As to the bolded part, really? Seems the one's I hear, say that increased oil exploration in Alaska and off shore is part of the answer, not the answer. What Republican elected official has stated or implied that all we have to do is explore more in Alaska and off shore and then gas prices will drop. Links please.

 

 

Well, first please take careful note that I said, the Republicans are implying that increased oil exploration in Alaska and offshore is the answer to $4.00 gas. The attempt to link measures to allow drilling in ANWR and offshore to high gas prices must be a Republican national talking point, because just about every Republican is using this issue to try to score political points (even if their facts are not aligned with reality).

 

But, you asked for an example. OK, well how about I start at the top? Just yesterday, President Bush used his bully pulpit to state that "For many Americans, there is no more pressing concern than the price of gasoline," and that lifting the offshore drilling ban "is one of the most important steps we can take" to reduce the burden of high fuel prices. Another direct quote from the president: "Unless members are willing to accept gas prices at today's painful prices or even higher, our nation must produce more oil, and we must start now." If that isn't claiming a strong cause/effect relationship between his proposals to expand drilling and a meaningful reduction in gas prices, I don't know what is. He either doesn't listen to the informed analysis of the official government agency reports (which contradict his implications) or he is simply trying to use the issue of gas prices as a political bludgeon.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bush19-2008jun19,0,4873940.story

 

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/news/economy/bush_speech/?postversion=2008061811

 

 

There are plenty of other instances of Republicans using the debate over expanded domestic drilling to imply that Democrats are blocking the path to lower gas prices. Anne Northup in Jefferson County is using the issue in her House race.

Didn't I read he had to overturn his fathers veto also ?

If the Dems are so certain that no good will come from granting these drilling priveleges then why not go ahead an do it and then smugly sit back, thumb thumb their noses and proudly proclaim "see I told you so".

 

Maybe, just maybe the Dems beileve that some good could come of this and if it did then their years of preventing this from happening would really come back bite them in the backside. and it could also then be used against them in November.

 

But no wait, the Dems surely wouldn't play politics with an issue as important as this would they?

You can find two sides to every story. It's just a matter of which side you choose to believe. At this point it's all speculation anyway. Take ANWR for example. Reports say there are reserves anywhere from 500,000 barrels a day up to 1,500,000 per day. With a total out put of 2 billion barrels up to over 4 billion. Where will it really be. H chooses to always use a mid-low number when making his point. Not that he is wrong but who says that it's right. What if the true number is closer to 1 1/2 million barrels per day?

 

I say forget all of it and let's just invade Canada. They have more oil reserves then anyone anyway.

 

 

I don't always "choose to use a mid-low number" when making my point. I use the numbers provided in the official analysis of the Energy Information Administration reports and I don't cherry-pick the number most favorable to the point I'm making. The EIA's analyses on ANWR state that in the best case scenario (i.e. the case where the oil output is at the upper range of the government's official estimate--which they conclude is only a 5% probability), world crude oil prices would be reduced by only $1.44/barrel in the year 2027. The EIA has said that the cost effect of eventual offshore production would be insignificant.

Edited July 15, 200818 yr by H

Your facts and H's facts seem in conflict. One says it would be an enormous help and another says it will be of little impact at the pump.

 

 

Oil shale recovery is not as economically viable as oil production in the middle east. If recovering oil from shale is extremely difficult or extremely expensive, that 1.5 trillion barrels might as well be on Mars.

With gas at $4 and possibly climbing, the conservation part largely takes care of itself. If maintaining your current behavior is worth paying $4 for every gallon of gas you use, don't change your behavior.

 

My point is that the big push to drill for oil in ANWR and offshore is an argument custom made to appeal to the not-very-well-informed. The production from these areas is not going to have hardly any effect on gas prices.

I think that the opposite is true. The argument that increasing domestic production will have negligible impact on gasoline prices appeals to the not-very-well-informed. Increasing the supply of a commodity always decreases its price in a free market.

 

The reason that speculators are betting on higher gasoline prices in the future is that American politicians have been giving the market little reason for optimism. Restricting supply in the face of increasing demand is a recipe for disaster for this country.

 

T. Boone Pickens is not railing against increasing domestic production and if you believe that he supports your position on increased domestic oil production, then you are badly mistaken. Pickens understands that alternative energy is a piece of the solution, as is increased domestic oil and gas production. I don't think Pickens is impressed with our current Do-Nothing Congress.

 

BECK: So we should be building all kinds of alternatives, but should we also be drilling offshore? Should we also be in ANWR?

