32 Comments

• 1. Quietriot  |  June 10th, 2008 at 2:40 pm

  “since the Democrats took control of congress.”

  One year four months to clean up the mess created by seven years of the two oil men in the executive office.

  Matt before you make these acquistions, get Dick Cheney to release the notes of his energy task force at the beginning of the first term

• 2. neocon  |  June 10th, 2008 at 3:02 pm

  Quiet,

  First of all, I think you meant to say accusations, not acquisitions………or maybe not. Who knows what they’re teaching you these days.

  Anyway, we had 7 years of gas priced under $3.00 until the democrats were sent to “clean up the mess”

  Well, I can’t afford any more clean up on their part.

• 3. Aztec  |  June 10th, 2008 at 3:12 pm

  The first point is that gas prices are not that high historically. The second point is that Pelosi is responsible for the not so high gas prices? Do you always contradict yourself like this? I’m no chart expert but it looks like the increase started around early 2003. I wonder what happened around then?

• 4. Quietriot  |  June 10th, 2008 at 3:20 pm

  neocon | June 10th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
  accusations, not acquisitions Thanks

  “Anyway, we had 7 years of gas priced under $3.00 until the democrats were sent to “clean up the mess” ”
  Aztec 3:12 provided a good explanation.

  I am still waiting for the first blame it on Clinton post. I know it is coming. One of you cons are putting your thoughts together.

• 5. JustAnotherTaxpayer  |  June 10th, 2008 at 3:43 pm

  What kind of magical thinking is this, Mr. Margolis? Name one policy change the Dems approved over a Bush veto that couldv’e made prices go up the way they did?
  But you religous liberals look to talismen and omens a great deal. Well why don’t we look to talismen and omens your opponents might look at to prove it is religious liberals whove earned the wrath of the divine.
  Gas prices have gone up since the surge started, 6 months after Pelosi got into office. Perhaps, the almighty may send oil prices back down if US leaves Iraq. The price has gone from an average of3.22 in March to 4.02 today since McCains nomination. So we must elect Obama to get the divine to bring oil prices down.
  McCain must be the cause of this since the dems didn’t decide on their nominee till last Saturday.
  Senators David Vitter of Louisiana, and Larry Craig of Idaho have yet to leave office after their moment in the spotlight. Oil prices will go down after these examples of Republican riteoussness are expunged from public life. So you see, Mr margolis, it is the Bush supporters who have failed before the almighty, and they must atone for their sins.
  Rezko was convicted, Spitzer left as soon as he was found out and Obama left his church so you can’t blame them.
  Mr. Margolis, what are you going to suggest next? That there be a govt sponsored excorsism at oil co headquarters lead by George Bush assisted by the pope?
  Oil co execs have said prices have been driven up by fundamentals, by demand from India and China, and from OPEC nations increasingly diversifying their economies so they need more of the fuel they produce.
  You can pray to any divinity you want to, Mr
  Margolis. George Bush obsession with preserving the Iraqi welfare program left him unable to anticipate changes in the world oil market now moving at breathtaking speed, and to formulate policy changes necessary to meet them. This has caused more damage, and fear in this country than all the terrorist threats in the world. Interestingly, while terrorist attacks have taken place where the attackers said Iraq was one motivation, there has never been any evidence of any terrorist attack out side of Iraq organized from Iraq.
  At least none that is believed by anyone outside the 25% who think that Bush is a good
  president. Carter must have been a better president, after all he was more popular.
  Have a nice day!

• 6. SEW  |  June 10th, 2008 at 4:04 pm

  Gas prices in perspective
  2 simple graphs

  JAT–rant about George Bush,Larry Craig,Rezko, Spitzer, Vitter…..terrorist attacks.

  If you notice in one of my earlier posts about birth certificates I requested liberal responders not link Bush, Cheney, Rove and Iraq.

  And the markets are driven by psychology and fear. Wall Street knows what is coming with a Dem Congress and Dem POTUS. Psychology drives this market. Be afraid, very afraid.

• 7. Magnum Serpentine  |  June 10th, 2008 at 4:32 pm

  GOP.Gov…. since when do the republics hijack the dot gov URL???? more suspicious web sites. Very interesting indeed. Besides, before george was appointed acting president by the Supreme Court, gas prices were below 1.30. george promised the big oil gas prices over 4 dollars and george and the republics made good on their promises. Today we see another example of republic obstructionism. Blocking taxes on the big oil. It is very clear indeed that big oil has the republic party in their back pocket.

