Fox News poll: America says drill

posted at 12:32 pm on June 21, 2008 by Allahpundit

The crosstabs run only four pages so dive in. There’s no apples and apples comparison, unfortunately, to Rasmussen’s poll last week on offshore drilling; the closest Fox gets to that precise question is whether we should start drilling immediately “in the United States” — 76% say yes, including 71% of Democrats — and whether we should be drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, to which 77% say yes. ANWR? 53% say it’s time, a five-point improvement from 2006 but only a three-point improvement from 2002, which is within the margin of error. For some odd reason, possibly fallout from Katrina, the 2006 numbers throughout the poll show a harder line on environmentalism than the numbers from earlier years, rising gas prices notwithstanding. (Note especially the response to the question about “Relaxing some environmental standards,” where opinion dives 16 points from 2004 to 2006 and then completely rebounds.) There is one very notable exception to that, though. Behold:

fn.jpg

There’s a major NIMBY problem here per question 49, but public education on nuclear safety would go a long way. Imagine the spectacle of Republican leaders telling their constituents, “We have much to learn from France”:

fn002.jpg

Other data reveals that raising taxes on gas is an idea that appeals to our nutroots betters and pretty much no one else. Exit question: Is it safe to conclude now that public opinion has moved towards drilling in ANWR since Gallup found 52% opposed to it last month?

Update: Actually, now that I look at the data again, I wonder how useful the questions about drilling really are. No one, or almost no one, opposes drilling in the abstract; the question, as was more properly phrased by Gallup, is whether we should open up areas that are currently off-limits. Aside from the question about ANWR, Fox didn’t ask that. Although the data on nuclear plants is still encouraging.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

we dont need to drill in anwr. the gulf and the continental shelves have plenty of resources. republicans would be smart to say, let’s drill but we’ll keep anwr pristine. it’s stupid, but if it gets it happening, who cares.

lorien1973 on June 21, 2008 at 12:39 PM

Unfortunately, this also shows the extreme ignorance and shortsightedness of most of the persons responding to the poll. ONLY when it hurts their pocketbook are they willing to do what’s necessary to invest in our nation’s economic health and security.

The poll numbers reflect a fickle mob. That’s not to say I’m not glad they have seen the light. I just don’t want them to flake out if prices drop slightly and decide it isn’t worth it to drill.

john1schn on June 21, 2008 at 12:40 PM

ANWR is 20,000,000 acres. That’s 31,250 square miles. The drilling footprint would be 2,000 acres. I think the more Americans learn about this, the more likely they are to say HELL YES! DRILL!!
Also, regarding the “can’t drill our way out” talking points. The liberals think average people are too dumb to understand that the futures market is affected just by a shift in attitude towards drilling, let alone drilling itself. So even the polls can have an affect. We should be taking care of ourselves, not funding terrorists.

Your Jewish Master on June 21, 2008 at 12:42 PM

Obama to soon tell us, “What I meant by not being able to drill our way out of this is that we need to do more than drill. Of course i want us to drill more.”

NotCoach on June 21, 2008 at 12:46 PM

We need to start listening to what Chicago politicians have to say. Barack Obama and his crooked friends don’t want us drilling anywhere. That settles it.

indythinker on June 21, 2008 at 12:47 PM

The Dems in Congress keep saying..conserve, conserve, conserve…while they drive their SUVs and fly their private planes.

They could care less about the people they were elected to represent! Time to vote them all out!!

becki51758 on June 21, 2008 at 12:48 PM

Forget Anwr——

Oil Shale

Part of the solution to our energy problem can be found right here in America—the development of our vast domestic resources of oil shale.

Oil shale is one of the most abundant and accessible energy sources in the country.

The U.S. geologic survey estimates there are 2.5 to 3 trillion barrels of proven resources of shale oil throughout the world. This is equivalent to one to two times the total world crude oil reserves.

Studies show that 72% of the world’s recoverable shale oil lies within the boundaries of the United States, in comparison to only 5% of the world’s recoverable crude oil. The United States’ largest oil shale reserves are located in the Green River Formation, the area composed of southern Colorado, eastern Utah, and western Wyoming. It is estimated that the Green River Valley contains approximately 1.5 trillion barrels of proven resources from oil shale. That is enough oil to meet the United States’ present energy demands for the next 200 years. LINK

Granted, this extraction process was not feasable when a barrel of oil was and $20 or even $50 bucks a barrel, but experts now say they may be able to produce the product at or below $100 per barrel.

