Why Democrats don't want to lower gas prices: Senator lets cat out of the bag on Bloomberg TV show. 10:22 pm Eastern July 22, 2008

The Republicans are complaining that their intitiatives are not being treated fairly. Republicans have effectively controlled Congress since the mid-90's until the last election, controlled the Executive and Legislative from 2003-2007, and have not done anything regarding a sensible energy policy in all that time. Now Republicans are trying to claim victim status?

Oh, it's worse than that. Soaring oil prices can be tied directly to the Enron loophole, which Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) slipped into a bill in 2000. This loophole, which exempts speculation and futures trading on electronic platforms from SEC and CFTC regulation, led directly to the completely artificial "energy crisis" in California in 2001. You remember that little old thing...the brownouts that ultimately led to the recall of Governor Gray Davis?

The Enron loophole was used in 2006, in fact, by Amaranth Advisers to try to corner the national gas market by shifting trades to the unregulated "dark markets" of the Intercontinental Exchange (Amaranth blew it and collapsed, losing $6 billion in the process).

Oil supply has not suddenly decreased in the last eight years. Oil demand has not abruptly increased. This loophole has allowed oil prices to soar over the last eight years while oil companies report record profits...but it has absolutely nothing to do with the economy of oil itself. It's because of futures trading.

An amendment attached to the farm bill passed earlier this year would close the Enron loophole and require more regulation and oversight to futures trading. However, President Bush has threatened to veto the farm bill, and Senator McCain -- whose close friend and economic advisor is (go on, you know where this is going) a certain Senator Phil Gramm -- has also spoken out strongly against the farm bill.

So...the Republicans are victims of what, again?

As opposed to the ludicrous and nonsensical rightist spin?

What remarkably ludicrous and nonsensical leftist spin.

What is exactly ludicrous about it? What exactly is non-sensical or leftist?

Your comment is the one that doesnt make any sense.

Sher: our petrolium dependence is beyond gasoline. Petrolium is used in the making of everyday products; asphalt, vaseline, lubricants, wax, some plastics, etc. If drilling would lower the price of gasoline it would lower the price of everything I buy (don't forget about shipping costs and the price of the plastic container). While we look for alternatives, we need to do something for a short term solution.

story is democrats want us to invest in our energy future, and move away from petroleum."

That works for me..

Your response shows that you fail to understand the situation that this country is in. It's because of our dependency on oil why the prices are so high (The US, China, India, etc.) We are shifting our wealth to the middle eastern countries and Venezuela, and you are still on the let's-use-more-oil bandwagon.
This country needs to wean itself off this dependency, but that won't happen unless the American people demand it. High gas prices hurt and if that is what will cause the shift, then the sooner the better. (Remember the joke about the dog on the porch that kept howling. When a curious passerby asked the owner why the dog was howling, the owner replied that the dog was lying on a nail. When asked why the dog didn't just move off the nail, the owner replied "I guess it just don't hurt enough!")
That's how America is with it oil dependency.

Wide spread use of alternative energy resources is 10-25 years in the future according to experts.

According to which experts? T. Boone Pickens, one of the world's experts in oil production, is investing $10 billion of his own money into wind power. Now. That doesn't sound like a 10-year solution.

In ten years we could have easily half of our current economy weaned off oil - stretching out reserves, lowering pressure on the world economy and creating enormous prosperity for everyone. Instead, the oil lobby fear-mongers want to keep the status quo going for as long as possible. We could have started this in earnest 40 years ago when Jimmy Carter was pointing us in the right direction but instead it was more convenient for Republicans to shake the American public's faith in the government being able to lead us towards aggressive elimination of our dependency on oil.

I am remembering just a couple of years ago that Ford Motor Company said that it could raise the effiency of their Ranger and Explorer vehicles by 5 miles a gallon, but it would cost $500-$1000 per vehicle and it would affect there profits because gas was cheap and the were selling SUVs as fast as they could make them and nobody would want to pay more for the option and they weren't going to put it in if it was going to effect their bottom line. Well times are now different, they can sell them and their bottom line is in the tank. If this is true, how about a short term fix to high gas prices of retrofitting existing vehicles, add it to current models, leave gas prices higher so it is easier for alternative fuels to compete. As the next generations of vehicles are designed, technology will help wean our dependance on oil. Everyone needs to think outside the box. If the gas prices just fall there goes R&D again like it did in the 80's. If I could have my vehicle retrofitted to increase miles by 5 mile a gallon, I'd buy it.

It wasn't even presented out of context -- the person who wrote the article just heard what they wanted to hear and summarized down to "no" when in fact the Senator said "making sure that we have good home domestic supply". In short, that's a qualified "yes" -- yes, we're going to partly lift the ban on offshore drilling, but that bill is going to contain boatloads of money dedicated to the alternative technologies that will get us beyond petroleum.

Ben

I would actually agree with that, and would go farther and have the royalties from the new oil go directly into an alternative energy fund to incentivise new technologies. No problem whatsoever.

We don't have ANY oil here ready to be produced. Even the Prez says so. I hate that it costs me $60 to fill my tank with 87 octane. But hopefully it will make people realize that we HAVE to get off of oil. The technology has been there for decades, the funds haven't. Now we're in a spot we didn't have to be in, where if there had been funding for research...not even research at this point...implementing the technology that's been there we'd be ok. But too many people that are high up in our government have too much $$$$$ at stake with oil. Screw the American people, grease up our own wallets. Lovely. And the heading for this article makes it sound like Democrats are to blame for gas prices. I just saw a McCain ad that made me shake my head. This ad I saw basically blames Obama for gas prices. Boy, for someone without any experience or tenure in the Senate that sure is an impressive feat.

jdl-28

It is ok to look for other mean to run our cars on but that is many years away

What's your time frame for "many years"?

We have electric cars that are being readied for the US market in 2010 (Chevy Volt)

Tata Motors has an air powered car that's being introduced in India (it's cheap too). Why not bring it over here?

These are modes of transport not requiring gasoline (oil) that are possible now or in the near future.

It seems to me that the American mentality that a car has to run on gasoline in order to function properly is the real hurdle. And, as innovative and not-bound-by-history as the US is, I don't see why something that is better wouldn't take off if the public were given an honest chance at embracing it.

charnello:

Part of the problem is lack of associated infrastructure. There are gas stations all over the country for gasoline powered cars. When did you last see a station to stop and plug an electric car in to recharge? Americans want a solution that is going to be able to perform in the same manner as their existing cars. They want to be able to pick up and drive from Virginia to Minnesota if the mood takes them, and be able to find additional fuel along the way without having to inconvenience themselves. Even those who only use their cars for short commutes want some way to recharge/refuel it that will work for the average person. Many people in cities do not have their own garages, much less access to an outdoor power outlet. An electric car for them would need either stations to quickly recharge at in a similar manner to present gas stations, or else some means of quickly popping the battery out of the car, taking it into their homes or places of business with them, and charging it inside, then quickly popping it back into the car when they're ready to drive again.

Headline is bogus and misleading. It doesn't represent the article properly.

You could make this statement all over the vine everyday. I suspect there is enough for it to be a full time job.

:)

Point taken.

Old white ivy leaguers with their muskets and estates.

It's like we need to leave and start another 13 colonies somewhere else.

I want to own land!

JoulesBeef,

Your statement [aside from the gross misspellings, misuse of words, redundancy, spacing problems, misunderstanding of the concepts set forth in the Constitution, and lack of support for any of your claims] is very astute.

