Oil now $144 a barrel

[wanna be drummer]

It could be changed to.....

"Oil Now $116 a Barrel (so why am I still paying $4.39/gallon at the pump?)"

I'm paying $3.70/gallon...

[Electrophile]

I'm paying $3.70/gallon...

It's $3.75 for unleaded here. Premium just dipped under $4.

[Trouble-Free Transmission]

Even nobama realizes the American people want more drilling by a more than 2 to 1 margin.

Obama has never said he "wants" more drilling (in fact he's been clear that he doesn't think offshore drilling is a worthwhile proposal). What he HAS said is that even though he personally doesn't support the idea, he's willing to consider it as an option IF that's what it takes to get a compromise deal done. He's being pragmatic; he's reaching across the aisle; he's being open-minded and flexible. Pragmatic, open-minded, flexible, and bi-partisan; qualities that will serve him well as the next president of the US, don't you think?

Furthermore, the fact that the American people "want" more drilling by a 2:1 margin is not an indication that expanded offhsore drilling is sound economic or energy policy; it's merely an indication that there are twice as many short-sighted, gullible (dare i say ignorant?) Americans as there are wise, intelligent, practical Americans.

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Official Energy Statistics from the US Government

Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf

"For the lower 48 OCS [Outer Continental Shelf], annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher-2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case. Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

[wellhead price: the price less transportation costs charged by the producer for petroleum or natural gas. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wellhead+price ]

Bottom line: 2/3 of the American people may misguidedly want more drilling, but the US Government's own report predicts that expanded offshore drilling will not have a significant impact on gas prices.

Other than for the big oil companies who will reap even more profits from expanded offshore drilling, increased offshore drilling and a "gas tax holiday" are nothing but "feel good" propositions for those 2/3 of the American population who now support them. Most of those 2/3 are republicans,.. which makes me wonder: when did you republicans become such avid proponents of meaningless "feel good" policy ideas?

Expanded Offshore Drilling:

Gas Tax Holiday:

link: Barack Obama's Ten Point Page Energy Plan

[TypeO]

Furthermore, the fact that the American people "want" more drilling by a 2:1 margin is not an indication that expanded offhsore drilling is sound economic or energy policy; it's merely an indication that there are twice as many short-sighted, gullible (dare i say ignorant?) Americans as there are wise, intelligent, practical Americans.

Most of those 2/3 are republicans,.. which makes me wonder: when did you republicans become such avid proponents of meaningless "feel good" policy ideas?

yup, we already know libs don't care much for majority opinion unless they are the majority.

B.O.'s "any way the wind blows" policy

glad yer back, though!

I can change my sig, now :lolo:

[Nathan]

I have one qualm with offshore drilling... leaks.

That oil could potentially pollute our oceans, killing many sea-faring animals and making it dangerous for the beach-lovers to swim in.

I only hope that if we end up drilling off-shore, we take every necessary precaution and maybe some seemingly unnecessary ones to ensure that the oil would never hit the water, no matter what.

Oh, and despite what my posted words look like, I'm not being sarcastic.

[zepyep]

Hi all,

Just wondering why the wind farms around Cape Cod,has been shot down by my two Senators,Kennedy and Kerry? No off-shore drilling involved,....no leaks,no pretty seals,birds dying,...

Then what?

KB

[TypeO]

I have one qualm with offshore drilling... leaks.

That oil could potentially pollute our oceans, killing many sea-faring animals and making it dangerous for the beach-lovers to swim in.

I only hope that if we end up drilling off-shore, we take every necessary precaution and maybe some seemingly unnecessary ones to ensure that the oil would never hit the water, no matter what.

Oh, and despite what my posted words look like, I'm not being sarcastic.

Ask ALWIZARD how much oil leaks from drilling rigs.

More oil leaks from random pleasure boats out for a spin than from the newest oil rigs.

[Pb Derigable]

We don't have to drill offshore for more oil.

We don’t have to drill in ANWAR for more oil.

All we have to do is have B. Hussein Obama gives speeches in foreign nations and tell 7 year old girls that America is a bad place.

If we could do just that prices will go down.