Rovin on June 21, 2008 at 12:48 PM

We have been saying drill for 25 years. This is nothing new.

tx2654 on June 21, 2008 at 12:52 PM

ANWR is 20,000,000 acres. That’s 31,250 square miles. The drilling footprint would be 2,000 acres. I think the more Americans learn about this, the more likely they are to say HELL YES! DRILL!!
Also, regarding the “can’t drill our way out” talking points. The liberals think average people are too dumb to understand that the futures market is affected just by a shift in attitude towards drilling, let alone drilling itself. So even the polls can have an affect. We should be taking care of ourselves, not funding terrorists.

Your Jewish Master on June 21, 2008 at 12:42 PM

I’ve asked before where this 2,000 acres drilling footprint figure comes from and haven’t got anything in the way of a serious answer. Is the number just a something someone made up or is there some fact behind it?

thuja on June 21, 2008 at 12:56 PM

I love the mentality of the DEMS/TREE HUUGERS/RINOs, “you can’t drill your way out” finish the sentence from here. And I suppose you can’t eat your way out of HUNGER. You can’t drink yourself out of THIRST. Can’t RAIN your way out of drought. Can’t EAT your way out of anorexia. And so on and so on it goes. This is the same argument we got from these WACKOS in the 70s oil embargo. Same tune different dance…

pueblo1032 on June 21, 2008 at 12:56 PM

The majority of the American people are on board. How are we supposed to get the Democrats in congress to follow suit?

CultureWar on June 21, 2008 at 1:03 PM

Interstate 35, the Hope & Change Highway

Limerick on June 21, 2008 at 1:05 PM

I’ve asked before where this 2,000 acres drilling footprint figure comes from and haven’t got anything in the way of a serious answer. Is the number just a something someone made up or is there some fact behind it?

thuja on June 21, 2008 at 12:56 PM


Here ya go

john1schn on June 21, 2008 at 1:07 PM

Coal
Coal gasification
Coal liquification
CO2 is not a pollutant.

rockhauler on June 21, 2008 at 1:09 PM

YES A THOUSAND TIMES YES START DRILLING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE

Just be environmentally responsible about it. But drilling is not the end all solution and does not excuse people from their responsibility to not be wasteful energy pigs. Nor does it excuse your government from its responsibility to develop alternate energy sources.

Next.

Dave Rywall on June 21, 2008 at 1:11 PM

Consult with the French, who supply many European countries with clean nuclear energy. They standardized their reactors and methodologies, learned from the good/ugly, and have overcome the greens’ opposition.

What’s good is good all over the world, and should be shared, and adopted, no matter what/where the source.

Entelechy on June 21, 2008 at 1:12 PM

Here ya go

john1schn on June 21, 2008 at 1:07 PM

Thanks! I’ll look it over and see if I can any flaws in the information. Maybe I won’t.

thuja on June 21, 2008 at 1:12 PM

Dave Rywall, when we agree, we really agree!

Entelechy on June 21, 2008 at 1:13 PM

Limerick on June 21, 2008 at 1:05 PM

Pedal cars?

rockhauler on June 21, 2008 at 1:14 PM

Nor does it excuse your government from its responsibility to develop alternate energy sources.

Dave Rywall on June 21, 2008 at 1:11 PM

negative, it is not the govt’s job to develop anything. lets leave that to private industries that excel at meeting market demand.

chasdal on June 21, 2008 at 1:15 PM

If the decisions wouldn’t be so political, on macro-economic, geopolitical and environmental levels, it would long have been solved.

Entelechy on June 21, 2008 at 1:17 PM

If they still won’t drill after this poll then a Jim Cramer super-meltdown is in order.

aengus on June 21, 2008 at 1:17 PM

chasdal – the government should be penalizing waste (by way of higher prices/taxes on poor use) and rewarding conservation/responsible use/responsible production (tax breaks, etc). i.e. make it more attractive to the private sector to do the right thing…

Dave Rywall on June 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM

Why is it up to the government to determine what the right thing is?

Your Jewish Master on June 21, 2008 at 1:30 PM

Interestingly, I heard a discussion on the radio several days ago about how the cultivation of corn for ethanol production is creating an environmental nightmare in the Gulf of Mexico as nitrogen-wash is creating an ecological threat to sea life.

