McCain: Lift embargo on off-shore drilling
posted at 10:41 am on June 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
John McCain told a Houston audience yesterday that he supports ending the ban on off-shore drilling in order to increase domestic production of oil. The White House wasted no time in issuing support for the proposition, but the environmentalists that McCain wanted to woo may have heard enough. The moratorium on drilling has existed since the early days of the Reagan administration, but the rising price of gasoline may have doomed it:
Sen. John McCain on Tuesday proposed lifting the ban on offshore drilling as part of his plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil and help combat rising gas prices.
“The stakes are high for our citizens and for our economy,” McCain, the presumed Republican nominee for president, said at a press conference Tuesday in Houston, Texas. …
“For years, the president has pushed Congress to expand our domestic oil supply, but Democrats in Congress have consistently blocked such action,” she said.
This news comes as a relief to consumers who have waited for some promise of action at any level of the government. Thus far, the only proposals heard were those that would compound the problem of inadequate supply. Democrats in Congress attempted to impose a “cap and trade” system that amounted to nothing less than a rationing system that would effectively nationalize the energy industry. Democratic candidates continue to offer “windfall profits taxes” that would eliminate investment capital and pass along even more price increases to the consumer.
Only new supplies can address the rising demand for oil as well as runaway speculation. The latter is based on instability in a number of oil-producing nations, and not just Iran and Iraq. Sudan now teeters on the verge of a failed state, and Venezuela’s nationalization has damaged its ability to produce its sulphuric crude. Introducing major new streams of production would increase the stability of global supply and remove one of the key engines for speculation-based pricing.
Democrats, of course, objected to McCain’s shift on offshore drilling. Almost to a person, they complained about McCain’s flip-flop and the potential damage to their tourist dollars. However, a couple of key points have to be made. Most (if not all) offshore platforms would be well out of sight of beachgoers; for some reason, politicians seem to think of oil derricks built in the 1920s when discussing this issue. Spills are very rare, certainly less prevalent than oil tankers running aground or splitting open as part of the way we have to import oil now.
Also, when prices continue to rise, people fly and drive less, which means that the tourism business will suffer much more broadly than it will at the sight of a couple of oil rigs. Perhaps someone should explain that to Bill Nelson (D-FL). As an example, Continental cut a number of routes from its service yesterday to save on fuel prices.
Nothing in this effort says that states have to drill off-shore. McCain and the White House would merely remove the federal roadblocks that keep states from doing so if they desire, which is a truly federalist approach. It’s a long-overdue move that will encourage the US to take responsibility for its own energy needs, instead of begging everyone else in the world to drill their resources before ours.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
I have no questions. You wish McCain to lose. I do not. You have decided on your position which is defeat is a road to victory. I do not. It really is that simple.
Limerick on June 18, 2008 at 3:44 PM
This may sound wrong. But I am tired of trying to get people to understand about ANWR, and polar bears and oil up here in my State. I live in Alaska and I wonder about the rejects who think that the democrats are better then sliced bread.
If Obama gets in I am just going to say fine. Because we all know what he WILL do and when the people wake up and realize what he is doing and they have to pay over 12 for a gallon of gas… they can’t blame Bush anymore. They can’t blame Republicans either. They have only to blame themselves for electing these people and I hope they enjoy the ride. Saying I told you so would feel good, but it won’t solve anything.
lets hope the country doesn’t go in the “crapper”.
upinak on June 18, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Some people seem to be easily manipulated by politicians. Drilling offshore and in Alaska will do nothing to affect worldwide oil prices, which are under tremendous demand growth from the developing world.
Oil drilling is the new corn ethanol- a false solution that satisfies a few special interest groups but does nothing to address the larger problems of skyrocketing energy prices and the massive transfer of wealth from the US and Europe to the Middle East.
Anyone who falls for this false argument and red herring from the politicians needs to wake up.
bayam on June 18, 2008 at 3:46 PM
There we go again… 1 million barrels a day from ANWR won’t do jack to worldwide oil prices.
bayam on June 18, 2008 at 3:48 PM
My level of being ‘offensive’ is in direct proportion to the alleged ‘conservative’ who comes to real conservative websites and advocates that people not vote for McCain, and let the people who vote for Obama to win. The more they argue what’s in the worst interest for American and Republicans and Conservatives … the more ‘offensive’* I will be.
*”Offensive” = calling them on their BS, and not letting their lies and half-truths go unanswered.
wise_man on June 18, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Who says we’re going to sell oil from ANWR to other countries when we can use it ourselves.
wise_man on June 18, 2008 at 3:50 PM
The implication is that nothing can be done. Or are you saying that drilling for oil is useless, but a few more wind turbines will do the trick?
flenser on June 18, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Did you not notice that oil fell dropped when mccain said to start drilling offshore?
upinak on June 18, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Look here you completely brainwashed person!
Sitting on your hands with your thumb up your rear isn’t going to help you with oil and the price of gas either! You can’t run a vehicle off butt fat!
If you want to be a defeatist… then look around your house and notice something. EVERYTHING you look at is either made with OIL and CORN or both! Think about it!
upinak on June 18, 2008 at 3:54 PM
I’m not advocating that. I’m advocating that people not vote for a liberal just because he as an “R” after his name. I’m voting for Chuck Baldwin.
