News-Record.com

In that year and a half since Democrats took control of Congress, just what legislation have they passed (or repealed) that caused the run-up of gas prices? This is a smokescreen argument by Republicans who are trying to divert the public’s attention away from their own ruinous policies.

“According to a June 2008 report from the Committee on Natural Resources:

Of all the oil and gas believed to exist on the Outer Continental Shelf, 82% of the natural gas and 79% of the oil is located in areas that are currently open for leasing.

Oil companies presently hold 10,000 drilling permits, and they have leases to 68 million acres of land that are NOT being drilled.

The report goes on to say that just drilling in these 68 million acres (this excludes the Alaska acreage, because much of it is still not leased by the oil companies even though it is available to lease) of untapped areas without drilling anywhere else would likely produce six times the amount of oil in ANWR. Yes, that's right: SIX TIMES what ANWR is estimated to be able to produce at peak production. And if they'd bother to lease the Alaska areas that are available, that number would undoubtedly go much higher.”

(Thanks to David Fuller of Peotone, Il for the above info)

It’s also worth noting that many experts blame a large portion of the higher prices on runaway speculation. And how did this come about? Seems there is something that is called the “Enron Loophole,” part of an energy bill that allowed, at the behest of Enron lobbyists, speculation on energy commodities without oversight. And whose name was part of that bill? None other than Phil Gramm, who, by the way, is John McCain’s chief economic adviser.

Nice try, Mr. Simpson, but considering the current Republican administration's ties to big oil (ties that will remain with McCain), your argument is BS.

Mr. Simpson,

To echo something that JDR asked when the same smokescreen was tried earlier in the week: Please provide justification in the form of how much, per gallon, we can expect the price of gas to drop once drilling would start in ANWR. Would it be a penny per gallon? A dollar? And for how long this price decrease would last. A month? Forever? Otherwise, your opinion is unsubstantiated noise.

Excellent points, Scott Free. This ANWR tactic is nothing but a diversion and a misinformation campaign.

Scott:

With the palms of my hands held firm over my ears, with my eyes tightly squeezed shut, I scream: "STOP CONFUSING FOLKS WITH DATA"

(just kidding, of course).

Here's your stage-clue, Tony Balony!
Biting Dog?
Anyone?

The best reason for drilling in our own country is the fact that the money would stay in our own country instead of funding our destruction by buying arab oil. Lets stop the largest transfer of wealth in history by drilling here and drilling now!

HowieG and James,
Giddy came out in favor of drilling off N.C.'s coast!! She's so used to walking lock step with the GOP and Bush/McCain she has no idea how folks feel about it here.

I love how the R's are spinning the coastal drilling bit. (pardon pun)
Their only objective is to dismantle the moratorium BEFORE Bush leaves office so they can give the oil companies their payback for floating McCain/Cheney/Bush. Bundling, and maximum personal donations are the standard here and the "little GOP folks" like Dan swallow the company line at every juncture.

Oh, Danny....? How's that SUV working for you now!!! Hehehehe!

SUV is fine Demon Deacon, it mainly sits in the driveway unless it's pulling the boat. I drive it to church on Sundays, literally. I usually fill it up every six weeks.

Otherwise I'm enjoying my new Ford Focus at 40 mpg highway.

Mr. Simpson, there are a few points about ANWR worth considering before lamblasting environmentalists over its protection:

First, the ecology issue pertains more to the roads to the oil fields than the oil fields themselves.

Second, as it stands, ANWR is a strategic oil reserve that can't just be tapped quickly at a politician's whim to get gas prices down before the next election. That's not a bad thing to have in case there really is a devastating shortage.

Third, some gratitude is in order to the Democrats for blocking the sale of ANWR drilling rights in 1995 and 2005 while oil prices were cheap. Think of how much higher a price taxpayers will get for drilling rights in the future as compared to then (assuming, of course, rights don't go to a Bush crony in a no-bid contract.) Had we capitulated to the hard right-wingers, we would have gotten pittance for the oil.

From the Beatle's Revolution:

"You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan"

Pelosi: ‘With Skyrocketing Gas Prices, Americans Can No Longer Afford Rubber Stamp Congress’

Monday, April 24, 2006

Contact: Brendan Daly/Jennifer Crider, 202-226-7616

Washington, D.C. – House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on President Bush’s, Speaker Hastert’s, and the Republican Congress’ empty rhetoric on gas prices. Key facts on the Majority's failure to address gas prices follows Pelosi’s statement.

With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline – 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price than when President Bush first came to office.