The oil industry has learned through the years how to avoid and contain oil-spill disasters as was evidenced during Katrina.

The government-subsidized ethanol boondoggle, while not even cost-effective, is creating a more damaging and costly environmental threat. Unintended consequences, anyone?

onlineanalyst on June 21, 2008 at 1:40 PM

i.e. make it more attractive to the private sector to do the right thing…

Dave Rywall on June 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM

Strangely, in California there were huge tax breaks for solar panels a few years ago. Now, when such incentives would really help, they’re no longer available.

Entelechy on June 21, 2008 at 1:45 PM

Strangely, in California there were huge tax breaks for solar panels a few years ago. Now, when such incentives would really help, they’re no longer available.

Entelechy on June 21, 2008 at 1:45 PM

IMO, the real but unacknowledged motive of environmentalists is not the preservation of the environment but the weakening of the US. If I’m right then the above makes perfect sense.

aengus on June 21, 2008 at 1:51 PM

Everyone supports drilling, and ANWR drilling shouldn’t be such a big obstacle. But no one in Florida or NC or California wants drilling near their favorite beach. That’s going to be the problem.

Anyway, there are still geniuses out there who believe that the US has enough crude oil resources to lower oil prices. It’s not realistic, and the country needs a better long-term energy policy that includes nuclear, wind, and solar thermal. Solar thermal is one of the technologie that could power the entire country’s electrical grid within 10 years. But politicians prefer finger pointing games over dirlling in the US, which isn’t going to offset demand growth in the developing world.

bayam on June 21, 2008 at 1:51 PM

ANWR would be at 80% if people knew….

McCain needs to get his ass on a plane to ANWR, stand on the windswept hell hole and get educated by Ms Palin on drilling. Everything is already in place.

If we are serious about increasing supply within a meaningful time frame ANWR is the only solution. McCain should do a town hall right on the coastal plane or in that small town of 300. Show America the real pics not the spoon fed images we have been getting of the wilderness 100 miles away these last 40 years.

Plus he should/must take the opportunity to educate the general public that the reason we are/should increase supply is not necessarily to lower prices -a bonus- but to keep trillions of dollars at home rather than shipping them overseas with all the attendant harm of an increasing trade deficit. Tree hugging or not we will be using billions and billions of barrels of crude over the next 30 years before some kid in a garage comes up with the next energy source.

At these prices we should be selling our buggy whips.

patrick neid on June 21, 2008 at 1:54 PM

Put the phones on automatic redial and start burning up the phone lines to the capitol. The less $ you make the more the high price of gas and energy affects you. This is a winner for Conservatives and even John McCain if he’ll take the ball and run with it!

Ordinary1 on June 21, 2008 at 2:11 PM

Just a small fun fact for all the ‘don’t drill my beach’ folks…

Taking just the allied MERCHANT shipping losses 1939-1943 (ALL of which had bunker oil as their fuel)….

5,400+ ships went to the bottom of the sea for a total of 22,000,000 tons. (The equivalent of 100 supertankers at 220,000 tons each)

This number doesn’t include any AXIS or neutral shipping that was sunk during the same time frame, nor does this figure include any warships from any nation during that period of war.

Now, how polluted is your beach again?

Limerick on June 21, 2008 at 2:11 PM

Solar thermal is one of the technologie that could power the entire country’s electrical grid within 10 years. But politicians prefer finger pointing games over dirlling in the US, which isn’t going to offset demand growth in the developing world.

bayam on June 21, 2008 at 1:51 PM

And Three mile island allowed the liberal-invironmental-whacko’s to put this nations productivity level on hold for the better part of thiry years. That’s a lifetime of “finger pointing” bayham.

And new oil platforms can be built 30 to 50 miles out from shorelines—–tell me how your “beach-goers” are going to see this?

