IBD poll: Drill here, drill now
posted at 8:07 am on July 15, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
A new poll commissioned by Investors Business Daily finds overwhelming majorities in favor of increased drilling and domestic production of oil. By a 3-1 margin, Americans identify runaway fuel prices as a bigger problem than global warming, and they want action taken immediately to address it. Even ANWR is on the table, although not by much:
The poll of 920 adults taken last week shows that 73% think “fuel prices at the pump” are a bigger problem for the country than climate change, the new term for global warming. Only 23% say climate change is more important.
The sentiment prevails across the board — among men and women, old and young, rich and poor, and Republicans, independents and Democrats, two-thirds of whom say gas prices are more important.
Support for offshore drilling and oil shale development is also broad-based, with the former favored by 64% of respondents and the latter by 65%.
The results suggest President Bush has strong public support as he puts pressure on Congress to back more exploration for oil.
While the numbers for drilling in the OCS and in the interior for shale transcend partisan and gender divisions, drilling in ANWR receives a bare plurality, 47-43. That indicates a political risk in pressing for drilling at that point, especially among women and working-class adults. The split occurs across partisan lines, and women oppose it 46-39.
The numbers indicate that McCain may have the right idea by keeping ANWR off the table. Including it now might give opponents a wedge to obstruct the rest of the drilling efforts and unnecessarily handicap efforts in the near term. The better strategy would be to leave ANWR off the table for the moment and ensure that the other initiatives succeed. Drilling proponents have a great hand to play in an election year without ANWR, and that option can get addressed at a later date.
President Bush took a big step yesterday in lifting the executive order banning off-shore drilling. Nancy Pelosi took a big step, too — backwards. As IBD notes, instead of looking for long-term solutions, she’s demanding that the US deplete its Strategic Reserve:
Despite polls showing Americans in favor of drilling more oil from America’s huge untapped supplies, Pelosi won’t allow it. She just wants to empty our Strategic Petroleum Reserve for a short-term fix to get through Election Day.
It’s an irresponsible suggestion, signaling not only an ignorance of how the economy works but also a willingness to place the nation at risk in the case of emergency.
Last Tuesday, Pelosi sent a letter to President Bush urging him to release a “small portion” of the nation’s 706 million barrels of strategic-reserve oil to bring down prices. Regardless of how one feels about whether reserves should be held at all, two big problems stand out with Pelosi’s tiny demand.
The proposal will leave us with little or no strategic reserve in case of war or natural disaster in the oil-producing regions. The Strategic Reserve doesn’t exist so that politicians can artificially lower gas prices before an election. It exists to protect the military capabilities of the nation in time of distress. Imagine, if you will, the outcry if Bush had started selling off the Strategic Reserve in September 2004 to lower prices before his re-election contest with John Kerry.
Second, as IBD points out, Pelosi has admitted that the issue is one of supply. That won’t get solved by selling off the SR; in fact, it will make the problem worse later, when the US has to refill the SR. The only solution for a supply crisis is to find more long-term supply sources — and we have massive resources here in the US that can fill that role.
The Democrats have painted themselves into a corner. Their anti-production policies have led the nation into crisis, and they could still lose this election if they continue to obstinately block long-term solutions to it. Instead, they’re offering gimmickry.
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: 1 2 3 4 Next »
Forget ANWR for now, people will come around. Take the high ground while you have the chance. Drill in all the other areas, just leave ANWR for when we show that drilling is not the “doomsday” scenario.
However, I have no problem releasing some oil reserves, just to rattle the cage of the speculators who are helping drive the price up.
It would be like hosing off two dogs in heat, maybe they will stop do’in what they do.
right2bright on July 15, 2008 at 8:13 AM
This is news ONLY to the editors Of such as the NYT and LAT and the members of the glorious MSM. Oh, and of course to Congress most of whom sadly do not have a clue!
We ‘little folks’ are not at all shocked by these results.
dustoffmom on July 15, 2008 at 8:19 AM
If it meant the difference between holding onto power or losing power, Nancy Pelosi would push her grandmother’s wheelchair off of a pier into the ocean, smother her own children with a pillow, and spend every dime of your money to make sure she remains the Queen of the Damned.
Politicians. . . who needs them?
King of the Britons on July 15, 2008 at 8:21 AM
That is from the NYT. Good luck getting her to budge.
BigD on July 15, 2008 at 8:22 AM
I am willing to bet that the entire nation could demand drilling commence now and the Democrats will still stand there like dogs in a manger and say NO!
Which is why these numbskulls should be retired out of office come next election period for each of them.
Starting with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi!
pilamaye on July 15, 2008 at 8:23 AM
Timely. Thanks. I was just starting a letter to Reid, Pelosi et al. about their position on the energy crisis and how angry it makes everyone in my area. And if folks are mad now, just wait until the home heating bills start rolling in.
petefrt on July 15, 2008 at 8:23 AM
Speculators are smarter then that. They know that any release from the reserves would just be a temporary measure. They would just buy up the new oil at the lower price, in order to sell it back once the draining of the reserves stop.
MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2008 at 8:24 AM
The numbers indicate that McCain may have the right idea by keeping ANWR off the table.
Or, it could be a perfect opportunity for McCain to show some leadership and convince the ladies why drilling the Mosquito Refuge (Mark Steyn) is a great idea.
“Drilling in ANWR will reduce the cost of shoes and purses!”
Tony737 on July 15, 2008 at 8:24 AM
WOW so stupid Hick people from the middle states wants to pollute the planet. LOL LOL That is what liberals think of people from the heartland.
Hopefully both Udalls loses their senate chances because of this one issue.
BroncosRock on July 15, 2008 at 8:26 AM
I have some ape-proof Samsonite luggage if that will help.
Patrick S on July 15, 2008 at 8:26 AM
One thing that amazes me about some “conservatives” is that even though they say they trust the market, they only trust the market so long as it is producing results that they like.
MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2008 at 8:26 AM
Liberals believe in giving the people what they want, only so long as the people want what the liberals tell them to want.
MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2008 at 8:29 AM
Drill now.
Drill Now.
DRILL NOW!
Recent data shows that man is NOT to blame for oil spills.
MotherNon-gender Nature does that more often.madmonkphotog on July 15, 2008 at 8:32 AM
When are we going to get a poll that asks Americans if we agree that Al Gore should have to stand trial for his “global warming” scam; thus forcing him to “come clean” about his claims, as well as come clean about his motives.
Let’s see what Americans have to say as it relates directly to the fat man.
In the mean while, GW Bush just check mated Pelosi and Reid.
Keemo on July 15, 2008 at 8:35 AM
Lone Star Times has an on-point graphic to show the changes in gas prices…
http://lonestartimes.com/2008/07/15/bush-lifts-executive-order-ban-on-offshore-drilling/
golfer1 on July 15, 2008 at 8:37 AM
Lone Star Times has an on-point graphic to show the changes in gas prices…
http://lonestartimes.com/2008/07/15/bush-lifts-executive-order-ban-on-offshore-drilling/
golfer1 on July 15, 2008 at 8:37 AM
The more I think about it, the less sure I am that this move will result in immediate price changes. The problem is that this is just a presidential order. The next president can reverse it with a stroke of his pen. Obama has pretty much pledged to do so. McCain? Who knows what he will do.
The oil companies are going to be reluctant to invest big money getting ready to search and drill, knowing that the bottom could be ripped out again in just 6 months.
MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2008 at 8:45 AM
True enough. However those numbers exist because most American believe that the coastal plane, where the oil is, looks like the inland mountainous pristine environment they have been seeing in pictures these last 40 years.
Gov Palin should be given the national stage, by the RNC, to educate the public about drilling on the coastal plane. The numbers above would change in a heartbeat. Mind you Alaska is one of the few states where everything is already a go. Coastal drilling is doomed to litigation for as far as the eye can see. What state currently is for said drilling? Ultimately, despite the symbolism of lifting the ban, we are going to ANWR if we want oil soon.
As to the reserve I would release it once the price bubble in the oil market has been broken. Sell it high and then buy it low to re stock. Nothing wrong with making billions, not to mention keeping pressure on prices. We get near 40% of our oil imports from Mexico and Canada so while there is some risk to supply interruptions we would be OK.
patrick neid on July 15, 2008 at 8:45 AM
Senator McCain has GOT to take the lead on this, before the ever-malleable Obambi steals the issue from him.
But McCain is stuck in the tar-pit of ‘climate change’. See my post here.
MrLynn on July 15, 2008 at 8:50 AM
The bumbersticker’s on the back of my car.
LtE126 on July 15, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Nancy Pelosi—–Public Energy Number One
The Environmental community/lobby has had a strangle-hold on this nations energy policies for more than three decades. Santa Barbara, Exxon-Valdez, and Three Mile Island gave them the tools and public sentiment that enabled a power hungry mob to stifle any advancement in safety changes that would have allowed this country to continue responsible energy production. We are all “paying the piper” as the worlds demand has driven the “$20/barrel” to $130 and beyond. The democrats will try to frame this as the fault of the big bad oil companies, but this time I don’t think the public is buying Pelosi’s Prevarications.
Rovin on July 15, 2008 at 8:53 AM
Global WarmingClimate Change is a Theory; dangerously high energy costs are a fact.DRILL HERE -and keep it here.
There needs to be a provision in the upcoming openings allowed for oil producers- that newly discovered and exploited U.S. energy sources cannot be dumped on foreign markets for short-term profits, but should be reserved for our own long-term use. Until we have serious, affordable homegrown alternatives coming online.
Out of control energy prices threaten our economic stability and national security.
DRILL NOW.
It is a losing issue for the Dems to oppose it.