“With record gas prices, record CEO pay packages, and record oil company profits, Speaker Hastert and the Majority Congress continue to give the American people empty rhetoric rather than join Democrats who are working to lower gas prices now.

“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”

ORR, it's all Bush's fault:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8lbyBBh3Uc

Kornbluth,

What issue with the roads? The subject area is 2,000 acres in the northern most part of Alaska in Section 1002 Area which is Coastal Plain. ANWR consists of about 19 million acres. These 2,000 acres are flat, tree-less and it reaches about -110 degrees fahrenheit with wind chill during the winter. This is not the wilderness or refuge parts of ANWR. The subject area is not to distant from the Arctic Ocean, and less than 100 miles from Prudhoe Bay (North America's largest oil field), and not much further to the National Petroleum Reserve and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System.

ANRW can not be called a strategic oil reserve as no exploration has ever proved the potential of the area. At this point, we have estimates that 10 billion barrels could be produced, but until you actually drill and prove the estimates, it's a stretch to say it is a strategic oil reserve. If we actually started exploration and drilling there, we might actually have a strategic oil reserve that could help get national energy independence.

Lastly, the Democrats didn't block drilling rights in ANWR to get higher fees. They blocked drilling to please ecology advocates, and if it were left up to them, ANWR would never be drilled, because they want the use of fossil fuels to cease forever.

FACT: Dems have blocked every effort to make this nation less dependent on Mideast oil.
To; Scott_Free
Why didn't you tell the full story of the leases?
These are old leases and many are very near expiration. I guess that little bit of information didn't fit your agenda.
If the U.S. had been set up to drill in Alaska and off the shores of California and Florida (like the Republicans wanted to back in 1995), we would not be in the situation that we are now in, with $4.00 + per gal gas. The very fact that the U.S. is once again seriously talking about drilling has prompted the Saudis to say they will pump more oil. Think what the price of gas would do if we actually started setting up drilling in Alaska and off our shores. The price would drop like a rock. And think what would happen if we started building new refineries (which the Dems also have blocked as pay-off to the environmentalist). The world would see that the U.S. is serious about becoming independent of Mideast oil and the price would drop faster than Bill Clinton's latest poll numbers. The libs keep yaking about the Oil company profits. Fact: the government makes more on a gallon of gas than the oil companies do. Why don't you yell about that?
Dems keep saying we can't drill our way out of high gas prices. I have news for you libs; we can't conserve our way to lower gas prices either. It will take both. The problem is the libs don't want to give an inch when it comes to drilling here in the U.S. or with building new refineries. No way around it, LIBS are to blame for the high gas prices.

China and India have more to do with high gas prices than either party, and that isn't going to change no matter where we drill.

I don't understand the hoopla about refineries. Is Rush Limbaugh telling you guys that oil supplies are going to waste because we can't refine them? Or is he suggesting we're sending oil abroad to be refined & then imported back? I suggest you open your eyes and trust them more than your right-wing pundits. We're refining all the gas that can be sold. If demand goes back up, we'll still be able to refine enough to meet higher demand.

"The price would drop like a rock."

How much? How soon? And for how long? And who pays for the new drilling, the new refineries? Without specifics, your opinions are baseless and useless.

Yesterday, there was an extensive argument about the lack of proof for Global Warming. Consensus wasn't enough -- there had to be "proof". No one would or could define what this proof was, but it was required nonetheless.

Why is it that no proof, evidence, justification, or even speculation, is required in this argument? Could it be that some you are colossal hypocrites? Be consistent, people. I'm tired of writing this question -- nearly every day.

Howie,

Simply, by definition, consensus is a majority of opinion. An opinion is a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. So, consensus is just a majority belief that Global Warming exists, and that it is caused by man. This is why there are skeptics in absence of proof or evidence.

Kornbluth, I thought that Congress had reached consensus to place blame on oil speculators for the rise is oil and gas prices, not supply and demand?

Actually, according to an ABC News Report on 5/15/07 by Charlie Herman, the senior producer in the ABC News Business Unit, "for the week ending May 11, the EIA reported that the nation's 149 oil refineries operated at 89.5% of their total capacity, processing 15.3 million barrels of crude oil per day, up .5% from a year ago. The refineries produced 9.1 million barrels of gasoline per day, up from the previous week. Drivers, however, used 9.3 million barrels of gasoline per day, 1 percent more than a year ago."

"Financing, permits, environmental concerns and the securing of oil supplies are all substantial hurdles for any company to construct a new refinery.