Next argument/excuse………

Rovin on June 21, 2008 at 2:14 PM

aengus on June 21, 2008 at 1:51 PM

Indeed

Entelechy on June 21, 2008 at 2:20 PM

But no one in Florida or NC or California wants drilling near their favorite beach. That’s going to be the problem.
bayam on June 21, 2008 at 1:51 PM

I live in NC and I could care less if they were pumping oil on the beach, in the water, out of sight etc. With $4.00/gal gas I’m not going to the beach this year. so what use is tourism if your tourists do not come because the gas is too expensive?

unseen on June 21, 2008 at 2:22 PM

Drill everywhere now. Increased supply = lower price. Shale oil now! We have TONS! Build nuclear plants. More electricity for a productive country. Develop solar, wind, hydro, tidal, geothermal, etc. for the future. Develop hydrogen fuel cell cars, electric cars, flex fuel cars. As long as they can turn a 12 second quarter mile :-)

I like driving too much to settle for a golf cart as my car of the future.

CO2 is not a pollutant! The SUN drives the weather. The looney left is happy to give our country away to the UN. They like high gas prices because it forces people to drive less. However, it’s a double edged sword. It creates an opportunity for Conservatives to save this country!

Ordinary1 on June 21, 2008 at 2:26 PM

DRILL, OLD ONE! DRILL LIKE THE WIND!

stonemeister on June 21, 2008 at 2:26 PM

DRILL HERE! DRILL NOW!

Correction:

DRILL HERE! DRILL … TEN YEARS AGO!

Hey, I have an idea, let’s wait ’til it becomes a freakin’ crisis first, then we can debate it for another 20 years.

Tony737 on June 21, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Dave Rywall on June 21, 2008 at 1:11 PM

you really trust the govt to determine what is the right thing or what is poor use? with this kind of stuff going on?

chasdal on June 21, 2008 at 2:31 PM

we dont need to drill in anwr. the gulf and the continental shelves have plenty of resources. republicans would be smart to say, let’s drill but we’ll keep anwr pristine. it’s stupid, but if it gets it happening, who cares.

lorien1973 on June 21, 2008 at 12:39 PM

Yes, you’re right it is stupid. The whole environmental argument is nonsensical. The Gulf is teeming with life and is ecologically fragile and the north slope of Alaska is teeming with….. mosquitoes.

ANWR is real, and we have the trans-Alaka pipeline to get it out. There may be more oil in ANWR than anywhere, and allowing all this infantile crying about polar bears destroy our nation’s energy production over a tiny slice of a frozen swamp is idiotic.

Drill ANWR and show the nation what a hideous fraud the enviros have made it. Why don’t the Republicans fly McCain up there and straighten that peckerhead out?

Let him get bitten to pieces by a swarm of nasty Arctic moquitoes in that “pristine” swamp. It’s more like Elizabeth, New Jersey than the frigging Grand Canyon. Instead of kissing La Raza’s anti-semitic racist ass, he should go up there and see what a boob he’s been.
All this other stuff and letting the states decide, etc..
That’s all escapist crap.

TexasJew on June 21, 2008 at 2:33 PM

SAUDIS RATIONALIZE HIGH FUEL PRICES: The gall of the House of Gusher.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on June 21, 2008 at 2:35 PM

Anyway, there are still geniuses out there who believe that the US has enough crude oil resources to lower oil prices. It’s not realistic, and the country needs a better long-term energy policy that includes nuclear, wind, and solar thermal. Solar thermal is one of the technologie that could power the entire country’s electrical grid within 10 years. But politicians prefer finger pointing games over dirlling in the US, which isn’t going to offset demand growth in the developing world.

bayam on June 21, 2008 at 1:51 PM

I guess I must be one of the geniuses who believe that.

TexasJew on June 21, 2008 at 2:36 PM

Oil Shale

Part of the solution to our energy problem can be found right here in America—the development of our vast domestic resources of oil shale.

Oil shale is one of the most abundant and accessible energy sources in the country.

Rovin on June 21, 2008 at 12:48 PM

Don’t we have a song about this? “Oil shale can you see. . . .?”

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on June 21, 2008 at 2:40 PM

Anyway, there are still geniuses out there who believe that the US has enough crude oil resources to lower oil prices. It’s not realistic, and the country needs a better long-term energy policy that includes nuclear, wind, and solar thermal.

We now produce 40% of the oil we use, importing 60%. If we doubled our domestic production, we’d reduce our imports by 2/3. That would surely depress global prices. OPEC would be happy to tighten production to hold prices up, but I don’t think they’d hold it above $70/barrel because increased production in Canada and Africa (with China’s help) would reduce their market.

njcommuter on June 21, 2008 at 2:42 PM

One thing missed is the synergistic effect of pressing forward on all fronts. For example, energy is used to extract oil from oil shale — how much of that energy could be nuclear?

cthulhu on June 21, 2008 at 2:59 PM

Eventually even the most ignorant people will figure out “paying more in taxes so government can PRETEND to control the weather” is a hoax. Education works.