If you vote for McCain, and Obama wins, I’ll blame you. And if you vote for McCain and McCain wins, I’ll still blame you. See how it works?
flenser on June 18, 2008 at 3:55 PM
there is some rumor/myth that Alaska sells it’s oil to Japan.. which is incorrect. The only thing exported out (or was until it was closed down) was fertilizer converted from Natural Gas.
upinak on June 18, 2008 at 3:56 PM
What does that have to do with the science behind corn ethanol? Clearly, you don’t have any clue about the consequences of turning 1/3 the US corn crop to produce 1% of its fuel.
The only defeatists are the people who think that drilling for more oil in the US is going to lower fuel prices. If you think that you can stop a river by throwing sand at it, you’re not as clever as you think.
You’re voicing the same solution that the Saudis want to hear, and believe me, the Saudis love your thinking. Instead of demanding a brave new energy plan that starts to replace oil with another form of energy, you demand more of the same. Brilliant.
bayam on June 18, 2008 at 4:01 PM
We need to be independent in fulfilling our own energy needs and NOT be dependent upon the fickleness or under the thumb of foreign countries, i.e., Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
Why is common sense so hard?
moonsbreath on June 18, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Do you think it’s a good idea to replace the worldwide oil market with some socialist policies that try to control oil supply and dictate where oil producers are allowed to sell oil?
bayam on June 18, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Why is common sense so hard?
Because it requires completely disrupting the status quo- big oil- which has incredible power in DC. The oil industry already has everyone thinking that offshore drilling or Alaska will solve our problems, when in fact the only thing more US drilling will achieve is sustained dependence on other countries.
None of these ’solutions’ will do anything more than slightly slow down continued oil prices increases. The days of cheap oil are over, and for good.
bayam on June 18, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Umm actually, working for Oil I guess I am the bad guy. God help me if you get your wish for Obama! I hope you eat and get chubby soon. Because if you get your “wish” you may possibly be using that corn for fuel and wishing you had a tortilla!
I guess the demand is going to make me the bad guy. Oh God help me for doing the publics bidding! Lets not be MAD at the Federal Government for taxing the absolute hell out of people (liberals, conservatives, moderates… oh yeah everyone!) and lets not be MAD at the vehicle Corporations for building these fuel efficient vehicles yet overprice them 5000 more then should be! Lets us not be MAD at you tree hugging, branch eating, tofurkey loving fools who want to live in caves! I have no problems with a cabin, but forgive ME if I happen to like electricity!
Lets NOT GET MAD at those who are complaining about 100 dollars more per month per electric bill for trying to LIVE When the companies are charging the people for the Federal Governments involvement in raising taxes or the fact that it is more expensive to Get that COAL or NATURAL GAS to make Electricity!
I am not voicing solutions… I am helping with the normal running of the world and they luxuries we have made for it. If you want to live without it… Fine, get off the damn plastic computer, that is hooked onto the internet which is ran by electricity … all produced with oil or natural gas… and go live in that Cave! :)
upinak on June 18, 2008 at 4:11 PM
I said: “Who says we’re going to sell oil from ANWR to other countries when we can use it ourselves.”
……. what??
The previous comment was something to the effect of ‘drilling in Alaska wont change the world wide price for oil’ and my response was, in other words, ‘can’t we use this because it belongs to us already.’
Who on earth would “try to control oil supply”? It’s ours. We own it. It’s under our ground. Now the company that drills this won’t give it away for free, but the more oil we produce and consume, and the less we buy and consume will have many benefits beyond some individual question about world wide oil supply.
I’m less interested in where China is buying their oil and who Iran is selling theirs to – as much as I’d like to see ourselves produce and consume more of our own.
wise_man on June 18, 2008 at 4:19 PM
The basic premise that the laws of supply and demand don’t affect the oil industry is amusing to me… just heard a Democrat Congresscritter from Florida spout that.
ANWR by itself won’t do that much, but add it to offshore, and shale, and all of the sudden we have more energy reserves than anyone else.
Key is that it will COST huge amounts of money to move to alternative energy, and it will take time. No one has even come up with a real plan to make the switch, or know what the alternative is going to be.
But in the meantime, they are destoying the American economy because ENERGY is used by every part of the economy. When energy prices spike, then the overall economy takes a hit…. which means you won’t have the MONEY to make the switch to the now unknown alternative energy.
Fact is that without oil there is NO means of transport currently available.
Like it, or don’t, but we’re stuck with oil for at least the next few years, and if you don’t want the American economy to crumble, we need cheep oil, which we can ONLY get by expanding production.
Romeo13 on June 18, 2008 at 4:26 PM
I agree that the cost is huge- and that’s why private industry needs the government to come up with both the plan and the best alternatives.
You can’t bring up shale production any faster, and probably not at a lower cost, than alternative energy sources. Yet because everyone loves oil, shale production will probably be where most of the investment dollars go.