Make them expose themselves as irrational obstructionists.
Till people think of them as:
DEMOCRATS- THE NO ENERGY PARTY.
profitsbeard on July 15, 2008 at 8:55 AM
http://lonestartimes.com/2008/07/15/bush-lifts-executive-order-ban-on-offshore-drilling/
The facts are the facts… Not much Obama can do about the results his party has brought to the American dinner table.
Keemo on July 15, 2008 at 9:01 AM
Exactly right.
Palin has this issue nailed to the wall like a caribou pelt.
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/newsreader/story/464283.html
Mr. Wednesday Night on July 15, 2008 at 9:02 AM
Mrs. Fang and I noticed last night that gas prices in our area are now averaging $4.08 to $4.10 a gallon. This past weekend they were averaging about .10 more. Funny that this happened the day President Bush lifted the executive order on offshore drilling.
And, yeah, the Democrats have painted themselves into a corner on this one. What in the hell were they hoping would happen? That we’d all fall in line with some fight global warming agenda and abruptly disassociate ourselves from oil altogether and that would be some kind of magical key to keep them in power?
Wife used to think that illegal immigration and border security were the top issues for the upcoming election. I thought it was vigilance and consistency in the war on terror. Now we both think that the big issue is drilling for oil and bringing gas prices down.
My dad (who just seems to get smarter every year) said that people will always vote with their wallets. I hope, as MrLynn says above, that McCain will take the lead on this now. But I think if Obama did, he’d screw it up somehow.
Gottafang on July 15, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Mr. Wednesday Night on July 15, 2008 at 9:02 AM
Agreed, Patrick is usually on target.
Keemo on July 15, 2008 at 9:08 AM
Keemo & Mr Wednesday
thanks…
A tip of my hat to both of you.
patrick neid on July 15, 2008 at 9:17 AM
So you want the oil industry to nationalized and local oil consumption to be subisidized.
Uncle Chavez would be so proud of you.
MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2008 at 9:18 AM
That is totally cool that Gov Palin has invited McCain to ANWR. Now we have to get him to accept.
Captain Ed, next time you are having lunch with McCain could you ask him about this. Thanks
patrick neid on July 15, 2008 at 9:22 AM
ANWR off the table, on the table…
WHATEVER.
I don’t care if it’s in my back yard, just start f-ing DRILLING!
fossten on July 15, 2008 at 9:29 AM
PPI is up 1.8% core only .2% means all the inflation is in food and energy. Retail sales show that people are filling up their tanks and bellies and have NOTHING left to buy other goods.
This is not good news. In fact it is a flashing warning sign of danger to the economy.
those that want to say what recession, you all need to check that garbage at the door. This country is facing a massive national security crisis and we are in economic war with OPEC and other unfriendly nations. Already budweiser was sold to Belgium and brazil.
We can not afford a weak dollar and selling our country piece by piece.
We need to tap pour natural resources and we need to tap our national can do spirit. We need a call to action and we need a leader that can tell the Americian people what is at stake.
If this goes on the AMerician people will be open to any demagouge. You do not want the US military in the hands of a madman like hitler. Hitler’s rise to power was due mainly to economic conditions. Bad economic times is not good for world peace. The democrates and to a degree the repubs are setting this country and the world on a path to a worldwide war of resources.
unseen on July 15, 2008 at 9:36 AM
I remain unconvinced, that $4 gasoline is a high price to pay.
I mean, after all, we pay more than $5 for a gallon of Coca-Cola, which is 95% water.
Compared to other products, $4 is a bargain, after factoring in the cost of raw material and manufacturing.
franksalterego on July 15, 2008 at 9:36 AM
Of course.
Placate the masses. Avoid the tough decision.
Shove it, Nancy.
drjohn on July 15, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Not the point, Frank.
The airlines are dying.
Home heating oil is the real spectre. Just wait until it gets cold.
There’s more to life than the price of gasoline.
Computers, DVD’s, and a few other things are made from oil.
drjohn on July 15, 2008 at 9:40 AM
What most people fail to realize is that the gas prices were supposed to go higher – but it was supposed to be because of “climate change carbon taxes and fees”.
The huge increase in oil prices came before the Democrats could implement their tax scheme – this is the real reason they are mad about the prices, that extra money was supposed to go to them (it does, they’ve been raking in the tax dollars from “big oil”).
Their ban on drilling has to be renewed every year. I’ve heard that the vote is due by Sept 30. This will make the election interesting. If the Democrats block drilling, their projected victories may disappear – which wouldn’t be a bad thing.
SouthernRoots on July 15, 2008 at 9:42 AM
Remember when it was said Republicans could not get elected this year?
That could change in a second with the right campaign theme. It’s right there for the taking.
drjohn on July 15, 2008 at 9:42 AM
Pelosi was right about one thing. If the Democrats vote to approve drilling, then the radical environmentalists who fund and control the party will be p****d. They might as well pack up and go home. On the other hand, if they are seen as continuing to block drilling when solid majorities of almost all demographic groups want it, there will be heck to pay at the voting booth in Nov.
