The Liberal Bind

[Acumen]

It's been interesting to watch the sequence of events between the congressional republicans and democrats over the issue of fossil fuels.  With record soaring gas prices, the democrats are feeling tremendous pressure to do something about our oil crisis.  When pressed on the issue, without skipping a beat, they tell us we need to rid our dependence on oil and move in a direction of alternative fuels.  Investment is the key word, and we need to invest in our future they tell us.  However, none of their proposals will help us with our current oil crisis.

Republicans, on the other hand, suggest we need to increase oil production here in the U.S. by lifting a 3 decade ban on our federally controlled coastal areas.  Most economists agree with republicans that our high gas prices are the result of a stagnant supply and an increasing demand.  We are told that by lifting the ban now, the prices will instantly drop once the news hits the market.  So why are we not drilling? 

The liberal response is that oil companies currently own 68 million acres of land, so they ought to drill there first.  Why?  If the oil companies say they have not found oil reserves of commercial value on those lands, why would we force them to waste their money exploring areas unlikely suitable for oil production?  Do the democrats actually think the American public is stupid enough to believe that oil companies (who they continuously portray as the epitome of big business greed) refuse to drill on lands rich with oil reserves?  Also, the lease they hold on these lands are not production leases, but rather exploratory leases.  So saying they haven't drilled on the lands they leased is a little misleading when that isn't the purpose of the lease.

The liberal response is a deceptive front.  They know what the oil companies know -- that know that oil companies lease large quantities of land with the hopes that a fraction of the land will yield a reserve worthy for commercially sized production.  The liberals would love for rich oil companies to spend their money on fruitless endeavors just as they would love to skim their profits and redistribute them to those who deserve them least. 

So the question I have for the BC liberals in here, why is there so much resistence to drilling for oil when we know we have billions of barrel available to us off shore?       

 

[SquirleyWurley]

Because there are many kinds of 'liberals' in the US, and Democratic Party Politics involves having to deal with environmentalists who can be a bit picky and uncompromising at times, similar to the way the Republican Party has to deal with 'social conservatives', 'neo-conservatives', and 'big business conservatives' who can be a bit of a picky and uncrompomising crowd at times.

Republicans reach into their own bags of rhetoric and implying that liberals are evil, stupid, or traitorous, and liberals reach into their bags of rhetoric and come up with something like 'big oil'...

[Acumen]

So congressional liberals are letting the environmentalists corner the American public with soaring gas prices because they refuse to start domestic production.  Is that right?

[SquirleyWurley]

So congressional liberals are letting the environmentalists corner the American public with soaring gas prices because they refuse to start domestic production.  Is that right?

It may be, but it may also be because many congressional liberals have allowed themselves to become confused by certain environmental lobbyists.  Or some combination, depending on which ones you look at.  Democrats aren't monolithic.

[Faithfulee]

Do the democrats actually think the American public is stupid enough to believe that oil companies (who they continuously portray as the epitome of big business greed) refuse to drill on lands rich with oil reserves? 
 

I agree with your position, but I am Married to a Democrat who has been conviced by Obama and the dims that oil companies are not drilling on land that they lease.  I know other Demcrats who hold the same view.

It is an "Obmanation" but Obama has the ability to cast a spell on the public and make them believe these idiotic distortions of economic realities.   The Republican bind is find a way to lift the blinders from the libs who follow Obama.  Facts don't matter.  I presented some studies showing that we have shale oil reserves eough for 400 years locked up in our country, that was countered with another article showing 200 BBN barrels.

I don't think that statistics is going to change minds because at the coreof liberal beliefs is that we need to develop an economy that uses NO oil because it is better for the environment. 

Right now, that is the dims position, as eloquently stated by Nancy Pelosi

From today's Wall Street Journal

Congress's moratorium on offshore drilling is now the last major political barrier to increasing domestic oil-and-gas production. Yet Democratic leaders have refused to schedule even a single hearing on the topic. House Appropriations Chairman David Obey recently shut down the annual budget process rather than allow Republicans to offer drilling amendments. He and the Speaker know that if they allow a vote, moderate Democrats are sure to defect and the offshore moratorium could end.

She is pandering to the ignorance of worship of the dim to Obama.

The best strategy is to let the dims take repsonsbility for the high oil prices and the damage it it is doing to taxpayers, and our econmy. 

The news that he president lifted the ban dropped the price of oil $7.00 BBL, a congressional change would do even better.  Also note that the pojected "economical point" of viability of oil development in many areas is $95 BBL.  Off shore costs would be less.

My way out of the bind is to release from the oil reserve immediately, approve drilling offshore and in Anwar, and agree to pay oil shale recovered oil $95 bbl to restore the oil reserve if it costs that much.


 

[Acumen]

The best strategy is to let the dims take repsonsbility for the high oil prices and the damage it it is doing to taxpayers, and our econmy.

And it will hit them big in the Fall of this year.  According to a poll, 75% of the American public believes we should drill for oil.  Democratic senators are feeling the pressure from the constituents to lift the ban on continental drilling.  If Reid and Pelosi continue to be obstinate, it will not only hurt Obama's chances at the presidency, but it will hurt the reelection efforts of a democratic-controlled congress.  It's a bit difficult to convince the public that you're a party looking out for the interests of the poor, vulnerable, and the oppressed when you refuse to address the soaring gas prices that hits the blue collar worker the most.

The news that he president lifted the ban dropped the price of oil $7.00 BBL, a congressional change would do even better.  Also note that the pojected "economical point" of viability of oil development in many areas is $95 BBL.  Off shore costs would be less.

I did not know that it decreased the price of oil $7 already.

My way out of the bind is to release from the oil reserve immediately, approve drilling offshore and in Anwar, and agree to pay oil shale recovered oil $95 bbl to restore the oil reserve if it costs that much.

That's not the purpose of the oil reserve. 

[Faithfulee]

My way out of the bind is to release from the oil reserve immediately, approve drilling offshore and in Anwar, and agree to pay oil shale recovered oil $95 bbl to restore the oil reserve if it costs that much.

That's not the purpose of the oil reserve. 

The purpose is to protect us in the event that the OPEC stops the flow of oil.  This mission has largley been accomplished through peaceful means.  OPEC loves he high price of oil and their economies depend on it.  Also we have more friends in the ME now with our victory in Iraq and Iraq oil beginning to flow. 

We Republicans should take advantage of this success and use it to benefit the American People Directly.  Remember the oil is banked at much lower cost than $100 a BBL and will be sold at market prices, thus providing the CASH that we desparately need.

The liberal Obama is also in a bind because the flow of Iraq Oil is dependent on security in Iraq and that i threatened if we withdraw troops too quickly, and Obama proposes.   This could well be a deciding factor in the November election. 

[Claret1995]

 There are oil rigs,that were shut down 30 years ago off the Cal coast. They can be updated and pumping oil in about a year or less...........

[Faithfulee]

 There are oil rigs,that were shut down 30 years ago off the Cal coast. They can be updated and pumping oil in about a year or less...........

I hope you are right, but new oil must be pumped with technology that was not available 30 years ago.

Where did you get that Information,  I think it can be used to the advantage of the  "Oil drillers" like myself.

[jacknky]

"We are told that by lifting the ban now, the prices will instantly drop once the news hits the market."

What I have read is that even Republicans and oil executives will tell you that drilling offshore or in ANWAR will take decades to reach the pump. The market is so volatile now do you really think prices will stay down because we've started exploring in fields that will take decades to see the results?

While there may be disagreement over how much oil we need I would hope we all can reach consensus that the days of cheap oil are over forever. Of course we need to keep drilling even though there may be disagreement on where. But more importantly we need to shift our priorities away from maintaining our current level of consumption to reducing that consumption through more efficiency and the development of new technologies.

Can you think of a good reason why that shift in priorities shouldn't begin now?

[Acumen]

"We are told that by lifting the ban now, the prices will instantly drop once the news hits the market."

What I have read is that even Republicans and oil executives will tell you that drilling offshore or in ANWAR will take decades to reach the pump. The market is so volatile now do you really think prices will stay down because we've started exploring in fields that will take decades to see the results?

I've heard it will take 5-7 years to drill for and refine oil in ANWR, not decades.  But it is really a moot point how long it takes.  A 5-10 year wait doesn't justify not using our own resources to be energy dependent.  We import 70% of our oil from foreign nations - those very nations that fund terrorists.  There is no justification for this, I don't care what the rationalization is/

While there may be disagreement over how much oil we need I would hope we all can reach consensus that the days of cheap oil are over forever. Of course we need to keep drilling even though there may be disagreement on where. But more importantly we need to shift our priorities away from maintaining our current level of consumption to reducing that consumption through more efficiency and the development of new technologies.