You’re ignoring the supply and demand argument and I doubt that you’ve looked at the expected worldwide demand curve over the next 10 years. ANWR and American offshore won’t make a difference. It’s because of supply and demand- not in spite of it- that oil prices are going up.
bayam on June 18, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Dead wrong. The commodities and futures markets are driven by expectations as well as present supplies. The traders are trading risk and putting up their own money to do it. If they don’t believe that the US is serious about drilling, or if they fear there are not enough deep-water rigs available now that Brazil has started drilling offshore, they will continue to buy contracts for future oil. As soon as we make a real, credible move to get at that oil, with contracts written for drilling rigs and a few of them on the way, prices will start to ease. As soon as the first few holes come online and the new refineries run the first test batches through their first distillers and crackers, prices will slide way downhill.
Please go off and read Sowell’s Basic Economics and Applied Economics.
njcommuter on June 18, 2008 at 4:53 PM
The Dems are touting the unused and un-drilled leases which the oil companies already have access to but have declined to exploit. What is the deal with this? Why arent’ the oil co’s drilling where they already have access in the US?
DrW on June 18, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Why don’t you at least grab the full quote so that you know that last part was make by White House Press Secretary Dana Perino? Sheesh… From your snippet it makes McCain look like a girl.. LOL “she said”
That wasn’t hard now was it?
Chakra Hammer on June 18, 2008 at 5:03 PM
No let this mess continue and force developers/inventors/scientists to come up with alternate energy answers. Screw oil. Drilling the hell out of the place is eventually going to dry up too. WHy dont they?Well, where to put the meter on something else? hmmm? thats why.
johnnyU on June 18, 2008 at 5:08 PM
LMFAO HAHAHHAHAA, Please explain why the GOVERNMENT has to do anything? All they do is tax them and US (the American People) to the point of Poverty!
If you supposedly know or understand that, then why are you argueing for them? Why do I have a feeling you live in a city, walk to work, never left you State and have no clue as to what, where, when, why and HOW Oil is Explored, Produced if FOUND and then put into viable resources or manufactured into useable items.
upinak on June 18, 2008 at 5:12 PM
So what happens when we use all these alternatives and a Natrual Disaster happens? Such as Earthquake, Hurricane, Tonado.. and recently flooding! Do you use this alternative energy type vehicle to resuce the people? Or do you use the gas/diesel powered that is a proven entity!
upinak on June 18, 2008 at 5:14 PM
And what, pray tell, is that alternative energy going to be so we can invest in it?
The whole problem NOW is that the government is choosing winners and losers in this debacle. Funding some forms of energy with tax dollars, while doing nothing with others…
Corn ethanol is stupid, yet is funded. Switchgrass may work, but we don’t have the teck yet… but Congress is already moving us into a teck that is not economicly smart.
The plain fact remains that we HAVE to have oil to function, so we can create the technologies, and infrastructure to support those technologies… but some like you are against us getting the energy we need to do so.
Heck… when the enviros come up with a workable plan? I’ll be right behind it… but everyone is just saying Alternative energy like thats an answer… its NOT. Theres no such THING as alternative energy, and it sure won’t run my car. They talk as if its a SURE THING that we can suddenly create tech and infrastucture, and are willing to bet our economy on that bet.
Romeo13 on June 18, 2008 at 5:18 PM
My understanding is that they were Leases to explore for oil… and oil was not found in sufficient quantities to exploit.
Also, like here in Colorado, you have to get a State permit to drill, and they will only grant so many… in fact our Gov Ritter the Critter is trying to slow drilling down with new regulations… and has even stopped a huge already approved project…
Romeo13 on June 18, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Do you ever get the feeling that we may become like the Flinstones? A car with a hole to “brake”!
upinak on June 18, 2008 at 5:23 PM
But you can stop a river by throwing sand at it. So it’s you who is not as clever as he thinks.
You are arguing something different from the rest of us. You are saying that the demand for oil will outstrip supply, regardless of any addittional supply we can drill in the US.
Two problems. One, you don’t know that for sure. Two, even if it is true, the price of oil three years from now will still be lower if we drill, rather than if we do not drill. The demand side of the equation is not something we can control. The supply side is.
At least, you offer no suggestions for how we can get the Chinese and Indians to limit their enegy consumption.
flenser on June 18, 2008 at 5:25 PM
You are correct. Every State has a process for permitting to drill. They wait for Lease Sales, which is almost always sealed (as in like a silent auction) and when the day of the lease sale ends. They are taken out of the envelope and read in front of the crowd on they section that were bid on. I have seen them in the multi millions for a 20 acres plot (which are called Units). That is the first phase for most States.
upinak on June 18, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Some people have some very odd ideas about how science works. While we’re at it, why don’t we “force” them to come up with cures for the common cold and baldness, and to give us eternal youth and beauty? And faster then light travel would be cool. I’m sure other people can think of things we should “force” them to come up with.
flenser on June 18, 2008 at 5:29 PM
Oh, we got a NEW one here in Colorado.. that the board that overseas drilling here now has to take Wildlife into account… and they are proposing a 3 month a year lapse in drilling because of GROUND HOGS!
Of which we have MILLIONS.
