64 Comments

• 1. congressive  |  July 14th, 2008 at 8:25 pm

  Now Bush must nationalize our oil companies to insure they don’t sell all that offshore oil to China, destroying our fisheries and coastlines to feed the communist industrial complex.

  Think that’ll happen? Newsflash: it’s not “our” OCS oil. It belongs to whoever sucks it up, and is sold to the highest bidder on the world market after being jacked up by financial middlemen. China and India produce around 20 million new cars per year. Who’s gonna buy all that oil? Who’s gonna burn all that oil? Given the west-to-east flow of the earth’s atmosphere, who is upwind of the United States and dumping all that combustion byproduct into our airspace?

  We need to drill the OCS like we need to drill our own foreheads. It’s not “our own oil.”

• 2. neocon  |  July 14th, 2008 at 8:30 pm

  This was a great political move. It forces the Democratic leadership to make a decision on an issue that 60% of the populace now support vs the demands of their enviromental base, whom vehemently oppose it.

  I haven’t heard Obama’s reaction, but obviously hell have to make his opinion known.

  The Democrats and truly between a rock the proverbial hard spot here, and this will be fun to watch. Nancy will find out just how much of hoax this is.

  stay tuned
  neocon

• 3. neocon  |  July 14th, 2008 at 8:36 pm

  congressive,

  Newsflash…..we can do whatever we want with that oil which, according to many experts, including shale, ANWR and all possible domestic reserves, exceeds that of the ME.

  Secondly, have you ever finished a journey you never started?

  peace, neocon

• 4. Tuneup  |  July 14th, 2008 at 9:22 pm

  And who placed that Presidential ban on off shore drilling in the first place? Someone is going to get a whoopen from pa when they get back home to Texas.

  Pure politics from a who cares President, nothing here move on.

  Ask big oil to make a deal. They can add new tracks for off shore drilling if they are willing to rebid tracks they currently own but have not drilled on. It is only fair to the American people they do this. The oil sitting in those unused tracts is worth a lot more today. What do you think their answer would be?

• 5. neocon  |  July 14th, 2008 at 9:29 pm

  Tuneup,

  They will not go back after the lands they own as there is little sign of accessible reserves under those lands.

  You might want to read up a little more.
  just saying
  neocon

• 6. Rich  |  July 14th, 2008 at 9:31 pm

  Tuneup- that actually might be a good idea but Im not really sure it would have a legal leg to stand on, as the contracts have already been signed. Also is there even any oil in those areas your are speaking of?

• 7. phnx  |  July 14th, 2008 at 10:23 pm

  This is brilliant!!!

  Once again, President Bush, runs circles around the Dems and forces them to take positions that they have been opposed to for years.

  Obama is not going to twist like a pretzel to land firmly and decisively on both sides of this issue.

  Bush has once again made fools of the Dems in congress, who must now explain to their constituents why drilling is a bad idea. Many of the Dems were already indicating they supported drilling, now Nancy P. is really looking fuelish.

  Dontcha jes luv it???

• 8. Kahn  |  July 14th, 2008 at 10:48 pm

  We can’t drill our way out of the energy crisis.

  But we also can’t build new windmills (without enormous hassle), new solar plants, new nuclear plants, or new hydro-electric plants.

  Thanks liberals - good plan.

  Apparently we also can’t eat our way out of being hungry. or drink our way out of being thirsty.

  Idiots.

• 9. Thrower  |  July 14th, 2008 at 10:54 pm

  No Phnx, I don’t “luv” it. Bush’s political brilliance aside, his party is about to get its clock cleaned in November and the other guys have no answer for anything important. The truth is not just that the Democrats are fools; they’re all fools. I don’t know how partisans on either side can applaud this mess.

• 10. CandL  |  July 14th, 2008 at 11:01 pm

  President Bush lifted the executive ban on off-shore drilling first enacted by his father is 1990, and blames Democrats for the high price of gas.

  Bush’s cynicism on this issue is simply breath-taking. He’s trying to exploit the anger Americans are feeling over the crushing price of fuel by blaming Democrats and challenging them to allow a vote on a bill that would have ZERO immediate impact on fuel costs, but would be very difficult (politically speaking) to oppose. Just like the Republicans do with every possible issue, they feed off voter resentment and play cynical politics with a very serious and complicated problem.

  The fact that opening up off-shore drilling sites won’t yield more resources for at least a decade doesn’t matter. What matters is that Republicans can use the issue as a political bludgeon to bash Democrats with, all the while just prolonging our addiction to foreign oil. Shameful.

• 11. Casper  |  July 14th, 2008 at 11:29 pm

  Kahn, Politics aside you might want to check this out:

  http://www.trib.com/articles/2008/07/12/homepage_lead/doc487824591038c558226889.txt

  We are building wind farms.

  Personally, I think its time to get off our oil addiction and put some major resources towards alternatives.

• 12. Kahn  |  July 14th, 2008 at 11:33 pm

  Casper, yes. I understand about the wind farms. That’s why I qualified my statement. They are VERY hard to get approved. And the solar farms are under scrutiny now.

  But we will need to go nuclear if we want to switch to electric cars. Really, we will.

  And we need oil for now.

  The liberals offer no alternatives. I say this because I include the awful restrictions on wind imposed by Teddy Kennedy.

