired anything in the last 7.5 year economic miracle. Its a miracle, must be to have isolated the economic advantage to such a small population.
If we keep at it how far can we reduce that population to .005%?
There are already two hydrogen powered cars availble. A lotta noncorporate enginuity is on display in this area. A few cons too. Al Gore is not one of them.
Off transportation, half of our energy is used to heat our buildings. This accounts for 3/4's of our electrical use.
To fail to see viable finacial and societal advantage in working hard to reduce petrochemical combustian is to be obtuse, and like our freaking leader, willfully ignorant.
Geothermal fills your requirements. By the bye we've dropped in several catigories of wealth and power. True this is of concern to large parts of the population that you have no empathy for, so again this is really for them not you.
Please explain how a highly subsidized alternative energy source which provides less energy and cost several times more than nuclear and coal is good for the part of the population I have no empathy for. What you're asking for is for the low income population and greenies to get an electric bill for $400 isntead of $100. Yes, what economic sense that makes for the individual and the US economy. Genius.
It is quite pathetic that you are citing the Energy Department as if it had the slightest idea what it was talking about.
Increasing the supply of oil, in of itself will decrease the price of oil.
In fact, it will happen immediately because those "evil" speculators will drive the prices down the second they know we're serious.
Drill Here....Drill Now....Pay Less
Drill Here....Drill Now....Pay Less in 2030. Maybe.
Now you're set for success, just use that modification and people might actually take you seriously.
So kids, you'll find people who speak with great authority and sureity. They've learned how to do it. The narrowness of vision and inability to actually debate or even notice that the are some items that pretty much cut them off at the rhetorical knees, are useful clues.
Trust this type of person with your resources and they tend to become his resources. If you find that you now seem to be poorer. The usual response would be to stop whinning because your lucky he has that control and not someone else and it'd be even worse. And by the way the complaint will cost you. Now go away so that the great mind may consider things beyond your feeble minds pathetic limits.
You may have the good fortune to meet and work with competent people and have competent leadership. Mr. Science and CD share no qualities with them. My opinion comes from 25 years experience on the naval nuclear waterfront where incompetence is quite visible and of short duration. Mind you at two degrees of separation from that waterfront you start to find examples of Mr. Science and CD. Which is a pity.
Comprehension city you ain't. case maker, not at all. emotional surveyor, your axis is off. Answers to my points, zip. Status normal.
As I've mentioned, my coments are not for you. I know better than to expect any real argument from you. Character assasination, message assasination, authority assasination, pretty much. So I figure a running comentary at you would be an interesting tactic. You only pay half assed attension anyway, if you put your back into it and I can just an annoying buzz. A thing of no consequence. Which is where the majority of us exist for you.
Chow, unless you've already eaten.
...because I dont like to get into arguments based on emotion and political voting status. I'd rather make statements based on common, and widely available, facts on the industry and economy. You would rather spout about the childrens, the trees, and its effects on climate change (which is not even proven).
Emotion vs Facts. Sorry buddy.
I've yet to see any verifiable facts from the entity known Ironically, I assume,as Science 101. Figures emerge from no stated source. Opinions floated about as their mere association with him confirms their correctness. I wonder what strange society this sample came from. What strange rituals formed him in his formative years.
I suspect oil played an improper role somewhere arround toilet training time. When offered time to go out and play he always insisted on keeping his good luck oil can in hand. He was eventually weaned of the can transfering his stunted affection to an oil soaked rag. Which was slightly less socially crippling.
Science101's arguments are indisputable and unbiased by emotion.
I don't see ANY facts or references in your arguments, Mr. Eweston. Just unsubstantiated and emotionally based whining.
Unfortunately, Obama will probably become president because of people like you. God help us.
Hey Goodfella,
I think you are confused. Science did not provide one single fact in anything he said.
Also, since your hero's Bush and Cheney have completely screwed up everything, and brought our great country to it's lowest point ever, even you would have to admit (If you had a brain of course) that Obama can't help but do a better job, because it's impossible to be worse than them.
So are you moving beyond you weekly drive by posting Goodfellas.
Science offers nothing logical. I've offered up legitimate options to an oil future. I've offered up reasons why his energy future is not sustainable.
He does not register any of this. He will not engage in any debate. Facts that he does not like, somehow cannot survive in his brain.
His authoritarian mannor is untouched by any means of support. Your posting do not follow this manner, but you both project a similar suriety.
Which again seems unsupported.
Put out some meat, verifiable meat.