The only reason the technology is unaffordable right now is because this and several previous administrations make it so. Solar panels are ridiculously expensive......why? They've been around for decades. Why would the technology of something decades old still be too expensive? When you take into consideration the techological advances of computers, and how the price comes DOWN over time....doesn't that make you wonder? Do you know how hard it is to have something like wind turbines or even solar panels installed so you can cut ties with the local power company is? It takes an act of Congress to get it done.

Correct, and with the current 9% approval rating of Congress, we'll get no such help anytime soon. A friend of mine has a solar panel and gets so much power from it, she subleases power to her neighbor and the power company. Why isn't this priced low enough for everyone to afford? Why are electric water heaters so expensive? Why is recycling made so hard to afford or find a depository? Why is healthy food more expensive than snack food? I'm sure gov't control has nothing to do with it, does it? Can we fire the Congress today? If we had a 9% productive rate at work, what would happen to us?

Annoyed,

"Solar panels are ridiculously expensive......why? They've been around for decades. Why would the technology of something decades old still be too expensive? When you take into consideration the techological advances of computers, and how the price comes DOWN over time....doesn't that make you wonder? Do you know how hard it is to have something like wind turbines or even solar panels installed so you can cut ties with the local power company is?"

Very well said. Alternative sources are a threat to the existing revenue infrastructure so they are strangled in the R&D pipeline through lack of funding and or, assigning the projects with low priority, etc. It doesn't matter though, other countries are picking up the ball and well on the way to development and implementation of these new systems. Someone up the thread there said "Dems are evil", it's not just them but the conservatives, too. We find ourselves in this situation as s a logical consequence of lobbying by corporations with enormous amounts of money; their interests are not the interests of the people, ever.

Another completely ignorant (in the context of uninformed) statement.

Purifying silicon is an energy and capital intensive process. Bare virgin silicon right now is selling for about $300 per kg on long term contract and over $400 per kg in the spot market (I sometimes buy and sell silicon). Right now most solar cell manufacturers are just breaking even as the price of panels is at about $3.80 per watt just for the panel and over $7.00 per watt installed with the inverter and mounting hardware and safety equipment.

Silicon solar panels cost over $100 dollars per watt in 1980 and through the growth of the semiconductor industry silicon prices and the automated manufacturing of panels and cells has brought the price down to about 3.8% of that number.

To state that there is some type of conspiracy concerning the pricing of solar panels is simply ignorant.

Simply stating the fact that everything we need is way over-priced, the things that are harmful to us, seem to be terrible cheap. How would one keep their population overweight? They would make whoppers 5 for $4, how would one make their population dumb? They would make getting tuition loans nearly impossible. How would one make their population dependant on them? They would raise factories' taxes until they move out of country. Leaving workers unemployed. Just like tobacco and alcohol. We know it kills us, or will eventually, yet it is still legal. No, no conspiracies here, just plain 'ol good decisions makin', right?

All policies undertaken by your namesake and followed with hearty relish by the party he was tied to.

So what are you trying to say: That the Repblican Leadership is out to destroy the US. DUH!

Also, let's remember that the reason this oil would go out to the spot market was because a Republican Congress chose to vote against a measure which would have kept US drilled oil in the US.

Exactly - with this glorious free market of ours, how much of this oil do you think is actually going to end up in America? It'll go to whoever wants it more, perhaps the Far East?

how much of this oil do you think is actually going to end up in America?

You assume that is a bad thing.

There are other factors involved, profit, control, freedom, etc. Why should the middle east earn all the money from oil?

The money made would surely shore up the American economy in many ways...profits, jobs, confidence, lack of dependence...to name a few.

It might help to take an economics 101 course.

The sky is falling! Bush didn't make me richer on $1200.00. My 401k is almost dead because of the stock market, so I don't have the money to get that engineering degree to help me "reinvent the wheel". Does the $500 million dollar grant, posed by the gov't, for the first "dream battery" invented count? I'm sure people are out there inventing and think-tanking about this, but until then, we are still paying $4.00+/gallon at the pump. I agree, the free market will save us.....eventually, but what's the solution for next year? Did you read the Energy Bill that Bush signed in 2002? Every attempt to place solar panels or wind turbines along the coasts was shot down by congress. Or oil platforms, 60 miles from the coast, might ruin the people on the beaches views. Do you know what a oil rig looks like 60 miles away? Nothing, you can't see it.
Congress just needs to stop blocking progress........all progress.

2002= Republican Controll of Congress

My bad, HR6 in 2007, not 2002. Since then, the Democratic-controlled Congress has blocked all tax credits for citizens/companies who install solar panels. Also, in 2006
congress block the creation of 100+ wind turbine farm in Cape Cod. Yes, they're blocking all progress, before and after HR6. They also tried to pass a bill that would raise taxes on all oil companies, Bush vetoed this because who would be stuck paying the taxes increase, not the oil companies who explore, drill, refine, ship and provide a product we need and who are already paying way too much in taxes, but us at the pump.

HERE HERE!!

Thank you for pointing that out.
America, if it continues down this road of a highly devalued dollar will become a third world nation. One only needs to take a look at the many nations that kept borrowing money and devaluing their currency to see where we are headed. Check many Caribbean nations (Jamaica is a good example), and African and Asian countries.

Why, when every other country has it's value protected by gold, did the US leave the gold standard? I've always wondered. I watched a program on Discovery channel about the federal reserve and the chairman said that the value of the dollar is "based on the faith in America"......huh? Hold your faith in our gov't in one hand and a 20lb gold brick in another...which one makes more sense? What kind of idiots are banking our country?

Neo-con facists who are trying to establish a New World Order....
duh

Shane, wow, more bumper-sticker slogans....suprised, really. If you want to have an adult conversation, try using big-boy words to state your opinion. And, get over the monsters under your bed, please.

You asked a question
I answered.
You didn't deny that neocon facists are trying to establish a New world Order...just like they tried to do with the Nazis...except without the blatant genocide.

Looks like the democrats don't want to pay any state or federal taxes for gas for their convention. They are getting their tax holiday, where is ours?

http://wingod.newsvine.com/_news/2008/07/23/1689494-dnc-hosts-tax-free-gas?threadId=318256&cmt=2261115#c2261115

And the funny fact about ANWR is that Carter set it aside for future exploration. Yes, even the peanut farmer's kid had a little bit of common sense. That's the only credit I'll give him though.

What about putting solar panels on the White House roof?

What about creating the Department of Energy?

What about establishing federal funding for alternative energy in 1979?

Seems to me he did a lil more than you want to give him credit for on this front!

Did anyone see last Sunday's Meet the Press with "chicken little" Gore? He didn't have an excuse when Brokaw asked him about his multiple 20,000 sf houses being "Green". What a surprise! I think Gore has completely lost it. When will he understand the standard heating/cooling process a star/planet goes through? Do you really think that man, after a couple hundred years of tracking weather, knows anything about a billion+ year old planet?
"They sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

Again...instead of acknowledging Carter's other energy accomplishments...you ignore me, change the subject, then start bashing Al Gore.

Please list in order of importance, Carter's accomplishments in the energy area.

See post above...already mentioned it.

The one thing I would add is a recommendation for you to read his "malaise speech." Lays out all of our problems right there....

Too bad Reagan..who you obviously worship like he was the second coming.....dismantled everything Carter attempted to accomplish in this area.

And by the way....Reagan was a puppet, just like George W.....except most people didn't know it then.