"Clean" refineries are expensive, and despite recent profits the refinery business has traditionally been low profit margin business. The last refinery was built in 1976 in Garyville, La."

"Arizona Clean Fuels hopes to construct a new refinery near Yuma, Ariz., at a cost of $3.5 billion. According to press reports, the company hopes to be up and running in 2011. Nearly two years ago, the company's CEO told ABC News' Betsy Stark he hoped to be up and running in 2010."

Even with refineries operating at 89% capacity, the U.S. has been importing refined gas to meet demand. True, that it is 89%, not 100%, but there are circumstances such as outages, disruptions, maintenance, and switchover from winter to summer fuels, different grade regulations from state to state, and difficult EPA requirements that prevent attaining 100% capacity.

I always thought consensus was a mutually agreed upon decision. Like, if five people want chinese food, and four people want burgers, but they can all agree on pizza, then pizza is the consensus. Majority opinion suggests chinese food. For another example, the supreme court decided 5-4 against banning guns in DC. I don't think that would rightly be described as a consensus of the justices.

Anyway, consensus was the word the letter writer used yesterday. It doesn't really apply in the case of climate scientists. The scientific evidence is compelling enough that the case should be closed.

Howie G,

"How much? How soon? And for how long?"

I think that's the whole point of the speculators, right? Aren't hydrogen cell and/or cellulosic ethanol investors doing the same thing, e.g. providing missing funds needed for a market that hasn't matured in hopes of earning a profit in the future when/if people want the product? People aren't pouring billions of dollars into new technologies for The Good of Mankind. They're doing it to make a buck.

The only real is the time frame. Speculators are pretty immediate and high-risk in light of a ten year investment strategy, but there isn't much of a difference at their cores.

And, to answer your initial question, if I knew how much, soon, or long I would've retired years ago.

Since you brought up yesterday's (anthropogenic) global warming argument, it's very similar. I'll quote you directly:
"we need to consider what is required to reduce that contribution."

How much, how soon, and for how long?

Speculation. But the same people complaining about oil speculation are willing to make this investment.

I really wonder how much of the current oil price "crisis" has been caused by the same type of investor that got in a bind in the foreclosure mess, seeing that the market is going up and up and hoping to jump in to get a good return in five years, inflating the market beyond what it should be.

Roger

Blame it on the democrats.

That's productive.

I think this look at the speculators is the most logical thing I've seen yet.

Kornbluth
You need to start getting your news from a better source. Our refineries are running at full capicity. The reason they are running at full capacity is because the libs required so many different blends of refined gas. If the refineries didn't have to refine so many different blends our capacity would not be so over run.
Howie G
Who has paid for the past drilling?
Who paid for the refiners we now have?
I guess they just sprung up out of the ground on their own.
Your question: Why is it that no proof, evidence, justification, or even speculation, is required in this argument?
Try using a little COMMON sense. Try using a little reasoning. (I know comon sense is not what liberals specialize in, but try.) Have you ever heard of the "law of supply & demand'?
Here it is in a nut shell. If there is a lot of supply, there is less demand. When there is not as much demand, the price goes down.
I thought most 3rd graders knew this.

Beachwalker,

I'll tell you who paid for them. You and I and everyone else who pumps gas.

And believe me, I do not need a lesson from you on supply and demand. However, it appears you need a lesson on the definition of "fact". These are "unsubstantiated opinions":

"FACT: Dems have blocked every effort to make this nation less dependent on Mideast oil."

"If the U.S. had been set up to drill in Alaska and off the shores of California and Florida (like the Republicans wanted to back in 1995), we would not be in the situation that we are now in, with $4.00 + per gal gas."

"The world would see that the U.S. is serious about becoming independent of Mideast oil and the price would drop faster than Bill Clinton's latest poll numbers."

Roger,

You raise some good points. Just as some on the "oil company good, environmentalists bad" are not applying consistent logic, some of us on the flip side are guilty of the same. I'll grant you that.

And you may be onto something with this line of thinking: "I really wonder how much of the current oil price "crisis" has been caused by the same type of investor that got in a bind in the foreclosure mess". This is the industry that basically invented a fake power crisis in California just to charge more for electricity.

“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”

Where’s the problem, ORR?

“ … cracking down on price gouging ..”

I think we all agree to that.

“ … rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief … “

Are you OK with that, or are you really into Corporate Welfare?

“… increasing production of alternative fuels.”

Now I’m not sure what that means, but the if alternative is “burn all the oil today” .. count me out.

Where’s the problem, ORR? This is at least the fourth time I’ve asked.