It's true, the day before B. Hussein Obama skipped out on the troops and played basketball, I played $4.21 gal. Yesterday, I paid $3.81.

Yes, I know Pres. Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling, but who will listen to the most powerful man in the world. We got the messiah giving speeches about America is no good.

Hey Obama got too tired and jetted off to Hawaii. and gas prices went up. Of course it wasn't House Speaker Nancy Pelosi fault since she did everything she could to prevent Environmental wackos supported dems to vote on an energy bill.

[Suz]

I see Hermit is back, here come the Obama apologies. I just hope that his replies are not so drawn out this time around. Yes obama has become so predictable. He is starting to sound more like McCain then McCain himself.

Well, he'll still be pres-o-dent ( see: Chris Rock), so you can kiss my liberal ass... seriously- it hasn't been kissed since about 9:00, so it's lonely. Do you have a beard? Nevermind.

[Trouble-Free Transmission]

B.O.'s "any way the wind blows" policy

It is true, TypeO, that Barack Obama has.. since well before he'd announced

his candidacy.. been advocating wind power as an alternate energy source.

"While I take very seriously any concerns that these structures could interfere with military readiness, I also believe that with mounting instability in the Middle East and energy prices at record levels, we must begin investing in alternative energy sources today. Wind farms are an important part of our ongoing efforts to make the United States more energy independent, which is why the FAA needs to immediately clarify its position so that investors feel comfortable putting their money into these projects and construction crews can get to work." [barack Obama, July 26 2006]

One of the stalled projects is located in Bloomington, Illinois. If completed, the wind farm would be the largest source of wind energy in the nation, generating enough power to serve an estimated 120,000 Chicago-area homes.

On June 2, 2006, Senators Durbin, Obama, Russ Feingold (D-WI), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) wrote letters to officials at DOD and FAA voicing their support for the responsible development of wind power.

http://windenergynews.blogspot.com/2006/08...wind-power.html

[Uncle Bill]

Most of those 2/3 are republicans,.. which makes me wonder: when did you republicans become such avid proponents of meaningless "feel good" policy ideas?

Please post your source of this data. My research shows different. Example:

Partisan Gap over Energy Exploration Disappears

Much of the increase in support for energy exploration has come among groups that previously viewed this as a less important priority than energy conservation -- young people, liberals, independents, Democrats, women and people who have attended college.

Figure

Fully half of people ages 18 to 29 (51%) now say expanding energy exploration is a more important priority for energy policy than increasing energy conservation and regulation; only about a quarter of young people (26%) expressed this view in February. The proportion of liberals who say expanded energy exploration is the more important priority also has doubled (from 22% to 45%).

The gender gap in attitudes about whether greater exploration or greater conservation is the more important priority has disappeared, as women have become much more supportive of expanded exploration (up 18 points).

Similarly, more independents (19 points) and Democrats (16 points) view increased energy exploration as the more important priority. About the same proportions of Democrats (46%) and Republicans (43%) now say expanded exploration, rather than increased conservation, should take precedence;

source

[Trouble-Free Transmission]

Please post your source of this data. My research shows different. Example:

Partisan Gap over Energy Exploration Disappears

Much of the increase in support for energy exploration has come among groups that previously viewed this as a less important priority than energy conservation -- young people, liberals, independents, Democrats, women and people who have attended college.

Figure

Fully half of people ages 18 to 29 (51%) now say expanding energy exploration is a more important priority for energy policy than increasing energy conservation and regulation; only about a quarter of young people (26%) expressed this view in February. The proportion of liberals who say expanded energy exploration is the more important priority also has doubled (from 22% to 45%).

The gender gap in attitudes about whether greater exploration or greater conservation is the more important priority has disappeared, as women have become much more supportive of expanded exploration (up 18 points).

Similarly, more independents (19 points) and Democrats (16 points) view increased energy exploration as the more important priority. About the same proportions of Democrats (46%) and Republicans (43%) now say expanded exploration, rather than increased conservation, should take precedence;

source

Granted, I have no data source to back up my claim, Bill; I was merely expressing an educated hunch. My point remains though: expanded offshore drilling and a gas tax holiday are "feel good/accomplish nothing" policy proposals. And my question remains: when did republicans become supporters of bogus "feel good/accomplish nothing" policy proposals?

Having said that, your source reports on a poll regarding "ENERGY exploration" not "OIL exploration". In that context, "expand exploration" does not necessarily refer exclusively to "expand exploration for oil", it can just as well mean "expand exploration for alternate energy sources". My point is supported by the fact that the poll shows a 6% increase (from 54% to 60%) among all poll participants who identify "developing new energy sources" as a priority. -->

As you can see, in one poll question people were asked to identify what they consider a "More important priority for energy policy"; they had the option of choosing between "expand exploration, mining/drilling, construction of new power plants" vs "more energy conservation/regulation" vs "I don't know". Given those choices, someone who thinks our priority should be expand exploration of alternate energy resources moreso than than our priority being "more energy conservation/regulation" would have to vote for the "expand exploration, mining/drilling, construction of new power plants" option.

Furthermore, I can't help but notice that the poll shows a 6% DROP between Feb 2008 (49%) and June 2008 (43%) among REPUBLICANS who consider "Expand exploration, mining/drilling, build power plants" to be "More important" than "More energy conservation/regulation". -->

It seems to me that any poll that shows a decrease in republican support for expanded exploration is clearly not a poll measuring republicans' support for "expanded offshore drilling". And if support for expanded offshore drilling it is what it was measuring, then it's clearly a flawed poll.

And finally,.. the poll shows that 50% support for drilling in ANWR, and 43% opposition to drilling in ANWR. Nowhere in the poll are people asked specifically about expanded offshore drilling for oil.. the specific issue that I had commented on when I surmised "most of those 2/3 are republicans". I maintain my hunch that most of the 2/3 of the American population who support expanded offshore drilling and a gas tax holiday are republicans who are supporting "feel good/accomplish nothing" policy proposals. Your Pew poll has done nothing to sway my opinion on that.

[Virginia]

It's $3.75 for unleaded here. Premium just dipped under $4.

I just paid $3.57 at Sam's Club about an hour ago

[Uncle Bill]

Having said that, your source reports on a poll regarding "ENERGY exploration" not "OIL exploration".

Feel better after your morning stretch?

The poll was clearly about drilling, mining and constructing new power plants as well as as exploration, which most people not trying to make an argument on the internet equate to OIL exploration.

I still don't get where you come up with the idea that the 2 out of 3 people who support drilling are republicans. In the text that accompanied the graph I posted it stated:

"The sentiment prevails across the board — among men and women, old and young, rich and poor, and Republicans, independents and Democrats, two-thirds of whom say gas prices are more important.

Support for offshore drilling and oil shale development is also broad-based, with the former favored by 64% of respondents and the latter by 65%."

Oh wait, I remember,you have a hunch.

I suppose you will find a problem with this poll, like you do with every poll you disagree with.

Will To Drill Is Strong, Poll Finds; Climate Change Pales As Concern

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 14, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Contrary to claims by Al Gore and others that global warming is the greatest challenge of our time, Americans by better than 3-to-1 say the price of gasoline is a bigger problem now, according to the latest IBD/TIPP Poll.

Moreover, they stand willing to do something about it, including and especially drilling for oil in the Outer Continental Shelf and in federal shale reserves in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah.

Even drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is backed by a plurality of Americans.

The poll of 920 adults taken last week shows that 73% think "fuel prices at the pump" are a bigger problem for the country than climate change, the new term for global warming.

Only 23% say climate change is more important.

The sentiment prevails across the board — among men and women, old and young, rich and poor, and Republicans, independents and Democrats, two-thirds of whom say gas prices are more important.

Support for offshore drilling and oil shale development is also broad-based, with the former favored by 64% of respondents and the latter by 65%.

source

[Trouble-Free Transmission]

fwiw.. the math behind my hunch:

* By and large, Republicans support offshore drilling.

* Republicans make up roughly half the electorate (approx 48%).

[since not "all" repubs support offshore drilling, I'll say only 40%

of repubs support offshore drilling].

* It was claimed that 2/3 of the Americans support offshore drilling.

* 2/3 = 66%

* 66% (total support) - 40% (repub support) = 26% remaining (non-repub) support.