Romeo13 on June 18, 2008 at 5:29 PM
Nice! The new underground polar bears! LMFAO
upinak on June 18, 2008 at 5:34 PM
You’re saying that T. Boone Pickens and Jimmy Rogers are dead wrong about real demand driving prices. I’ll let their past statements and writings stand on their own merit.
The US drilling in Alaska or offshore won’t fundamentally change the supply-demand equation. America simply doesn’t hold significant crude oil reserves (shale is differently). People are incredibly misinformed on this reality.
Politicians want to reduce this problem into a debate over the environment and other side issues because it gets people excited and avoids hard decisions. A country that could put a man on the moon is too politically stagnant to find a way to move toward fuel cell technology and other alternatives to oil.
If you look at solar thermal and other alternatives, it’s clear that big investments in the right R&D will result in more options if not a clear path to energy independence. More drilling is a minor step that won’t prevent oil prices from continuing to rise.
bayam on June 18, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Point your missing is that oil prices will rise even HIGHER if we don’t drill, than if we do.
Second point is that every barrel of oil we produce here is wealth which stays in THIS country, instead of being exported to countrys who don’t like us very much (Venezuela).
We currently only produce 57% of the oil we did in 1970. If we were even at the 1970 level, with Canada, and Mexico, North America could be energy self sufficient.
Lets make treatys with them, and then let the rest of the world fight over Mid East oil.
Romeo13 on June 18, 2008 at 6:25 PM
Oh, and last time I checked, Solar and Thermal won’t go in the Tank of a Truck… or Train… or ship…
Even if we get fully electric cars going for around town use, that technology is worthless for the transport of Goods, which is what is KILLING the economy right now.
Romeo13 on June 18, 2008 at 6:28 PM
You are talking as if Mr. Pickens (A BP **English Company BTW** CEO) and Jim Rogers, who is a Hedge Fund mogal (and a Stock Traders of the worst sort especially on oil), then you have some more reading to do.
Jim will say ANYTHING to make stocks rise. If you don’t think so, look at the last 6 months of articles on what “He” thinks about oil and you will see he flips a lot and isn’t interested about American money or America in general! He is a Global Socialist!
Mr. Pickens is a landsman… I don’t think you know what that is. It is basically a person who buys up large plots of land and leased the area. He stuck oil and that is how he came up on his “money” and believes that there is Peak Oil.. the Bell curve, which is a Theory not a Law! And as he is also in the Stock market heavily…..
Don’t bring this in. You still haven’t offered anything to the table!
upinak on June 18, 2008 at 6:44 PM
There we go again… 1 million barrels a day from ANWR won’t do jack to worldwide oil prices.
bayam on June 18, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Where is your expertise in this matter?
And how about the 40-50 billion dollars shipped out of our country every year?
How would that not help stabilizing our dollar, lowering oil prices and increasing our national wealth, stock prices and national employment?
TexasJew on June 18, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Hey, glad to see you active again. This is completely off topic, but it has been bugging me for several days.
On another thread, you said:
To which I replied (but you apparently never re-visited the thread):
Sorry for going off topic for this personal stuff, but I’d like to understand what happened, as I very much like Upinak and value his input here.
LegendHasIt on June 18, 2008 at 7:14 PM
You know I can’t even remember that! I probably mis-understood you. So don’t worry about it.
Sorry, I have been VERY VERY busy lately. Researching is a pain in da butt and I had to do some stuff for Patriot Guard…
And I am a She-Male (aka Tom Boy)! HAHA!
upinak on June 18, 2008 at 7:18 PM
hey TJ, I think I beat it up pretty bad. Gotta love the tree-roots. If this person wants to live in the dark ages… maybe we should find an island and make another castaway!
upinak on June 18, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Oh, we got a NEW one here in Colorado.. that the board that overseas drilling here now has to take Wildlife into account… and they are proposing a 3 month a year lapse in drilling because of GROUND HOGS!
Of which we have MILLIONS.
Romeo13 on June 18, 2008 at 5:29 PM
It gets worse…
I’m currently dealing with prairie dogs, Bighorn Sheep lambing season, both the Sage and Sharptailed grouse and the wonderful, ever-popular Black-footed ferret up in North Dakota on private drilling acreage offsetting BLM land.
And G-d help me if I find an old arrowhead in my drilling mud pit…
TexasJew on June 18, 2008 at 7:28 PM
hey TJ, I think I beat it up pretty bad. Gotta love the tree-roots. If this person wants to live in the dark ages… maybe we should find an island and make another castaway!
upinak on June 18, 2008 at 7:25 PM
But he’d get overwhelmed by the rising sea-level due to Global Warming! It’ll be 70 feet higher by…. next Thursday!
One thought — I think we need to recast “The Flood” with Al Gore as Noah.
TexasJew on June 18, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Give me a rock hammer, some nice brushes and a gravel sifter!
J/K!
upinak on June 18, 2008 at 7:33 PM
OK, Glad we are ‘cool’.
Very surprised at the other revelation though!
LegendHasIt on June 18, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Let me think about this one.
ANWR and all of the North Slope is a 5% angles from the Arctic Ocean to the Brooks Range. If the Ocean(s) rise 70 ft.. it would turn the North Slope of Alaska into more of a marsh then parts of Florida. Would that mean we would have to do ***OFFSHORE DRILLING***
LMFAO! Ok I gotta stop.
upinak on June 18, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Hmmm… how much of a Carbon offset do you need to build an Ark?