• 8. Danish Artist  |  June 10th, 2008 at 4:47 pm

  Uh, which party (and their special interests) has consistently hindered oil exploration and drilling?

  Which party (and their special interests) is swallowing the climate change is caused by man myth and wants to adjust gasoline consumption accordingly?

  Which party (and their special interests) is pushing for alternatives and their use now with no infrastructure for that alternative in place instead of using what we have while making the transition?

  Which party has promised “common sense legislation for reducing the price of oil & gas?

  Which party (and their special interests) are trying to stop drilling on already granted federal land?

  Which party (and their special interests) have squashed alternative projects, such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal and wave power?

  Which party (and their special interests) have hindered new refinery construction for over 35 years?

  Which party does all this and then whines and bitches about the high price of oil and gas?

  If you answered Republicans, George Bush, Karl Rove, Big Oil or anything but LIBERAL DEMOCRATS, you are a fool, a lemming, uselful idiot, liberal moron, etc. etc.

  History is the proof. Liberals and their special interests are the problem, have not provided a viable solution, and have hindered the present energy/oil/gas supplies. Burning the candle at both ends and expect a different result and at the same time blame others for the problems they have caused.

  I see, JAT, MS and Quietriot, just puke the usual liberal talking points with no real solutions or logic.

  At least high gas prices have kept those who can’t afford it off the road and those are most likely to vote Democrat.

• 9. JustAnotherTaxpayer  |  June 10th, 2008 at 5:03 pm

  Danish Artist,

  Your right. The dems have delivered on nothing.
  But to attribute high prices to the sheer presence of anyone, as if their presence was an offence to the almighty. This is voodoo, period.
  But the repubs had control of the congress from 1994, and conrol of all branches of govt from 2000 to 2006.
  What did the dems do in this period which Bush and the repubs could not have undone. My point is that Bush and his supporters have moved events tyo the point where they are beyond anyones control.
  It’s not about what Bush advocates now that the crisis is upon the country. Goldman Sachs forsaw this as early as 2005. Why didn’t he forsee this? Another intelligence failure?
  How many failures do yuo give Bush a pass on before you wake up?

• 10. neocon  |  June 10th, 2008 at 5:22 pm

  “Besides, before george was appointed acting president by the Supreme Court…” - Magnum

  Why are you now unhappy with a court decision? It seems that liberals are currently championing the Californias court decision on gay marriage as the new law of the land. So, I guess you support some court decisions and not others?

  Incidentally, your SC comment is a debunked talking point from years past….try and stay current.

  JAT,

  Are you saying that America has no other alternative than to acquiesce to OPEC? And why are you so against high gas prices? Liberals should be ecstatic! This will force the decline of SUV’s and gas hogging cars and will force people to drive less, which will in turn reduce carbon emissions and save the planet. Isn’t that what you want?

  Have a nice day!
  peace, neocon

• 11. Pain  |  June 10th, 2008 at 6:02 pm

  here is wisdom

  September 11 attacks caused the price of light sweet crude to go up 0,40 USD per bbl from 27,63 to 28,03. Even the war in Lebanon only rose the price to 77,03 in July 2006. Forces outside both the Bush administration and the Congress are in play and only currency markets and solid investment in the dollar can turn the oil supply bubble into its deflation cycle.

  If this was a reserve problem it still could not be solved with ANWR if it is a supply crises or production OPEC is not the solution– the weak dollar is.

  Get your heads out of your partisan rectums and you would all be able to realize that no matter how high the price of petrol goes in relative terms in the US you will still pay it because to you big car= freedom.

  The age of 40 dollar oil is gone your new world is likely a world of 5 dollar petrol and 120 dollar oil. The best anyone Congress or the president can offer is temporary relief because investors in pension funds see the new pile of lucre that is future oil demand growing in China and India.

• 12. neocon  |  June 10th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

  Pain,

  And your above delusion is all based on the premise that we can not be domestically self sufficient. Typical liberal.

  Have a nice day!
  peace, neocon

• 13. LiberalNitemare  |  June 10th, 2008 at 6:44 pm

  –Besides, before george was appointed acting president by the Supreme Court, gas prices were below 1.30.