The road to energy independence is in our own backyard. IBD said there is about 124 billion barrels in untapped reservoirs of oil in the USA.

That’s doesn’t include the coal … the USA has an enormous amount of coal, something like 25% of the world’s supply. No wonder Clinton wanted to make a monument out of the best of it, because Clinton hooked up his buddy Riyadi by making the US lands where we have clean coal off limits. I wonder how many speaking engagement fees that returned.

If CO2 causing global warming is your religion, then nuclear power is your saviour, otherwise, you are definitely working another crooked angle.

Drill here, drill now, pay less — Change you can believe in.

tarpon on June 21, 2008 at 2:59 PM

Drill here, drill now, pay less — Change you can believe in.

tarpon on June 21, 2008 at 2:59 PM

Preach it!

Ordinary1 on June 21, 2008 at 3:41 PM

we dont need to drill in anwr. the gulf and the continental shelves have plenty of resources. republicans would be smart to say, let’s drill but we’ll keep anwr pristine. it’s stupid, but if it gets it happening, who cares.

lorien1973 on June 21, 2008 at 12:39 PM

Maybe a good tactic just to get the ball rolling. Start on the outer continental shelves and the inland shale, and expand drilling to the ANWR mud flats later.

I think the public will quickly change on ANWR, once it’s understood how tiny the footprint and how gawd-forsaken are those mud flats where the footprint will be. Some folks might even be annoyed that the pictures of the ‘pristine wilderness’ that the left has been showing them are NOT the area set for drilling.

(For what the place actually looks like, see: Jonah Goldberg on Photos of ANWR on National Review Online)

petefrt on June 21, 2008 at 3:47 PM

If we’re governing by polls now…can we finally get outta Iraq, like a majority of Americans want?

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

alphie on June 21, 2008 at 4:00 PM

DRILL NOW.

dogsoldier on June 21, 2008 at 5:05 PM

“Relaxing some environmental standards,”

That’s misleading. That leaves interpretation up to the person being asked a question with out clarification possibilities. It can be interpreted as,”Should we drill in National Parks?” to “Should oil companies be allowed to create an environmental disaster as long as they find oil?”

It’s why I’ve always believed that the purpose of “polls” is more to effect public opinion then they are to guage public opinion.

peacenprosperity on June 21, 2008 at 5:24 PM

If a similar CNN poll provided opposite results — you would all be lambasting the polltakers, claiming bias. Nuff said.

Big f’in surprise that a Faux poll would lean that way, eh? Duh.

your_worst_enemy on June 21, 2008 at 5:36 PM

If we’re governing by polls now…can we finally get outta Iraq, like a majority of Americans want?

No, of course not, the people that do the majority of the complaining around here about how the other side only hears what it wants, only reads what it wants, etc.. they (Conservatives) do the same crap — if it supports their agenda, it’s worth listening to. If it doesnt, its somehow biased, or some other crap like that.

your_worst_enemy on June 21, 2008 at 5:39 PM

Congress: Give us the well — not the shaft.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on June 21, 2008 at 5:51 PM

lastly, regarding this –> anwr.org

you people arent intelligent enough or internet savvy enough to figure out that domain and web site is owned by a party with a financial interest in drilling, right?

your_worst_enemy on June 21, 2008 at 5:51 PM

idiots –>

http://www.anwr.org/power.htm

gee, they DONT have any agenda right??

your_worst_enemy on June 21, 2008 at 5:54 PM

If we’re governing by polls now…can we finally get outta Iraq, like a majority of Americans want?

No matter what the subject you can always count on some pinkie bringing up the war on terrorism.

Government get the hell out of the way and let free enterprise take over. The freedom to produce products without restraints from politicians will work this out.

Wade on June 21, 2008 at 6:13 PM

H²O
Whats the hold up? Its in front of your noses.

johnnyU on June 21, 2008 at 6:18 PM

Anyway, there are still geniuses out there who believe that the US has enough crude oil resources to lower oil prices.
….
bayam on June 21, 2008 at 1:51 PM

They may not be geniuses, but they’re apparently smarter than you, at least on this subject…

theregoestheneighborhood on June 21, 2008 at 6:27 PM

Hey, I have an idea, let’s wait ’til it becomes a freakin’ crisis first, then we can debate it for another 20 years.