==

“[The Democrats] want the use of fossil fuels to cease forever”. Same question .. What’s wrong with that? Consider all the other applications (plastics, lubricants, the-as-yet-undiscovered) of this finite resource. If there was a way for you to get in your fancy car and travel as you are to doing – but hey, maybe only stopping annually to fill the tank instead of every 350 miles .. what’s wrong with that?

==

The Democrats .. The Democrats .. The Democrats .. … bla bla

"Financing, permits, environmental concerns and the securing of oil supplies are all substantial hurdles for any company to construct a new refinery.”

True.

Here are some other Truths: I’ve been inside them on the Gulf Coast and in the North East. In addition to being nasty-dirty and stinky, oil refineries are really impressive places. They run highly volatile process' using very high temperatures and pressures which makes them both dangerous and expensive to operate. It is truly remarkable and an bold testament to good engineering and good management that there are not many more disasters.

If I were the Oil Industry, I would continuously argue the USA’s environmental laws make it too expensive to operate here and I would lobby for a reduction in these requirements. Anything I achieved would lower my massive capital investment requirements .. and the constant rhetoric diverts criticism from the reality that it’s just a nasty expensive business to the prettier fantasy that someone else is at fault .. “but hey,” I would say, “for a few billion in tax advantages and some environmental law relaxation, we the good folks at ExxonMobil will see what can be done to help America” .... ”

It’s a ruse.

Beachwalker:

"The reason [our refineries] is because the libs required so many different blends of refined gas"

Really? Prove that. And while you're at it, prove it was the libs ... 'cause as far as I know, the 2005 Energy was done in .. 2005 when .. who held both houses of congress plus the admistration?

I thought most 3rd graders knew all this, but hey - maybe I missed something.

Provide legit' links, dude,

Howie G said:

"I'll tell you who paid for them. You and I and everyone else who pumps gas .. "

Please don't forget all the free land and free oil and tax advantages and other free resources GIVEN over the decades to those that built the refineries.

Busy Beaver there JDR. Question if I may. Socialist countries with strong environmental sentiment are extracting oil. Canada is a huge oil producer, according to them, the Alberta oil sands are second only to Saudi Arabia's reserves, and they are using that resource.

http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/OilSands/oilsands.asp

Norway is a very environmentally minded country yet they are very active in offshore drilling and energy independent.

Why can these socialist, environmentally minded countries profit from oil extraction when the US is in a stalemate on this issue and has been for decades?

I'm not sure Norway fully qualifies as "Socialist" .. CIA says they are "a combination of free market activity and government intervention.

The oil industry is nationalized. 1/3rd of their exports are oil .. but oil production peaked 2000 .. and knowing they will eventually face declining oil and gas revenues - they have been saving oil-and-gas-boosted budget surpluses in a Government Petroleum Fund - valued (2007) at more than $250 billion ... which may not sound like much but well over half their GDP $391.5 billion (2007 est.).

"Socialist" ? Hell they define conservative.

==

Canada - also wonder why you call them "Socialist" .. yea they may be moving that way but they have balanced their federal budget every year since 1997. Smoke that.

They also have eight times the proven oil reserves of the USA and produce half what the USA currently does.

==

what was the question?

Here's an interesting tidbit from an industry magazine:
Oil & Gas Journal, January, 2007

Proven Reserves / 2006 Production Rates

Canada: 182 years left
USA: 12 years left

"When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, gas was $2.33 per gallon. Barely a year and a half later, gas is at an all-time high of $4-plus per gallon."

Thanks for the cause & effect Robbie. You made a great case. Amazing accomplishment the Dems had leaving the status quo in place for a year and 1/2 accomplished all of that. And the 6 years of total Rep government accomplished on the energy front..................??

(subsidies for the richest corporations in history. Makes you proud to be an American....).

Here's a question for you Rob.
What was the price when Junior oilman and his evil henchman took office?

Thanks for letting us know that a potential of a few hundred K barrels a day would turn the 85 million barrel a day world market around especially in 10 years when it may (or may not) come in. There's some solid economics in those ramblings. Take that you A-rabs.

I'm with Kornbluth. There's not enough oil to make a real dent in our current situation. The oil in the ground should be part of our national reserves. It's time to looking ahead to the next step and hope we don't need them.

Or we could just do nothing. (Guess what I'm betting on).

"The oil in the ground should be part of our national reserves."

Here's a sobering stat' from the Energy Information Administration (as reported by Wikipedia)

In 1970, when the Alaska North Slope (ANS) reserves were booked, America had 39 billion barrels of proven reserves. We now have less than 21 billion barrels ... a 46% decline.

