Home › Blogs › Jon Henke's blog ›

Oil Obstructionism

Submitted by Jon Henke on Sat, 06/21/2008 - 11:19
in

Democrats say domestic oil production will not help in the short term and probably will not help for at least 5 years.

Obama also said there is "no way that allowing offshore drilling would lower gas prices right now. At best you are looking at five years or more down the road." - Associated Press

In 1995 the Clinton administration said we didn't need to pursue domestic drilling because, hey, there's "plenty of oil in the market"...

"The bottom line is, there's no national emergency. The prices of oil are at an all-time low, reflecting the fact that there's plenty of oil in the market. ...  And one must really ask, what is the spirit of the times in which oil companies -- in a world flooded with oil, oil prices going down, with no current intentions to really do any major exploration, announcing day after day that they don't have the money to do anything more, with 85 percent of the Arctic shore open -- and they want this. It's absolutely incomprehensible." 

We would have that oil today if Democrats had gotten out of the way.  And try to grok, for a moment, the hubris involved in Babbitt questioning "the spirit of the times in which oil companies" want to expand oil supplies.  Obviously, oil companies understood something that politicians did not.

Five years from now, Democrats will still be explaining that opening up domestic oil supplies will not help for at least 5 years or more.

4
Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

Comments

Their foreign policy is from Winnie the Pooh

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 06/21/2008 - 11:38.

and their energy policy is from Eeyore

Maybe they will consult Piglet for criminal justice issues

 

Explain this then

Submitted by Repack Rider on Sat, 06/21/2008 - 11:49.

Seven years ago a GOP congress and a GOP president ignored the same issue, and as you point out, all that stuff could have been on line by now if George W. Bush had taken action when he entered office.

Looks like there is plenty of blame to spread around.

The difference between 'doing ok' and 'shortage'

Submitted by ShrikeDeCil on Sat, 06/21/2008 - 12:19.

I agree, Presidents all the way back to Carter have some blame for this. And the blame can certainly be spread around. Bush II's proposed a couple of energy plans that have been shot down too.

 

But anyone now - here, today - who is obstructing this is on the list of people I'd blame. Don't go looking too far in the past, because we weren't in what's clearly a shortage then. We are now. Now we know we shouldn't be pushing this any farther off into the future waiting for fusion or whatever. We're going to have a gap (because we're in one) before any alternative is actually useful. Fill the gap first, push for other solutions also.

Lame Answer

Submitted by usedtobe on Tue, 06/24/2008 - 19:23.

Even 3 years ago this was an "essential task" for the Republicans to do.  Even if there was never an impact on oil prices, it was necessary because we are buying oil from countries that wish us harm.  Anything we could do to limit the amount of money going to our buddy Hugo is a good thing.  In my little humble opinion, the failure to complete this "essentail task" when they, the Republicans, controlled Congress is unforgivable. 

How is a search unreasonable?

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 06/21/2008 - 12:03.

if unlike the search of one's dwelling or automobile

a) the target is not aware he is being searched and suffers no interference with the use of his property

b) the search is of activity which occurs through the use of a public common carrier (akin to walking through a train station, unlike something someone holds physical dominion over and expects it not to be disturbed)

c) the search is performed for the purposes of detecting and deterring enumerated crimes against person and property.   

I might also add the defense the target of an unreasonable search has is the exclusionary rule which means that the use of improperly acquired evidence is inadmissible against him at trial. (This incidentally has happened with say, the use of heat sensors to find hidden pot plantations et al).But I thought we had already decided as a matter of public policy it was better to prevent terrorist attacks than to prosecute the perpetrators aftter the fact. It's rather hard to lock up a suicide bomber.  

Finally, I'm not sure what the practical difference is between suing telecoms for cooperating with the government and a bunch of thugs walking around an urban neighborhood and knocking on doors wearing "Stop Snitchin" sweat shirts. In both cases, the intent is to deter law abiding people from cooperating with law enforcement.

I'm sorry. There are no black helicopters in my wing of the Republican party.   

please have this debate in the other post

Submitted by Soren Dayton on Sat, 06/21/2008 - 12:05.

my mistake.

For the first time in decades

Submitted by David Hinz on Sat, 06/21/2008 - 12:03.

The American people finally grok the message that we need to drill for our own oil and we need to do it NOW!

While conservatives have been beating their heads against this rock for years, as environmentalists obstructed any new supply, and Congress dithered, the time is NOW to take this campaign issue and demonstrate the difference between an answer, and rhetoric.