Tony737 on June 21, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Tony737 for Congress!
He Must Be Qualified! He Thinks Just Like Them!

/Double_sarc (as in, he’s being sarcastic, and so am I)

theregoestheneighborhood on June 21, 2008 at 6:31 PM

ANWR is government land, Wade.

Free Enterprise has nothing to do with it.

Should the Texans get Alaskan oil for free, like they do in the Gulf?

alphie on June 21, 2008 at 6:42 PM

Anyway, there are still geniuses out there who believe that the US has enough crude oil resources to lower oil prices.

No one who blindly repeats the current line of the Republican party has any real understanding of oil’s demand curve. Most Americans don’t understand where the majority of global demand is coming from today. Hint- it’s not the US and Europe.

I’ll continue to side with Barron’s and describe the current political haggling as nothing more than a game that fails to meet the standard of substantive debate on the country’s future energy policy.

This country is generally poor in crude oil resources, but has the most incredible technical capacity in the world. There’s more to discuss than drilling vs. the environment.

And new oil platforms can be built 30 to 50 miles out from shorelines—–tell me how your “beach-goers” are going to see this?

Yes, but you have to keep in mind that in many cases this oil wasn’t tapped for financial reasons. Pre-Bush oil prices didn’t make deep sea drilling a priority. Most deep sea rigs cost nearly $1 bil (billion) to build and cost $1 mil daily to operate. No one likes to operate a business with those types of capital outlays unless margins are high. It wasn’t simply an environmental issue.

bayam on June 21, 2008 at 7:21 PM

No one who blindly repeats the current line of the Republican party has any real understanding of oil’s demand curve.

bayam on June 21, 2008 at 7:21 PM

Anyone who thinks increasing the supply of oil will not have an effect on prices doesn’t grasp supply and demand.

Does the US have enough oil to affect oil prices? Between drilling for oil offshore and in ANWR, developing production of oil from oil shale, and developing gas from coal, I’d say the US could hugely affect the global price of oil.

Add in the production of nuclear energy to meet some of our energy needs now being met by burning oil, and we could probably cut the price of gas in half within a year, since the current price is based not just on current supply and demand, but also on projected supply and demand, i.e. speculation.

There are complications of course, such as the fact that oil from shale and from coal are more expensive to develop. But reducing the cost of developing oil from these sources should be a lot easier than developing totally new energy sources.

theregoestheneighborhood on June 21, 2008 at 7:35 PM

I think the public will quickly change on ANWR, once it’s understood how tiny the footprint and how gawd-forsaken are those mud flats where the footprint will be. Some folks might even be annoyed that the pictures of the ‘pristine wilderness’ that the left has been showing them are NOT the area set for drilling.

I’m sure continuing price increases will have the same effect.

The reason environuts always dramatically low ball the costs of their utopian legislation is that people will gladly sign on as long as the costs to them individually are low to nil.

18-1 on June 21, 2008 at 9:09 PM

If CO2 causing global warming is your religion, then nuclear power is your saviour, otherwise, you are definitely working another crooked angle.

tarpon on June 21, 2008 at 2:59 PM

A good test of whether someone really cares about global warming is indeed their stance on nuclear power.

Though in fairness I should point out their are a handful of environmentalists that live off the grid. And I can certainly respect someone that is putting his carbon footprint where his mouth is.

Of course most of them see to have no problems with their SUVs, private jets, and the like.

18-1 on June 21, 2008 at 9:14 PM

Anyway, there are still geniuses out there who believe that the US has enough crude oil resources to lower oil prices.
bayam

The cost of crude right now is not being driven by demand but rather by speculators. There’s no shortage of supply, you can buy as much as you want. US refineries are at 85% capacity, not 100%, and Iran has just leased a bunch of supertankers to store about 20 million barrels of crude off shore.

Since the current price runup has been driven by speculators not demand, opening up coastal waters and ANWR for exploration and drilling, plus a commitment to developing our oil shale resources will indeed drive prices down. You’re not going invest in expensive oil futures if you believe that new streams of crude will be coming on the market in a few years.

