George Bush said ‘Drill!‘ and the price of crude dropped over nine dollars in a single day, and it continues to fall. The market knows that the U.S. has huge, untapped energy reserves. The United States has more than three times the amount of Oil the Saudi Arabians do. Due to a masochistic energy policy brought on by environmental extremists we are now importing 70% of our oil from people who hate us, and indirectly funding our foes in the war against Islamic Extremism. The more energy independent we become, the less money we will be putting into the pockets of those who wish to kill us and end our way of life.
The need for energy in the long term will require a shift in technology. We need to move away from our dependence on fossil fuels. The most viable short-and-mid-term avenue currently is nuclear power. The other commonly discussed alternatives are wind and solar power. These have yet to demonstrate economic viability, but should be pursued none the less. Government funding of research for these and other ideas such as Algae_Fuels is a must. With our economy growing, and our population expanding we will need more energy. Conservation alone will not be able to cover the increase in energy needs. Therefore, until the future alternatives are found, we must make full use of our natural resources.
We are the only nation in the world with access to known oil deposits on our own land or off our shores that essentially refuses to tap those resources.
Giving our own people access to these resources should not be a political football. However the Democrat party is seeking to further politicize the energy debate by couching it as a class warfare issue and giveaways to the wealthy.
Currently it is easier for the Chinese to drill in the Gulf of Mexico than it is for any American Oil company; this is ridiculous.
While Washington dithers over exploiting oil and gas reserves off the coast of Florida, China has seized the opportunity to gobble up these deposits, which run throughout Latin America, the Caribbean and along the U.S. Gulf coast.
…
There are new reports out circulating that Chinese firms are planning to slant drill off the Cuban coast near the Florida Straits, tapping into U.S. oil reserves that are estimated at 4.6 billion to 9.3 billion barrels. This compares with 4 billion to 10 billion barrels believed to be beneath the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge
Nancy Pelosi is more worried about Exxon being able to drill than she is about the Chinese pirating our very own oil reserves. From an article in the Herald Tribune …
“We have chosen to lock up our resources and stand by to be spectators while these two come in and benefit from things right in our own backyard”
The Cuban regime at least is prospering from our policies. Neat trick, someone finally figured out how to bring a profit to Castro’s Caribbean gulag.
Obama’s idea to fix our energy woes is to, ‘Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions‘. Great!! The patient is bleeding, Dr Barak’s brilliant idea is to apply leaches. The Democrats in both houses of Congress have proposed a windfall profits tax, considering what a raging success this was under James Carter, I am surprised they are even considering it. With help like this we should be on our way to the guilt-free third-world economy the left has always wanted.
The Democrat party is currently against drilling in ANWR, the Atlantic Coast, the Pacific Coast the Gulf Coast, the Rocky Mountains and Montana. So what is left? With the other alternatives even more economically unsound than $140/barrel oil, we need to tap into this reservoir now, while we still have an economy to save. Waiting for the alternatives which are at least 30 years away from becoming available will sentence our children and grandchildren to contending with a crippled economy.
Any economy is dependent upon energy. Currently our energy comes primarily in the form of fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas). These fuels have made modern life possible. Without them we would still be huddling in the winter around wood fires, in cramped quarters. In the summer we will perspire copiously and experience mosquito bites in our bedrooms as we try to sleep. This life style romantically is also known as medieval. The lifespan of an individual is 30 to 40 years under this technological regimen. For those who wish to return to this level of existence please vote Democrat. Their policies are putting us on a trajectory back to the past.
When Jeb Bush was Gov. of Fla. he opposed drilling off the Fla. coast. At that time George W. said he also opposed drilling off the Fla. coast.
Now the current Gov. says drill away and Bush says yes to that.
Hmmmm, yep Bush is real committed to a Energy Plan, as long as it did not harm his Brothers political carreer.
Don’t be ridiculous. The price of oil has more than doubled since Jeb was governor.
One thing I wish would happen is alternative energy would be developed more quickly. While I think nuclear ought to be developed, I do not believe wind is not an option. I also believe solar is possible. What is not possible is for electric companies to charge an arm and a leg for either (TVA still has some of the lowest electricity prices around).