None of those things have contributed materially to energy independence or even started to in the 70's. Jimmy Carter was a 100% failure.

None of those things have contributed materially to energy independence or even started to in the 70's. Jimmy Carter was a 100% failure.

Wow.. that's a pretty stupid comment. Do you know why they never contributed to anything? Because Reagan, instead of continuing these policies, decided to double down on oil. As mentioned above by Shane. But apparently neo con trolls like yourself are unable to read, or reason.. or both.

Wow.. that's a pretty stupid comment. Do you know why they never contributed to anything? Because Reagan, instead of continuing these policies, decided to double down on oil.

Uh oil went to $10 per barrel, partly engineered by Ronnie and the Saudi's to bankrupt the Soviet Union and as a benefit help the American people with gas prices. Solar was way too expensive then ($100 per watt vs $7 now) and wind was ok but no really big systems.

I will take defeating the Soviet's any day over Carter's maliase and whining about the Russians.

What about putting solar panels on the White House roof? AT TAXPAYER's EXPENSE.

What about creating the Department of Energy? A HUGE TAX HIKE, LARGER GOV'T

What about establishing federal funding for alternative energy in 1979? YET ANOTHER TAX HIKE

Wow, you Lib's really love to pay taxes, huh? If we pay 80% of our earnings
in taxes, we should all drive flying cars, right?
I really don't think that installing a solar panel on the White House roof
did anything for energy independence

Hey I'm a lib all alright

I libertarian.....

So lets cut taxes like Reagan....you know to destroy the welfare state.

Then lets fund the military so we can dominate and take over the world.

Then we can make the rich richer by destroying corporate accountability laws.

Then oh then...you'll love this one.....stage a mock impeachment for a BLOWJOB so the people of the United States can forget about it as an option for when the President really DOES do something illegal.

Personally, I could care less about the outcome to this election. I will be on my mountain top on my self sustainable farm, getting clean renewable solar and wind energy, while the world descends into chaos. Who will be laughing while you're arguing why Jimmy Carter, an honorable man and flawed president, raised your taxes to fund alternative energy.

F*(&K you

Great ideas Shane,

The welfare system has only breaded dependence on the govt.

Peace through strength, if America is unarmed, it'll be taken over.

The top 25% of wage earners pay 80% of the Federal Income Tax, this is our appreciation for successful people in our country.

And there is a moral clause the President has to sign, Slick Willie broke it, so he
was removed. Unless the sanctity of marriage means nothing to you. Probably not.

Do you have room on your "mountaintop farm" for a few of your loony friends?
We won't miss any of you. Just make sure to stock-up on Kool-Aid!

Also, you might need a stick of Orbitz gum for your "dirty mouth".

And there is a moral clause the President has to sign, Slick Willie broke it, so he was removed. Unless the sanctity of marriage means nothing to you. Probably not.

Maybe your comment would have credibility if not for the above paragraph.

George W. Bush had 35+1 articles of impeachment read against him last month. Let's not talk about Slick Willie.

WheresReasgan,

Oh let's pull out the old the top 25% pay 80% of the taxes bull@!$%#, why don't we. Do you guys ever get tired of being such tools?

How to simplify for the intellectually deficient: They pay more because they make more. 10% of 100,000 is greater than 10% of 10,000, but they are both still 10%.

As to the rest of your silliness: since when did we become veal cutlets?

Peace through strength is my line.

And when was Slick Willy removed? Perhaps you can point out a day (like election day, 2000?).

And now that we've gottn that out of the way, can we return to the discussion at hand, which has to do with oil and our policies toward it. Or is that too much to ask of the mentally enfeebled.

The rich get richer because of good investment decisions. The poor get poorer because of getting further into debt and making no attempt to getting debt-free. The rich get the concept but the poor don't seem to. It's not because of "Bush/Cheaney", you can see below how the
taxes have dropped for the poorer. Numbers don't lie, you may want to research it before crying about how much you make.

IRS data shows that in 2004, the richest 50% of the taxpayers paid 96.7% of all income taxes. From 1986 to 2004, the share paid by the richest half increased from 93.5% to 96.7%, and the share paid by the richest 1% increased from 25.75% to 36.89%. At the same time, the amount paid by the poorer half decreased from 6.5% in 1986 to 3.3% in 2004. While the poor's contribution was cut in half, the richest Americans saw their contribution increase by nearly 50%. When you get past the propaganda, for the last two decades the rich have been paying more and more while the poor have been paying less and less. To put it simply, of the $832 billion in personal income taxes collected in 2004, the richest half of the country paid $804 billion while the poorest half only paid $27.4 billion.

Superman201, Sorry, the impeachment process came too late. He simply waited it out.

GeorgeOrwell, Feeble? Really? You come up with that yourself? If you would've read, I was responding to ShansAshton's comments. And, "peace through strength" is Reagan's line. But, Lib's don't read, or research, they just regurgitate what they are told. Bumper-sticker slogans, etc...."Heeeyyy Kool-Aid!"

The rich get richer because of good investment decisions. The poor get poorer because of getting further into debt and making no attempt to getting debt-free.

That's a very broad brush your painting with there.

Sorry, the impeachment process came too late. He simply waited it out.

Someone who is arguing the points you are attempting to argue should stay away from the impeachment issue. That's all I'm saying.

If the rich get richer because they are so much smarter and brighter then the rest of us, I can assume you're rich, reagan? Or did you inherit your wealth? Yeah; that took a lot of brains.

And, of course, everyone who is poor or poorer, just doesn't know how to make a good decision. We'll ignore actions outside of our control because there really is nothing outside of our control, like getting hit by a bus, cancer, major job injury, job loss caused by economic slowdowns or corrupt CEOs or just plain bad planning by the corporate higher-ups. Yep, none of those things happen to people. People do it all to themselves.

Read "1984" again. Peace through Strength isn't the first thing Reagan ever plagiarized.

Again, you oversimplify tax data. I don't have time to explain it to you (though being rich, you should understand it all).

#1 The prices of oil dropped $10/barrel after Bush lifted Executive ban on offshore exploration.
#2 Cars that are hybrids are typically $10,000 more than standard vehicles. We aren't paying an
extra 10k in oil yet to recoup the difference in price.
#3 Some plants were set aside for hybrid only manufacturing. It would take that long to refit all of the std. plants. The US auto. industry is failing because of a drop in SUV demand and higher manufacturing costs. Along with high tariffs on exporting them.
#4 Oil is priced on speculation for future demand. If we become less dependant on suppliers, who don't care if our country fails, they will immediately lower prices because of a loss of billions of US dollars threatening to no longer be sent to them. Instead, use this extreme amount of money to increase our domestic supply and for exploration/research into future supplies/technologies. I think what we actually have is a segment of our population that believes the tooth-fairy will drop in on us over night with $20,000.00 fuel cell vehicles and solar/wind/geo/hydro plants planted all
over the country. Us crazy Conservatives are more "realists" and tend to look at today's conditions.....not tomorrow's. Remember, back in the 50's we predicted that we were going to all
commute by jet pack and flying cars. I want my flying car that was promised to me!

#1. Four days later, the price of oil went up
#3. That's not why the auto industry is failing. It is because of poor management and outdated business models. There is an article on the Vine dealing with this, when GM announced its cuts.
#4. Oil is also priced at a global level, so curbing our use will help, but only in so much as China and India's demand does not eclipse our efforts.

Just checked.. and the price of oil has indeed dropped again, now standing around $127.