Mr. Rock, meet Mr. Hardplace.
I love it when a plan comes together.
MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2008 at 9:49 AM
The SPR contains appx 31 days of US oil usage. Can some bright lib explain to us how tapping it will affect prices which are based on 6 month futures contracts? Additionally, can they also explain how we get around the rules set up when SPR was created – specifically that the oil is to be held in reserve in case of a war disrupting shipments, or in the event of a natural disaster preventing shipments from being delivered? Nowhere in the language was SPR to be used to try and move the market.
I also love the hypocrisy that ‘drilling ANWR won’t effect prices, because it only represents 3-5% of our use’ – but somehow, releasing a few hundred thousand barrels from the SPR will.
Think_b4_speaking on July 15, 2008 at 9:49 AM
franksalterego on July 15, 2008 at 9:36 AM
Are you serious? I was thinking your post was satire but I’m not sure.
I will take it as if you meant what you said. First of all most Americian people don’t use 50 GALLONS of COKE a month. If they did coke could not be the price it is.
Second by paying ever larger portions of your income to gasoline you rob other sectors of that revenue.
You comment shows a total misunderstanding of economics and the impacts of prices of needed things vs those of unneeded wants.
The more a country pays for the basic stuff like food and energy the poorer that country is.
Yes people will mention Europe as an example but Europe does not use as much oil and the high prices are due to taxes which are used by the host countries for other things to help with the pain. for instance healthcare is not an expense most Europeans have thanks to the high fuel prices.
unseen on July 15, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Right now diesel irrigation pumps are running 24/7 in the corn belt. Without 7 dollar corn, that part of agriculture requiring fuel will take a massive financial hit which will ripple to the consumer in the form of physical shortages. With 7 dollar corn, all consumer food prices continue to rise at the present rate. You choose.
a capella on July 15, 2008 at 9:57 AM
a capella on July 15, 2008 at 9:57 AM
don’t they have hamsters that can do that job?
unseen on July 15, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Markthe Grate at 9:18 AM-
“nationalize“?
Reading comprehension skills a little off?
As helium was not allowed to be sold to the pre-WW II Nazis (it’s why the hydrogen-filled “Hindenberg” blew up) and as uranium is not allowed to be sold to Iran (wonder why), we can keep our new domestic oil/energy production in house for national security reasons until the many alternatives (hydrogen, etc.) make up enough of the difference to reshift it back to the global markets.
Strategic materials are not given freely to your enemies.
Billions of dollars shifted to jihadists and their enablers for their oil is such a loss.
Hysteria is silly, Uncle Parse.
profitsbeard on July 15, 2008 at 10:01 AM
We’ll see how long she and Harry want to ride that horse. If the donk constituency didn’t use fuel she’d be fine. As it is, there have got to be some pretty nervous Democratic Congressmen coming up for re-election and starting to whine a bit.
a capella on July 15, 2008 at 10:04 AM
You were good, up until this point. :-D
franksalterego on July 15, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Funny that you should talk about taking the high ground here.. as if you even knew what that is.
That’s the advice from weak kneed people, not principled people.
Nobody cares about a 2,000 acres of drilling foot print in the National Mosquito Refuge where no tourists go.
You’re such a prick even suggesting that would be “high ground” to avoid including it in the debate for now.
Obviously you have less moxie than the beautiful Governor Paulin.
Mcguyver on July 15, 2008 at 10:06 AM
I think Profitsbeard has provided it:
And I’ll repeat mine:
****AMERICAN ENERGY FOR AMERICAN GROWTH!*****
MrLynn on July 15, 2008 at 10:08 AM
you know things are bad when GM cuts white collar pay. Pay to be cut by 20% to management. Sign of the end times?
unseen on July 15, 2008 at 10:08 AM
When the full force of the ‘Drill now!’ tsunami hits, Reid and Pelosi will make like Bubba on welfare reform – i.e.,step in front of the camera and try to take credit for the very thing they’ve been stonewalling.
whitetop on July 15, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Open it up…bring it on….let’s have a new oil boom in the good old USA!!! There is no reason that the rest of the world booms, from our dollars!
Imaging if we kept the 2.1 Billion / day that we ship over seas!
Dpet on July 15, 2008 at 10:12 AM
I agree, forget ANWR, if we can tap our shale resources and turn our massive coal reserves into black gold we won’t need ANWR.
From IBD:
“Well, we’re also the Saudi Arabia of coal, but Pickens mentions coal not at all. The U.S. has 27% of the world’s recoverable coal. A ton of coal can generate two barrels of synthetic oil.
On that basis, as the New York Times pointed out a few years ago, “the coal in the ground in Illinois alone has more energy than all the oil in Saudi Arabia.”