I mean, thats a lot of trees to cut down… all those cubits of wood….
And nowdays they’d use power tools…
and tranporting the animals to the ark… lots of fuel use there… not to mention PETA would be all over ya…
Romeo13 on June 18, 2008 at 7:44 PM
it is the internet. You don’t know how someone sounds or if they are being fesicious. I usually apologize if I am in the wrong and mis-understand.
No worries… besides, the Compound Bow I picked up (loving it, learning it, I am gonna be a red neck mans dream woman!) is helping with the silent rage of politics. Hell it may be the only way to get meat if the Dem’s have their ways.
upinak on June 18, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Give me a rock hammer, some nice brushes and a gravel sifter!
J/K!
upinak on June 18, 2008 at 7:33 PM
upinak, I forgot to add the fact that if I find any dinosaur bones, I am to immediately contact a vertebrate paleontologist and stop everything right there.
I’ve been a member of the SVP and know a bunch of paleo folks who would love to come up to North Dakota for a couple of coolers of St. Pauli Girl and party.. or as much as one can party in North Dakota..
Those BLM clowns wouldn’t know what they would be in for!
TexasJew on June 18, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Oh come on TJ! You and I both know that geologists are the biggest partiers! Heck I can actually say I have seen it in action…
upinak on June 18, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Oh come on TJ! You and I both know that geologists are the biggest partiers! Heck I can actually say I have seen it in action…
upinak on June 18, 2008 at 7:55 PM
That’s true.. I had a 6 week-long Senior field course at UT/Austin up in Purgatory, Colorado and I can say that I can’t remember any of it! All the other geologists that I took it with can’t remember it either..There’s something about a breakfast of 6 Mickey’s at 11,000′ elevation that makes one forget stuff. I got an A, somehow. That’s the scary part..
Maybe that’s what happened to that USGS geologist who came up with that insane 400 billion Bakken number – too many Mickey’s at field camp!
TexasJew on June 18, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Ah well, it would never work out between us then. I prefer a longbow, or barring that, a simple wooden recurve. All those pulleys, bolts, multiplicity of cables running up and down confuse and frighten me.
;-)
LegendHasIt on June 18, 2008 at 8:11 PM
LMFAO HAHAHAAA… or to much Pot!
Well I am outtie… finally NICE up here and I need to enjoy the day. Then research more tonight. You have a great night TJ!
upinak on June 18, 2008 at 8:11 PM
I pull at around 60, I scared the instructors too! So the recurve wouldn’t have worked that well… and they don’t do as well as compound on the Bou (caribou) up here.
so at 5′4 139.. I am an intimidating, agressive oil working female who likes to fish and bow hunt…. I am going to be singles a LONG TIME.
Have a good night :)
upinak on June 18, 2008 at 8:13 PM
I think the conversation went like this:
“John, Dick Cheney here. Next week your commander in chief, President George W. Bush is going to introduce a comprehensive energy policy that calls for lifting the ban on off shore drilling in part. We are trying to win you the White House here and enough Republicans to keep the Senate 50/50 since your not sure which side your on.
My suggestion is you get on board with his off shore drilling else you will look the fool most of us already know you are. The American people are pissed every time they go to the pump. You don’t want them pissed at you do you?
Either get on board and bring that friend of yours from Florida along for the ride or lose all Republican voters and battle big ears for the blacks, welfare recipients, flower children, communists, socialists and filthy Jihadi vote. Nice visiting with you John, have a nice day!”
dhunter on June 18, 2008 at 8:32 PM
Good one.
Wouldn’t be surprised if it were fairly close to being reality.
LegendHasIt on June 18, 2008 at 8:40 PM
Once again for the Bayams of the world.
The reason we should have been and now clearly must drill in ANWR, offshore and anywhere we think there may be oil–shale etc is because of the supply and demand curve. If, and it is a big if, prices continue higher, putting aside the worldwide chaos it ignites, we will still be using crude oil for at least a few more decades. We are talking 10’s of billions of barrels right here in the US that could be pumped over that time frame.
Having established that we will be using said crude, despite any pie in the sky dreams of alternative energy, we are talking several trillion dollars. The choice is very stark. Do we send that money overseas or do we keep it here? When all the huff and puff about ANWR etc was spewed about it was in a world of $10-$25 crude. We could afford to be cavalier led by Gore in his SUV. With it at $140 everything has to be thought anew. Pristine god forsaken coastal planes the size of Central Park don’t look so Eden.
Here’s a Julian Simon bet I’m willing to make. If we develop our domestic resources the price of crude oil will be sharply lower in ten years than it is today. The fact that I think oil is a bubble today, akin to tech and housing, is besides the point.
Mind you I have not even mentioned our moral imperative to contribute to the world’s supply of oil. Let us not forget that our policies drive world oil prices. We take 25% of daily output. We choose to be the world’s third largest producer instead of the first. Throw in our ethanol madness and the world really has reason to point its finger. Even the UN in a fit of chutzpa called it a crime against humanity. When you start putting food in your gas tank you don’t have an energy problem you have a priority problem.