I’m very found of any energy program that means the only thing a utility company does is change the form, and deliver the power to consumers.
But in the meantime, we should tap into any oil we have (ANWR, coastal, Montana, whatever) to stimulate the economy now. Okay, we know what will happen in 10-20 years given our lack of self-control on buying reasonable gas mileage cars, but as has been said, the patient is bleeding–if you don’t stop the blood flow, the patient dies.
Where does that oil go? Oh, into a big pot so everyone in the world can enjoy it, how much of the oil we drill do w really get??…not much…GETTING AWAY from oil dependence, that’s the answer………
Some quotations from Chuck Thompson’s book (issued 2007) “smile while you’re lying” chapter 11:
Conceived in the 1950s but gaining widespread acceptance only recently, the concept of “peak oil” is the recognition that oil and gas are finite resources subject to depletion…..
For most of the twentieth century, the petrochemical industry operated on the assumption that oil and gas reserves were governed by the inelastic laws of supply-and-demand economics. As long as there was a demand for oil, so went the thinking, there would be oil. …..
This might or might not be farce, but even the oil-glutted Saudis have a well-known saying: “My father rode a camel I drive a car. My son rides in a jet. His son will ride a camel.” Even if peak oil is dystopian fallacy, oil prices might still reach the stratosphere, turning recreational travel into an activity restricted solely to the truly elite. Mass tourism as we know it could cease to exist.
Given this grave potential sequence of events, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that we’re living at the end of a golden age of travel. …..
If that instant mobility is taken away, our worldview will be drastically reshaped again. The planet could once more become a forbidding place, expensive to see and scary to travers, one that forces us to re-examine the basic lessons about the world collective that travel used to teach.
No comment from me, but interesting.
Travel is but a very small part of the picture. Most people don’t travel that much anyway.
The critical issues are manufacturing and transportation. Energy is necessary to transform raw materials into something more useful. It’s a basic law of thermodynamics. (In layman’s terms, the First Law is, “You can’t win.” The Second Law is, “You can’t break even.”) Energy is also required to transport the products to consumers. Those products include food.
Time to buy a farm and some livestock.
“Time to buy a farm and some livestock.”
That’s what the country collective is about. We have a church and cemetary that bracket or property entrance; acreage enough to grow anything with game aplenty; neighbors willing to trade food. Being as how it is wooded should take care of cooking and heating. Working on a manual generation unit (possibly water). All I need now is a horse for transportation and I’m good. The only oil I need is for the skillet!
Regarding FL, is it not W’s policy that the decision to drill should be determined by the affected state ? First FL said no, now FL says yes, policies change as administrations change.
Btw, Jeb never had Chinese building platforms off of the FL coast did he ?
Jack, yes the price of oil has doubled but do you really think “W” would be saying yes is Jeb was still in office saying no. Get real!
Dan I guess you are saying that drilling is a decision that should be left up to the states and individuls Gov’s. I don’t agree with that, Energy is a national/international issues the Gov of Fla. should not control that policy.
“W” was a wimp who was concerned about his brother then the Country. Now he’s taking big. NOT IMPRESSED!
Regardless of whether the US (via the Oil companies) refines and keeps, or sells oil on the world market, the profit stays here in the good old USA. We export $700 billion outside this country every year on foreign oil, it is embarrassing.
Despite the great debate on alternative sources or drilling, we are not moving towards the alternative fast enough to sustain our economy. Simply put, it will take a host of solutions, drilling being one of them, to satisfy our energy requirements.
I have just read some very interesting information on Chinese oil exploration and deals with Cuba, not to mention 9 other countries including India that already have contracts. They are there and we are not, this too is embarrassing.
If the US would deal with Cuba, maybe we could also be drilling there. But, of course, Cuba is communist – unlike China!
We don’t need to “deal” with Cuba to drill off of our own coast. You are missing the point entirely.