And:
“Another massive domestic energy reserve Pickens does not mention is shale oil. Another Energy Department report says the Green River formation underlying parts of Wyoming, Utah and Colorado, deep inside Pickens’ wind tunnel, contains as many as 2 trillion barrels of oil trapped in porous rock close to the surface. Two trillion barrels is seven times the Saudi reserves.”
This information MUST get out to the American people. The GOP needs to craft a messag with three key points:
1. Real energy indpendence. With the above mentioned sources, it’s possible.
2. Job creation tapping our own resources will create millions of good paying jobs. Especially for blue collar workers.
3. Royalties – those concerned about funding R&D into alternatives should be comforted by the fact that we can spend all royalty money, if we want, on alternative R&D.
DerKrieger on July 15, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Mcguyver on July 15, 2008 at 10:06 AM
I really don’t think that was called for. right2bright was pointing out that ANWR doesn’t poll well. Should we hold up all other energy policy for the sake of 10-40 billion blls of oil? when we have 2-3 Trillion sitting in the oil shales? sometimes in politics you do what is possible not what is 100% correct. The people that hold out for 100% of thier postions tends not to get it in the end. As far as the name calling it does not help your arguement.
unseen on July 15, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Can we impeach Pelosi? Seriously. She is personally responsible for exacerbating a serious energy problem and should be removed from office.
DerKrieger on July 15, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Heh. None that big. As a side note my neighbor has had the radiators stolen from two of his irrigation engines by a band of illegals who operate around here, for the copper content which is worth about seventy dollars as scrap metal. Costs him about a thousand bucks, plus labor and downtime to replace. He’s also sweating the EPA finding out the thieves slopped antifreeze into the soil which could force him into a large cleanup operation, plus that they puncture the diesel fuel reservoir to steal the fuel with more contamination.
a capella on July 15, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Google:
“Just” $35 per gallon.
franksalterego on July 15, 2008 at 10:16 AM
DerKrieger on July 15, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Pickenshas a natural gas company and is building wind farms. Of course he would talk up LNG and Wind. He is talking his book and he believes in his vision by investing his money. I think Pickens plan is PART of the solution long term. We should not be using Natural gas for electricity generation. We should use our wind and solar resources for as much electricity as we can. we should also be using coal and nuclear for electricity. natural gas, coal, oil can all be liquid transportation fuels and can with some modification continue to use internal combustion engines (i.e we do not have to reinvent the wheel to use these fuels) unlike electric cars, fuel cell cars etc. Natural gas can be used in fuel cells also so the change over for feul cells if we start to build a natural gas infrastructure would be somewhat seemless.
unseen on July 15, 2008 at 10:18 AM
DerKrieger on July 15, 2008 at 10:13 AM
You can send your donations to cindy sheehan. she is running against pelosi. If cindy wins she would not hold the same power as pelosi. I say conservatives should give Cindy millions to fight pelosi. It could be like the Dashele fight.
unseen on July 15, 2008 at 10:21 AM
I completely agree with that part of Picken’s plan. Using natural gas for energy production is a stupid waste of resources but we were forced into it by…drum roll…the anti-nuke environmentalists who both wanted a low pollution energy source and no-nukes. Now they’re crying the sky is falling over climate change from aforementioned natural gas plants.
The article I plucked the coal and shale quotes from just happened to be from a longer article about Pickens. Main point was that we have a LOT of potential energy if the eco-Marxists would just get out of the way.
DerKrieger on July 15, 2008 at 10:22 AM
a capella on July 15, 2008 at 10:14 AM
welcome to the new cattle rustling. and then liberals wonder why jobs are being sent overseas. environmental regulations are a good thing if done with both economics and health in mind.
unseen on July 15, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Well Al Gore isn’t going to like this.
Pay more in taxes so governmnet can pretend to control the weather — Just not working.
So what will the Congressional Democrat Marxists do? It’s going to begin taking a toll now.
tarpon on July 15, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Al Gore shouldn’t despair over this inconvenient truth just yet (nyuk, nyuk ;-) ). Going after more oil domestically is just part of the solution. Americans for the most part are keenly aware that we should treat the environment better and that there are way to do that on our own with our own resources. Nuclear, clean(er) coal, wind, solar, electric/hybrid/hydrogen cars, etc. are all things that I think many if not most people want more of and all that would help to ease our energy woes and do so in a environmentally friendly manner. Also, doing all that would reduce, greatly so in the long term, our dependence on foreign sources of energy. There is no reason this nation should be so dependent on foreign (and often hostile) sources of fuel to run our economy and our daily lives.
Yakko77 on July 15, 2008 at 10:27 AM
DerKrieger on July 15, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Yes, like during the Carter years Americians have forgotten the strengths the lay in this country. We have been a victim of “superpower guilt”
Everyday the environmental movement is becoming more and more an enemy of this country and our way of living. The majority of Americians enjoy having a nice house, being able to travel, and they also enjoy their toys. Living in mud huts, trees or caves are not appealing to the majority of people.