• 13. Greg-O  |  July 14th, 2008 at 11:36 pm

  We cannot break our “addiction” to foreign oil without something to displace it, hence the need to develop oil domestically. At the same time, we can expand other proven technologies such as nuclear and coal liquefication. Wind doesn’t work here in Louisiana unless there is a hurricane coming through. Once developed, we will have a much more amiable source than OPEC. As noted earlier, we cannot quench a thirst by refusing to move to get something to drink.

  I am always amused at those who would choke off an important energy source, but expect their electricity to still be supplied at their homes, expect their grocery stores to still be fully stocked, as if these things happened by some unknown manner.

  If this is a political stroke, it is one of necessity. The longer we wait on drilling for non-OPEC oil, the longer we resist nuclear energy, the longer and greater the pain will be.

• 14. Kahn  |  July 14th, 2008 at 11:37 pm

  Breathtaking CandL?????

  So, you ARE for more drilling… where there’s actually oil?

  For nukes?

  Windmills - including Cape Cod?

  Solar farms? Even if they blanket large parts of the Nevada and California deserts?

  Got some suggestions on where we could build a hydro-electric plant?

  Yet…. here you are on-line. Using electricity in your house. And sending bits over some medium to your ISV. And so on.

• 15. Kahn  |  July 14th, 2008 at 11:39 pm

  Greg-O - Well said.

• 16. Casper  |  July 15th, 2008 at 12:01 am

  Ok, so here is a compromise.
  Today there are 68 million acres in the United States of America that oil producers currently have leases on which to drill.
  For every 2 million acres of existing leases oil produces develop, they get a million acres of new leases.
  If they develop what they have and what they would get, we are looking at over 100 million acres.

• 17. js  |  July 15th, 2008 at 12:02 am

  so the corporations are kings…and the nations are thier servants…and thats exactly how it will stay…until we take whatever steps necessary to rid our dependence on the corporations that make trillions of our dollars by selling us foreign oil…

  more people are tinkering with magnetic energy and hydrogen and other alternative sources of power than ever before in history….one invention…one break through…and its over…oil is put to bed…but until then…if we have oil of our own….we need it out of the ground….

• 18. phnx  |  July 15th, 2008 at 12:02 am

  “The fact that opening up off-shore drilling sites won’t yield more resources for at least a decade doesn’t matter.” Candl

  And if the leftists would have permitted drilling in ANWR 10 years ago we would be enjoying the fruits of that decision today. So what is your IMMEDIATE solution??? That’s right you have none.

  ” What matters is that Republicans can use the issue as a political bludgeon to bash Democrats…”

  This is just a bonus its fun to watch the Dems go bonkers trying to justify their unjustifiable opinion.

  “all the while just prolonging our addiction to foreign oil.” Once again its that leftist simple mindedness. How does drilling for oil prevent the development and use of alternative sources of energy? Can one of you brilliant leftist explain that????

  I didn’t think so.

• 19. phnx  |  July 15th, 2008 at 12:07 am

  Regressive.

  How is our refusal to drill going to stop the Indians and the Chinese from making and driving all those cars, creating all that pollution???

  Your argument makes as much sense as a mother telling her child to finish his/her meal, because there are starving children in Biafra.

• 20. Ol' Jed  |  July 15th, 2008 at 12:12 am

  Stid o’ tree-huggers, we need more pipe-line huggers!

• 21. Kahn  |  July 15th, 2008 at 12:22 am

  Casper, as a well respected hydrocarbon geologist, which of those acres has oil? You do get that right? That the oil companies drill where there is oil?

  More accurately, different areas have no oil, some oil, or bunches of oil. Added to this is the difficulty in drilling and pumping the oil as well as getting it to refineries. Added to this is the type of crude, which determines how easy it is to “crack” into different products. Complicated, huh?

  So which of those acres have enough of the right type of oil that can be drilled at a reasonable cost. If you know this, you are in the wrong business and there are some cool places around Dallas and Houston where you can make good money.

  Meanwhile, where actually know there is oil: ANWR, West Coast of US, East Coast of US, Eastern Gulf of Mexico, and the Rockies (shale oil). All off limits.

  And: No nukes, no hydro, freeze on solar, restrictions on wind.

• 22. Magnum Serpentine  |  July 15th, 2008 at 12:50 am

  I see george is now proving how big a grand stander he is. Today george declared war on the environment (Probably part of his so-called imaginary war on terror) the oil that george so-called freed up will lower gas by about 10 cents and will take 15 years to get to the market and then it will more than likely be sold to china instead of the United States.

• 23. Kahn  |  July 15th, 2008 at 1:03 am

  Well Magnum, why don’t you just whip up a magic potion?

  No oil, restricted wind, second thoughts on solar, no coal, no nuclear, no hydro….

  just what is your plan?

  Oh yah, tax the oil companies. And raise taxes on everyone making over $100K. Yes. That should do it.

• 24. cam  |  July 15th, 2008 at 2:24 am

  Hmmm,
  What is amazing is that suddenly George Bush is an oil genius. As I recall, even though Bush was given every opportunity on a silver spoon he wasn’t able to find oil in Bahrain, in freakin Babababahhrain for gosh sakes. All any dumb cowboy needs in Bahrain is a toothpick and a bucket to find oil and the big dumb ole dufus came home empty handed. Now he says we’re addicted to oil and I know the solution, stick the syringe in the addict and give him what he wants. And then all of the choir gets up and yells halleluiah. Praise the god of oil!! It’ll set us free.