No, I’m not missing the point. If we can drill near Cuba we won’t have to risk our own shores. Every country in the world deals with Cuba except the US, I believe. Does us a lot of good, huh?
We aren’t risking anything. So you would rather have the Chinese (and Indians, Brazilians, etc.) who have absolutely NO environmental concerns, drilling from the same deposits?
This is not a Cuba problem. This is a matter of Congress not allowing drilling 200 miles off our shores in the Gulf of Mexico while other countries can drill from the other side of the deposits in Cuban territory.
What you are talking about is the US not being able to neogiate a contract with Cuba because of our embargo. Why should we pay Cuba for an arrangement to drill from their side of the fence, when we can do it from this side? That areguement is silly on it’s face.
Open up the Gulf so that we can drill safely and environmentally soundly and on our terms, keeping the money here is our country. We don’t need Cuba to drill.
Not Jeff W,
I did not state my opinion, I stated what I have heard Bush say, that he believes the states should have a say in this. W’s remarks about off-shore drilling in FL, past and present, have been totally consistent with this view.
But, since you did bring up my opinion, I am a Jeffersonian, and I believe in the concept of sovereign states. FL absolutely should determine what happens in FL waters, just as AK should control what goes on in ANWAR.
Is it time to rethink this :
Clinton Lifts Ban on Alaskan Oil Exports
AP
Published: April 29, 1996
President Clinton gave formal clearance today for exporting Alaska’s North Slope oil, ending a 23-year-old ban. The President also imposed additional safety requirements on tankers hauling the oil.
Alaska oil exports are permitted under a law the Congress passed last November, but oil companies could not begin carrying the crude abroad until a formal declaration from the President.
The export authority had been sought for years not only by Alaska officials but many in California — a key re-election campaign state for Mr. Clinton — where it is expected to help a sagging oil industry by increasing demand.
The President said permitting the exports would generate up to 25,000 more jobs, particularly in California and Alaska.
The Energy Department has projected that the exports would lead to the production of an additional 100,000 barrels of oil.
Is the cat out of the bag :
In an interview with Bloomberg TV’s “Money and Politics” last night, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., explained Democrats don’t want to increase supplies of oil and gasoline because they want to wean Americans off of petroleum products.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70337
Another one of their elitist social experiments ? Or, is it a simple matter that they want to wean the commoners off of petrol so it may be reserved for their limos and private planes ?
Saw this mentioned on a news broadcast (not MSM). Seems that the liberal lunatics are definitely global. I wonder who is learning from whom. Can you say “revolution”?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080722/bs_afp/norwayoilpricetaxclimate
Here’s another. Can you say “do as I say, not as I do”?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/07/23/denver-post-dnc-getting-gas-tax-free
I read that and wonder “Why does the city of Denver have tax free gas stations?” Do tax free gas stations exist in this area and, if so, who is cleared to use them? I can see maybe police and fire trucks, but politicians of any stripe?!?!
https://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/Speeches/13bc1d97-4ca5-49dd-9805-1297872571ed.htm
This is McCain’s position from a little over a year ago. Paragraph after paragraph about conservation and alternative energy. What did he say about domestic production?
“There is much we can do to increase our own oil production in ways that protect the environment using advanced technologies, including those that use and bury carbon dioxide, to recover the oil below the wells we have already drilled, and tap oil, natural gas, and shale economically with minimal environmental impact.”
That’s it??!! No lambasting the Democrats for supposedly stopping offshore drilling. No call to Bush to lift his ban. No push to open ANWR. And don’t try to tell me McCain now thinks it is more important to drill domestically. Read his speech. He felt that reliance on foreign sources was a critical NATIONAL SECURITY issue. No, he knew then that the concept of increasing oil production in a meaningful way in the US is a ruse. It will have no effect on oil imports and McCain knew it. What is now the cornerstone of his supposed energy policy was barely a blip a year ago.
And on the idea that Bush calling for the lifting if the ban causing oil prices to drop – don’t make me laugh.
Correlation equaling causation is a logical fallacy.