#1 The prices of oil dropped $10/barrel after Bush lifted Executive ban on offshore exploration.

Easing tensions in the Middle East and with Iran had a lot to do with that, plus the fact that oil was way too high in the first place and was expected to eventually settle down. I don't know how much of an impact George Bush saying he wanted a ban lifted has on the oil market, especially when lifting that ban doesn't automatically equate to drilling taking place. Maybe it does have an impact, but it's not accurate to claim that it's the reason for a drop in oil.

#2 Cars that are hybrids are typically $10,000 more than standard vehicles. We aren't paying an
extra 10k in oil yet to recoup the difference in price.

That's called capitalism.

#3 Some plants were set aside for hybrid only manufacturing. It would take that long to refit all of the std. plants. The US auto. industry is failing because of a drop in SUV demand and higher manufacturing costs. Along with high tariffs on exporting them.

The US auto industry is failing because of a failure to evolve with the market. That's part of the reason Ford and Chevrolet are doing so bad and Toyota and Honda are holding on. The problem isn't with the auto industry altogether, it's with American automakers.

#4 Oil is priced on speculation for future demand. If we become less dependant on suppliers, who don't care if our country fails, they will immediately lower prices because of a loss of billions of US dollars threatening to no longer be sent to them. Instead, use this extreme amount of money to increase our domestic supply and for exploration/research into future supplies/technologies. I think what we actually have is a segment of our population that believes the tooth-fairy will drop in on us over night with $20,000.00 fuel cell vehicles and solar/wind/geo/hydro plants planted all
over the country. Us crazy Conservatives are more "realists" and tend to look at today's conditions.....not tomorrow's. Remember, back in the 50's we predicted that we were going to all
commute by jet pack and flying cars. I want my flying car that was promised to me!

There are vehicles available right now that far exceed the EPA mileage standards, and if you replaced half the cars that get less than 20mpg with cars that get over 30mpg, demand goes down drastically.

There are independent researchers who have invented engines that run on tap water. Whether they could be made viable or not is another matter, but we put a man on the moon, we cloned sheep, we can replace oil. And the technology is already available. It just needs to be improved.

If you're looking at the big picture, it becomes obvious that you can't just keep finding new oil. And even if you could, it's damaging to the environment. So shifting focus now to new sources of energy is the way to go, instead of trying to salvage a sinking vessel.

As I've said many, many times....these are the energy solutions to the FUTURE. But today, we can solve short-term demands, no not by riding a bike to work, but doing something to ween ourselves off of Middle-East dependency. We can do this WHILE inventing or executing new technologies. If both aren't one the table, then neither is attainable. And, yes that is capitalism. But big screen tv's eventually paid for their R&D making the prices to come down. I saw the first Honda electric/hybrid vehicle introduced 10 years ago...it's still unaffordable for lower/middle class citizens. You have the right ideas...for the future, not today.

Superman2001,

You state that "shifting focus now to new sources of energy is the way to go, instead of trying to salvage a sinking vessel. "

However, when you are in the sinking vessel isn't it better to both work on the one you are in and look for another solution as well?

I don't think that anyone is against exploring for alternatives, they seem to be saying that we should do everything we can to find a solution including seeking out new sources of oil.

Wouldn't this seem to make sense?

Umm.. no. These are solutions for now. The lower/middle class doesn't have to go buy a brand new hybrid honda, but they can trade in their old gas guzzler for any honda/toyota whatever that gets better gas mileage. Instead of driving that Chevy or Ford that gets 20 mpg and will likely fall apart at 100k or less, get a honda that has been getting 30+ mpg for years and will run 300k plus miles.

The thing is that drilling for new oil isn't a viable short term option either. We could/should have been drilling for oil ten years ago if we wanted more oil today, but oil was at $12 in 1998, so we weren't looking at that. Unfortunately, we weren't looking at replacing oil, either.

So instead of drilling for oil that won't be available for 7-10 years, we can dedicate resources to coming up with alternative fuel sources and technologies that make oil less important to our economy and transit systems, and there's no reason we can't make those technologies viable in 7-10 years.

I don't think it needs to be one or the other either, but I don't see how it makes any sense to drill for oil for a decade when oil could be replaced in a decade.

The difference between big screen TVs and efficient, clean burning vehicles is that the former were a considered a luxury, whereas the latter is a necessity due to the high cost of fuel. Those high efficiency vehicles will continue to be more expensive as long as people who can afford them continue paying for them, but then again, that's the case with all vehicles.

And all new cars are too expensive for lower/middle class citizens nowadays, and that's why you see a family of six still piling into their 1999 GMC Suburban instead of upgrading to a more fuel efficient vehicle. Not because they can't afford a hybrid, but because they can't afford anything that fits their needs. We live in a capitalist society, and there's no reason for automakers to price for the masses when the well-off are still writing checks.

The future starts today, as far as I'm concerned, and since we didn't take the necessary steps in the past to secure today, we have to lie in the bed that we made for ourselves. But rather than wasting (yes, I think pursuing new sources of oil that won't affect the market for 10 years is a waste) resources, we can direct those resources toward building for 10 years from now. That way, in 2018, we're not still debating about ANWR and offshore drilling. In 10 years, the only need for oil should be for heavy duty commercial vehicles and engines (airplanes, long freight, oceanliners, etc.)

I don't think that's unrealistic. Ten years ago, a cell phone weighed four pounds, the battery lasted 2 hours and it could only make calls. Nowadays, my phone is lighter than my wallet and can play music and pinpoint the exact location of someone on the other side of the country. We are living in the Jetson age, whether we realize it or not. Let's stop limiting ourselves to 20th century technology.

Superman2001,

You state that "shifting focus now to new sources of energy is the way to go, instead of trying to salvage a sinking vessel. "

However, when you are in the sinking vessel isn't it better to both work on the one you are in and look for another solution as well?

I don't think that anyone is against exploring for alternatives, they seem to be saying that we should do everything we can to find a solution including seeking out new sources of oil.

Wouldn't this seem to make sense?

Fix the Titanic while it eases into the water, or get on the life rafts?

New oil would come on line in 7-10 years at best. Look at the advances we've made technologically speaking in the past 7-10 years. You're telling me we can't replace oil before we start refining oil from ANWR or offshore drilling? I disagree.

The Titanic analogy works better to support my point than yours I think. Just as there were no life rafts big enough to save everyone on the Titanic right away, there is no alternative solution big enough to fix this issue now.

Simply saying that "since we may not see results from drilling in 7-10 years we should not do it" is like saying that we should not invest in our retirements because we will not be able to benefit from the investment immediately. This particular refrain from the Democrats in Congress and those who repeat it is starting to sound like people chanting "we are shortsighted" over and over again.

And yes I am saying that 100% of oil cannot be replaced before we start refining oil from other sites. I can say with 100% confidence that it would be impossible to replace every existing internal combustion engine in use in the United States in the next 7-10 years. This would mean that every car, van, truck, desil train, boat, ship, go-cart, lubricant for electric motors, bicycle chains, bearings, etc... would have to be replaced. China and India alone will be driving demand in the coming years enough to at least hold out the idea that drilling more now and developing ways to get at our shale oil reserves would not be a bad idea while we explore alternatives.

I am all for alternatives. I have read the Pickens plan and feel that it is the right way to go. There is no way to drill our way out of the problem as there is not enough oil here to suplement our needs. However, producing alternative fuels as much as possible while at the same time, making sure that we have the resources necessary to assist in the short term seems like a winning idea.