The japaneese discovered what the environmentals are about to. You do not wake a sleeping giant.
unseen on July 15, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Yakko77 on July 15, 2008 at 10:27 AM
The real reason we are dependent is that the Saudi oil costs about $2.00/ bll to pump. It was cheaper to import that oil then it was to drill it here. when supply was plentiful the economics of domestic oil just could not compete. Saudi oil would flood the market and reduce prices further and domestic oil would be a bust. with the rise in demand from china and the rest of the world Saudi oil can o longer flood the market as much. this keeps prices high enough for domestic oil to become competitive.
If demand ever tapers off the federal gov should pay the poil companies the differene so that the price of domestic oil is always competive with forgien sources. It is a national security issue.
unseen on July 15, 2008 at 10:33 AM
The S&P 500 extended its retreat from an October record to almost 23 percent. More than $13 trillion has been wiped off the value of global equities since October as $416 billion in credit- related losses prolonged the global economy’s slump and rising commodity prices stoke inflation. Among the 23 industrialized nations in the MSCI World Index, only Canada has averted a bear market.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a9l8vf_Jx0Gw&refer=worldwide
what’s special about Canada? hmmm what could it be…..it might be because they are tapping THEIR natural resources….hmmm imagine that by tapping their natrual resources Canada has avioded a bear market and possibly a recession…go figure.
unseen on July 15, 2008 at 10:39 AM
$312.49 for One Pint.
Nevertheless: “The Evil Oil Corporations are gouging us @ $4 per gallon!!!”
franksalterego on July 15, 2008 at 10:46 AM
franksalterego on July 15, 2008 at 10:46 AM
OMG you were serious. How many gallons of paint do use a day? do you need paint to get to work, to get to the store?
If you can not see the difference between paint, coke, milk and gasoline then there is a massive problem. $4.00/gal for gasoline will destroy this country as we know it. It will wipeout the suburbs, it will hurt the rural americians the most. It will confine and reduce our freedom of movement, and it will in the end destroy our consumer lead economy.
It will also reduce our standard of living, drive untold wealth from our shores into the hands of our enemies.
and yet you are not conviced that $4.00gal is too much?
unseen on July 15, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Are you trying to tell me, YOUR NEEDS should somehow control the price of raw material and manufacturing?
franksalterego on July 15, 2008 at 11:02 AM
From my point of view,
As long as the consumer DEMANDS Oil Products, he is in no position to tell the Manufacturer what to charge, any more than any other product.
franksalterego on July 15, 2008 at 11:16 AM
I’m guessing you don’t have a couple of teenagers at home.
MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2008 at 11:17 AM
At least the guy is proposing a plan and doable solutions, which is far more than can be said for the political class.
Agreed.
I don’t believe that is his primary purpose for Natural Gas. He wants to use it in the transportation sector as CNG for Natural Gas Vehicles.
Agreed.
Well, Natural Gas can be used for CNG vehicles or it can be used to create METHANOL (Methyl Alcohol) for vehicles. Methanol has as many advatages for usage as CNG.
eanax on July 15, 2008 at 11:17 AM
franksalterego on July 15, 2008 at 11:02 AM
MY NEEDS have nothing to do with it. the price of raw materials and manufacturing is based on demand and supply.
the oil companies thru their quarterly reports are making a profit. therefore the $145/bl for oil more than meets THEIR cost of raw materials and manufacturing. Everything above their costs are profits. When the oil companies show a loss then I will say oil is too cheap.
The COUNTRY NEEDS cheap energy to function. High energy prices destroys wealth. The higher energy goes the more wealth is destroyed as capital is sucked from the system.
unseen on July 15, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Around here, nobody irrigates, the rains are all we need.
Without the ridiculous subsidies, some farmers would go under, the drop in supply would cause prices to rise until the remainder become profitable again.
In both cases we get $7 corn, in one case, we also get to pay for the ridiculous subsidies.
Which is worse, $7 corn, plus pay the subsidies, or $7 corn without the subsidies.
It doesn’t take a masters in economics to make that decision.
MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Not in the slightest. You want the govt to control who can buy oil. That’s nationalization, regardless of what ridiculous justification you come up with to support it.
Europe and Japan are now are enemies? At present, most of our enemies have no need or desire to buy our oil.
By keeping our supplies to ourselves, we force our allies to buy from our enemies.
Such bans hurt US consumers, US producers, our allies, and help our enemies.
But go ahead, pretend that you are on solid ground if it makes you feel better.
MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2008 at 11:26 AM
franksalterego on July 15, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Oil is a needed part of our economy. Without oil then the economy dies. Oil impacts the life of every person in the world. To allow a small group of individuals to control the price of a needed commoditity is insane and suicidal. since oil is a natrual resources the people that own the land from which the oil is drawn have a say in the price that oil compaines charge. the government can and will regualte the oil industry so that the common good is maintianed.