Yes.  Democrats have, for the most part, built a false dichotomy.  They say that we should explore and invest in alternate forms of energy rather than attempt to drill our way out of this energy crisis.  It's a false dichotomy because we ought to do both.  While pursuing energy independence from oil, we need to pursue energy independence from OPEC.  Waiting for superior technology and alternative fuel sources is not a viable answer.

[SquirleyWurley]

Yes.  Democrats have, for the most part, built a false dichotomy.

On this issue, yes.

It's quite common in politics, unfortunately.  On other subjects Republicans have built false dichotomies, too.

[Some Darn Xian]

Republicans, on the other hand, suggest we need to increase oil production here in the U.S. by lifting a 3 decade ban on our federally controlled coastal areas.  Most economists agree with republicans that our high gas prices are the result of a stagnant supply and an increasing demand.  We are told that by lifting the ban now, the prices will instantly drop once the news hits the market.  So why are we not drilling?

Actually, the leading oil and energy experts, those that are frequently on the financial news channels, have repeatedly stated that the only thing that will drop the prices in an rapid succession is the reinstatement of the regulations on the energy markets. The drilling in the Gulf and other places won't hit the market for almost a decade, the impact of the volume of that crude will not be significant enough to drop the prices due to supply glut, as the demand at the time of delivery will be higher, essentially running the balance we have today.

The stagnant supply has been a battle cry of the oil industry for decades. The problem with that as the argument is the math in the whole equation. When we look back to 2005, the prices were relatively stable. The normal creep and crawl with seasonal blends and refinery issues. The supply was generally stable, even if with all the military action around the Persian Gulf. The biggest change that the American consumer noticed was 2 1/2 years ago when the prices ripped past the 2.50 mark and didn't stop.

The supply side of the market, from all industry indicators, did not suffer a significant change in any of the variables. The refinery side of the industry was suffering their usual problems of production. The demand of the US market did not have an appreciable jump that would have caused a sudden market jump. Example: Hurricane Kartina in the Gulf hitting the refinery capital of the south--prices jump. Within months, the prices settled back to a similar area as pre-Katrina.

What changed? The inclusion into the energy market of speculators. Prior to Bush 43, the energy markets were well controlled, essentially limited to those who produce the fuel or those who refine it. This seems pretty simple. It seems downright rational. Why the change?   

The secret meetings of Cheney and his energy committee? Almost all members of the committee are reported to be members of the energy industry and are described as very sensitive to the neoconservative movement. Condolezza Rice is a neocon from and Oil company! Big surprise.

Where did this concept come from? How about Phil Gram. He was the mastermind behind the slow but certain deregulation. It is his belief that the markets cannot have any controls or regulations.

This is a great idea! I mean, a company could create dumby companies and selling and buy energy from itself and create a huge market demand, jacking the price through the roof and really make some money. And no one will ever know.


Or so Ken Ley thought. He was the director and architect of the debacle that became know as ENRON.

And the congressional reports and hearings are the source of this information. Hearings that were conducted by a republican controlled house and senate.

[Some Darn Xian]

The liberal response is that oil companies currently own 68 million acres of land, so they ought to drill there first.  Why?  If the oil companies say they have not found oil reserves of commercial value on those lands, why would we force them to waste their money exploring areas unlikely suitable for oil production?  Do the democrats actually think the American public is stupid enough to believe that oil companies (who they continuously portray as the epitome of big business greed) refuse to drill on lands rich with oil reserves?  Also, the lease they hold on these lands are not production leases, but rather exploratory leases.  So saying they haven't drilled on the lands they leased is a little misleading when that isn't the purpose of the lease.

A simple observation:

If the oil companies cannot make a profit on what they currently have in their inventory, release the leases. The small guys in Indiana are making some money pumping 10 barrels a day from wells that are considered to small to use.

If it isn't big business greed, they why hold onto land that you are not using, you do not own? Simple. keep anyone out of the market that isn't you.

Yes, the purpose of the lease is exploration, but when that isn't being done, then it should be released.

It appears that these companies simply want to make a massive grab to hold the world hostage. Consider the options that exist if all producible area for oil production is held by a few companies. What happens?

For most Xians, there seems to be a fear of the one world government. This is how that situation develops. It isn't an agreement or a treaty. It's the power that is amassed when the natural resources are not present that will create the one world power.

And if we don't move to the alternatives for energy, BOTH the left and the right, we have no hope. Pretty simple. McCain hasn't a clue what to do but drill. When that's gone, what do we do???

He doesn't seem to know.

[Some Darn Xian]

The liberal response is a deceptive front.  They know what the oil companies know -- that know that oil companies lease large quantities of land with the hopes that a fraction of the land will yield a reserve worthy for commercially sized production.  The liberals would love for rich oil companies to spend their money on fruitless endeavors just as they would love to skim their profits and redistribute them to those who deserve them least.

So the question I have for the BC liberals in here, why is there so much resistence to drilling for oil when we know we have billions of barrel available to us off shore?   

Acumen--The top paragraph is a bit of an exaggeration--rather uncharacteristic of you. I'll chalk that up to a late afternoon haze.

But, the question is legitimate.

My resistance to drilling is that it won't result in any longterm protection from OPEC and the oil companies. Also, the time it will take to produce any oil is almost 10 years off. If there would be a commitment made today to develop a workable hydrogen fuel cell with cathodic production of hydrogen from water, we could see a full scale production line up and running in the same time frame. Such a process is simple in concept. The cathode creates the hydrogen gas from water, the gas is collected and compressed to create usable volumes. This process is designed so that the compression and energy production can occur simultaneously, power for home and car.

Yes, I have left out some of the details but the concept works. If it didn't we would not have been on the moon.

Lack of imagination is what we have. We use oil find more oil. Why? The supply is limited. Let's take advantage today and forget the drill and move to the engineering lab and create the next big industrial shift.

Steam in the 18th century
Coal and steam in the 19th century
petroleum in the 20th.
Hydrogen in the 21st.

We all say that the US needs something. Why not? A new process, new technology, no dependence on foreign oil. We are in control. Oh, and the cost of manufacturing, when you don't have to consider 20% of you budget on energy, the cost goes down.

I believe Mr. Chin would be concerned.

[Some Darn Xian]

I don't think that statistics is going to change minds because at the coreof liberal beliefs is that we need to develop an economy that uses NO oil because it is better for the environment.

I have no problem with the statistics you could bring up. The basics of statistics is that they can be played however they need to be to get the point you like.

Why do you have to keep supporting oil companies? It's a legitimate question.

You continue to vilify those that say enough of carbon based production because why?

I see a no oil economy as a boon to the US. The eminence that the US held for most of the 20th century was shipped over to China to help your conservative friends make their money on the market without actually being an honest person and working for a living. Sitting in front of  stock ticker and moving money around is not the way a person makes an honest living.

That action creates a series of ripples that often result in the bottom line being only a profit margin. The concept of caring for people, something a Jew 2000 ago kinda mentioned we do is lost and the money is the God.

You call for a Xian revival in this country. Why not have a revival in the way we think in total terms of how we treat each other and treat the environment. We are stewards of God's creation.

And, the last time I checked, if a steward at a church stole or lost the churches money, he or she ended up in jail. So, if the same principle is applied, care for neighbor and care for environment are mandates of faith and profession to believe in Christ.

Create a hydrogen based economy: US patent holdings through Federal Grants to kick start the research require that anything made here is MADE ENTIRELY HERE!!!! This gets us the benefits of working Americans supporting themselves(KINDA OF A REPUBLICAN REQUIREMENT FOR BEING A HUMAN BEING), no dependence on the world economy for fuels, so we can run the business market the way it should be: cleanly without the outside interference.

Oh, and one other thing, without the constants of oil based pollution in the air, your republican fascist ideals that anyone who gets sick just has to pay their way and deal with it would be reduced, and that would lessen my socialist tendencies to give everything to everyone, because healthier people require less help, and less help means greater productivity.

But, oil and "christian" is some how linked together.

I don't see how any statistics even matter to the argument when logic and reason are never used beyond not getting out of your care while driving at speed.

[Some Darn Xian]

The news that he president lifted the ban dropped the price of oil $7.00 BBL, a congressional change would do even better.  Also note that the pojected "economical point" of viability of oil development in many areas is $95 BBL.  Off shore costs would be less.

When are you going to quit drinking the Kool-Aid??


Have you read in any of your supposed research the real issue and the real result that will occur when the correction is made?

Get rid of the speculation in the energy markets and put the regulations back the kept he pricing in check.

Maybe you are happy with the Hillbilly approach of W and his words of stupidity, I mean, hey, he does wave a magic wand, doesn't he?

As for me, $95/bbl isn't cutting it. The analysts have all stated clearly and loudly for those that are not bound by cultish moronic fear to the Fixed Noise Channel. If the markets are restored to the place they were 8 years ago, the oil will be down to the $50/bbl position, and gas at $2/gallon.

Oh, and the Drudge report hasn't been right about energy issues since it's inception. So let them go as well.

[Some Darn Xian]

And it will hit them big in the Fall of this year.  According to a poll, 75% of the American public believes we should drill for oil.  Democratic senators are feeling the pressure from the constituents to lift the ban on continental drilling.  If Reid and Pelosi continue to be obstinate, it will not only hurt Obama's chances at the presidency, but it will hurt the reelection efforts of a democratic-controlled congress.  It's a bit difficult to convince the public that you're a party looking out for the interests of the poor, vulnerable, and the oppressed when you refuse to address the soaring gas prices that hits the blue collar worker the most.

And what poll would this be??

Seriously. I have seen pretty much every poll from every major political pollster in the last month. Where is the 75% also listed as the tipping point for the fall?


As for the poor, vulnerable and oppressed--It's sad that the party chosen by the christian right cannot make a move to actually have the heart to be Xian to the poor, vulnerable and oppressed. It seems the agnostics and atheist liberals have more of the love of Christ in their hearts than those who are supposed to have it burning in their chests.

Again, why look at what the republican christians aren't doing when you can decry the liberal heathens for what they are trying to do. Stone throwing I thought was advised when no one had sin. I forgot that ALL REPBULICANS are perfect.

That must be why unemployment is up, foreclosures are up, home values down, a third of the country is without adequate health care, schools are failing to meet a bogus test score that the POTUS couldn't even pass at the earliest level, and there are wars and rumors of wars everywhere.

How stupid of me. God is a republican because he was an advocate of war in the OT, and therefore for the NT to be fulfilled, there republican christian must be aiming to fulfill the wars and rumors of wars part of the NT. 

NOW I GET IT!!!

[Some Darn Xian]

Waiting for superior technology and alternative fuel sources is not a viable answer.

We don't have to wait. The technology went to the moon in the 60s.

To modernize it a little is all that is needed. The fuel source is out there, 70% of the world's surface. 7 years is all it would take. It took less than that amount of time to build a nuclear bomb.

I would say this is as equally important. But, when oil companies are running the government, we can't actually get away from oil.

That's the dichotomy you need to address.

[Faithfulee]

So the question I have for the BC liberals in here, why is there so much resistence to drilling for oil when we know we have billions of barrel available to us off shore? 

I hardy qualify as a BC “liberal”, but the answer is clear.

Liberals have no confidence in US Industry and would like to have government responsible for everything.

Just look at the response to the location of drilling in the US.  Liberals think that government knows better than Oil companies as to where to drill.  If they were serious they would buy back the leases.  Fact is they ae not serious.

Environmentalism is another bind for the dims.
They don’t trust the private sectory to develop oil safely within environmental standards.  The recent weather in the Mississippi valley started in the Gulf where  oil well  abound. 

But basically, the libs don’t like us using petroleum in our cars, especially the huge gas guzzling ones,  the ones that American Familis just love.

So they love the high prices, but characteristically the Libs won’t take any responsibility.

I predict that the Libs position will change dramatically as November approaches and the Repubs  stick it to them on this issue.

As to current prices and Oil futures.

They will react instantly to any serious effort to increase supply.  Witness that after President Bush removed the presidential order that bans offshore production,  Oil futures have dropped dramatically.  If congress does the same, there will be further declines.

The liberal mantra of protectionism and disingenuous information they call facts has cost the American Public $billions.

Sure production wont come on like immediately, but It won’t ever come on line if we prevent oil companies from drilling.

A Wall Street Journal article stated that that US has untapped oil resources for 140 years

And we haven’t talked about nuclear and oil shale,  energies that dims continue to obstruct.

Dems will pay the price this November is we keep informing the public.