More Drilling is Addiction Pander
Posted on June 23, 2008
Filed Under Uncategorized |
Seems the big pander now about gas prices comes in the form of pushing to “Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.” I’m not really sure how this is supposed work. Drilling here and now isn’t going to help American motorists today. But, I also don’t think it’s meant to be much more than a political slogan meant to pander to the oil addiction. It’s sort of like a cigarette smoker claiming they need to plant a tobacco plant in their backyard because they need a nicotine fix.
Even if today we unleashed oil companies loose to start exploring ANWAR for instance, oil from there wouldn’t hit the market for nearly a decade. This oil would not be nationalized, or reserved for Americans only. It would be sold on the world market at market prices.
And there is no gas shortage. Increased demand? Yes, and sure to grow as developing countries consume more. But has anyone been denied gas at a station because they were out?
Over the weekend the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia announced it would increase production by 200,000 barrels from current levels by as early as next month—9.7 million barrels per day in July. So in essence we could imagine this as the US, through domestic drilling, contributing 200,000 barrels to the market as early as July. We’ll see just what sort of impact that has on oil prices. The market has not responded with any indication that this is going to make a dent in the price of a barrel of crude, nor at the pump.
It’s also quite interesting to note that the Saudis say that the price is being driven up by selfish speculators and a weak US dollar. This view is opposed by the Bush administration, and voiced by Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, who maintain that it’s supply and demand fundamentals. Which gets back to my previous point, that stations are not running dry, nor will drilling domestically help Americans.
Why don’t those calling for more drilling speak more about conservation that would actually help the situation today? My guess, it’s a transparent pander to the oil addicted. Wouldn’t it much more wise to look for a sustainable, long-term solution?
Comments
36 Responses to “More Drilling is Addiction Pander”
Leave a Reply
Someone said something
- Frankie Boy on Singing telegram. said - I like the new heading… Check your e-mail too :>
- Frankie Boy on Liberals, you had me fooled, but no more. said - I am so glad they finally showed their true faces…
- Right Field on Liberals, you had me fooled, but no more. said - Is Lowell like the local Liberal whip or something? He asks them NOT to post...
- Hard Right Rudder on Liberals, you had me fooled, but no more. said - Could be they just have nothing to say. Or could be Lowell The Great, whom...
- Right Field on Liberals, you had me fooled, but no more. said - “Regarding number three. I think that perhaps they confused the meanings of...
- Whackette on Liberals, you had me fooled, but no more. said - I’m fine, WK7. This has been brewing for a while. I had a lot of respect for...
- Hard Right Rudder on Liberals, you had me fooled, but no more. said - Whackette, here’s how the liberals see you now: “Luke, come to...
- wildkids7 on Liberals, you had me fooled, but no more. said - Ummm, you okay Megan?
- wildkids7 on Liberals, you had me fooled, but no more. said - what is citizen tom’s site? Share with me
- Whackette on Liberals, you had me fooled, but no more. said - Regarding number three. I think that perhaps they confused the meanings of the...
-
VOTE 2008!
I agree with you. Republicans are always saying that democrats should learn to budget and cut spending rather than raise taxes (don’t increase supply of tax money, just cut usage, but when it comes to oil, republicans want to increase supply rather than cut back.
Well, Republicans are quite fond of “personal responsibility.” At least when talking about other people.
How are we WORSE off by drilling here and now? Wow, so we are helping the trade deficit. We are keeping American money here in America, buying American products, giving Americans jobs. Each dollar spent on American oil is not going to some Arab 7th century moron, or to some socialist in Canada or Venuezuela. Yeah, we could let the Chicoms have all the oil 60 miles off Florida, and we could let the caribou keep us out of Anwar, as the democraps want, but me, selfish ole me, thinks we should drill here, and drill now. Funny, too, how liberal talking points always seem to crop up in zen’s posts, but he is the self-proclaimed thinking man’s non-partisan. [snicker.]
And whackette, to equate budgeting spending with production of a good that we all use is comparing apples to oranges. If America wants to conserve, we will. Don’t try to foist that decision on us by default by not letting us produce more. I think the real agenda of the leftists is they want America to stop using so much oil and gas and coal. They would prefer our economy sink into recession and depression territory rather than keep using those products at our current rate. Fine, if that is their agenda, let’s have this debate. If that is what the majority wants, let’s do it. But let’s not play around with lies, excuses and rationalizations. Besides, I think the vast majority of Americans want us to produce more oil, and it is the leftists and the green nuts who have held the majority hostage for far too long. This is a losing issue for the liberals, no matter how much lipstick partisans like zen try to slap on that pig.