As an example The oil companies do not own the Gulf of Mexico, The American people own parts of it the rest can be considered a common green in which all humanity owns a part of it.
unseen on July 15, 2008 at 11:26 AM
I’m willing to bet, without googling, you can’t tell me how many gallons of gasoline are refined from a barrel of oil.
Until you do a little research, and do the economic mathematics, you really don’t make a very solid argument.
franksalterego on July 15, 2008 at 11:28 AM
You forget one damn thing which EVERYONE on here seems to freaking forget.
IT IS A GLOBAL PROFIT, not just American!
upinak on July 15, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Wind and solar are useless until a cheap method of storage can be found.
MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2008 at 11:29 AM
MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2008 at 11:22 AM
It depends what is more important price or supply. the government (we the people) have decided that maintianing adaquate supplies of food is a good thing. Thus we prop up our framers so that they can make a profit.
unseen on July 15, 2008 at 11:30 AM
franksalterego on July 15, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Off the top of my head about 1/3 of the bll of oil is used
unseen on July 15, 2008 at 11:31 AM
The old, we can tax ourselves into prosperity myth.
MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2008 at 11:31 AM
$4/gallon gas is a pain. It is not going to destroy the country. People can, and are adapting.
Let’s not destroy the good arguments that we have, by mixing them with hyperventilated garbage.
MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Unless Pickens is also proposing a way to solve the storage problems of wind, he is NOT proposing a solution. He’s just proposing a way to get more of the taxpayers money into his pocket. As are all windpower producers.
MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Signing a petition isn’t going to make people stop or not stop their ignorant stance on anything.
I am suggesting you all, form a group and GO to your State Capitals, Congressmen and woman, Senators and BLM offices accross the country and DEMAND they start listening.
A petition is nice, but people moving and beginning to take shape to come together…. is a different story.
Oil is not a based on a color of skin, a religion, the amount you make, the time of day nor does it care how the world works. It is a resource…. and you ALL need to remember that the people who are voted in are making YOUR lives worse by what they think the Standards of life should be.
Maybe it is time to come together as a country (not just signing a name on a petition) and tell Congrees and the Senate to step back.
upinak on July 15, 2008 at 11:35 AM
High energy prices do not destroy wealth. All they do is move the wealth from one pocket to another.
Your main complaint is that the pocket receiving the wealth is not yours.
MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Why do I have the feeling you live in a big city?
upinak on July 15, 2008 at 11:37 AM
I am talking about a generality of people across this country. As I said before… I have a feeling you live in a big city and have no clue about living outside of that area.
upinak on July 15, 2008 at 11:38 AM
upinak on July 15, 2008 at 11:29 AM
I have no problem with oil companies making a profit. the problem comes when that profit interferes with the rest of the economy. I am happy that XOM, and chervon and others are making money and paying their workers well.
the problem is not profit it is supply. we need more supply. the added supply will drop the price and thus drop the profit if the price drops are not made up by increased usage. Profits will take care of themselves.
The discussion was that gas is not high enough and was being compared to the price of coke and paint. I stated that has long as the oil companies are showing a profit than the price in not too cheap.
the knock on effects of increased prices for gasoline is a zero sum game. The more gasoline goes up the less money people have for other products which will cause the economy to wither and die. The market place is saying gasoline is too high. The decrease in manufacturing output, in travel, in retail spending, and the stock market are all saying the price is unsustainable and too high.
unseen on July 15, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Not really. My point was that the present cost of energy creates the need for the present boneheaded, artifical high corn(and other crops) prices. If it is unprofitable to raise crops due to high fuel prices, no matter who owns the land, the land won’t be farmed. So, you won’t have 7 dollar corn without subsidies, you will have 15 dollar corn, 30 dollar beans, and 300 dollar a ton alfalfa, without subsidies. The ethanol boondangle was a feel good bandaid,..now unless they get fuel prices down to survival prices for farmers, at the same time ethanol gets dumped, the end result will be a consumer disaster.
a capella on July 15, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Will you say the same thing when it’s $6.00 a gallon? There are many industries right now that are seeing dramatic drop-offs and loss of profit — transportation (airlines, in particular, and the auto industry), and service industries such as restaurants and hospitality (check out Las Vegas right now).
Higher fuel costs ARE causing big problems, and those problems will only get worse if the price per gallon continues to go up. That’s the reality…
eanax on July 15, 2008 at 11:42 AM
So is food. So are cars. So is just about everything.
Ditto the things I listed.
So do the things I mentioned.
So we should let the govt set the price of everything?
BTW, this cabal that sets the price of oil doesn’t exist. Never did, never will.
That’s it, release your inner communist.
1) The people do not own the land. The person who owns the land, owns the land.
2) Since the people own the land, we should be permitted to tell the farmer what price he can charge for corn.