  Im a little confused by your time line Magnum, did this happen before or after Obama was appointed acting democratic presidential candidate?

• 14. Danish Artist  |  June 10th, 2008 at 6:58 pm

  JAT,

  first you say: “Your right. The dems have delivered on nothing.”

  then you say: “But to attribute high prices to the sheer presence of anyone, as if their presence was an offence to the almighty. This is voodoo, period.”

  HA! Remember 9/11? “It’s Bush’s fault.” You libs had no problem attributing the attack on sheer presence of Bush in the White House.

  “But the repubs had control of the congress from 1994, and conrol of all branches of govt from 2000 to 2006.” In 2000-02, they did not have control of the Senate. Since 2000, election liberals vowed to obstruct the “appointed president”. Secondly, drilling in ANWR was proposed back in the 90s where we could be realizing the benefits now, but Clinton vetoed it and the Democrats would not allow an override. Then they blocked it again in 2000s.

  Liberal Democrats at the orders of their environmentalist special interests have stopped drilling and blocked new refineries at every turn. Plus, liberals have not delivered on the promises in 2006 - NOT PROPOSING LEGISLATION ON A SINGLE PROMISE. They even backtracked on Iraq.

  Why should we give then control of everything in November? It will be more of the same because the environmentalists have them in their back pocket.

  Why not blame liberal Democrats, they were shortsighted in the 90s as well as now. And now they still have not proposed a thing especially their promised “common sense legislation” on oil & gas.
  They saw it coming why haven’t they proposed anything?

• 15. Doug  |  June 10th, 2008 at 7:58 pm

  They could solve all of this hubbub on gas prices in a very investor friendly manner. Give a 5 times tax write-off for any investor that loses money in the commodity market on oil and gas futures. Make it profitable for them to lose money and watch them sell, sell, sell.

• 16. Gaijin  |  June 10th, 2008 at 8:05 pm

  I like how you guys believe that there is a magical, unlimited supply of oil in ANWR. Studies have concluded that if ANWR was to supply 5% of the US oil needs, it would last for…wait for it…12 years. How long would you suppose that would last if it supplied say 50%? It is impossible to become energy independent by drilling in ANWR.

  For more, read this:

  webpages.charter.net/allanms/2005/02/lets-play-whats-real-problem.html

  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy

  DA,

  Just so you know, the Republicans just voted not to extend tax breaks for alternative energy, while wanting to give oil companies 1.7 billion a year for 10 years in tax breaks. So much for investing in the future!

  Peace, Gaijin

• 17. neocon  |  June 10th, 2008 at 9:32 pm

  Gaijin dude,

  Between ANWR, the tar sands in Canada (who is currently our largest supplier), and the other domestic coastal oil reserves there is plenty of domestic oil to sustain us until alternative sources become the norm.

  ANWR is just the talking point.
  It’s hard to believe liberals can’t grasp that.

  Have a nice day!
  Peace, neocon

• 18. Harry  |  June 10th, 2008 at 9:37 pm

  You have got to be sheeting me. We’ve had 6…6 YEARS under republican domination, a do nothing, all is well, pie in the sky Bush administration, and you pukes have the gall to blame the situation on the last two years of democratic leadership?

  Well sorry boys. We HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU THIS WAS COMING FOR YEARS.

  I remember Noonan’s half baked response…conserve? Oh no! We can’t conserve. Our economy will be RUINED! The sky will fall. Our economy is doing fine! We’ve never ever had it better.

  We told you the house of cards was falling. WE TOLD YOU THE HOUSE OF CARDS WAS GOING TO FALL.

  Bush’s nightmare in the middle east, the wreckage of our dollar, and enormous debt accumulated under his reign has made the oil market susceptible to enormous speculation.

  Sorry dimwits.

  This IS Bush’s nightmare. This is now the aftermath. We will continue to suffer the repercussions of the worst President in history.

  You can’t blame this on anyone or anything else.

  Spin away spin meisters.

  You have take a role in playing this fiasco out.

  You too, are to blame.

  You disgust me.

• 19. neocon  |  June 10th, 2008 at 9:47 pm

  Harry,

  We went over this yesterday, remember? Deeply rooted problem, orginating in the 70’s, fueled even more by lack of utilizing domestic resources, both parties to blame………..those kind of things.

  Ring a bell?

  Peace, neocon

• 20. Jeremiah  |  June 10th, 2008 at 9:49 pm

  It is impossible to become energy independent by drilling in ANWR.—Gaijin

  That’s the same false statement we’ve been hearing since the ’80s and it is the same scare tactic that has prevented us all these years from becoming energy independent.

  There are thousands of prospective well sites within our borders - States included are Alaska with over a thousand well sites, and over a 11 billion undiscovered barrels now know to be recoverable, including vast mines of natural gas, others include the states of California, Washington and Oregon. And this doesn’t even touch the surface, there are several mines of uranium in the inter-mountain west of which could be obtained for nuclear resources. Nevermind the “linear no threshold” garbage it belongs as just that–a trashy idea, nuclear power is much cleaner and safer than coal could ever be.

  As an aside note, if we could push the scare tactic hysterics of Liberal Enviromentalist extremists to the curb and start to use these resources, then what little tax subsidies we put out would be a far cry from the taxes we are paying to keep the Middle East fat and happy along with our own long-standing fat cats in Washinton like George Soros and John Murtha.

  One, two, four, or even 100 people can’t make the difference, but we all can, if we’ll only all put our minds in one accord into the same effort of achieving the same goal, which should be to become energy independent.

• 21. Danish Artist  |  June 10th, 2008 at 11:40 pm

  Gaijin,

  “DA,
  Just so you know, the Republicans just voted not to extend tax breaks for alternative energy, while wanting to give oil companies 1.7 billion a year for 10 years in tax breaks. So much for investing in the future!”

  In the past three years, Exxon ALONE has paid $27 BILLION in taxes - that is $9 BILLION/year paid to the imperial federal government. What did the federal government do to earn that, besides wave a pen on a piece of paper?

  Uh, the liberal Democrats have successfully squashed most alternative energy sources.

  Solar, wind and water energy source prohibitions are the results of NIMBY and environmentalist “concerns”. Why give tax breaks to those sources that can’t be utilized because one may go up and ruin some liberal’s view of the ocean? Thank Ted Kennedy.

  Oil companies produce energy NOW! AND they still pay billions in taxes even with those breaks. What have the liberals Democrats done for energy supply besides consume it and cave to their special interests?

  What do you think the present oil companies are going to do when oil begins to dry up? Roll over and play dead? They are the ones that are researching new energy sources. British Petroleum has a solar power division as an example. The market will drive new sources. They are not “oil companies” they are “energy companies”!

  You need some perspective. So stop with the lib talking points.

• 22. JustAnotherTaxpayer  |  June 11th, 2008 at 12:01 am

  Danish Artist,

  You are technically correct. From 2000 to 2002, it was repubs 49, Dems 50, with 1 independent.
  So what? The repubs impeached Clinton without Bush having anyhting to do with it. They had power enough to act on their own.
  What happened between 2002 and 2006 if Bush was so prescient he saw what was coming. He had a clear majority that voted anyway he wanted.
  Dems are lame, and have been since 94. Tenuous technical hold for 2 years out of 14 hardly makes for the power block capable of obstructing the will of George Bush. Even with a minority following in Congress Bush was still able to push through the surge, and keep the Iraqi welfare program against the will of the American people for the last year and a half. Congress is looked down upon for the most part because they bend to the will of W for no reason.
  Just because Congress does nothing to change Bush policies doesn’t mean they put them in place. Name one policy change the dems have made that have caused oil prices to rise. Name any policy changes the dems have made at all. Bush has the economic policy he wanted put in place with the help of Congress in 2006.
  You got what you wanted, Tiger. Bush is in charge. How does it taste? You can blame the dems for doing nothing now. But you can’t hold them responsible for getting us here. They’re too lame.

• 23. Gaijin  |  June 11th, 2008 at 1:01 am

  Neocon,

  Show us a study that backs up what you said. I provided links to two sites that support my claims.

  Jeremiah,

  That is one of your best posts I have ever ready. You actually make a decent arguement. However, as with Neocon above, please site sources that show that by drilling in ANWR and other places that it will do more than increase supply by more than 5-10%. As I have said before, I am not totally opposed to drilling in ANWR at some point. I know that it will take years to set up, but I think that oil would be best used in an oil embargo type situation. Decreasing the price of gas by 30 cents a gallon won’t do much.