We now have .. a 46% decline.

yea .. it's the Dem's fault.

You focused on the term socialist JDR, perhaps I should have left that out, my bad.

To rephrase, both countries are very environmentally sensitive. Would you agree? Would you agree they expanding oil production yet still maintaining respect for a clean environment? Is it working? If so then why not here?

James D. Rockefeller

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/august01/2001-08-06-gas.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121736,00.html

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/05/20/clean_air_rules_fuel_gas_run_up?pg=2

Do you have any other un-informed questions?

There is no reason .. as long as we-the-people pay attention .. which I'm sure they do in Norway - at least that has been my very limited experience with those folks. Since we just exempted Exxon form the full cost of their boo-boo in Alaska 2 decades ago, I'm not convinced we-the-people are able to pay attention - especially with Rush Hannity bleaching millions of minds.

Why not here? Mainly because we have only 12 years of stuff left .. perhaps it's really triple that time but it's still a relatively short time. Save it - use up the other guys stuff.

If we use ours now, the inpact at the pump will be .. how much? ... I'm still waiting on that figure form anyone but you can bet it's close to $ 0 dollars. Some say we will "scare" OPEC into more production .. I say it's all rhetoric: peanuts in value and very temporary due to other forces .. like oil going up $5 today - perhaps based on just one bozo making one statement?

Save it - or are you really willing to spend like a Bush Crony?

Howie G
"However, it appears you need a lesson on the definition of "fact". These are "unsubstantiated opinions":

I would call the things I said Common Sense derived from intellegent observation.

To use you reason of thinking can you answer these questions:
How much will conservation save the U.S. at the pump? When will we notice these saving? How long can we expect these savings to last?

To use you skewed thinking and words, without the answers to these questions "your opinion is unsubstantiated noise".

Howie G
"However, it appears you need a lesson on the definition of "fact". These are "unsubstantiated opinions":

I would call the things I said Common Sense derived from intellegent observation.

To use you reason of thinking can you answer these questions:
How much will conservation save the U.S. at the pump? When will we notice these saving? How long can we expect these savings to last?

To use you skewed thinking and words, without the answers to these questions "your opinion is unsubstantiated noise".

Link 1:

No reference to "Liberals" unless everyone that gives a crap about the air we breath is by definition an ugly liberal. May your children suffer asthma.

Link 2 - which is connected to link 3:

Talks about “boutique blends” .. which were mandated as an alternative to MTBE had "been declared by the EPA to be a potential human carcinogen when taken in high doses." I won't wish that on your children.

This mandate was put in place when Bush 41 signed the 1990 Clean Air Act.

If you want to argue "it was a democratic congress" .. fine .. If you want to argue all but one of the "Clean Air Acts" was signed by a Democratic President .. fine .. I concede ... but assuming a lowering of asthma and cancer, it seems a prudent investment.

"How much will conservation save the U.S. at the pump?"

Inflate your tires well, and immediate 5%. Buy a higher MPG car, perhaps 30% or more. Start to carpool: Instant near-50%. Need I go one?

Long term? Lots.

"When will we notice these saving?

Immediately, see above.
Long term? Lots.

How long can we expect these savings to last?

Forever.

Beachwalker,

As JDR has pointed out, your links proved zilch. They did not substantiate one of your "facts" (which you've now reclassified as "common sense"). Furthermore, he has done the legwork for your other challenge. I now drive a car that gets 38 mpg. The reduction in trips to the pump, from my 18 mpg car was noticed the first week I drove it. The math is pretty convenient. I go about half as often. Even a third-grader can peg that one.

Thanks JDR for the heavy lifting. I'm in a different time zone, and you guys were up past my bedtime.

Finally, 'walker, you can criticize JDR for many things, but being uninformed is a label that will never stick.

Thanks for the thanks, Howie.

The reason I sometimes blog is to learn - sometimes just to see what others are thinking, sometimes to dig into things a bit.

I had a slow night last night, so I blogged a bit. I knew Canada had a bunch of oil that was being sent to us .. but thanks to a prod from Dan I now know how much oil they have, and I also learned about Norway's social-conservative practices.

As for people: Chances are we'll not hear back from Beachwalker - maybe he / she will surprise us. This is the fourth or fifth time I've asked ORR about Pelosi's lame rhetoric which doesn't say much of anything but sure get's a lot of milage - but no thoughtful response from the likes of ORR.

"Chances are we'll not hear back from Beachwalker ... [and] no thoughtful response from the likes of ORR."

I rest my case, yer Honor.