NoVisa,
Usually govt entities are able to use fuel without the taxes. Yes, this is your fire and police services. How in the world the DNC or even possibly the RNC, not being govt entities were afford this privilege is beyond me. We, the tax-paying people, are the ones that deserve the break after govt entities; not political affiliations!
Troll,
Valid point. Both these candidates have been lacking in certain areas (Osama-bama more so) but then McCain’t shows promise by finally gaining understanding-he “gets it”. Osama-bama is VERY slow on the up-take if he ever gets a clue at all.
The line ““There is much we can do to increase our own oil production in ways that protect the environment using advanced technologies, including those that use and bury carbon dioxide,” to me is as stupid as it sounds. McCain’t hasn’t come to the realization that there is no global warming crisis. Heck, I’m not even sure that there is an Al Bore. But to “bury” carbon dioxide to get rid of it is not only dumb on the surface but a losing and useless proposition. Kinda like saving a species that is naturally suppose to go extinct. If my science (or is it biology) is correct, carbon dioxide makes the plants survive. In turn, that gives us oxygen so that WE can survive. Are the greeners that dumb? Or is the true nature and mission but to have humankind go extinct before its time and save the earth for the animals or maybe the Martians?
ACT, now that gas prices have risen more than 25% from the time of McCain’s position laid out above, yes, he does seem to get it.
Can’t say the same about BHO now can we ?
Troll,
“Correlation equaling causation is a logical fallacy.”
This is a truth, but I do not believe it is applicable here. Bush is signaling a change in policy. The markets do take policy into account when pricing the future value of a product. To completely dismiss the impact of the policy change is as large a logical blunder as linking the stockmarket to sunspot activity.
Rather than assuming that the oil markets are hanign on Bush’s every word, this is more likely the cause of the drop in crude prices:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/14/world/main4181473.shtml
Speaking to CBS News Foreign Affairs Analyst Pamela Falk, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Sunday that the Saudi oil minister confirmed to him that the government will increase its oil production to 9.7 million barrels a day, with a cumulative increase of 500,000 barrels over the course of June and July, a slight clarification of earlier news reports.
AND
The Secretary-General met with the Saudi King, Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz, to urge him to address the political instability that results from rising oil prices and, after the meeting, he expressed optimism about the opportunities that the Saudi government is considering to address the problem, reports Falk.
“An oil production increase by the Saudi government may not significantly bring down prices at the pump,” said Falk, “but it will ease the rising cost at least temporarily, and lessen some of the U.S. Congress’ angry response, including threats to block U.S. arms sales.”
So can we thank the UN for lower oil prices? Isn’t that ironic….
“If my science (or is it biology) is correct, carbon dioxide makes the plants survive. In turn, that gives us oxygen so that WE can survive. Are the greeners that dumb?”
ACT, are you seriously trying to contend that even though you do not believe that humans can release enough CO2 into the atmosphere to change the average temperature by a couple degrees, you do believe that we can sequestor enough CO2 below ground to not only reverse global warming but even to kill all the plants and asphyxiate ourselves in the process?
Dan,
So what you are saying is that in McCain’s eyes paying >$4 gas is more important than National Security. Did you read his speech of April 07? He made the argument that foreign oil independence is a major national security issue. But not big enough to warrant off-shore drilling or ANWR drilling? There is no logic in his policy change. Maybe because it is nothing but political expediency. Maybe because he knew in 07 that these drilling program he is currently espousing would not do the job. I am pretty sure it is not (as you seem to contend) that he did not think National Security important enough to make the policy shift. Did he just not think about it? Is that it?
Troll,
“you do believe that we can sequestor enough CO2 below ground to not only reverse global warming but even to kill all the plants and asphyxiate ourselves in the process?”
Not at all. The part you skipped over in your haste to answer was “But to “bury” carbon dioxide to get rid of it is not only dumb on the surface but a losing and useless proposition.” Stupidity is not thinking things out to a logical conclusion. Just like some of the initiatives proposed by both sides or from those with an agenda not in support of TRUE science.
ACT,
TO recap you wrote:
“But to “bury” carbon dioxide to get rid of it is not only dumb on the surface but a losing and useless proposition.”