So please stop with the shop worn “we can’t drill our way out of this”. What we can do is lower our imports by 25%.
patrick neid on June 18, 2008 at 8:43 PM
Heck, even a high level Washington politician pretending to be for some sort of sensible domestic energy policy can lower prices… almost immediately.
Actually introducing legislation would quickly lower them even further.
And PASSING some common sense legislation would KEEP them lower for a year or two, before the first gallon of oil from the new domestic supply is pumped out of the ground.
LegendHasIt on June 18, 2008 at 9:01 PM
A stirringly declared, and strong energy policy by the U.S. would reverse the global indecision in oil.
Talk it lower and drill it down to tolerable.
We have plenty of enemies in the world already trying to cut our throats without us joining in to help them.
One oil spill every ten years would be more affordable than no economy for a decade.
profitsbeard on June 18, 2008 at 9:41 PM
You haven’t established anything. Is Intel full of pie in the sky dreams? Because Intel expects its solar energy cells to reach price parity with coal within 4 years. Or perhaps you’re smarter than Intel and the rest of silicon valley.
There’s no end in sight to crude because there’s no plan to move to another energy source or establish a way for cars to refuel on anything but gasoline and ethanol.
The problem is that you could start drilling everywhere offshore and in Alaska, and you still wouldn’t affect worldwide crude prices. In the meantime, years will have been wasted on a failing strategy. Although it’s nice to see so many optimists filled with false hope by politicians.
BTW, Jim Rogers runs a commodities fund- not directly tied to the stock market. Someone doesn’t seem to know the difference and comes across as fairly unknowledgable.
bayam on June 18, 2008 at 9:45 PM
Keep reading legend you’ll get it.
My wager is in the face of supposed insatiable demand that is going to lead to ever higher prices, one of Bayam’s props for wasting tax payer funds on alternative fuel sources. Myself I lean toward the private sector in almost all things.
In Bayam’s own words:
“I agree that the cost is huge- and that’s why private industry needs the government to come up with both the plan and the best alternatives.
You can’t bring up shale production any faster, and probably not at a lower cost, than alternative energy sources. Yet because everyone loves oil, shale production will probably be where most of the investment dollars go.
You’re ignoring the supply and demand argument and I doubt that you’ve looked at the expected worldwide demand curve over the next 10 years. ANWR and American offshore won’t make a difference. It’s because of supply and demand- not in spite of it- that oil prices are going up.”
Obviously I disagree, hence the bet forever ingrained on google now! Today’s close for July delivery was $136.25. Ten years from now, if we take our shackles off, the price will be lower, probably significantly lower.
patrick neid on June 18, 2008 at 9:49 PM
Nah, I got it already.. I agreed with you, even if I didn’t specifically say that I did… I was just taking your stuff a step further and factoring in the effect of speculators as well as the practical economics.
LegendHasIt on June 18, 2008 at 9:59 PM
comprendo…
patrick neid on June 18, 2008 at 10:15 PM
Trouble is the Democrat Party is used to thumbing their nose at the American people with impunity. It will take a major effort, greater than the anti-amnesty effort by far to get them to move off of their environmental terrorist policies.
We are paying the consequences today for the failed policies of Bill Clinton 12 years ago. Vetoing offshore drilling and locking up hundreds of thousands of acres of federal lands.
Supply and demand is a very powerful mechanism, not to mention the arrogance of asking for more and more oil from the middle east and refusing to use any more of our own.
dhunter on June 18, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Nice dodge Bayam.
You mentioned Intel and solar energy. Hmmm. Private sector leading the way. You are starting to get it. The private sector allocates and determines things very well, thank you. I certainly trust that secret hand as they say rather than the Al “I’m not a moron” Gore’s of the world directing traffic.
But back to my larger point. We would be pumping our own oil, not someone else’s. My intention is not to lower prices-although that would happen-it is simply to harvest our own and contribute to the world’s supply of oil. Meanwhile as an added bonus, trillions of dollars would stay here. Is this getting to be too difficult a subject for you.
As to Intel, a fine company but a bad investment these last 10 years along with most of the tech stocks that caught up in the tech bubble of 1992-2000. I give you a chart to gaze upon in your leisure. The fact that I think the same will be happening with crude oil as it approaches $170 a barrel is besides the point.
This is tech and housing
http://www.investech.com/
This is crude oil
http://www.mrci.com/pdf/cl.pdf
and just as the Empire state building came to represent the excesses of the 1920’s here’s the crude symbol:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080610094436.jmv7az8n&show_article=1&image=large
it even looks like the crude chart.
Remember what I have said. Crude oil will be lower in ten years than it is now. If Jimmy Rogers disagrees then using your logic I must be smarter than him. Oh well, he’ll get over it.
patrick neid on June 18, 2008 at 10:54 PM
A million barrels here and a million barrels there and pretty soon your talking about some real oil.
Johan Klaus on June 18, 2008 at 11:47 PM
Economics 101: Increase supply, price goes down.