Simply dismissing this idea seems as misguided as those who think that simply drilling is the only answer.

Replace the Titanic with any sinking ship. The point is that it's sinking, not stuck in the water. It's going down, no matter what you try to do to stop it from happening.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't drill because we won't see results for 7-10 years. I'm saying new drilling shouldn't be a priority because by the time we could benefit from that oil, we could be well on the way to advancing to the next generation of energy. So it's not like saying that we should stop paying into our retirement. It's like contributing to one fund instead of another, because the one is more lucrative long-term.

And even if we don't replace every internal combustion engine in the country in a decade, we can replace 30-40% of them, which would affect supply and demand and would reduce greenhouse gases. There would still be oil coming into the US, but we wouldn't need nearly as much of it.

Since we're talking about oil, why don't we drill in the 68 million leased acres? I still haven't received a legitimate response to that question. If we're so concerned about oil for the future that we're willing to go to ANWR and lift a ban to drill offshore, why won't we drill what we already can? Why haven't we been? I think it has a lot more to do with oil companies that it does the future of energy in America and throughout the world.

I just don't see new drilling as the answer. Maybe it lowers oil and gas prices a few cents for a while, but as long as the dollar is diminishing in value and as long as the US economy is weak (the housing market, the unemployment rates, social security fund disappearing), oil will be costly. So let oil be costly. Let's go to the next phase already.

I think that trying to keep things afloat in the short term makes sense. I am not sure how others cannot see this as it goes against logic in so many ways. However, I accept that you disagree.

I take your point on the retirement analogy but have to claim victory on the sinking ship one. :)

My point about the internal combustion engine is that as demand increases from China, India, etc... over the next several years, having any additional oil to offset that increase would be helpful as well. I believe this investment would pay off in the long term.

I am not saying not to drill in existing areas, though many of those areas either have not been found to hold oil or appear to hold far less than those in which people are seeking to drill. If you are going to drill, it would obviously be be better to drill where the most oil is. How it this for legitimate? Also, please remember that China is already looking to drill offshore here. Just because we will not be drilling does not mean that drilling will not happen.

Again, please understand that I do not claim drilling is the answer, only that it must be at least part of the answer.

Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree on the "sinking ship" metaphor. I'm jumping ship; you can grab your bailing bucket if you want.

Let China and India worry about their increasing demand. Let's focus on decreasing ours. We need to be leading the world, not trying to keep up. Especially with the dollar losing value internationally. Drilling would produce some revenue, both in the short and long term, but I happen to feel that it's time to cut the cord and move on, rather than continuing to pay into a broken system.

Think about this: If we drill for oil, and that action in itself lowers oil prices, by the time we actually get something substantial out of the ground, it won't be worth what we're paying now. So the profit margin actually shrinks, and likely by a significant amount, just by our drilling for new oil in the first place. That's why I like Pelosi's idea better. Release a portion of our reserves to push prices down in the short term, then buy it back at the lower price and replenish the reserves. Sell high, buy low. Not drill high, sell low.

Your point about drilling in existing areas raises two questions: 1) Why are 68 million acres leased by oil companies if A) there's no significant oil there, or B) they aren't going to drill? Why the leases? Why not use that land - whatever's viable - for wind and solar power? 2) Is the focus on offshore drilling motivated by finding new oil, or is it to keep China from getting there first? I think I know the answer.

And I know you're on board when it comes to moving on, but I think that continuing to invest in the oil game is a mistake, regardless of who else is investing in it. It's costly, it's a long-term payoff (which ironically diminishes itself, and gets diminished further by any advances in alternative energy sources), and I think it's a distraction from more beneficial ventures.

My point about China and India are that as they increase worldwide demand the prices will continue to climb. As a result of this, the pinch will be felt with greater and greater acuity even as we attempt to switch to alternative fuels. As this is the case, it would seem that not trying all possible solutions goes against logic.

Also, as it is private industry that will be footing the bill for this investment, simply opening the areas to them in an attempt to make some headway would seem to have few inherent problems. I would go on to suggest that if these areas are opened for such exploration that it would be okay to slap exorbitant fines and mandatory cleanup for environmental issues that come about as a result of the undertaking. Enough to actually hurt the bottom lines of these companies. Have all fines set forth to pay into alternative fuels. Perhaps even licensing companies for drilling (and setting forth requirements for land usage) along with possible fines to limit the practice of simply getting licenses to areas and not using them immediately. As these areas are hotly contested, they must agree that it would be worth getting started right away. This helps to pay for alternatives while not ignoring the current needs.

From a company standpoint it makes sense to go for the greatest and most contested resources first. Clearly having China coming over to drill areas that we could be drilling would increase the desire to get there first. It only makes sense to hold on to areas that are not contested for times when other options are not available. If there were food shortages and you had resources at home, wouldn't it be smart to dig for wild potatoes if you knew where some grew prior to others coming to take them all?

As for Wind or solar farms on these areas, we would need to look into whether they are suited for these technologies prior to condemning the Oil industry for taking up the space. I.e.--The Pickens plan points out a wind corridor running down the middle of the country that is best suited for wind.

Ultimately, if the argument is that oil will not be worth enough for the work required to get there in 7 years, why not let the oil companies decide if it is worth their investment. Those companies that rise to the challenge of new and alternative fuels will ultimately put them out of business once they get up to speed anyway.

China and India increasing worldwide demand is fine with me. I think the US is capable of breaking its oil addiction sooner than most people do, if not for big oil's champions running the country. The other applications we use oil for only account for a fraction of the oil that comes in the US, so as we get off oil as the number one fuel source for transportation, demand for oil goes down dramatically. I know it's not going to happen within just a few years, but the foundation is laid. There needs to be a sense of urgency.

I like your ideas about licensing and fines, but it's a bit too late for that now. The leases have already been handed out, and the White House wants big oil to drill offshore to keep China and India at bay. And yes, this makes sense, but I would find their arguments for doing so more compelling if they had been making any attempt to tap the resources they have available. 1) Leased land, and 2) the reserves. No comment on Pelosi's idea? If we were really serious about getting off oil, we wouldn't be so concerned about cornering the market on product that won't come online until it's value has greatly diminished. I guess it's value won't greatly diminish if we don't put a priority on getting off oil, though...

The Pickens plan - at least the wind corridor idea - was being publicized by Bill Clinton before the Iowa caucus as part of HRC's policy plan. It's a great idea. But my condemnation of big oil isn't that they're taking up the space; it's that they won't do anything with it. I know that not all of it is usable for alternative energy, but some of it is. Why won't big oil stake their claim to the future of energy in the US? Because oil pays now.

I agree with you the oil companies pursuing what makes the most sense to them, but considering their contributions to the falling economy and the damaged environment, I support a windfall profit tax in lieu of them pursuing clean, renewable energy. They can and should lay themselves a foundation, but haven't because the country (and large parts of the world) is addicted to oil still.

My idea for licensing and fines is for the new areas.

I believe that opening the strategic reserves is a bad idea all around [and is currently illegal.] Truly that oil should be held onto for a time when it might really be needed. War in the Middle East, etc....

And oil companies are already working towards alternative energy; take this information from an article back in March of 2007:

"As global warming and clean fuels have gained more attention, Shell Oil Co. and BP have accumulated impressive credentials. Shell is one of the nation's top five generators of wind power, while BP's Alternative Energy group -- launched 16 months ago -- aims to develop projects that produce 550 megawatts of electricity this year, one-sixth of the projected US wind energy output in 2007."