Which is your opinion but then you made the argument I cited to SUPPORT your contention. I simply noted that the suppositions you made in your argument do not correlate with your stance on global warming therefore you undermine your own argument with your own position and vice versa.
But I do believe that “TRUE SCIENCE” should be the governing factor in the debate. On that we can agree.
Troll,
that was announced back in June, and prices rose after all that. Current production does impact the market futures price, but so does announced policy intentions. Can we agree that both play a roll?
I will further contend that the time coincidence while not a proof of causality is akin to smoke and fire. Where one sees what appears to be smoke one ought to look for fire.
That the price tumbled $15 per barrel after Bushes announcement should give one pause. It may not be a tautological proof, but the idea of opening up the American coastline to oil exploration and devlopment should have a price impact on futures.
Eric, there you go again, attributing your words to others. That is not what I am saying, and that is not what McCain is saying.
What I AM saying, that to the consumers who have to pay this $4 a gallon, yes, this is more important than oil as a national security issue. If you take the time to think about it, gas at $2 a gallon is no less a national security issue than gas at $4. The national security issue is the volume of our oil imports vs. domestic production, not the price at the pump. There are two very different issues, despite your efforts to merge them.
Oil imports are just one of MANY national security issues. Not sure if you have been paying attention, but the price of oil has dropped significantly in response to Bush’s executive order rescinding the ban on offshore drilling. You have noticed this haven’t you ? More done in just the last few days than this do nothing Democrat led Congress has done in almost 2 years. All that Pelosi and Reid have to offer is drawing down the strategic reserve, thereby INCREASING oil as a national security issue. That’s the reason it is called a strategic reserve, don’t you know..
I can’t imagine anyone supporting Obama expecting to gain any traction by bringing up position changes. Obama’s flip-flops make John Kerry look like the Rock of Gibraltar.
I am very curious when he gets back from the Middle East how he is going to spin “I was wrong, McCain was right”.
Dan:
“Not sure if you have been paying attention, but the price of oil has dropped significantly in response to Bush’s executive order rescinding the ban on offshore drilling.”
Not sure if you are paying attention but that is a bunch of hogwash as I just pointed out over the last ten posts.
“All that Pelosi and Reid have to offer is drawing down the strategic reserve, thereby INCREASING oil as a national security issue.”
I thought you just said that price at the pump and national security are two separate issues that should not be merged? Oh, and you may want to look into what the SPR is for – from the DOE website:
“Established in the aftermath of the 1973-74 oil embargo, the SPR provides the President with a powerful response option should a disruption in commercial oil supplies threaten the U.S. economy.”
Let’s see commercial oil supplies are not meeting demand and it is threatening the US economy….hmmmmm….
Dan, Troll,
Both of you are missing some important points here:
1. the more money we pay per barrel the greater the pool of money to siphon off and put into the pocket of Al Qaeda, the Whahabi madrases etc.
2. The more we pay per barrel the greater our trade deficit, the poorer we get relative to the rest of the world, the less we are able to deal with
2.a economic problems
2.b military problems
3. The more we pay per barrel the more we are seen as slave to the product. We are beginning to look like junkies, the really hideous part is the product we seek is right under our noses
Troll,
calling it hogwash does not make it so. read comment #31
To clarify, Dan, you wrote:
“What I AM saying, that to the consumers who have to pay this $4 a gallon, yes, this is more important than oil as a national security issue.”
And what I am saying is that it appears that McCain shifted his position in response to $4 gas over national security and THAT does not make sense. As I said, I do not believe McCain puts price at the pump over national security SO (at least in 4/07) he must not have felt that off-shore drilling would do anything to boost domestic production (and therefore improve the national security situation). So why does he think NOW that off-shore drilling WILL make a difference? My answer – he doesn’t, he just thinks he can score political points against Obama by saying he does.