Johan Klaus on June 18, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Nothing quite like a GW Bush supporter trying to share his views on economic policy. It’s great that you’ve heard of Intel. If you read Barron’s, you’d know that many on Wall Street want to see the government take real action- beyond drilling regulations. Many global fund managers see current, macro changes coupled with high oil pricdes as threatening the American way of life. (A falling dollar matched by rising incomes in developing economies means that more Chinese and Indians will achieve purchasing parity with US citizens.) A focus on drilling only isn’t the right approach.
You seem to have trouble understanding the highly liquid nature of large markets such as crude oil. The Saudis aren’t going to profit any less because Americans buy a little more oil from ‘American’ sources. At peak output of 800k barrels a day, ANWR doesn’t solve our problems. Nor will the massive wealth transfer from the West to the Middle East be slowed- something the Wall Street Journal has noted may represent Bush’s greatest legacy. Lasting, high energy prices will continue to hurt the economy, regardless of where the profits end up.
bayam on June 19, 2008 at 12:25 AM
Oil demand is expected to increase by over 30% in the next 12 years. But I’m not going to argue with brilliant oil price strategists who say that it’s going lower, any day now! I’ve made too much money investing against people like you so it would be more appropriate to express my gratitude. But it pains me to see so many people get screwed by high oil prices while our government doesn’t take any real action to change the long-term dynamics.
The Apollo program wasn’t started because anyone really knew how or had developed the technology to put a man on the moon.
bayam on June 19, 2008 at 12:34 AM
bayam,
You continue to dodge the points made. Barron’s, wall street, Saudi profits?, peak oil, ANWR, Bush supporters talking econ, what the hell are you smoking? A focus on drilling only?
Chinese and Indians reaching parity with us-now you have moved on to the crack pipe. You really have not a clue. A tip, “It’s better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and leave no doubt!” BDS has taken you around the bend.
Look I’ll repeat this again: I added a Dollar chart to confirm your fears :)
Nice dodge Bayam.
You mentioned Intel and solar energy. Hmmm. Private sector leading the way. You are starting to get it. The private sector allocates and determines things very well, thank you. I certainly trust that secret hand, as they say, rather than the Al “I’m not a moron” Gore’s of the world directing traffic.
But back to my larger point. We would be pumping our own oil, not someone else’s. My intention is not to lower prices-although that would happen-it is simply to harvest our own and contribute to the world’s supply of oil. Meanwhile as an added bonus, trillions of dollars would stay here. Is this getting to be too difficult a subject for you?
As to Intel, a fine company but a bad investment these last 10 years along with most of the tech stocks that caught up in the tech bubble of 1992-2000. I give you a chart to gaze upon in your leisure. The fact that I think the same will be happening with crude oil as it approaches $170 a barrel is besides the point.
This is tech and housing
http://www.investech.com/
This is crude oil
http://www.mrci.com/pdf/cl.pdf
and just as the Empire state building came to represent the excesses of the 1920’s here’s the crude symbol:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080610094436.jmv7az8n&show_article=1&image=large
it even looks like the crude chart.
Remember what I have said. Crude oil will be lower in ten years than it is now. If Jimmy Rogers disagrees then using your logic I must be smarter than him. Oh well, he’ll get over it.
the dollar as promised
http://www.mrci.com/pdf/dxc.pdf
patrick neid on June 19, 2008 at 12:45 AM
The new figures say differently. And with the higher prices, it is economical to extract oil from deposits that we could not reach before.
Use the new figures that show deep deposits that we found in the last few years. Brazil isn’t the only nation that’s been using the products of Moore’s Law and new sonar/seismograph algorithms to find things. Of course, some of “our” findings are owned by Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum, but they are reasonably reliable allies.
YES WE CAN drill our way out of this. What’s more, if you believe that that USA is the greatest force for good in the world as many of us here do, there is a moral imperative to do so. That doesn’t mean abandoning hybrids, nuclear, wind, and solar, but it does mean that we need to ensure that America’s economy and fighting forces will have all the fuel they need for as long as they need it.
njcommuter on June 19, 2008 at 1:17 AM
bayam
Is it your hope by spewing gibberish about your fears that it will arrange itself into cogent thoughts. What part of my posting did you have a hard time with. You even highlighted a thoughtful passage. To repeat your highlight:
“My intention is not to lower prices-although that would happen-it is simply to harvest our own and contribute to the world’s supply of oil. Meanwhile as an added bonus, trillions of dollars would stay here. Is this getting to be too difficult a subject for you?”
Is that something you are against? Pity and to the point I thought. Reading Barron’s won’t help with your choice.
You do realize of course that your phobias about energy are what drive a bubble. Well, actually you would know that, as you have already stated how much money you make by being insightful. There’s a book you could write. “How I used Myself as a Contrary Indicator”. You could go on to tell folks that whenever you started foaming about things economical and feigned concern for the little man you shorted your own instincts. Ah yes, Bayam in lights, I can see it now. People actually listening.
Here’s a chart of the next bull market when the crude oil bubble splats.
http://www.mrci.com/pdf/dxc.pdf
Don’t forget our psychic bet. Crude oil prices will be lower in ten years than they are today, substantially lower especially if the government doesn’t get involved.
patrick neid on June 19, 2008 at 1:43 AM
Nothing in the short term is going to replace oil and coal. Ethanol is an absolute joke. But it has helped the auto repair industry, and the injector cleaning industry. Ethanol is corrosive and absorbs water not to mention the decrease in gas mileage and the cost to manufacture.