  Well y’all while that is likely to lower the price by some amount, and don’t believe anyone who tells you they know by how much or if it will actually lower the price, it will eventually even out and in five or ten or maybe even less we’ll be back in the same place as we are now. If the price does come down significantly, all of the incentive to find alternatives will dry up as it did after the price of oil came down in the early 1980’s. Further, if the price comes down what will stop the oil companies from selling it to the highest bidder thereby driving the price of oil right back where it started. Unless the percentage of oil that the US controls is large in comparison to the overall world supply of oil can the actions taken here have a significant effect.
  Currently the US exports 12.6% of the oil it pumps out of the ground. So apparently someone is buying our oil who wants it more than we do. So, if we pump more out of the ground, how will that change. Maybe then we can ship out 15 or 20%. Meanwhile the consumer will continue to get screwed and the oil companies will continue to make record profits.

• 25. congressive  |  July 15th, 2008 at 5:28 am

  Are we a commie state? Do we as a country “own” oil companies or the oil under our feet? Venezuela has cheap oil. Are you calling for that business model? Are you applauding Chavez’ iron-fisted support of cheap oil for his people?

  Closet commies. Interesting…

• 26. Tuneup  |  July 15th, 2008 at 6:42 am

  We really should just go ahead and call him King George. No need for legislation just make decrees.

• 27. Brian (Boston)  |  July 15th, 2008 at 7:07 am

  If we want lower gas prices then we need to sure up the Dollar. *If* the greenback ever makes it back to parity with the Euro, then gas would probably be at least 60% cheaper.

• 28. Ricorun  |  July 15th, 2008 at 7:51 am

  I agree with neocon, it was a great political move. It gives the impression of doing something without actually having to do anything. If the Dems were smart they’d take the Reps up on it on the condition that states have the last say within a reasonable distance from their shores and congress also provide the necessary assistance to facilitate renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.

  Those who argue that there is no oil in areas already open are incorrect. The fact is, many of them simply haven’t been explored yet. And it will be the same way in most of the currently protected areas that might be opened up. Exploring in deep water takes time and is very expensive. Plus, the equipment necessary isn’t readily available.
  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/business/19drillship.htm?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1216119719-a0CmnaILFasndM/mlfbVSQ

  That leaves shallow water areas. And virtually all of those are close to shore. That means they would be under the jurisdiction of the local states — which they should be, because it is the local tourist, fishing, etc., industries that will be impacted most.

  And congressive, cam, and others are exactly right too — the amount of oil produced would have to be huge in order to have more than a minor impact on price, because oil is a fungible commodity traded on the world market. On the other hand, any amount extracted would reduce the amount we’d need to buy from foreign sources in direct proportion. It would thus reduce our trade imbalance, and it would provide domestic jobs.

  The long and the short of it is that any increase in drilling will take many years to come to market. And if the EIA is any authority (and they are, in fact the official authority), we don’t have enough anywhere (with the exception of tar sands deposits, which no one has figured out how to commercially expoit yet) to affect price more than a few cents — ever. So if we can’t enhance supply, what else can we do? Reduce demand. There are many ways to do that, but they also will take time. We could help domestic auto manufacturers, which are already hurting, to facilitate transition to more efficient models, plug-in hybrids, and electric vehicles. Congress could pass a reliable extention to the freakin’ ITC to facilitate deployment of wind and solar. That one thing would have a huge impact. They could help to set up a regulatory and approval process to further streamline deployment. Wind farms and solar thermal plants can be built in a couple of years, rather than a decade for a nuclear plant.

  The CAFE standards passed last year are expected to save 2 billion gallons of gasoline by 2016 all by themselves, and closer to 4 billion by 2020. Most of the major auto manufacturers are expecting to have plug-in hybrids by 2010 with all-electric ranges of 20-40 miles. That accounts for about 70% of all travel in the US. It would thus have a huge impact — and one that could happen well before any new oil well comes on line. The effects would also be permanent, whereas oil wells dry up.

• 29. CandL  |  July 15th, 2008 at 10:46 am

  “The liberals offer no alternatives. I say this because I include the awful restrictions on wind imposed by Teddy Kennedy.”

  You mean windmill restrictions imposed by Kennedy & Romney.

  Obama supports nuclear power but he states that it only part of the solution.

• 30. Tractatus  |  July 15th, 2008 at 11:16 am

  will Congress take the next step to lower gas prices?

  The “next” step implies that Bush has taken such a step, which he hasn’t, as Ricorun so nicely spells out in comment #28. But then again, you guys are easily placated by some unrealistic talking points. And Margolis simply doesn’t know any better.

• 31. Danish Artist  |  July 15th, 2008 at 12:15 pm

  Will Congress take the next step……?

  Actually, the question should be “Will Congress take ANY step to lower gas/oil prices?”.

  Meanwhile, still waiting for Pelosi/Reid “Common sense legislation for cheaper oil/gas” that was promised in 2006 for the election.

  All we have heard from the liberals is criticism of any non-liberal proposal as gimmicks, hoaxes, schemes, etc. etc.

  What have they offered? Distractions through Congressional hearings on price gouging, while they continue to coddle their special interests.

• 32. Kahn  |  July 15th, 2008 at 12:29 pm

  CandL - Romney does not write or vote on Federal legistlation - Kennedy does. And DID. He wrote the law restricting wind. NOT Romney.