We should be drilling in ANWR and off the coast and on the continental shelf.

And…

We should be developing the Bakken formation

And…

We should be developing our oil shale

And…

We should be building fission plants for generating electricity

And…

We should be funding the Brussard fusion reactor.

And…

We should be developing solar thermal

And…

We should be using Nanosolar’s thin film solar cells (that are cost competitive to the grid) as roofing materials.

And…

The Republicans should be running ads from now until November showing the price of gas contrasted with Democrats opposing drilling, shale development and nuclear.

BTW, regarding extracting oil from shale, more crude from capped wells, and usable petrochemicals from the 5-10% of crude that is called “residual” and is too thick to refine, along with recycling plastics and tires back into natural gas and petrochemicals, there is a company called Global Resource Corp. that is currently rolling out a very promising microwave technology.

rokemronnie on June 21, 2008 at 9:35 PM

This country is generally poor in crude oil resources, but has the most incredible technical capacity in the world. There’s more to discuss than drilling vs. the environment.

Actually, when you factor in oil shale, we have resources that dwarf the Middle East and Russia.

rokemronnie on June 21, 2008 at 9:37 PM

your_worst_enemy on June 21, 2008 at 5:39 PM

And your solution is to do nothing?

Johan Klaus on June 21, 2008 at 9:39 PM

you people arent intelligent enough or internet savvy enough to figure out that domain and web site is owned by a party with a financial interest in drilling, right?

your_worst_enemy on June 21, 2008 at 5:51 PM

Do you think that everyone should just ride bicycles?

Johan Klaus on June 21, 2008 at 9:51 PM

The cost of crude right now is not being driven by demand but rather by speculators.

That’s the other line that people continue repeating- and it’s also wrong.

Earlier Saturday, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman told reporters at the summit that insufficient oil production, not financial speculation, was driving soaring crude prices. …

“Market fundamentals show us that production has not kept pace with growing demand for oil, resulting in increasing prices and increasingly volatile prices,” Bodman told reporters.”There is no evidence that we can find that speculators are driving futures prices” for oil.

developing production of oil from oil shale, and developing gas from coal

I specifically said ‘crude oil’ and oil shale isn’t an immediate solution. Both the engineering process and environmental implications are still partially unresolved. Compared to ANWR, the environmental concerns with shale are far more legitimate and impact human populations instead of reindeer or whatever.

Anyway, solar thermal remains in numerous ways superior to both and the technology is simpler: http://www.ausra.com

bayam on June 21, 2008 at 10:00 PM

If we’re governing by polls now…can we finally get outta Iraq, like a majority of Americans want?

alphie on June 21, 2008 at 4:00 PM

yes just as soon as we win. polls are funny ask if the majority of Americans want to leave Iraq with our tail between our legs like BHO wants to do and you get a completely different answer.

unseen on June 21, 2008 at 10:21 PM

you people arent intelligent enough or internet savvy enough to figure out that domain and web site is owned by a party with a financial interest in drilling, right?

your_worst_enemy on June 21, 2008 at 5:51 PM

So your commie ass thinks that companies making a profit is bad?

Believe it or not sometimes profit is a good thing. When the needs of the citizens and business align then capitalism will defeat any amount of socialism.

the environuts have dug themselves into a big deep hole. If gas hits $5.00/gal you can say goodbye to the entire environ wacko movement.

It goes back to careful what you wish for. The environnuts/commies have been praying for gas to get this high. Now they will understand that people don’t give a rat’s ass about the environment when they can’t buy food or go on vacation. Most people given the choice don’t want to live in a cave. Deal with it.

unseen on June 21, 2008 at 10:27 PM

bayam on June 21, 2008 at 10:00 PM

Solar thermal is great but it will not get you from point A to point B. for that you need transportation fuel. Now if electric cars come on market then things change.

As far as oil. at the moment there is no dupply shortage, thus you can buy gasoline at the station. No lines, no rationing etc. But supply is tight. It could become a shortage if the ballon goes up in Iran or if a hurricane hits the gulf, or if a hundred different things can happen. Because of this tight supply and because of the rising demand from china, India and the rest of the world the numbers say there is not enough in the short term or the long term. therefore the price has to go up so people will use less of it.

The only way to bring prices down is to increase supply, decrease demand or a mixuture of both.