I believe we are worse off by deepening our addiction and dependence on a declining resource. It isn’t a forward-thinking solution. You want to mention the trade deficit, American products, jobs, technology? All of which would be much stronger with a long-term strategy that focused on renewable energies. Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp for some?
Where is there any evidence that drilling here and now will provide any real solutions to our energy needs? You dare to accuse others of “talking points, lies, excuses” when you fight tooth and nail against any long-term solution—apparently because, and only because, you have an axe to grind.
If there were any significant public will for more drilling, we’d have seen it already. So enter this complete fear-monger, backward looking, pander that more drilling is some sort of panacea. Continuing to pin our future on fossil-fuel is a losing issue. A truth borne out by history. What has having big oil in the White House done for us? What has occupying the middle east done for us? Squat.
It’s sheerly astounding how resistant some are to building an economy of the future based upon energy alternatives to oil and gas.
The first sentence of zen’s last reply was honest and true. [The rest was just fluff.] Ok, fine, I agree with that sentence. The area that we disagree with is you think we should only search for alternative energy solutions while the economy goes into the crapper until then, and I say search for those solutions AND drill for more oil. And don’t look now, zen, but the skyrocketing cost of gasoline IS creating a significant will of the public for drilling here and now. That’s why people like you on the Left continually whiiiiine about it not helping immediately–you are all trying to diffuse the sense of urgency that has built up. If there was no sense of urgency, you wouldn’t have got your talking points from HuffingtonPost and you wouldn’t be discussing it. If it was a dead winner for your perspective, no public consensus building to start the dreaded drilling, you would be talking about the usual queers marrying and perverts perverting and liberals taxing nonsense.
You need new material.
It is apples to oranges to some extent, but I think you can still compare them. It’s about good stewardship.
zen’s first two sentences (of his next to last comment) were excellent. I’m not against drilling, but I don’t think it’s a good long term solution by its self.
what people don’t remember is that when jimmy carter merely threatened to push synthetic fuel, the price of oil fell. just mentioning that we will be drilling will have an immediate effect on the price of oil.
what would also help is building new refineries. what good is more oil without the capacity to process it?
what about the 38 million acres of land the oil companies aren’t drilling on now?
Also, an oil exec was on TV the other day saying they don’t have the ability to drill more now even if they wanted to. It’s just a land grab.
I’m not sure the leases that oil companies currently hold mean a whole lot. Some locations do not have much oil, and sometimes it’s difficult to access. As technologies progress, sometimes these locations become accessible, but usually at much greater costs. And so “alternative energies” become much more viable when competing with upwards of $140 barrel crude.
There are places, for instance, two miles below the sea, then another two miles below the sea floor. Leases are held on these places. But only certain companies are positioned to produce those fields, and the efforts, and therefore costs, are astronomical. Just renting the very specialized equipment necessary to produce such a field gets into the hundreds of thousands of dollars per day. And I’ll give you one guess as to where those costs trickle down to, and who ultimately ends up footing the bill.
This reality just more convincingly makes the argument that a “dig it up and burn it” energy policy is unwise and unsustainable.
So, in other words, let China dig the oil in the Gulf of Mexico? And don’t dig in Anwar–caribou over people, baby!
Who’s using talking points now? Fear-mongering at that. You should be ashamed. Where did you hear that China is drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, Dick Cheney? You should know better than that.
You don’t get out much, do you? Guess they didn’t have this at HuffingtonPost or dailykos.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/economy/oil_cuba/index.htm
Hmm. First post didn’t go through. Can’t resist: they didn’t tell you this at HuffingtonPost/DailyKos?
money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/economy/oil_cuba/index.htm
Notice, I didn’t say the are currently digging it, as some have, but they are sure keeping their options open. Democrats instead are saying that because they aren’t now, they never will. I don’t buy that. The only thing stopping them is whether it is in their economic best interest. Liberals however disregard our economic best interest. Does that mean Commies are smarter than liberals?
Even an article poking fun at conservatives for miss-speaking and saying that China already is drilling admits that China and Cuba have done preliminary work towards drilling:
“China’s Sinopec oil company does have an agreement with the Cuban government to develop onshore resources west of Havana, Piñon said. The Chinese have done some seismic testing, he said, but no drilling. Western diplomats in Havana told McClatchy that to the best of their knowledge there is no Chinese drilling offshore.
Cuba’s state oil company, Cupet, has issued exploration contracts to companies from India, Canada, Spain, Malaysia and Norway. But many oil companies from those countries have expressed reservations about how to turn potential crude oil into product. Cuba doesn’t have the refinery capacity, and the biggest potential market — the U.S. — is off limits because of the trade embargo.”
http://www.miamiherald.com/campaign08/story/567156.html
Mel Martinez is Republican by the way.