  And Obama is for nuclear????? Why didn’t he vote for it?

  Obama is the Ted Baxter in this race.

• 33. Rana Quijotesca  |  July 15th, 2008 at 1:49 pm

  You guys realize that offshore drilling will only have an insignificant impact of oil prices, right? Even when the new derricks reach full production (not until 2030), it will only increase domestic production by a whopping 3%. It’s not like someone drills in the ocean and all of the sudden we are back to $2/gallon gas. Though it would have an effect (an insignificant one, as mentioned earlier), the real way to decrease prices is to lower demand by increasing CAFE standards and developing alternative fuels.

  Just so you know, unless you are talking about solar and wind powered cars, wind, solar, and other alternative energy sources are meant for power production, not vehicle fuel… and barely anyone burns oil for energy production in the US anymore (read–no effect on gas prices).

  here

• 34. CandL  |  July 15th, 2008 at 2:15 pm

  “And Obama is for nuclear????? Why didn’t he vote for it?”

  What vote are you speaking about?

• 35. HaroldHill  |  July 15th, 2008 at 3:53 pm

  Some times I have to just stop and say “thank you Blogs for Bus…er..Victory”.

  I get caught up in the fake left wing world and whenever I visit here, I get a good dose of reality.

  Kind of like President Bush’s statement on drilling today.

  “I readily concede it won’t produce a barrel of oil tomorrow, but it will reverse the psychology,”

  See when I visit here, the reality is that drilling won’t produce that much more, wait…here’s the kicker…the reality…it will reverse the psychology.

  I feel better already. The economy is fine, my 401K is OK, I don’t have to worry about oil, we’re winning the WOT.

  Skip toodle de doo. La, la, la.

  All is well in republican land.

• 36. Ricorun  |  July 15th, 2008 at 4:21 pm

  Danish Artist: Meanwhile, still waiting for Pelosi/Reid “Common sense legislation for cheaper oil/gas” that was promised in 2006 for the election.

  One could quibble about the “common sense” part, but the 2007 energy bill (the one that established new CAFE standards and a big expansion in the ethanol program) qualifies as legislation designed to reduce the price of oil/gas. With regard to ethanol, the recent price spikes and the floods in the midwest make it clear that grain-based ethanol is hugely problematic. But the whole idea is to develop alternative stocks (please Lord, make it soon). And the goal is to provide 36 billion gallons a year by 2022. Even considering that ethanol is only about 2/3 as energy-dense as gasoline, that’s a huge amount. It represents, per year, almost the equivalent of the EIA’s mid-level estimate of the total additional oil reserve in BOTH ANWR AND OCS. In fact, just the current 5 billion gallon/yr ethanol harvest is considerably larger than the per year contribution ANWR and OCS combined, assuming full, unfettered exploitation. Grain-based ethanol has all kinds of problems besides interfering with food production, but once you consider the numbers, I think you can appreciate what’s really at stake.

  Rana: Just so you know, unless you are talking about solar and wind powered cars, wind, solar, and other alternative energy sources are meant for power production, not vehicle fuel… and barely anyone burns oil for energy production in the US anymore (read–no effect on gas prices).

  That’s basically true. Oil accounts for a little more than 1% of electricity generation these days (we can thank the Arab oil embargo of the 70s for that). But oil is still heavily used for heating in much of the northeast. Apart from that though, as electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids become more popular, they will transfer the energy source from liquid fuels to the grid. So even though we’re talking mostly about transportation alternatives, it is important to consider how electricity is generated.

  Perhaps it’s time to get on my “wake up and smell the coffee” soapbox…

  Yes, global warming probably is an important problem. And if that were the only concern, it might be a sufficient reason all by itself to seriously consider low-carbon/non-carbon energy alternatives. But it’s not the only reason. It’s not even the biggest reason. The biggest reason is that we have an energy problem, and there are huge amounts of money in it. Worldwide, new investment in the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries totalled $148 billion in 2007. And that number is just going to get bigger. Alternative energy not only addresses national/energy security and balance of trade concerns, it more importantly represents investment, intellectual capital, and domestic employment opportunities that dwarf the rise of PC computers and information techologies combined. If we let this opportunity slide because of a narrow focus on dead-end fossil fuels (and the interests backing them), the “fossil” in fossil fuels will take on more than one, and more ominious connotations. It constantly surprises me that we’re even having this conversation. And it surprises me even more that I have to spend most of my time convincing conservatives of the obvious benefits. As I’ve already indicated, wind generation is going nuts. And the sad part is, we (the US) used to have a lock on that industry. We’ve lost 80% of the manufacturing market share in just the last 10 years or so. Now we have to buy most of our product from overseas. I find that unconscionable. But if we start now we can get some of that back. And the opportunities in other sectors (like solar thermal, solar PV, geothermal, maybe even waves) are even better.

  When it comes to emerging high tech, the whole notion that we should “leave it to the market” drives me crazy. It appears few people appreciate how much our (publicly funded) defense industry has shouldered the burden. Between the DoD and NASA the government been responsible for financing the advent of so many new technologies it’s impossible to mention them all. Rocketry (obviously). fuel cells, solar PV, insulation materials, high tech plastics, carbon composites, silicon wafers, integrated circuits, robotics, biometrics, the internet. Even the freakin’ interstate highway system was rationalized on national defense terms. Energy is much bigger than even that. Wake up and smell the coffee. Stop whining about the greenies and start following the money. If it’s any consolation, I’m pretty sure they’ll end up hating you for it. After all, some critter somewhere is likely to have a hard time. Boo-freakin’-hoo. I like critters as much as the next guy. But I also think a certain amount of perspective is required. By way of full disclosure, I find desert ground squirrels a pain the butt. Those little jerks. So if it comes to a choice between a few ground squirrels and the world’s coral reefs, I’m going with the coral reefs. Yeah, it’s a trade-off. Then again, most everything is.