When the Dems were in control, they blocked drilling or even exploration. When in the minority, they still blocked through cloture.  THIS is an issue that is impacting every American, and "Women and minorities" and the poor are hardest hit.

WE need to hammer this home, and we need to do it today!

Oil Independence In Less Than A Year

Submitted by BondPlainBond on Sat, 06/21/2008 - 20:50.

Eric Bolling, Fox Business News, said on Friday that oil drilling and outer Continental Shelf exploration would reap benefits in far less time than the media,  liberals, environmentalists, and some politicians would have you believe.

In areas where infrastructure is already in place, it would take less than one year to benefit from the results.

Should access be granted even further out into the Continental Shelf, up to two years for the results to be realized.

At depths considered to be difficult to handle, the results would be seen within three to five years.

In areas that have never been explored, the returns would be rolling in within four to six years, maximum.

Drill!  Now! 

The size of ANWR drilling is represented by this comparison:  Open your daily newspaper as if you were reading the front page.  ANWR is the size of one, just one, lower case letter on that page.  That the rigs in the ocean suffered no measurable damage during Rita and Katrina demonstrates the technology has improved and makes new and more drilling completely feasible and cost-effective in the long run.

In the meantime, people like Paul Liddle (converts gas-guzzling cars into completely electric vehicles at a cost of $30K per vehicle), can get with other creative minds and begin to reduce the costs of conversion (for those that want that route) and assist the auto manufacturers in halting production of gaz-guzzlers in favor of the completely electric car.  I believe it was Liddle that created an electric race car that zooms at 119 mph.  The technology is available NOW.  Nothing "new" needs to created or researched.

Nuclear power plants must start dotting the countryside, too.  Wind farms.  Solar panels.

Looking into the abyss of a divided country

Submitted by gunthestops on Sun, 06/22/2008 - 12:05.

You can keep ragging on the Democrats till the cows come home but that is not going to solve the problems that this country faces for energy.   Example: “we would have oil today if Democrats had gotten out of the way” now that is a moronic statement by Jon Henke!

 
First, since oil is bought and sold on the world market by oil producing companies the marginal amount of oil that would now be produced in the US would be sopped up by the developing countries and would have little effect on the current oil prices. 
 
Second, just because we produce it here does not mean we get to keep it here even if it is produced cheaply here, the world market sets the price. 
 
Third, the dollar index has fallen by 41% since the year 2000. Since oil is primarily bought and sold in US dollars on the world market it has hit us particularly hard. If the US dollar were about the same level as when Bush took office, oil would be about $80 to $90 per bbl.     
 
Fourth, George Herbert W. Bush (a good president and a real war hero) sighed some of the off shore drilling restrictions that now exist on the books today. 
 
So please don’t make it all the democrats fault, you make yourself look like an idiot!!!
 
 
 
 
 

 

Ok, so we ought to sit on our hands and suffer

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 06/22/2008 - 12:09.

now that's brilliant (not)!

Some good points, some bad.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Sun, 06/22/2008 - 12:23.

Yes, the falling dollar is part of the problem. And that is driven in large part by the idiotic so-called "free trade" which the Republican party is addicted to.

 

On the other hand, I don't think that you can point to something Bush Sr did eighteen years ago to let the Democrats off the hook for their refusal to allow any oil development in the US, or their reflex opposition to any nuclear power. If the energy market is tight, and it is, then the Democrats have to shoulder a lot of the blame.

 

oil drilling

Submitted by hiilc89 on Tue, 06/30/2009 - 03:04.

An oil is a substance that is in a viscous liquid state ("oily") at ambient temperatures or slightly warmer, and is both hydrophobic (immiscible with water) and lipophilic...

oil drilling

 

What does world market _mean_?

Submitted by ShrikeDeCil on Sun, 06/22/2008 - 22:11.

Increasing the supply in a market decreases prices. Unless the demand is climbing too - in which case increasing supply makes things cheaper than they would have been without increasing supply. 

 

This isn't fancy. It doesn't especially matter where the oil is actually sold, just that the quantity increased. Refinery fires in portions of the world that sell us miniscule quantities of oil still lead to price increases. 

 

As is repeatedly pointed out by leftists, a substantial portion of the oil currently coming from Alaska goes to Asia. But if there was a fire tomorrow breaking the pipeline, you know our prices would be going up. "Increasing Supply" is tougher to demonstrate than "Restricting Supply", but it's still pretty basic economics. (And if you want more oil that's drilled here actually staying here, you need more refineries. Thirty-year hiatus there too.