At the time Shell Oil was one of the top 5 generators of wind power. I'm not sure where they fall at this time but the oil companies are clearly looking to the future as well.

Also, I am against the idea of a windfall profit tax. With other industries making much higher profit margins for their services why punish the oil industry? Typically Pharmaceuticals and Biotech industries have among the highest profit margins followed by Banking, Software companies, telecom, food and beverage. Should all of these companies have windfall profit taxes applied as well? Since profit margins for oil companies are not even among the highest out there why the push to punish the profit? Clearly if a company makes 1 million dollars and spends 930,000 to earn that, they have a 7% profit margin. If operating costs increase the next year and a company brings in 2 million but had to spend 1,860,000 to generate those costs many people would look only at the fact that their profits have doubled and not at the fact that they still only made a 7% profit margin. As costs rise, profits may also rise if consumption stays steady. Gouging? I do not see it that way. And honestly, outside of this, I believe the suggestion that some companies cannot make profits for their investors because they produce important products is a very dangerous idea.

On another note, though we seem to disagree on many things, it is good to hear well articulated ideas from the other side of an issue. Kudos.

My idea for licensing and fines is for the new areas.

Good idea, bad application. I just don't see drilling in new areas as a good plan, especially when there are other areas that are ready to be drilled that oil companies have access to.

I believe that opening the strategic reserves is a bad idea all around [and is currently illegal.] Truly that oil should be held onto for a time when it might really be needed. War in the Middle East, etc....

?

...

What's going on over there right now? A rave?

I know it should be held onto for really tough times, but gas prices doubling in a year is pretty alarming, don't you think? Drilling offshore is illegal, also, but that doesn't stop us from arguing about it. I think that if you release a portion of it (Pelosi suggested 10%, I think we could safely do 30%) and then replenish it within 18 months, all is well. The goal is to replenish it at a price lower than what you sell it for; it's a reverse flip. It would drive supply up, lower the price of oil, and at that point, we buy it back. I think we'll be okay with 70-90% of our reserves for a year and a half.

And oil companies are already working towards alternative energy; take this information from an article back in March of 2007:

...

At the time Shell Oil was one of the top 5 generators of wind power. I'm not sure where they fall at this time but the oil companies are clearly looking to the future as well.

That's great news. Shell and BP are exempt from the windfall profits tax, as is every other oil company, as long as they meet the standards set for improving the future of clean energy. Like I said, the tax is an alternative to staking your claim. But you can't just drop a couple million on a few wind turbines and call it a day. There has to be standards.

As I just mentioned, I don't think there should be a full-on windfall profits tax without consideration for big oil's efforts to move past oil and become "big energy". I do think there's price gouging all around, and I think there has been for years, but I'm not sure that it matters. The point really is that big oil is making tons of money and if they aren't investing in cleaning up the mess they've helped create, they should be taxed on those detrimental profits. I don't think too many people would have an objection to gun companies having to pay major taxes on profits if those taxes were used in a way that decreased gun violence and accidents. I look at this as being the same thing.

It's not that anyone making a lot of money should have to support a weak economy, but when you can look at one industry and pinpoint the effect that their practices have had on the weakened economy, I don't think it's unfair to require them to help fix what they helped break.

Of course you disagree. You have been doing this from the start. My point is that I disagree with you and I realize that you do not want to attack the problem from all sides. If your idea to avoid all ways to address the problem seemed to hold logic I would agree with it. As it does not, this is one of those areas where we will have to continue to disagree.

No it is not a rave. Raves have more glow-sticks and fewer road side bombs. What is going on right now is that the US, at the request of the Iraqi government, is helping to stabilize a country. In fact, they renewed this request at the end of last year: "Iraqi Premier Nouri al-Maliki has formally asked the UN Security Council to extend one last time the one-year mandate of US-led forces in his country, according to a letter released on Tuesday.

In his letter to the Security Council, Maliki requested the one-year extension from December 31, provided the council commits to end the UN mandate at an earlier date if so asked by Baghdad.

US-led forces invaded Iraq in 2003 to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein and hunt for weapons of mass destruction that were never found.

The Security Council subsequently mandated US-led multinational forces (MNF) to maintain security in the country."

Too many people tend to forget that the US turned Iraq back over to Iraqis quite a while ago and are there at the behest of that government.

Neither of the active arenas in which American troops are fighting currently hold the kind of stranglehold on oil that would necessitate releasing the oil. [Oh, and it wasn't Pelosi that first held forth this idea it was Newt Gingrich nearly a month before. I disagreed with him as well. Though I must admit that it is humorous to hear people like Pelosi calling for the release of more oil after spending years blocking programs that would have produced more oil.]

The reason for my disagreement is that the strategic reserves are not to help curb prices for consumers but rather to offset real attacks on the country as a whole as in the oil embargo of 1973 where OPEC decided to stop shipping oil to people who supported Israel.

Saving a few cents at the pumps is not in the purview of this program.

Why should the standards of how a private company spends its profits be the business of anyone but that company?

Also, exactly how did they help create this current problem? You mention this several times but do not seem to explain it. How does an oil company become responsible for a lack of wind farms [for example]. Wouldn't the entrepreneurial sector have to take the blame for this? Isn't it the responsibility of people like you, those who feel that this is the future of the US, to take on the responsibility of advancing those new forms of industry rather than picking an industry to blame and asking them to foot the bill for the new initiatives? Oil companies are in the oil business. If they are shortsighted and do not feel that they need to diversify, they will ultimately fail. If they do not expand into other areas quickly enough, companies that do will take the lead. If no one takes the lead at all, it is everyone's fault.

I am adverse to the tyranny of taking other people's money to spend on programs that you may feel are more important. If you find it important, raise money and get to work.

Though your statement that people wouldn't be adverse to taxing gun companies may be true, it is more likely true because most people are too self centered to care about taxes until they affect their own pockets than for any altruistic reason. I would argue that many people think that the "rich" should be taxed more and more primarily because they do not consider themselves rich. As those people become more and more affected by those taxes, however, their views tend to change.

Frank_Black,

You're inferring that the most viable and most logical way to address high oil prices is offshore drilling. That's what I disagree with. I think we should attack the problem from all sides, but it doesn't make sense to me to argue about offshore drilling when, if oil companies really wanted to drill for new oil, they'd be putting the 68 million acres they have leased to good use. The way I see it, the motivation for offshore drilling is greed, not lower oil prices. I'm not writing it off as not being able to at least provide some minor relief, but I don't buy the argument for it.

What's going on in the Middle East is war, plain and simple. It doesn't matter who's fighting for what, how long it's been going on, or anything else. The US is involved in two bloody wars in the Middle East, and, to this point, has no exit strategy for either of them. Regardless of that sobering fact, tensions have recently heated up between the US and Iran, and while there's been some drawing down on both sides, that's a scary situation for an already over-extended military with comparatively weak ally support.

Maybe the fighting in the Middle East doesn't justify releasing oil from the reserves, but let's not pretend that things aren't as bad as it looks. Let's certainly not pretend that we're only there at the behest of the Iraqi government.

What programs has Pelosi blocked, aside from offshore drilling and ANWR? And how does that disqualify her suggestion (or support of someone else's suggestion) that we leverage a bit of the oil we have - since our money is no good abroad - to drive prices down a little bit? Why is that a bad idea, just because she doesn't support offshore drilling?

I don't think OPEC will be blocking oil from the US anytime soon, certainly not within the next two years, within which we should have replenished our reserves anyway. We stopped shipping our 70,000 barrels a day back in May in efforts to increase available supply and lower prices. Can't we take another step in that same pursuit, especially when that step would wind up paying off for the country?

And, sad to say, the oil we have in reserves is only estimated at about a one month supply. I don't think it would be anymore catastrophic if we had 30 days worth instead of 33 days.

Regarding taxing oil companies, I'm not suggesting a cumbersome tax just because they're making a lot of money. That's where you have me wrong.

If a factory has been dumping toxic waste into a nearby lake, do you think it's unfair or 'tyrannical' to hold that company responsible for restoring the lake?

I feel that big oil's role in the deterioration of the environment and the struggling economy is clear. I think oil companies have been price gouging for years now, for one, and I think that a company that produces a good that is damaging to the environment is responsible for the subsequent damage. So are we all, but that doesn't exempt big oil.

Superman2001

Actually I am not implying that at all. I am, as I have said multiple times, implying that my belief is that drilling is part of the most logical way to address our current/future energy needs. Your problem understanding that my idea does not preclude other ideas seems to stem from an illogical aversion to address the reality of the present while at the same time preparing for the future. I am not sure how you do not understand my statement about collecting from contested areas before areas that are uncontested. If we share in the contested areas first, then the uncontested areas are still there should the need arise. It seems very simple. Ultimately, if "greed" ends up supplying a need, perhaps I am unsure of your argument against it. Also, I believe that calling business strategy greed lowers your argument to a level beneath most of your other statements. Perhaps if you define greed you will better support what is usually a weak position.

Actually I disagree with your statements that it does not matter who is fighting, how long, or "anything else." It is the anything else that makes all of the difference. If we were pulled into a conflict that united the OPEC nations against us and made them issue a true oil embargo, this would make all of the difference in the world as to how our strategic reserves would be used.

I have never downplayed the level of our involvement in Iraq, I have simply stated facts. These are things that tend to upset those people who do not like to deal with them. Including a story run on the AP wire declaring the following: Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost. This, of course, bodes well for the future of that country and for a continued draw down of troops as has already been occurring.

"[N]ot pretend that we're only there at the behest of the Iraqi government." Would you like to explain this statement or support it in any way? I point to the FACT that we were requested to be there and that that request was re-issued at the end of 2007. You point to nothing and with a nod and a wink expect to trump established records. Interesting. Okay, then why are we there? Any proof that backs up your innuendo would be appreciated.

It disqualifies her suggestion because suggesting both that increased production will not help while saying increased distribution will is myopic.

I am not sure that your feelings on OPEC are sufficient to suggest that depleting the reserves is a good idea. I was also against the decision in May and I hope we do not end up regretting it. You point out yourself that we may end up with problems from Iran. This could clearly mushroom out into greater energy issues. That is what the reserve is for.

I believe that a single day less would be catastrophic if it came down to refueling our troops should they be in harms way.

I do not believe it is a bad thing to fine people for dumping waste into a lake. I do not think anyone would. However, that is not what you are saying. You were first talking about a windfall profit tax. This is simply a tax for earning money. You are now saying that the industry that has helped our country continue to grow and prosper is somehow related to your example. I disagree. I disagree that the oil industry is at fault for the ills in the environment simply by providing fuel. If specific illegal issues are found, I am all for fining them. However, a tax goes after all without regard to their culpability in any malfeasance.

I think that the reason oil companies want to drill offshore is simply because they don't want anyone else to do it. I can understand that from a business standpoint, and it makes sense. But the greed comes into play when you realize that they hold leases on 68 million acres of drillable land (presumably; even if only a quarter is drillable, 13 million acres is pretty good). They aren't drilling it. Why not? If new sources of oil are going to help the cost of oil and the economy so much, why not drill where you can instead of trying to change the law to drill where you can't? It's the race to the moon all over again, except this time it's for a soon-to-be outdated energy source that can likely be found elsewhere. Black gold. I'd probably support offshore drilling if I believed the parties who are pursuing it were doing all they could otherwise.

And again, it's not that I don't see the benefit of finding new oil in the short term, it's that I don't think offshore drilling is the most efficient and economical way of doing so. We're going nowhere on that, but I respect your opinion.

It's wrong of me to say that nothing else matters; that's hyperbole. What I mean to say is that your comment about the strategic reserves being for true emergencies, like "war in the Middle East", is ironic, given that we're at war in the Middle East... two wars, actually. Since we're not in a conflict that jeopardizes our standing with OPEC or its major players, now is the best time to leverage what we have in reserves and actually boost our reserves within the course of a year and a half or so. If we sell $10 billion worth of oil at $120/barrel, and then buy it back at $100/barrel, we actually boost our reserves by about 17,000,000 barrels. (Check my math.) I don't see how that's a bad plan.

Sure the US is doing well in the war, which is what was expected in the first place, so that's not upsetting to anyone, but the point is that we're at war -- and it doesn't matter what kind of war it is or who asked us to stay. You mentioned war in the Middle East as a valid emergency. We're at war in the Middle East; why doesn't this qualify? Maybe it's not what you had in mind, but it's still war.

It disqualifies her suggestion because suggesting both that increased production will not help while saying increased distribution will is myopic.

How is that myopic? Distribution is almost instantaneous. Production takes years. It affects the futures market which helps sooner rather than later, but how much does it help the fact that we're addicted to oil? It actually hurts us in that regard, because we're diverting resources to more costly drilling. It doesn't cost us anything to release a fraction of our reserves and then buy them back at a lower price; it makes us money, in fact.

You are right that the decision to stop sending oil to the reserves was a risky one, and if I understand correctly, we should have begun sending the 70,000/day earlier this month, right? I don't think it will be a decision we regret. And if we sell and then buy quickly (a year and a half is rather generous; anything more than 6 months and we're playing with fire, I think), I don't think we have too much to worry about.

If we're in trouble with getting troops out of harms way, every ounce counts, but that can be traced to greater failures of this current administration. That's why diplomacy is so important from this point forward. I'm sure my reassurances regarding OPEC don't do anything for anyone, but I just don't believe us to be in danger of an oil embargo. We very well may be, and if that happens, I imagine we'd get out of Iraq and Afghanistan right away since we wouldn't be able to keep up the fight without fuel.

The windfall profit tax is not a fine, you're right. I'm simply illustrating why I don't think it's unfair or tyrannical to tax oil companies on their profits. I can't believe you don't see how they share fault for the environmental issues we face.

And the tax would be with conditions, just like every other tax.

Superman2001,

First, oil companies are drilling. If you do not think so, please turn on your television and watch shows such as Black Gold where they show how companies are risking large sums of money to drill today. Or perhaps you can look at the Department of Energy statistics on that point: In 2007 it is estimated that 13,843 oil wells, 31,252 natural gas wells, and 4052 dry holes were dug for a total of 49,147 wells. [] I do not think that your statement that the oil industry is not drilling holds true in light of these numbers. Further, I don't think I can possibly go over reasons for why they want to open new lands any more than I did in my entries in 19.14 and 19.20. I think this is again one of those things that you do not accept as viable and I believe is obvious. With these two diametrically opposed views I am not sure we can ever come to a consensus.