Johan Klaus on June 19, 2008 at 2:01 AM
Bipartisanship?
I’m not for it. In fact, I am vehemently, adamantly opposed to bipartisanship, 99.9% of the time. It’s John McCain who is for it. Bipartisanship! Getting things done! (It’s on his talking points page where the inaptly named wise_man goes to report his efforts and get his reward points.)
Bipartisanship leads to really bad outcomes, like:
McCain-Feingold
McCain-Lieberman
McCain-Kennedy.
It takes bipartisanship to push through really crappy legislation that screws America and the American population.
Tell us again, “wise”_man, how John McCain really isn’t upset about “obscene profits.” “Obscene profits” is just his pet name for profits, because he likes them so much. He calls his Hispanic Outreach Director “Obscene Juan,” and his favorite wife “Obscene Cindy,” and his favorite Senator “Obscene Teddy.” And don’t forget his favorite pristine nature preserve, “Obscene ANWR.”
Last but not least, his favorite suck-up operative, “Obscene wise_man.”
misterpeasea on June 19, 2008 at 2:44 AM
Messrs. Obama and McCain both reveal a disturbing animus toward free markets and success. It is uncalled for and self-defeating for presidential candidates to demonize American companies. It is understandable that Mr. Obama, the most liberal member of the Senate, would endorse reckless policies that are the DNA of the party he leads. But Mr. McCain, a self-described Reagan Republican, should know better.
- Karl Rove
MB4 on June 19, 2008 at 3:03 AM
She said? Fight the smears!!
Grafted on June 19, 2008 at 9:52 AM
LOL, you’re lying about me again. Well, turnabout is fair play. So I guess I get to lie about you in response.
Here’s a lie about misterpeasea. He’s a good conservative who doesn’t want Obama to win the presidency.
Here’s another lie. misterpeasea never goes to the daily kos, and the huffington post to get his talking points about how horrible McCain is.
And one more lie is that misterpeasea always tells the god’s honest truth about McCain. No matter his other disagreements, he’s a stand up guy who debates honestly and never accuses others of things that are not true. misterpeasea would ‘never’ do that, because misterpeasea wants what is best for his country, no matter his personal feelings about a candidate that he didn’t vote for.
How’s that?
wise_man on June 19, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Bayam: There’s no end in sight to crude because there’s no plan to move to another energy source or establish a way for cars to refuel on anything but gasoline and ethanol.
And your evidence for this claim is?
I believe that there are many plans in the hopper, but they have to be cost effective. Having the government direct the show will not make them so. Instead, the layers of bureaucracy will be expensive and yield less than optimum results.
BTW Energy concerns involve more than fueling cars.
onlineanalyst on June 19, 2008 at 11:58 AM
For someone who wants to spew non-sense, you sure take the cake… or should I say split pea?
I have read everythingyou have said.. and it is the same CRAP I see everyday. How about you make some effort to learn more about Oil and Natural Gas, how you explore and produce then worrying about the open market!
And BTW… when you said Jim Rogers was not a Hedge Fund “Legend” or even involved in Hedge Funds…. I think you are lying to yourself! Jim Rodgers INVENTED the Quantum Hedge Fund! I even used your freaking Wikipedia crap website, So stick it will you!
upinak on June 19, 2008 at 12:18 PM
‘Bout what I expected: puerile pontification.
misterpeasea on June 19, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Hey misterpeasea. Gotta deal for you. You stop lying about McCain, and I won’t respond to your lies.
Deal?
wise_man on June 19, 2008 at 6:46 PM
increase supply and the prices go down?
Wow, you are putting a lot of faith in companies that have made record profits for no reason at all to all of a sudden bring oil prices down just because the supply is greater. We are already using less oil which means there is already more supply …so just what the heck are you talking about!
Monkei on June 19, 2008 at 7:08 PM
Basic economics. What percent of profit do you think that oil companies make?
Johan Klaus on June 19, 2008 at 7:42 PM
eh, he must be promised a share too.
johnnyU on June 19, 2008 at 8:12 PM
So private industry needs the government to do their planning and find their alternatives?
In a word, ROTFLOL.
Reagan said it best: government is not the solution, government is the problem.
Government killed off nuclear power, which would eliminate having to burn oil to produce electricity.
Government is the reason we haven’t had a refinery built in this country in something like 30 years.
Government is the reason why refineries that were in this country have closed up shop or moved elsewhere,
Government is the reason we haven’t already drilled in ANWR and offshore.
Government is the reason gas has to be specially formulated for every state and region to have just the right blend of additives, meaning that gasoling produced for one state can only be purchased in that state.
And in the face of record oil prices, the government’s action is to make oil executives testify at a Congressional hearing so the politicians can grandstand about how serious they take the issue.
The government can’t solve the problems, but it could contribute greatly by learning when to get out of the way.
theregoestheneighborhood on June 20, 2008 at 1:38 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2