Can you read? I said let China dig for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, not that they are currently. They are making plans and have made plans. The fact that they don’t currently is a nice talking point, but it evades reality [you are good at that], which is that they are planning to do it, and if they think it in their best interests, they will. You and your liberal buddies are trying to say that since they aren’t yet, they won’t in the future. That is stick your head in the Florida sand just plain dumb.
HRR-please cite your source(s) substantiating your statement that the Chinese or any Chinese company are “making plans and have made plans” for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Everything reliable I’ve seen says that the planning only involves onshore Cuban resources which is even confirmed by a quotation in one of your posts.
Del, Google is a wonderful thing. Found this in about 20 seconds.
…
“In an interview this week, Rodriguez, the chief of the Cuban interests section in Washington, said widespread offshore drilling could start by the end of this year. Cuban exploration, like drilling ventures elsewhere, has been slowed by a worldwide shortage of drilling rigs that has increased daily lease rates by more than 60% since fall 2005.
Offshore wells aren’t cheap: Those envisioned in Cuban waters will cost $40 million to $50 million, says Pinon, the former oil executive now affiliated with the University of Miami’s Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies. “This is a very high-risk, high-reward area,” R.S. Butola, managing director of India’s ONGC, said on the company’s website.”
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2007-02-22-cuba-usat_x.htm
Certainly, USATODAY is no friend of conservatives or GWB Admin, aaaand the article was published last year, before the issue got politicized by both sides. So it is hardly fair to say this was made up just to support the Pub side of the argument. Rather, the Pub argument is based on what the dirty commies themselves have indicated they hope to do.
Those of you familiar with stocks should be familiar with Edgar Online, which reports companies quarterly and yearly reports. Perhaps “China” is not drilling offshore of Cuba, but at least one company reported in 2005 that one of their rigs was used to drill in Cuban waters: … “The rig was moved to Cuban waters for drilling of one well in water depth of 1,625 meters. After completion of the well in Cuba Eirik Raude crossed the Atlantic Ocean and drilled one deep water well west of Shetlands.”
http://sec.edgar-online.com/2005/06/10/0000950133-05-002592/Section5.asp
Now, either there was at least one drilling attempt in 2005, in which case ole Senator Mel is wrong if he means NOBODY has drilled off the coast of Cuba [Ok, maybe he just means China hasn't, I'll accept that], or this company committed securities fraud when they claimed one of their rigs was sent to Cuban waters to drill a well. Hmmm, I’m betting on Mel being wrong.
Regarding the year old USATODAY article you cited, there is no mention of China or any Chinese companies. In fact, according to this article:
“One year ago, a U.S.-Cuba Energy Summit attracted representatives from Exxon and a handful of smaller oil service companies to three days of meetings in Mexico City. Attendees viewed PowerPoint presentations from Cuban government ministries including state-owned oil company Cupet that invited American companies to help exploit “several giant oil and gas fields.”
My point is that you stated earlier :
“I said let China dig for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, not that they are currently. They are making plans and have made plans.”
You have yet to cite anything supporting this statement and I gather you are conceding that it was wrong. And, according to the USATODAY article you did cite, the Cubans are apparently interested in U.S. companies helping to drill for oil in Cuban territory. So one could argue that restrictive policies on trade with Cuba are potentially inhibiting the production of oil that would no doubt benefit the U.S. market.
US companies haven’t let trade sanctions stop them from doing business with restricted nations (Haliburton in Iran among others). So it isn’t a matter of other nations doing business where the US cannot.
The problem is that oil is a finite, difficult to access resource. Look at the battles going on for tiny islands off of Greenland, or the sea floor under the Arctic. A forward-looking energy policy that avoids the huge costs and political risks of these ventures can only strengthen our position. Certainly cost shouldn’t be an obstacle if we are willing to get mired down in huge military occupations to the tune of billions of dollars.
Del, can ewe reed eengleeesh?
“Cuban officials note they already have willing partners from Canada, Spain, Norway, Brazil, India, Malaysia, Venezuela and CCCCHHHHHIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNAAAAAAAA. Rodriguez made clear that the United States has no veto over Cuba’s oil plans.”
Doh. Ok, so China was mentioned. And I’m a moron. But it dint say they are currently drilling. Did it Mr. dailykos? Did it HuffingtonPost? No. Wait. I’ll find the answer. Just give me time to find what I am supposed to believe. Now, go drink more koolaide.
Ok. I’m wrong about China being mentioned in the article. You still haven’t proven your statement. Unlike you, I’m man enough to admit my mistakes. And I’m not acting like a sophomoric prick. Goodbye.
Del,
Sophomoric is being generous. So is prick.
hrr, I far overestimated you. Sad…
I thought you had potential. Bad call on my part.
oooooooh. Lowell, I’m devastated by your last remarks. I think I’ll go pout some.