Are you actually stupid enough to believe that the govt has the slightest clue what the “common good” is? Much less how to acheive it?
A bigt mistake, which will come back to haunt us. Why shouldn’t the oil companies be allowed to own parts of the Gulf of Mexico? Are you opposed to farmers owning the land that they farm? Or coal companies owning the land their mines are on?
You really need to read up on the tragedy of the commons, if you honestly think that it is the way to go.
MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2008 at 11:42 AM
I have never seen so much ecomonic ignorance in such a small package before.
We don’t need the govt to protect the profit of farmers. Just like we don’t need to govt to protect the profits of any other industry.
Farmers grow food. We already pay them to do this when we buy their products at the store. If prices go down, then there is a chance that a tiny percentage of farmers will go out of business. So what? Going out of business is one of the risks of going into business.
regardless, you seem to think that land, tractors, etc. disappear, go up in smoke, vanish, when a farmer goes out of business. At worst, the land will lay fallow for a few years, until profits pick back up, then someone will buy the land, and start working it again.
That’s the way capitalism works.
Of course communists truely believe that nothing can work unless theirs a govt order behind it.
MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2008 at 11:46 AM
4/gallon gas is a pain. It is not going to destroy the country. People can, and are adapting.
Let’s not destroy the good arguments that we have, by mixing them with hyperventilated garbage.
MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Are you paying attention to the stock market? to the empty stores? to the decrease in vacation travel over the fourth? $4.00/gal gas is not a pain it is a national emergency. adapting to what? to less freedom of movement? Less spending at the stores? To less food? to less economic output.
If your country’s economy is 70% consumer spending and you take $700 billion out of that economy and ship it overseas per year you are destroying the wealth of this nation and you are destroying the economy of this country.
unseen on July 15, 2008 at 11:47 AM
1) Irrelevant
2) Utterly wrong
MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2008 at 11:47 AM
1/2 is closer to ballpark.
Therefore…
Approx. 21 gallons.
So, @ $4 per gallon, they’re only getting a return of $84 per barrel for gasoline that they pay $140 for…And, that’s at the retail level, not wholesale…Which means, they’re seeing even less.
At the end of the day, Oil Companies aren’t gouging at the pump, they have to make up the difference from the other 21 gallons being turned into other products.
franksalterego on July 15, 2008 at 11:48 AM
You haven’t shown that any level of profit interferes with the rest of the economy.
You have shown that gas prices are a pain.
That’s not the same thing.
MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Let’s see, we buy extra corn from farmers. This causes the price of corn to rise to $7/bushel. Now if we stop buying this extra corn from farmers, then they will have to start selling corn for 3 or 4 times as much in order to make a living.
Yea, that really makes sense.
Even if we were paying actually subsidies, that is, direct payments to farmers. How is paying a couple of dollars a bushel through taxes less painfull then paying that same amount through the price of product?
MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Yup, reality remains reality, regardless of how you like it.
And they are all adapting. Remote vacation destinations suffer. Nearby vacation destinations benefit. The economy adapsts, so long as govt permits it to.
Never said they don’t cause problems, just showed how your claims of death and destruction because of high prices were, dare I say it, overblown.
MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2008 at 11:55 AM
BTW, this cabal that sets the price of oil doesn’t exist. Never did, never will
Its called OPEC. they set the price by restricting supply. Look it up.
So is food. So are cars. So is just about everything.
food price is set by government more than oil every will be. Cars prices depend on many things. Cars are not a finite source. you cna build more cars to meet demand without a government fiat saying its ok to do.
That’s it, release your inner communist.
So the oil companies bought the Gulf of Mexico when I wasn’t looking. Do they not lease the rights to drill from the government which is controlled by the people?
unseen on July 15, 2008 at 11:56 AM
It’s going down. It does that from time to time. Done it many times before in fact. A decline in the stock market is not evidence that the economy is collapsing.
I’ve seen them. I’ve also seen many new stores opening.
That’s the way a capitalist economy works.
This is evidence that the economy is tanking?
So much histeria, so little brain power. We aren’t even close to a national emergency.
And just what do you think the Saudi’s and such are doing with all those dollars? Throwing them in the fireplace to keep warm?
No, they are buying things. And many of those things that they are buying are supplied by US companies.
MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Not all of the oil that goes is bought for $140/barrel. That’s what the price is on the spot market. A lot of oil is on long term contract so it’s price is less.
Of course when oil prices start going down, long term contracts that are being let today, could end up being higher than the spot price.
MarkTheGreat on July 15, 2008 at 12:01 PM
More than that, bucko. The entire transportation industry is headed for a meltdown IF fuel costs contiune to go up unabated. Capiche?
I never claimed that death and destruction was upon us at $4.00 a gallon. However, death and destruction of several industries WILL happen, like I noted above, if fuel costs continue to go up unabated — notwithstanding your smug attitude.
eanax on July 15, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »