Blaming Obama for high gas prices

[fcs]

HaHaHAHAHaHaHaHa! Oh boy, that's lame.

What a dumb ad. Bush did the same thing, blaming the Dems for high fuel prices. McCain shouldn't be like Bush, he should be the straight-talking maverick.

Drilling would take ten years to find oil (if it was there) and wouldn't do anything to lower gas prices.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiTpS4MK3D8&feature=user

 

[swegin]

Drilling would take ten years to find oil (if it was there) and wouldn't do anything to lower gas prices.

That's not exactly true. Futures markets would immediately react to additional exploration efforts and prices would drop to some extent relatively quickly. How much of a drop is up for debate, and nobody is claiming that we're going back to prices of 2005 ever again. Regardless, 10 years is better than never. If congress had approved drilling in the ANWR during Clinton's term would we be reaping the benefits now? 10 years doesn't seem like that long if you look at it that way.

I'm certainly not of the belief that we can drill our way out of our energy woes. We absolutely need to press for an all encompassing energy plan and ANWR exploration would just be one small part of what, I believe, needs to be a major rethink in the way we supply and consume energy. Wholesale dismissal of this piece of the puzzle is simply partisan BS (vote chasing) that doesn't help any of us, regardless of ideological mindsets.

What about the other 68million unexplored acres of federal land already leased to the oil giants? Why give them new leases when they're not bothering to explore the leases they already own? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

LET GEORGE BUSH AND EVERY OTHER REPUBLICAN DO WHAT THEY WANT WHEN THEY WANT AND SHUT UP. IF SOMETHING DOESN'T WORK OUT, BLAME ANYONE BUT A REPUBLICAN. AREN'T YOU FOLLOWING THE PROGRAM? WHAT PART OF DEMOCRATS = LIBERAL = BAD DON'T YOU GET?

 

[blakestah]

Drilling would take ten years to find oil (if it was there) and wouldn't do anything to lower gas prices.

That's not exactly true. Futures markets would immediately react to additional exploration efforts and prices would drop to some extent relatively quickly. How much of a drop is up for debate, and nobody is claiming that we're going back to prices of 2005 ever again. Regardless, 10 years is better than never. If congress had approved drilling in the ANWR during Clinton's term would we be reaping the benefits now? 10 years doesn't seem like that long if you look at it that way.

I'm certainly not of the belief that we can drill our way out of our energy woes. We absolutely need to press for an all encompassing energy plan and ANWR exploration would just be one small part of what, I believe, needs to be a major rethink in the way we supply and consume energy. Wholesale dismissal of this piece of the puzzle is simply partisan BS (vote chasing) that doesn't help any of us, regardless of ideological mindsets.

What about the other 68million unexplored acres of federal land already leased to the oil giants? Why give them new leases when they're not bothering to explore the leases they already own? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

These are high probability fields we are talking about. The potential to produce an additional 2 million barrels per day. The world consumption is about 80 million barrels per day, in the USA we import 12.5 million barrels a day.

We are in dire straits. We import oil valued at 4-5% of our Gross Domestic Product yearly. We will be paupers soon if that does not stop.

So we need to
1) produce more oil, as much as we can
2) use less oil by transferring the energy usage to other forms of energy

THIS IS NOT AN EITHER/OR PROPOSITION. THIS IS A MUST-DO-BOTH PROPOSITION.

That means electric cars, and plug-in hybrids must become the norm as rapidly as possible, because almost all of our oil usage is in transportation, mainly cars. And simultaneously, we need to drill aggressively. And get Iraq up to full capacity, and get Kuwait to pump more. We are not talking about some kinda panacea, just making the economically smoothest exit from our oil addiction that we can. Electrics and plug-in hybrids are by far the most viable solution - they can transfer 90% of our oil usage energy to the grid within 10 years.

Now, to handle that, the grid is gonna need a little priming of its own, but that is another story.

 

[casa_mugrienta]

Drilling would take ten years to find oil (if it was there) and wouldn't do anything to lower gas prices.

That's not exactly true. Futures markets would immediately react to additional exploration efforts and prices would drop to some extent relatively quickly. How much of a drop is up for debate, and nobody is claiming that we're going back to prices of 2005 ever again. Regardless, 10 years is better than never. If congress had approved drilling in the ANWR during Clinton's term would we be reaping the benefits now? 10 years doesn't seem like that long if you look at it that way.

I'm certainly not of the belief that we can drill our way out of our energy woes. We absolutely need to press for an all encompassing energy plan and ANWR exploration would just be one small part of what, I believe, needs to be a major rethink in the way we supply and consume energy. Wholesale dismissal of this piece of the puzzle is simply partisan BS (vote chasing) that doesn't help any of us, regardless of ideological mindsets.

What about the other 68million unexplored acres of federal land already leased to the oil giants? Why give them new leases when they're not bothering to explore the leases they already own? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

These are high probability fields we are talking about. The potential to produce an additional 2 million barrels per day. The world consumption is about 80 million barrels per day, in the USA we import 12.5 million barrels a day.

We are in dire straits. We import oil valued at 4-5% of our Gross Domestic Product yearly. We will be paupers soon if that does not stop.

So we need to
1) produce more oil, as much as we can
2) use less oil by transferring the energy usage to other forms of energy

THIS IS NOT AN EITHER/OR PROPOSITION. THIS IS A MUST-DO-BOTH PROPOSITION.

That means electric cars, and plug-in hybrids must become the norm as rapidly as possible, because almost all of our oil usage is in transportation, mainly cars. And simultaneously, we need to drill aggressively. And get Iraq up to full capacity, and get Kuwait to pump more. We are not talking about some kinda panacea, just making the economically smoothest exit from our oil addiction that we can. Electrics and plug-in hybrids are by far the most viable solution - they can transfer 90% of our oil usage energy to the grid within 10 years.

Now, to handle that, the grid is gonna need a little priming of its own, but that is another story.

Agreed.

But there is one question:

Are the oil companies truly eager to drill in new areas, considering all the areas currently leased that are going to waste?

 

[fcs]

This guy is living in another solar system...
Good luck with that Nov election.

WILKES-BARRE, Pa. -- Republican John McCain on Wednesday credited the recent $10-a-barrel drop in the price of oil to President Bush's lifting of a presidential ban on offshore drilling, an action he has been advocating in his presidential campaign.

 

[blakestah]

Drilling would take ten years to find oil (if it was there) and wouldn't do anything to lower gas prices.

That's not exactly true. Futures markets would immediately react to additional exploration efforts and prices would drop to some extent relatively quickly. How much of a drop is up for debate, and nobody is claiming that we're going back to prices of 2005 ever again. Regardless, 10 years is better than never. If congress had approved drilling in the ANWR during Clinton's term would we be reaping the benefits now? 10 years doesn't seem like that long if you look at it that way.

I'm certainly not of the belief that we can drill our way out of our energy woes. We absolutely need to press for an all encompassing energy plan and ANWR exploration would just be one small part of what, I believe, needs to be a major rethink in the way we supply and consume energy. Wholesale dismissal of this piece of the puzzle is simply partisan BS (vote chasing) that doesn't help any of us, regardless of ideological mindsets.

What about the other 68million unexplored acres of federal land already leased to the oil giants? Why give them new leases when they're not bothering to explore the leases they already own? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

These are high probability fields we are talking about. The potential to produce an additional 2 million barrels per day. The world consumption is about 80 million barrels per day, in the USA we import 12.5 million barrels a day.

We are in dire straits. We import oil valued at 4-5% of our Gross Domestic Product yearly. We will be paupers soon if that does not stop.

So we need to
1) produce more oil, as much as we can
2) use less oil by transferring the energy usage to other forms of energy

THIS IS NOT AN EITHER/OR PROPOSITION. THIS IS A MUST-DO-BOTH PROPOSITION.

That means electric cars, and plug-in hybrids must become the norm as rapidly as possible, because almost all of our oil usage is in transportation, mainly cars. And simultaneously, we need to drill aggressively. And get Iraq up to full capacity, and get Kuwait to pump more. We are not talking about some kinda panacea, just making the economically smoothest exit from our oil addiction that we can. Electrics and plug-in hybrids are by far the most viable solution - they can transfer 90% of our oil usage energy to the grid within 10 years.

Now, to handle that, the grid is gonna need a little priming of its own, but that is another story.

Agreed.

But there is one question:

Are the oil companies truly eager to drill in new areas, considering all the areas currently leased that are going to waste?

If they were not eager, they would not be lobbying for opening ANWR and offshore areas for drilling.

What, do you think they just want to ruin the view for the people who live at the coast?

No, they are businessmen. They evaluate probable fields and the cost per barrel to extract them. For example, there is TONS of shale oil in Canada. It is estimated to cost $60/bl to extract. Right now, in Alberta, oil companies have mobilized on an enormous scale, BECAUSE THEY WILL MAKE A LOT OF MONEY EXTRACTING THIS OIL. They were doing nothing 5 years ago, because the cost-benefit was not there.

And that is exactly why these issues are being raised now. It is not because they are likely to have a huge impact on oil prices. It is because the oil companies stand to make a lot of money with oil over $100/bl. When they see a huge profit, they start lobbying. It is them against the environmentalists.

But their motives are their motives. As a nation, we need to get our transportation OFF OIL. The only viable solution is plug-in cars and plug-in hybrids, to transfer that energy from the oil to the grid. I suppose high economy cars would help, also. Either way, cars need to use a LOT less gasoline per mile. But opening up drilling will save us, as a nation, a lot of money during the transitionary 10-15 years.

So for opening up drilling, evaluate the cost-benefit. Suppose they produce 2 million barrels a day for a decade. How much environmental damage will they do? Now, why not tax the oil companies to compensate for that? And if you don't do that, think about the cost to America for paying another $0.20-30/gallon for gasoline for that decade. America uses 320 million gallons of gas in a day. So opening up that drilling would save consumers $233 BILLION dollars over a decade. HUGE benefit.

There would be a cost to the environment, and that should be compensated for as well. But you have to think about where to draw the line. We've been drilling for oil for over 100 years, and our nation's economy vitally depends on it for transportation. We are hurting with the high price of oil (and gas). This can ease the pain, and complement a strategy to reduce oil usage, as a nation.