  Peace, Gaijin

• 24. Jeremiah  |  June 11th, 2008 at 1:29 am

  Gaijin,

  According to some sources, if ANWR were opened…it would be more than West Coast refineries could handle…and that was just four short years ago…

  If the refuge is opened to drilling, it could raise Alaskan oil production from roughly 908,000 barrels of oil a day in 2004 to between 1.1 million and 2.1 million barrels per day in 2025, according to Energy Information Administration estimates.

  A glut of Alaskan oil could be more than West Coast refineries can use, said Verleger, a senior fellow for the Institute for International Economics in Washington, D.C.

  So, it would decrease the price of gas vastly more than you say…at the current price we are paying for gas, which is totally unnecessary, I’d say it would probably decrease gas anywhere from .75c to 2.00 dollars…and that’s just for Alaskan oil, if we drill at the same time in the other locations on the West Coast….you’re looking at decreasing the price way down the pipe as much as 3 bucks… at least, as we supply 1 - 2/3s of it now.

  Something to think about….but if you don’t want to do it and continue ‘On The Sea’ market….hey…..’No skin off my nose’……..I tried…..eh?
  It’s just simply more injurious to those who don’t have a whole lot to speak of when you look at the larger picture…and thus, in the end…everybody’s dependent on the same person/people. And that, my friend, is none other than - Socialism.

• 25. Jeremiah  |  June 11th, 2008 at 1:30 am

  Oops! Forgot to give you the link…here it is:

  http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002245699_export17m.html

• 26. Gaijin  |  June 11th, 2008 at 2:36 am

  Jeremiah,

  Thanks for the link, I read the article. It says a peak of 1.1-2.1 million barrels a day by 2025. Let’s say 1.6 mil a day. The US currently uses 22 million barrels a day. That will further increase by 2025. 1.6 million barrels a day will account for approx 8% of our oil usuage. Thus, it seems unlikely it would decrease gas by $2 or 50%. Just my take. Whatever is done, we need a multi-prong attack to become energy independent. Good debating you today.

  Peace, Gaijin

  Peace, Gaijin

• 27. SEW  |  June 11th, 2008 at 4:24 am

  Don’t forget the Bakken in North Dakota/Montana, by some estimates a larger oil formation than the largest field in the world, Saudia Arabia.

  Will some rare cockroach or the Dem Congress [redundant] prevent us from drilling that?

• 28. bagni  |  June 11th, 2008 at 10:55 am

  dear mattspective:
  it’s astronomically amazing
  that not one earthling mentions who controls oil
  and that’s opec
  and you americans have really ticked them off
  didn’t your black hole arch enemy bin laden say
  he was going to bring down the u.s. economically?
  the middle east is ganging up on the u.s. using oil
  and you don’t even get it……
  i guess that’s part of the problem?

• 29. Harry  |  June 11th, 2008 at 11:44 am

  So……what do you nitwits think is going to happen to the price of oil when the decider in chief lays into Iran?

  The speculation and availability will drive the price even farther through the roof.

  Again, cut the crap.

  It’s Bush’s policies and saber rattling that have driven the speculative price of oil as high as it is now.

  The price of oil would have gone up eventually, but McChimpmeister poured oh…about a trillion gallons of gasoline on the fire.

  My God, I believe most of you would actually bend over and spread em if Bushie asked you to.

  I don’t believe it, I KNOW it.

• 30. Jeremiah  |  June 11th, 2008 at 2:26 pm

  Whatever is done, we need a multi-prong attack to become energy independent.

  Indeed, and is just what I offered in advice to you. The oil is there in more than one spot, so it gives you some inclination as to what the future holds for U.S. economics…

  But the first step seems to be the hardest part for those who can do the most about it - taking advantage of these bountiful resources and opportunities to actually make the difference permanent. Investors would get a monster boost…and…times would be good.

• 31. David B. Schmidt  |  June 11th, 2008 at 2:26 pm

  Try reading what is currently happening, what is not and who is blocking what

  Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK)
  Floor of the U.S. House of Representatives
  Congressional Record
  June 10, 2008

• 32. Danish Artist  |  June 11th, 2008 at 6:56 pm

  “Try reading what is currently happening, what is not and who is blocking what”

  Liberal Democrats set the bar for the “Rights of the Minority Party”.

  Now they get to lay in their bed.

  They want something passed? Stop proposing socialist bullshit they know will fail to use as a talking point for November.

  Liberals putting party/special interests before the people.

Matt Margolis on Twitter