The strategic reserve has nothing to do, really, with the economy. It is there mostly for military needs. If the economy needs oil a to survive at a moments notice then our military needs to be on alert. We will get back to transportation and electricity when we start drilling our own oil but until then the military must be able to run. THAT would be an emergency. THAT is the major function of the reserves. And don’t be fooled by what is written. Since when is something written the true meaning of what is intended? Okay, the second amendment. I knew that.
Jacob #34 – I agree with you on all three points.
On #31 – If you are saying the $10 drop in oil prices are due to Bush’s call to drill off shore, why didn’t THAT happen in June when he first called for it?
WASHINGTON, DC, June 18, 2008 (ENS) – President George W. Bush today called on Congress to expand domestic oil production to lower record high oil and gas prices by lifting a ban on oil exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf that has been in place since 1981.
I really think the argument Dan and McCain are trying to make is so unlikely that it is surreal. The markets sometime DO respond to rhetoric BUT not like this. The rhetoric has to signal a real CHANGE coming in the market – this one is just more of the same as far as the market is concerned. This sort of price change is due to an ACTUAL change in the supply/demand equation. Much more likely the dollar gained, demand shrank, or production increases have been realized. Also just as likely that speculators did not like the recent legislation being passed and have decided to take their money off the table. But it is not about the Bush/McCain off-shore production rhetoric that much is clear.
Troll,
He did not remove the executive ban till his more recent announcement. Which could be seen as he was not just posturing, but actually ‘doing’ something. Fair enough?
“The strategic reserve has nothing to do, really, with the economy. It is there mostly for military needs.”
That would be the naval petroleum reserve and the inventory maintained by the Defense Fuel Supply.
I MIGHT accept that the SPR needs to be maintained so we can meet domestic needs when there is a true disruption of petroleum and not to respond to price changes since we really do not have a “shotage” or disruption in supply of crude – it is just expensive. But it is undeniable that releasing crude from the SPR will drive down crude prices (and a lot faster than leasing land off the coast of Florida or Virginia) and US economic impact is the reason for the SPR.
“He did not remove the executive ban till his more recent announcement. Which could be seen as he was not just posturing, but actually ‘doing’ something. Fair enough?”
Possible but unlikely, Jacob, for the reason I outlined above. The market knows that Congress needs to enact legislation and it also knows how unlikely that is. As I said, a highly unlikely explanation.
Troll,
“The market knows that Congress needs to enact legislation and it also knows how unlikely that is.”
With congress sitting on its hind quarters, pressure needs to be applied. With the executive order removed, one of the gates is down. Hope springs eternal in the mind of investors, that why they are investors.
But you are right, if congress refuses to act then the price will go back up. However, I am not sure congress can’t be made to budge, GWB still has his stuttering pulpit, and this is a great issue with which to beat the other party with.
With $4 a gallon gas people want us to drill. The Democrat party ignores this at their peril.
jacob,
Actually I wasn’t, I just wasn’t discussing them here. Need to save some talking points for our next meet at the watering hole.
Am I the only one getting thirsty around here ?
Eric,
““Established in the aftermath of the 1973-74 oil embargo, the SPR provides the President with a powerful response option should a disruption in commercial oil supplies threaten the U.S. economy.””
Where is the disruption in our oil supplies ? I have yet to see one gas station with a “NO GAS” sign. You ?
Dan,
That is why I wrote this:
I MIGHT accept that the SPR needs to be maintained so we can meet domestic needs when there is a true disruption of petroleum and not to respond to price changes since we really do not have a “shotage” or disruption in supply of crude – it is just expensive. But it is undeniable that releasing crude from the SPR will drive down crude prices (and a lot faster than leasing land off the coast of Florida or Virginia) and US economic impact is the reason for the SPR.
Eric
Troll,
Our oil exporters could stop that flow a lot easier than we could start drilling for new. I would never want to see a release of the SPR as a temporary solution. It only means that we fill up the reserve at higher prices than before. With ducks in a row (expedite new leases, implament new refineries and issue permits for new nuke plants) a planned release would send OUR oil prices down for domestic use and help OUR economy in so many ways. And, yes, economic hardships or not, the govt controls that reserve to be used and distributed as THEY see fit.
Good Post. Thanks for the info