If the USA were to get up tommorrow and announce it will tap the oil shales or anwr where it is known quanities the price of oil will fall that day by about $30.00/bll.

If it anounces OCS drilling where the finds are not known the price will not drop until a major find.

Much like Bear Streans once the economy understands that our “leaders” see the problem and they are taking steps to fix the problems the fear and greed within the oil market will decrease and the pprice will reflect that.

Therefore drilling is the quickest way to bring prices down.

unseen on June 21, 2008 at 10:37 PM

Anyway, solar thermal remains in numerous ways superior to both and the technology is simpler: http://www.ausra.com

bayam on June 21, 2008 at 10:00 PM

If it is a good solution, the market will ebrace the technolgy.

Johan Klaus on June 21, 2008 at 10:38 PM

Technology.

Johan Klaus on June 21, 2008 at 10:39 PM

Ah yes Bayam, my favorite Barron’s reader and savvy money making investor of snarky financial acumen who said not a few days ago in response to one of my postings:

“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.”
“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.”

What could have prompted such a response? My simple post regarding the virtue of pumping our own oil and, as an aside, the fact that I thought the crude oil market was currently in a bubble. That post follows:

“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 of the 2000′s:

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

Now Bayam I didn’t bore you with my bone fides as regards my reading Barron’s but what I will bore you with this apparently Barron’s reads/agrees with my analysis here and at other sites.
Allow me to point you in the direction of this week’s Barron’s lead article and headlines on the cover:

Bye, Bubble? The Price of Oil May Be Peaking

The price of oil may be peaking in the current range of $130 to $140 a barrel. Here’s where you want to be when the bubble bursts.

Oh my god Bayam there’s that word I used a couple of months ago BUBBLE. They even refer to the charts I used above.
Who knew Soros and Andrew Bary were possibly reading HA and Powerline…..or maybe great minds think alike :)

Bubble or not we need to pump ANWR for all the good reasons mentioned above.

patrick neid on June 21, 2008 at 11:25 PM

To bayam, who said theat people in FL and CA wouldn’t want drilling rigs off their beaches:

I read an article a few years ago from Calfornia Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who is also an avid scuba diver. After hearing complaints about how offshore drilling rigs hurt the environment, he decided to visit some and go scuba diving near them. To his surprise, he found that fish tended to congregate around the oil rigs (possibly they provide shelter from storms and predators), and they all seemed healthy. If oil rigs were so bad for the marine environment, why do the fish like them?

When oil was cheaper, a lot of people probably associated offshore oil rigs with marine oil spills, and horrible images of marine birds unable to fly with their wings covered with crude. But most of those spills are due to tankers running aground, not offshore drilling. There were no oil spills in the Gulf when Cat 5 hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit the numerous oil rigs off the coast of Louisiana. If we drill off our own shores, and reduce imports, fewer tankers will be needed, which will REDUCE oil spills.

Steve Z on June 22, 2008 at 12:54 AM

Most of the US oil resources are shale oil in the Rockies, which has been estimated to contain 800 billion barrels of oil, equivalent to 150 years’ worth of today’s imports. Shale oil is harder to recover than conventional oil deposits, and would cost about $60/barrel to recover. When crude prices were $40 and $50/barrel, there was no incentive to develop it, but at today’s prices, an oil company could make a profit developing it, and petrodollars would go to American workers instead of Saudi princes and madrassas.

If this deposit was developed, we would probably see crude prices on the American market fall to $70 to $80/barrel, equivalent to $2.50/gallon gasoline. The problem is, most of this is under Federal land, which needs to be opened for development. The ball is in Congress’ court, but will McCain run on this? It’s a VERY persuasive arguement, for those who know the facts!

Steve Z on June 22, 2008 at 1:08 AM

Hey, you elected these Dill Weeds to congress, America! Now live with it! You can’t elect people like Pelosi and Reed and their ilk as your representatives and then complain that they aren’t acting like conservatives! We told you so!!!

sabbott on June 22, 2008 at 6:04 AM

When I got home last night, my wife demanded that I take her out to some place expensive…………….

So I took her to the gas station.

BDU-33 on June 22, 2008 at 11:26 PM

Pollution in my “Environment” is the self-destructive, non-scientific, blather of the loony left.

Lets have California declare that a world without energy causes cancer and get on with removing all the crusty old obstacles to civilization.

landlines on June 23, 2008 at 2:57 AM