• 37. phnx  |  July 15th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

  “You guys realize that offshore drilling will only have an insignificant impact of oil prices, right?” Rana

  Let’s see, President Bush lifts the Executive order banning offshore drilling and how does the market IMMEDIATELY respond?

  That’s right…the speculators bail, and prices are off by $10 falling to $138, the biggest single day fall in 17 years. Thank you President Bush. Now if the Congress will only get off its duff and pass a bill premitting drilling the price of a barrel will drop below $100. Without any action by congress it will soon be back again, as the speculators see that Congress has no spine.

  Beware leftists…the voters will remember this little lesson in economics in the fall.

• 38. Rich  |  July 15th, 2008 at 5:11 pm

  Phnx- Good point. Any libs care to make an excuse for oil dropping 8 dollars today? I mean, not a single extra barrel of oil was produced right? Lightweights the lot of you.

• 39. Harkey  |  July 15th, 2008 at 5:29 pm

  “That’s right…the speculators bail, and prices are off by $10 falling to $138, the biggest single day fall in 17 years.”

  So when can we expect prices at the pump to drop? Probably never….The market is one thing but by the time it gets to the consumer there will probably be NO drop in price. I betcha it goes right back up. Purely psychological.

  Thank you Bush for lifting your father’s ban.

• 40. js  |  July 15th, 2008 at 5:32 pm

  in the interest of national security…the president can command the congress to assemble to do its duty for the people….and that being…two things that are of interest to the nations security…one is lifting all bans against domestic oil production…and the second is…freezing all oil speculation that has been the cause of these crazy prices….

• 41. phnx  |  July 15th, 2008 at 7:16 pm

  “Today george declared war on the environment…” MS

  Once again a regurgitation of leftist talking points. You may be interested to know that less than 1% of the oil reaching the shores results from drilling. It turn out that the biggest polluter is…wait for it…

  Mother nature!!!

  http://youtube.com/watch?v=66eiJhh_SE4

  That’s right folks, according to a recently released government report, 63% of the oil reaching shorelines comes from Ma Nature. She must be an eeevil Republican.

  Confronted with this fact, what’s your next piece of BS MS?

• 42. phnx  |  July 15th, 2008 at 7:25 pm

  “How does drilling for oil prevent the development and use of alternative sources of energy?

  …I see that none of you brilliant leftists has chosen to answer, not that I’m surprised. You have no answers, just talking points.

• 43. phnx  |  July 15th, 2008 at 7:32 pm

  The matra that we constatnly hear from you leftists is that drilling won’t produce any IMMEDIATE relief to our energy crisis.

  Can any of you geniuses tell us what alternative energy plan or source will have an IMMEDIATE impact to increase our energy supply???

• 44. Danish Artist  |  July 15th, 2008 at 8:22 pm

  Rico…

  The “common sense” is a direct description offered by Pelosi or Reid.

  Obviously, common sense does not include increased cafe standards, ethanol, etc. etc. Those are long term solutions and would not have a short term effect on gasoline.

  So, they have not proposed any legislation that can lower the price of oil and gas in the short term, which is what they promised in 2006.

  Therefore, the question still stands. Will Congress, under liberal leadership, take ANY steps to lower gasoline/oil prices?

  Another question, why did oil prices drop to $138 today? Did I miss Congress acting to lower prices? Or, was it because President Bush recinded an executive order that banned drilling and give a little confidence to speculators and oil futures?

  That is a large part in the price of oil - confidence in supplies - increased supplies leads to increased confidence which has a positive effect on price. Last week we say a negative effect, lower confidence because of Iran’s missile test, which fortunately turned out to be a hoax.

• 45. neocon  |  July 15th, 2008 at 9:09 pm

  “In a dramatic move yesterday President Bush removed the executive-branch moratorium on offshore drilling. Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136.

  Now isn’t this interesting?

  Democrats keep saying that it will take 10 years or longer to produce oil from the offshore areas. And they say that oil prices won’t decline for at least that long. And they, along with Obama and McCain, bash so-called oil speculators. And today we had a real-world example as to why they are wrong. All of them. Reid, Pelosi, Obama, McCain — all of them.”

  http://kudlow.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjMyNDljNTQ5MThjNWE3YTAzYWYzMmZmNDVmMjA0ZWY=

  No other commentary needed.
  neocon

• 46. phnx  |  July 15th, 2008 at 9:59 pm

  Leftist response:

  *********crickets***********

• 47. Ricorun  |  July 15th, 2008 at 10:22 pm

  Danish Artist: Obviously, common sense does not include increased cafe standards, ethanol, etc. etc. Those are long term solutions and would not have a short term effect on gasoline.

  Oh goodness. Ya know, we keep hearing how Republicans are supposed to be the party of facts, reason, and common sense. And you come up with that comment? Goodness. I already gave you the numbers. How could they not have an effect on gasoline? Both in the short term and the long term. 5 billion gallons/yr now (which would have disappeared without the bill) with the goal of ramping up to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022. To be sure, unless second generation sources come on line soon (and they’re still the proverbial “2-3 years away”), that goal is unrealistic. However, the current 5 billion gallons/yr is reasonably guaranteed. And regardless of what else could be said about it, where else are you going to find 5 billion gallons/yr of transportation fuel RIGHT NOW? Or ever, for that matter.

  Another question, why did oil prices drop to $138 today?

  Let’s see where things stand next week. Actually, even a 1 week average is not indicative of much either. How about next month?

  Also, if you believe that Bush’s decision to lift the executive order on the moratorium, which has no effect at all unless congress similarly acts, which (if they do) will have little effect unless individual states decide to open up the choicest spots, which (if they do) will have essentially no effect for the better part of a decade, which (if all that happens) might yield as much as an additional 1 million bbls/day sometime after 2020… considering all that, why would you think the CAFE standards (which are estimated to decrease demand by about 5.5 million gal/day by 2016) wouldn’t have a bigger effect on oil prices?

  Am I speaking Greek or something? There may be a little math involved, but it’s not exactly hard. In fact it seems to me the least to be expected from an informed electorate.

• 48. Ricorun  |  July 15th, 2008 at 10:38 pm

  O…M…G… after all the dressing down I just did, I realized a glaring error in my own calculations. I wonder who will be the first notice what it is.

• 49. js  |  July 15th, 2008 at 10:51 pm

  its all error…in fact…you are no better than the scumbag speculators that drove the price up to start with…!

• 50. Danish Artist  |  July 16th, 2008 at 6:36 am

  Rico,

  The new CAFE standards for NEW cars requires two things….. consumers to buy them after they have been implemented by the automakers. When are they supposed to happen? At what rate are the consumers supposed to purchase them to achieve these figures?

  5 billion gallons/yr savings? That’s ~13.8 millions gallons/day - increased supply would lower gasoline prices…. when is this PROJECTED savings supposed to take place? Now? That would be a noticeable difference and the market would reflect that, but I don’t see it happening. Refineries are still at capacity.

  5.5 million/day by 2016? PROJECTED EIGHT years from now - but this conflicts with the figure above. Are you confused as to the PROJECTED savings?

  Define “short term” in your predictions.

  Better part of a decade with new drilling? Both plans seems to have a longer lead time. So how can you say that the law is short term?

• 51. Ricorun  |  July 16th, 2008 at 9:49 am

  Danish Artist: That’s ~13.8 millions gallons/day - increased supply would lower gasoline prices…. when is this PROJECTED savings supposed to take place?

  It already exists. The 2007 energy bill preserved it, with the intent to expand it in the future. Without the bill that source would have disappeared. That’s the point.

  The mistake I made was to equate gallons in one context with barrels in another. So the part where I compared the yearly yield of the ethanol program with the entire yield from ANWR and OCS was incorrect.

  The new CAFE standards for NEW cars requires two things….. consumers to buy them after they have been implemented by the automakers. When are they supposed to happen? At what rate are the consumers supposed to purchase them to achieve these figures?

  You are quite right about the sequence. As to when it will start having an effect, I’d say sometime after 2010. That’s when several manufacturers expect to have plug-in hybrids available.

  But the interesting part is this: despite all the opposition associated with getting it passed, the CAFE law is likely to do nothing more than ensure the likely market response to the now extant conditions (namely, high gas prices). In other words, people are already rejecting gas guzzlers in favor of high-mileage vehicles not because of CAFE, but because they can’t afford the gas. And that’s causing the manufacturers to scramble a lot faster than they would have in response to CAFE.

• 52. Plantation Owner  |  July 16th, 2008 at 12:28 pm

  We are saving ~13.8 million gallons of gas per day right now? Because of the new CAFE standards? Is that what you are saying? If not, what is responsible for those savings? If the energy bill did not preserve them, would the gasoline savings have dissappeared in such a short time?

  You are very confusing and I think you claiming something that is yet to be realized, just like the Clinton surpluses.

  5 billion gallon/year ethanol harvest??

  My understanding of ethano is that is take 500lbs of corn to make approximately 25 gallons of ethanol. So our yearly corn harvest is 100 billion pounds just for ethanol. I also read that 30% of our corn is for food stocks, so 70% is used for ethanol? So we harvest, ~140 billion pounds of corn/year?

  So you are also saying that the increase in food prices related to corn (less land available for others in favor of profitable corn), increased feed prices, etc etc. is favorable to higher gasoline prices?

  I think your numbers are confused as is your reasoning as to just how short term the energy bill really is.

• 53. Ryan  |  July 16th, 2008 at 12:50 pm

  YOu know, its a very clever little faux argument to say “Well, it won’t produce results for ten years, so there’s no point’ - and to have been saying that for more than ten years.

  Moreover: Will “spending money to develop alternate fuels’ have an IMMEDIATE impact? Nope. Gues we shouldn’t do it, right?

  Ricorun. .you are full of it. COmpletely. YOu somehow seem to think that you can wave a magic wand and eliminate the basic market forces of supply and demand and replace it with liberal environmentalist magic logic.

• 54. Ricorun  |  July 16th, 2008 at 2:44 pm

  Plantation Owner: We are saving ~13.8 million gallons of gas per day right now? Because of the new CAFE standards? Is that what you are saying?

  No. The ethanol program and CAFE are two completely different things. One has an effect on the supply side, the other on demand. They just happen to be included in the same bill.

  Just so you know, my support for the ethanol program is exceedingly tenuous, and predicated only on the assumption (hope) that there will soon be a transition to non grain-based stocks that can be accommodated by the existing infrastructure the program developed. The size of the effect of the ethanol program on food prices is debatable, and although most of those who have analyzed it indicate that the effect is not large, any effect is undesirable. That effect is also just one problem with using grains to produce the stuff. So if the intent were to stay with grain stocks forever, there would be very little reason to perpetuate it. But again, the idea behind it is to develop the infrastructure and technologies to facilitate the transition to other stocks. If you pull the plug on the ethanol program you pull the plug on that, too. It’s a hard question.

  But let me back up here. The reason I brought the 2007 energy bill in the first place was in response to the comment, “Meanwhile, still waiting for Pelosi/Reid “Common sense legislation for cheaper oil/gas” that was promised in 2006 for the election.” The 2007 energy bill was it. And like I said, one could quibble with it. Anyway, the fact remains that ethanol does currently contribute about 5 billion gallons of fuel per year. Right now. You take that away, something has to take its place. Right now. And opening up ANWR and the OCS won’t do that. Not right now. That’s the take-home message.

  The CAFE standard is a different issue. It affects demand reduction in the future — though not quite as distant in the future as the effect that opening up ANWR and the OCS would have. In other words, CAFE will start having an effect on demand reduction before any new drilling would have an effect on supply enhancement. And by the way, I am FOR more drilling, assuming it is done responsibly and accommodates the other industries in the areas affected. I have said so numerous times. And as I mentioned in a previous comment on this thread, it would reduce our trade imbalance, and it would provide domestic jobs. It’s just not going to affect prices very much.

  I also tried to compare the magnitude of the effect CAFE would have relative to the magnitude of the effect drilling would have in terms of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. The fact is, according to the most optimistic EIA estimates, opening up every area that is currently restricted is likely to improve domestic oil supply by about 1 million gallons/day at maximum output sometime around 2020 or so. CAFE is likely to reduce oil demand by about 5.5 million gallons/day by 2016, and by about 9 million gallons/day by 2020. This is not an either/or question. We can do both. But if you did have to choose one or the other, which would you choose?

  I’d go with CAFE myself. In fact, though he didn’t vote on the 2007 energy bill he supported CAFE prior to that supports it now. According to his web site, the only change he’d make is to increase the fines for non-compliance.

  Finally, in my last comment (#51) I mentioned that now that gas prices are high, the CAFE requirements are incidental to extant market forces. Market forces alone are causing the auto manufacturers to eliminate certain models, re-tool their assembly lines, and so forth. It’s a heavy burden for them. Perhaps one could argue that they should have seen it coming. But the fact is they didn’t, for whatever reason (except for GM — they started working on the Volt a while ago). And because they didn’t I think it’s fair to ask why. It always seems like foreign companies, particularly the Asian ones (Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Kia, Hyundai), manage to land on their feet.

  Ryan: YOu somehow seem to think that you can wave a magic wand and eliminate the basic market forces of supply and demand and replace it with liberal environmentalist magic logic.

  An interesting turn of phrase that. You must have listened to Bush’s presser this morning. The fact is though, I’m not invoking any magic of any sort. There’s more magic in statements like, “Any libs care to make an excuse for oil dropping 8 dollars today? I mean, not a single extra barrel of oil was produced right? Lightweights the lot of you.” The assumption inherent in that comment is that high oil prices are sustained by “magic”, or “fear”, or “psychology”, or something of that ilk. Interestingly though, Bush himself indicated he doesn’t have such a magic wand. I think he’s right. For the record, here’s the Wall Street Journal’s take on it:

  http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/07/16/oil-slick-why-are-crude-prices-falling/

• 55. Ricorun  |  July 16th, 2008 at 2:51 pm

  errata: in my comment #54 I said, “In fact, though he didn’t vote on the 2007 energy bill he supported CAFE prior to that supports it now. without identifying how the “he” is. It’s John McCain. Sorry about that.

• 56. Ricorun  |  July 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

  errata #2: Apparently I’m having a Czechoslovakia moment. Sheesh…

  In #54 I AGAIN said “gallons” when I meant “barrels”. I said, “The fact is, according to the most optimistic EIA estimates, opening up every area that is currently restricted is likely to improve domestic oil supply by about 1 million gallons/day at maximum output sometime around 2020 or so. CAFE is likely to reduce oil demand by about 5.5 million gallons/day by 2016, and by about 9 million gallons/day by 2020.”

  Good grief! Anyway, just replace every instance of the word “gallon” in the above with “barrel”. Then it reads accurately.

• 57. Plantation Owner  |  July 16th, 2008 at 3:31 pm

  Rico,

  My question still stands ~13.8 million gallon/day in gasoline saving is due to what? Ethanol?

  IF so:

  5 billion gallon/year ethanol harvest??

  My understanding of ethano is that is take 500lbs of corn to make approximately 25 gallons of ethanol. So our yearly corn harvest is 100 billion pounds just for ethanol. I also read that 30% of our corn is for food stocks, so 70% is used for ethanol? So we harvest, ~140 billion pounds of corn/year?

• 58. Ricorun  |  July 16th, 2008 at 4:41 pm

  Plantation Owner: My question still stands ~13.8 million gallon/day in gasoline saving is due to what? Ethanol?