I think that Oil prices are volatile enough at this time that any fluctuation can send us into a tail spin as a country. Major oil producing countries are opposed to the US at this time. No one can determine the how it would affect prices if Israel bombed Iran. Would Iran retaliate? Would Egypt get involved? Would Lebanon get involved? If Israel then turned around and bombed Lebanon would other countries be drawn into the fray? This is certainly one possibility that can have drastic impacts on oil distribution and prices. This is what we need to be on the look out for.

While there are other options, I will never accept that lessening the reserves we have for a worse case scenario is looking far enough into the future.

This helps to explain why the plan to reduce the oil reserve is myopic. Distribution would be immediate without the hope of long term supply. As the problem in the market is with futures, opening new areas to oil exploration, plans like the Pickens plan, research into alternative fuels, awards for innovation, will all make those banking on the higher price of oil in the future wary of continued speculation in those areas. Temporary influxes will hold a much smaller sway over savvy investors. It is shortsighted by definition to suggest that something that may affect supply today but not tomorrow will affect prices long term.

I certainly hope you are correct that we will not regret adding to the reserves. I understood the idea behind it but personally felt that it was too much of a risk.

I will not try to come to the defense of this administration for most of what they have done and I agree that diplomacy always important. I also think that even if we accept that there is only a slim chance of an embargo, we have to be ready to absorb the impact of widespread terrorist attacks against oil production around the world. I imagine that if enough major pipelines or production facilities were damaged that the affect on us would be about the same. If this caused a pull out of regions because of fuel issues, I have no doubts that those people with whom we are fighting would call our pull out a victory. They would claim that they stopped the charge by shooting the horse (in effect).

What environmental issues are you speaking of specifically? Perhaps there lies my confusion. If we are speaking of pollution, I would have to say that I feel that the producers of fuel are at no greater fault than those people who build and manufacture tools, vehicles, etc... or those people who use such items. If they follow the guidelines set forth for production and use, they are at no more fault than those who set up the guidelines or those who live by them.

I would rather fault those who break rules than assign blame to those who have not.

All taxes are not conditional unless you count the fact that the more you earn the more you pay as a condition. Even this can be argued if you count sales tax or embedded taxes.

First, oil companies are drilling. If you do not think so, please turn on your television and watch shows such as Black Gold where they show how companies are risking large sums of money to drill today. Or perhaps you can look at the Department of Energy statistics on that point: In 2007 it is estimated that 13,843 oil wells, 31,252 natural gas wells, and 4052 dry holes were dug for a total of 49,147 wells. [] I do not think that your statement that the oil industry is not drilling holds true in light of these numbers. Further, I don't think I can possibly go over reasons for why they want to open new lands any more than I did in my entries in 19.14 and 19.20. I think this is again one of those things that you do not accept as viable and I believe is obvious. With these two diametrically opposed views I am not sure we can ever come to a consensus.

I watched that show last night and there is another aspect to this that is slowing down drilling. One of the three rigs had a bunch of noobies (inexperienced) operating the rig. This is dangerous as this is a very demanding job that to do right requires experience. Also, one of the old timers was saying that the reason that they had so many noobs is that many of the guys who were doing this left the industry in the 90's when oil was cheap and nobody drilled. This is limiting how many wells can be drilled and driving up the cost per well to drill as the noobs burn up bits faster and make other costly mistakes.

Anyone who thinks that we can magically double or triple drilling over what we are doing today does not understand how the industry works. There are a LOT of jobs available in the oil patch today.

Space Guy,

I agree that labor is hard to find [as it is in many dangerous labor intensive industries.] Making use of limited labor resources would also help to point out why it is better to drill in areas that have more of a possibility for highest output.

Exactly right

HHAHAH

I'm not sure if you're being ironic or just plain funny.

But that's so true. That ethanol lobby holds so much sway. not as much

AS THE F$%$%CKING OIL MEN WHO HAVE LIVED IN THE WHITE HOUSE FOR THE PAST 8 YEARS

Nice! Next thing you know the aroma therapy lobby will have Capitol Hill smelling like patchoulli, which now that I think of it, may be somewhat better than the way it probably smells now....

Awesome interpretation.

I agree 90%

My only deviation would be blaming Clinton as well for not doing anything about it when he could. He had the wealth and healthy economy to steer us back towards where Carter was in 1979 when it came to energy policy, but he did nothing.

Agreed!

Clinton should be impeached for signing NAFTA which turned over our national sovereignty to the WTO. He also was the one that gave ENRON a waiver on the 1935 Holding Company Act that led to the invasion of California Electric industry. He never should have signed the repeal of the 1935 Glass Steigall Act which has given Wall Street cart Blanche, the right to resurrect the Guilded Age. And lastly, he should have never gone along with the insane Food for oil scam in Iraq.

Clinton was facing the Gingrich revolution but he could have stood up to Detroit and stopped the bloody SUV waiver scam...

Every major energy problem we have today is a product of conservative corporate greed.

The car industry has trapped the public into the SUV scam to the point that it may likely bankrupt them for their own deceipt and greed.

I would have mentioned the repeal of the Glass Steigel Act; however most folks have no clue what it is. That and we were talking about energy.

I could go off on quite a rant about repealing Depression Era banking laws designed to protect us from exactly why they were enacted in the first place.

Looks like Obama has a lot to re-do :)

Bravo, bravo, energynet!!

You hit a lot of the key truths behind this entire mess. Carter still talks about our massively burgeoning consumption of fossil fuels in the U.S., and who pays any attention to him? Entrepreneurs, companies, whomever, have got to start seriously investing in alternative sources of energy that are clean and safe.

If it takes a radical move like this by the Democrats to force this issue, more power to them.

P.S. What a misleading title on this article...

Nothing but a right wing strategy to blame the energy crisis on democrats. Actually they are to blame for letting the bloody corporations take advantage of the public.

Interestingly, I was in a barber shop today and there was an August 2001 National Geographic that had a whole section about ANWR. It was an interesting read. If the drilling had not been blocked by the dems, we would be within 24 months of production there, which would have an effect on global prices. The estimate was and is, that it would produce 1 million barrels of oil per day, which is $120 million dollars per day in revenue that stays in the country and does not go to others. That is $1.2 billion dollars every ten days or about $42 billion dollars per year in balance of payments.

This would be a major good thing and yes the democrats are 100% to blame for blocking that drilling. This does not count another million barrels per day from the eastern gulf and another million barrels per day from the West coast offshore. That is over $140 billion dollars per year staying in the country, creating jobs, creating wealth, so yes the democrats are to blame.

Now today, what I would recommend is that there be a reasonable royalty payment from each barrel of oil pumped, say $10, which would create about $14 billion per year that would go into a fund for subsidizing solar and to fund a massive fusion energy development program. By the time that oil would be exhausted we would be energy independent forever.

I posted this way above:

The scale of the potential supply from offshore US drilling (miniscule) measured against the scale of world demand (not miniscule; massive?) makes US offshore drilling's effect on price negligible at best.

If we had a Ghawar or a Rumaila (just pulling a couple of super fields out of the air) offshore, that would be different. But, the seismic testing done does not indicate that.

Yea sure, just the threat of it has dropped prices. Oil people know things that you don't.

The "threat" of opening up offshore drilling has absolutely nothing to do with oil prices dropping.

Go for it :)

Blue eye - So are the replublicans. Neither have your best interests at heart. If you want inprovements help by doing something positive instead of name calling. Remember it take more muscles to frown than smile. Instead of b**ching about someone, I know it is frustrating, but did you tune your car, check the tire pressure, do more than one thing during each trip to eliminate all the little trips? This is a positive thing "You can do it!" This is AMERICA We can do it.