 

PICKENS: I don`t care whether you go offshore or not. It is not going to solve the problem. But it will help.

 

BECK: Right.

 

PICKENS: It would help. My dad used to say, "Son," he said, "it`s time to do something now, even if it`s wrong." And that`s where we are in this -- this mess that we`re in. We have to do something more. - excerpt from transcript of an interview with T. Boone Pickens from the Glenn Beck Show May 22, 2008, show on CNN

There are plenty of other instances of Republicans using the debate over expanded domestic drilling to imply that Democrats are blocking the path to lower gas prices. Anne Northup in Jefferson County is using the issue in her House race.

It is no implication - it is a fact. However, Republicans have not implied or stated explicitly that increasing oil production is the sole answer to the current crisis. Gasoline prices should be a top issue and I hope that Republicans finally decide to push the issue more forcefully on the campaign trail. Levying more taxes on big oil will drive prices up - and so far that has been a cornerstone of Democrats' response to higher gasoline prices. Scapegoating has not worked, so now Democrats are facing the choice of flip-flopping en masse or being hammered on this issue through the elections.

 

I hope that Democrats stick to their "principles" and continue to point the finger at oil companies and speculators. If they do so, then the elections will send a clear signal for the type of change most Americans are seeking.

I think that the opposite is true. The argument that increasing domestic production will have negligible impact on gasoline prices appeals to the not-very-well-informed. Increasing the supply of a commodity always decreases its price in a free market.

 

 

My argument is built on the conclusions of the authoritative government analysis. And yours is based on what authoritative source? The supply and demand lesson from an 11th grade economics textbook? The EIA analysis takes into effect supply and demand and their conclusion was that ANWR production would reduce global crude prices by $1.44 per barrel in 2028, or 1% of the current level. Yep, that's a mighty big effect--about 4 cents on a gallon of regular unleaded. EIA further concluded that offshore production would not result in a significant reduction in crude prices. Go ahead and dispute the official U.S. government analyses, but just make sure to preface your arguments with, "I think that..."

 

 

The reason that speculators are betting on higher gasoline prices in the future is that American politicians have been giving the market little reason for optimism. Restricting supply in the face of increasing demand is a recipe for disaster for this country.

 

Hanging our hats on a miniscule increase in supply that won't happen for 10-20 years and won't have a significant effect on prices is a recipe for disaster for this country. It's a little like putting a bandaid over a gunshot wound and saying, "that should do it". However, that seems to be the Republicans' solution to the problem in this election year. Like I said however, it is an effective argument for the not-very-well-informed.

 

 

T. Boone Pickens is not railing against increasing domestic production and if you believe that he supports your position on increased domestic oil production, then you are badly mistaken. Pickens understands that alternative energy is a piece of the solution, as is increased domestic oil and gas production. I don't think Pickens is impressed with our current Do-Nothing Congress.

 

 

Direct quote from Pickens:

 

This is one emergency we can't drill our way out of.

 

Drilling in ANWR and offshore is not even mentioned on Pickens' website. Sure sounds like he thinks it is an important piece of the solution.

Edited July 15, 200818 yr by H

Drilling in ANWR and offshore is not even mentioned on Pickens' website. Sure sounds like he thinks it is an important piece of the solution.

Pickens is a big fan of shale oil.

Well, first please take careful note that I said, the Republicans are implying that increased oil exploration in Alaska and offshore is the answer to $4.00 gas. The attempt to link measures to allow drilling in ANWR and offshore to high gas prices must be a Republican national talking point, because just about every Republican is using this issue to try to score political points (even if their facts are not aligned with reality).

 

But, you asked for an example. OK, well how about I start at the top? Just yesterday, President Bush used his bully pulpit to state that "For many Americans, there is no more pressing concern than the price of gasoline," and that lifting the offshore drilling ban "is one of the most important steps we can take" to reduce the burden of high fuel prices. Another direct quote from the president: "Unless members are willing to accept gas prices at today's painful prices or even higher, our nation must produce more oil, and we must start now." If that isn't claiming a strong cause/effect relationship between his proposals to expand drilling and a meaningful reduction in gas prices, I don't know what is. He either doesn't listen to the informed analysis of the official government agency reports (which contradict his implications) or he is simply trying to use the issue of gas prices as a political bludgeon.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bush19-2008jun19,0,4873940.story

 

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/news/economy/bush_speech/?postversion=2008061811

 

 

There are plenty of other instances of Republicans using the debate over expanded domestic drilling to imply that Democrats are blocking the path to lower gas prices. Anne Northup in Jefferson County is using the issue in her House race.