  Yes.

  5 billion gallon/year ethanol harvest??

  Yes.

  My understanding of ethanol is that is take 500lbs of corn to make approximately 25 gallons of ethanol. So our yearly corn harvest is 100 billion pounds just for ethanol. I also read that 30% of our corn is for food stocks, so 70% is used for ethanol? So we harvest, ~140 billion pounds of corn/year?

  While I think you have your percentages reversed (i.e., I think 30% of our corn is for ethanol, 70% for food) I haven’t gone so deep as to figure out the relationship between pounds of corn and gallons of ethanol. I don’t even think it matters. Gallons ethanol per hectare yes, gallons ethanol per gallon water used yes, gallons ethanol per gallon transportation fuel expended to plow, grow, harvest, and transport the stuff yes, gallons ethanol per cubic meter of fertilizer and pesticides yes — all that stuff is more relevant than gallons/pound — and not very favorable towards grain based ethanol. That’s the down side. And it’s a significant down side by any measure. No question about it.

  On the other hand, if the distilleries that now exist to process grain-based ethanol can eventually be used to process switchgrass, papermill waste, landscape waste, and/or organic waste (garbage, old tires, etc.), the equation changes significantly, don’t you think? It’d be really nice to recoup something useful out of things previously considered waste, don’t you think?

  I’d say so. But the next question is… how likely is it? That’s a MUCH more difficult question. At present there are a number of companies that have completed the “proof of concept” phase and are engaged in building pilot plants and/or limited commercial scale plants. I’m guessing that some of them will be successful, but I’m also getting impatient. After a while you start getting tired of hearing about the typical “2-3 years away” projection without actually seeing something productive. But when quite a few alternatives appear to be right on the cusp of actually coming through, it becomes a very hard decision.

  I wish I had all the answers, but I don’t. I’m sure of very few things. But one thing I’m sure of is there is a HUGE amount of money in alternative energy that will only continue to grow in the foreseeable future. To my mind, that alone is enough to pursue it aggressively. Granted, how that can be accomplished most efficiently is open to question. But that’s the level of discussion that needs to be had, IMO.

• 59. js  |  July 16th, 2008 at 5:09 pm

  they are driving the cost of corn up because of ehtanol…way up…matter of fact…the cost of feed for meat increased the cost of chicken threefold…and the cost of beef has almost doubled…but get this…

  ethanol increases the amount of oxygen in the exhaust…have you noticed? it causes a vehicles emissions system to lean out the fuel/air ratio…and the drop in mileage is 20-25%…AND…increased carbon in the exhaust…so..corn…and ethanol as a general concept is like putting the cart in front of the horse….because you use more gas by mixing it with ethanol than by just using gas alone….

  funny how that rush to a cure works…the automotive industry knows full well how ethanol affects emissions systems….and didnt mention it to congress one time when they debated the eficacy of ethanol….now…32 years ago…it was no problem…most vehicles were carburated…no mass air flow sensor…no manifold air pressure sensor…nor oxygen sensors…and you could adjust the carburator to maximize the air flow…

  but corn….all this is doing is causing undue hardship on the economy by increasing food costs because corn…just became more valuable…not because it helps anything…but so someone could make a buck…a con job….a basic lie and we all fell for it…

• 60. Ricorun  |  July 16th, 2008 at 5:45 pm

  js: they are driving the cost of corn up because of ehtanol…way up…matter of fact…the cost of feed for meat increased the cost of chicken threefold…and the cost of beef has almost doubled…but get this…

  I think (inadvertently maybe) you have hit upon one of the other reasons why corn (and related grain) prices have spiked up — more people in the world want to eat meat.

  With regard to your comments about leaning out the fuel/air ratio, all I can say is that perhaps you need to look more closely at the properties of different ethanol/gasoline blends. What you say about ethanol reducing mileage by 20-25% is accurate when too much of it is added to the fuel mixture. But it is also true that when added in a percentage of 1-2% it does enhance the amount of oxygen (and hydrogen) available to more completely combust the gasoline in the mixture. Ethanol has lower energy density than gasoline, but higher octane. The difference is key, i.e., important when considering the trade-offs inherent in different blends.

  But as far as I know the rest of what you said is largely BS. But I invite you to convince me otherwise.

• 61. Danish Artist  |  July 16th, 2008 at 8:15 pm

  As I see it, Ethanol has more negative effects than positive ones. All the more reason the “Common Sense” energy bill was somewhat of a washout.

  Presently, we need to return to oil/natural gas and at the same time use alternatives as a substitute until the technology increases efficiency. We do not have the capability in technology and infrastructure to replace oil/gasoline as the liberals and special interests desire.

• 62. Charles Hill  |  September 12th, 2008 at 1:42 pm

  John McCain to support drilling in ANWR, biggest news from Palin/Gipson interview.

  http://strategicthought-charles77.blogspot.com/2008/09/john-mccain-to-support-drilling-in-anwr.html

• 63. Pirate Ship Models&hellip  |  September 14th, 2008 at 6:36 am

  Pirate Ship Models

  I have been searching for sites have content related to radio control racing hobbies to tell them about the Engine Analysis Software for tuning all Nitro RC Engines.

• 64. How To Run A Car On Water&hellip  |  September 28th, 2008 at 6:03 am

  How To Run A Car On Water

  It seems that we share similar thoughts.