In the liberal world, it is not ok to make fun of somebody, but it is fine to call them a sophomoric prick. That’s just another reason why I keep fighting the ignorant un-American scum sucking ideas that they espouse. Lift up the rug, show the rest of America the little cockroaches that the liberals are.
HRR>> Where do you get the notion that liberals somehow take a vow to never offend anyone?
Your comments are a mark of sophomoric behavior. It’s more of a description than and insult.
It’s also a strange self-aggrandizing complex when someone would boast that behaving in such a way is a noble crusade—that “the rest of America” is cheering for. In fact, I would say that most people are tired of such bitterness and division that motivates you. I’d venture to guess that most yearn for something of substance. Reason over reaction. It appears that you are not capable, or not willing to provide that. Is the story behind the name of this blog lost on you?
Since you are so proud of yourself; Since you think your crusade is so just, noble, and popular, then why the anonymity? Would not your family also be proud of the manner in which you conduct yourself online? How about your colleagues? Do you treat those people with the same lack of respect you exhibit online? Do you conduct yourself in a way here, that would embarrass you elsewhere?
My family and friends know I hate liberals. They are a cancer on America. People like you are useful idiots, who think they are all enlightened and fighting for noble causes, when they are dupes too stupid to see that they are just blind followers of anti-American scum. You are either part of the problem, or part of the solution. I don’t care if you are just a misguided, mis-informed liberal, or a hard-core lying liberal like kestrel.
Where do I get that liberals vow to never offend? I can read between the lines. Oooooh. Don’t call somebody a queer or faggot. Don’t call somebody a nigger. Don’t call somebody a spic, dumb swede or kike. Then liberals turn around and insult Christians and conservatives. Nazi is fine. Calling Bush a monkey and idiot is fine. I have no problems insulting people who act like that. In fact, I’m proud to expose their hypocrisy. Lowell is one of the biggest hypocrits, “Why can’t we all just get alooooooooong? Let’s have a beer. Blaah blaaaah blaaaaah.
zen, a liberal stuck pig squeeeeeaaals the loudest. Keep squealin.
No. The problem are extremists, like yourself, that cannot manage to debate on the issues and instead arguing, attacking, and insulting becomes your point. It all becomes noise.
You think being rude and obnoxious strengthens your position or appeals to reason? You assume that everyone else is stuck in extremist positions, just they way you are. That is a wrong assumption. By far more people appeal to reason, which is the responsible approach. But as long as you think your hate and fighting is heroic and your call to duty, you will continue certainly find conflict, rather than reason based upon persuasion and logic.
I didn’t ask if your family and colleagues knew you are filled with hate. I asked if they would be proud of your conduct, or if they’d be embarrassed by you.
Don’t lecture me you little punk. You are just as “extreme” as me, but on the wrong side. You liberals are all alike. Try anything to silence the opposition. Try to shame them. Try to intimidate them. But in the end, yer all the same. It’s just a game to silence opposition. If my way is not pursuasive, then why not STFU and ignore it? After all, you don’t want me to be pursuasive, do you, if it means debunking all your favored idiot liberal ideas? But I don’t mind telling you why I’m like this: Because liberals lie and are nasty, they don’t deserve to be treated civilly. They have to earn it. You haven’t. Del hasn’t. Lowell sure the hell hasn’t. I’m nice to people who don’t espouse idiotic ideas, and even to them I am nice so long as they listen to reason. They don’t have to agree with me, but if they are so closed minded that reasonable discourse is impossible (such as the extreme idiot kestrel), then I treat them as they deserve to be treated.
Take a breath, zen, this is gonna shock you. I don’t care what you think about me, period. Got that? I think you are an intellectual light-weight, who doesn’t really care about what is true, who just parrots the liberal party line. Yer such a lightweight I feel like I’m slummin it when I debate with you. You get your marching orders from idiot blog sites like HuffingtonPost and dailykos. I’m right, and you know it, that’s what REAALLLY pisses you off. Try thinking for yourself, for once. Tell me ONE area you vehemently disagree with the liberal party line. Betcha can’t. And do it quick, don’t first resort to the HufffinnngtonPost manual on what to say next.
p.s. zen, if you reallly cared about being civil, you would have spent equal time chastising del and lowell for their words. But like I said, with idiot liberals it really isn’t about being civil, it’s about shutting up conservatives, any way, any hooo.
Rudder, could you please tone it down?
Disagree and challenge all you want, but the name calling and insults needs to be reigned in.
“They don’t have to agree with me, but if they are so closed minded that reasonable discourse is impossible, then I treat them as they deserve to be treated.”
So, with your wide open, reasonable mind, how do you deserve to be treated?
yes den-mother. And I agree, sophomoric prick was a little low.