* 40% vs 26% = "most of that 2/3 are republicans".

btw..

It is a fact that "energy exploration" does NOT equate with "oil exploration".

the questions in the poll you cited make that apparent to an objective observer.

..are you able to be an objective observer of that poll, Bill?

I'm heading out on a road trip. ..catch ya in a couple days, friend.

[Uncle Bill]

I'm heading out on a road trip. ..catch ya in a couple days, friend.

Have a good/ safe trip bro, hope your transmission lives up to your new handle. See ya when ya return.

[marolyn]

hey, i think i recognize that spinny smiley...

[TypeO]

Just paid $3.58 for regular unleaded here in Georgia.

Pretty much only thing over $4 now is diesel.

Now prepare for Pelosi and Co. to say "see, no need to drill, prices are coming back down."

If this congress was a movie people would be walking out of the theater because it's so cliche' and predictable.

[Pb Derigable]

Just paid $3.58 for regular unleaded here in Georgia.

Pretty much only thing over $4 now is diesel.

Now prepare for Pelosi and Co. to say "see, no need to drill, prices are coming back down."

If this congress was a movie people would be walking out of the theater because it's so cliche' and predictable.

Yeah thats a shame with diesel.

Oil refineries can produce so much. Since they can sell more gas and make more profit, they produce more gas than diesel.

The refinery that I work at normaly produces a 55% gas 45% diesel ratio. now its more like 75% gas 25% diesel.

Now if Oil companies were free to produce as much as they can. I would assume diesel would be cheaper, since it's cheaper to make and more of it is bought in bulk.

[pickenpieces]

The reason gas has fallen in price is because of the drastic curtailing of usage many have made.

[L 7]

I think people who drive gas-guzzlers should pay more. Drilling for more oil is not the answer. Conservation and alternative enery is. We didn`t learn the lessons of the first oil embargo.

The oil will run out one day. We need to pull our heads out of the Middle East sand and face the issue that something must be done now. A gallon of milk stills costing more than a gallon of fuel is little comfort to me.

[Dzldoc]

I think people who drive gas-guzzlers should pay more. Drilling for more oil is not the answer. Conservation and alternative enery is. We didn`t learn the lessons of the first oil embargo.

The oil will run out one day. We need to pull our heads out of the Middle East sand and face the issue that something must be done now. A gallon of milk stills costing more than a gallon of fuel is little comfort to me.

Better have a good motorcycle helmet for this car

Smart Car?

[wanna be drummer]

I think people who drive gas-guzzlers should pay more. Drilling for more oil is not the answer. Conservation and alternative enery is. We didn`t learn the lessons of the first oil embargo.

The oil will run out one day. We need to pull our heads out of the Middle East sand and face the issue that something must be done now. A gallon of milk stills costing more than a gallon of fuel is little comfort to me.

I agree that conservation and alternative energy need to be used more heavily in the upcoming years, but we cannot just stop using oil cold turkey. Theres not enough corn for a purely ethanol-driven society, and it would take years to get all forms of alternative energy to the public for mass usage. For right now, more drilling would ease the pressure off the regular citizen and allow time for alternative energy to reach the masses

[L 7]

I agree that conservation and alternative energy need to be used more heavily in the upcoming years, but we cannot just stop using oil cold turkey. Theres not enough corn for a purely ethanol-driven society, and it would take years to get all forms of alternative energy to the public for mass usage. For right now, more drilling would ease the pressure off the regular citizen and allow time for alternative energy to reach the masses

Agreed and ethanol is not the answer. Growing corn requires fuel, a viscious cycle. Drilling for more oil is just putting a band aid on this festering sore. A finger in the proverbial damn.

I think making nuclear energy safer, solar, more hydroelectric (envirnmental issues again) and wind power would help. One concept is even harnesssing the power of the tides.

[wanna be drummer]

Agreed and ethanol is not the answer. Growing corn requires fuel, a viscious cycle. Drilling for more oil is just putting a band aid on this festering sore. A finger in the proverbial damn.

I think making nuclear energy safer, solar, more hydroelectric (envirnmental issues again) and wind power would help. One concept is even harnesssing the power of the tides.

Great post, I agree