 

I did take careful note of what you posted. Which is why I asked for you to name a R who stated or implied that drilling was the answer to $4 gas. And neither of Bush's two quotes that you referenced said that drilling was the answer to $4 gas. And I do agree with Bush that increased domestic production is a part of the solution. Even if it doesn't help satisfy our thirst for oil very much, every barrel of oil produced domestically will be done so by working Americans. Their salaries will stay in the U.S. The price of the oil will stay in the U.S. I'd rather we create jobs for Americans and keep American dollars in America, even if it only helps our oil needs a little bit.

I did take careful note of what you posted. Which is why I asked for you to name a R who stated or implied that drilling was the answer to $4 gas. And neither of Bush's two quotes that you referenced said that drilling was the answer to $4 gas. And I do agree with Bush that increased domestic production is a part of the solution. Even if it doesn't help satisfy our thirst for oil very much, every barrel of oil produced domestically will be done so by working Americans. Their salaries will stay in the U.S. The price of the oil will stay in the U.S. I'd rather we create jobs for Americans and keep American dollars in America, even if it only helps our oil needs a little bit.

 

Oh come on. We must have vastly different understandings of the meaning of the word imply. Read between the lines just a little. On the issue of the cost of energy Bush and Republicans are one trick ponies. Numerous times over the past several months when Bush has been asked about the cost of gasoline, his answer has overwhelmingly been (paraphrasing) that we need to open drilling in ANWR and offshore. That's it. That's all he has to offer. That's all he ever talks about with respect to gasoline costs. An ineffective solution that won't have any effect whatsoever for at least a decade (and maybe two). Oh sure, there has been some inconsistent lip service to conservation and development of alternatives, but not much specificity and nothing that will truly spur any reduction in U.S. oil dependence. Why should we be surprised by this? Dubya is an ex-oil man and his family is about as close to the Saudi royal family as Americans can get. The Republicans spew criticism at the Democrats on the energy issue, but the truth is that their "solutions" are far out in the future and about as effective as doing nothing at all.

I did take careful note of what you posted. Which is why I asked for you to name a R who stated or implied that drilling was the answer to $4 gas. And neither of Bush's two quotes that you referenced said that drilling was the answer to $4 gas. And I do agree with Bush that increased domestic production is a part of the solution. Even if it doesn't help satisfy our thirst for oil very much, every barrel of oil produced domestically will be done so by working Americans. Their salaries will stay in the U.S. The price of the oil will stay in the U.S. I'd rather we create jobs for Americans and keep American dollars in America, even if it only helps our oil needs a little bit.

 

I too liked the sound of improving the trade balance by 135 to 327 billion over the 13 year timeframe.

Oh come on. We must have vastly different understandings of the meaning of the word imply. Read between the lines just a little. On the issue of the cost of energy Bush and Republicans are one trick ponies. Numerous times over the past several months when Bush has been asked about the cost of gasoline, his answer has overwhelmingly been (paraphrasing) that we need to open drilling in ANWR and offshore. That's it. That's all he has to offer. That's all he ever talks about with respect to gasoline costs. An ineffective solution that won't have any effect whatsoever for at least a decade (and maybe two). Oh sure, there has been some inconsistent lip service to conservation and development of alternatives, but not much specificity and nothing that will truly spur any reduction in U.S. oil dependence. Why should we be surprised by this? Dubya is an ex-oil man and his family is about as close to the Saudi royal family as Americans can get. The Republicans spew criticism at the Democrats on the energy issue, but the truth is that their "solutions" are far out in the future and about as effective as doing nothing at all.

At least they have a solution. The Dem's plan of tax the crap of them will do wonders.

 

All the solutions will not have an effect for some time. Being it domestic drilling, nukes, wind, alternative fuel, whatever. It would take years to bring on domestic oil, years to build nuclear power plants, years to develop alternative fuel that made since, years to build coal to gas plants, ect.. Because of this we should do nothing. That's a great idea. Conservation is all well and good but to really make an impact with conservation it would take years as well.

Conservation is a vital part of any plan but there is an argument out there that it will do nothing for the cost as other nations increase their demand or OPEC reduces it's production. It does result in our being less dependant on foreign oil and that it a good thing.

Conservation is a vital part of any plan but there is an argument out there that it will do nothing for the cost as other nations increase their demand or OPEC reduces it's production. It does result in our being less dependant on foreign oil and that it a good thing.

Are we really less dependant with conservation alone? What % of our usage comes from domestic oil?