Oil now $144 a barrel

[pickenpieces]

Obama was heckled for his tuneup and tire inflation point, but there was a statistic from few years ago that showed how much oil would be saved if everyone just slowed down by 5 miles an hour. It was astounding what it amounted to. Not a quantity to be scoffed at.

But any slowdown is seen as antigrowth or antiAmerican or something, too bad.

Just imagine how much gas would be saved if the speed limit was simply adhered to.

THAT would keep us from buying so much from the Middle East.

[wanna be drummer]

Obama was heckled for his tuneup and tire inflation point, but there was a statistic from few years ago that showed how much oil would be saved if everyone just slowed down by 5 miles an hour. It was astounding what it amounted to. Not a quantity to be scoffed at.

But any slowdown is seen as antigrowth or antiAmerican or something, too bad.

Just imagine how much gas would be saved if the speed limit was simply adhered to.

THAT would keep us from buying so much from the Middle East.

Driving slow is for old people

[pickenpieces]

Driving slow is for old people

Driving fast is for idiots, of any age.

[L 7]

Drilling on our own soil would drive down the price of oil and we could drive any way that we want. Of course I realize how the libs want the Government to control our lives.

Why must everyone be pigeoned-hole as a lib when offering alternatives?

Where is the oil? Drilling in Alska would provide at best less than a million barrels a day. At last check we use 20 million barrels a day.

The Gulf Of Mexico? Oil shale? This is very expensive oil.

Living in Texas, we dried up long ago. I gave up my V-8 for a four cylinder and I can drive for two weeks on a tank.

[wanna be drummer]

Driving fast is for idiots, of any age.

No, driving fast and intelligently saves time. You can't drive too fast

Moderation in all things my student

[L 7]

I am all for alternatives. But until then we need to drill here. Every little bit would help. I live in Texas too. With new technology they are finding more oil each day here. We have so far found the easy to get oil, but there is plenty more out there and the technology to get it.

Technology is another link in a breaking chain. Technology drives up the price, not down. Another visious cycle. Like a dog chasing his tail.

20 million barrels a day is an addiction we need to find a "methadone" alternative to.

Why isn`t the spigot in our newly aquired 51st state, Iraq not been opened?

You can stamp a big LIB on my forehead but we need to cut oil imports from the Middle East.

Why are we there? Oil.

Why do they hate us? Because we are there.

[L 7]

OK, I will play along. And where do we get this oil from until we have all these alternative fuels?

Nail/Head. We don`t. If we would try to conserve and not waste, maybe the pressure on the oil fault line can be relieved before the energy earthquake hits.

I noticed every day on my daily commute In San Antonio there is only one person in every car on the freeway. The driver.

What about car-pooling? I have tried but none of my co-workers lives close enough. I would ride a bike (weather-permitting) on my three mile drive if I didn`t have to pedal on the acess road. I would even ride the bus but I go in too early and there isn`t service to the airport at that hour.

[L 7]

I agree with much of what you say. I just do not understand why you have a problem with us trying to produce as much of our own oil as possible in the mean time.

I don`t but again its only a quick fix and the oil is just not there.

We should get together the best scientists and engineers on this problem perhaps.

[TypeO]

Why are we there? Oil.

Why do they hate us? Because we are there.

Why isn`t the spigot in our newly aquired 51st state, Iraq not been opened?

Wow.

Quite a twist on the old standard "you just answered your own question."

Even worse.

You just questioned your own answer.

And it perfectly illustrates the faulty logic of this oft-repeated Lib claim.

Because it's NOT a war for oil, nor our "51st state."

And pretty much all but the most blindly partisan or poorly informed of the left (which are you?) have dropped that dated rhetoric in light of the recent talks about complete withdrawal as Iraq regains control of their country (our stated purpose all along, BTW).

Oh yeah, just paid $3.44/gallon here in Georgia (the state, not the country :lolo:)

Yeah, domestic drilling will only drop the price at the pump by a few cents, and it will take 8-10 years to do it.

Only took a month for it to drop over 50 cents just on the announcement of lifting the executive ban on offshore drilling (i.e., announcing our intentions)

And because it was such a sweet call on my part, I simply MUST quote this timely exchange from page 5 of this thread...

.

McCain supporters who cheer his domestic oil production proposal are such dupes.

--------------

*Will More Drilling Mean Cheaper Gas?*

Time Magazine; Wednesday, Jun. 18, 2008

On Wednesday morning President George W. Bush urged Congress to overturn a 26-year ban on offshore oil drilling in the U.S. and open a part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to petroleum exploration. Flanked by the secretaries of Energy and the Interior, Bush also proposed streamlining the construction process for new oil refineries, and explained that these moves would "take pressure off gas prices over time by expanding the amount of American-made oil and gasoline." Coming a day after Republican presumptive presidential nominee John McCain made a similar appeal to enhance domestic oil exploration, Bush was sending an unsubtle election-year message to the American public: I care about the economic toll of $4-a-gallon gas, and Democrats in Congress, who have opposed such an expansion, don't.

But there's a flaw in that logic: even if tomorrow we opened up every square mile of the outer continental shelf to offshore rigs, even if we drilled the entire state of Alaska and pulled new refineries out of thin air, the impact on gas prices would be minimal and delayed at best. A 2004 study by the government's Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that drilling in ANWR would trim the price of gas by 3.5 cents a gallon by 2027. (If oil prices continue to skyrocket, the savings would be greater, but not by much.) Opening up offshore areas to oil exploration — currently all coastal areas save a section of the Gulf of Mexico are off-limits, thanks to a congressional ban enacted in 1982 and supplemented by an executive order from the first President Bush — might cut the price of gas by 3 to 4 cents a gallon at most, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. And the relief at the pump, such as it is, wouldn't be immediate — it would take several years, at least, for the oil to begin to flow, which is time enough for increased demand from China, India and the rest of the world to outpace those relatively meager savings. "Right now the price of oil is set on the global market," says Kevin Lindemer, executive managing director of the energy markets group for the research firm Global Insight. President Bush's move "would not have an impact."

[click article header to read full article]

-----------------

Get a clue, righties. McCain's call to expand domestic oil production as

a means of lowering gas prices is nothing but another example of the

so-called "Straight Talk Express" having gone off the rails.

--------------------

*More offshore drilling does little at the pump: EIA*

Wed Jun 25, 2008

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Allowing oil drilling in U.S. offshore waters that are now closed to energy exploration would do little to lower gasoline prices paid by consumers, the government's top energy forecaster said on Wednesday.

In response to record pump prices, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain and President George W. Bush this month called for Congress to end its moratorium on drilling off the East and West coasts and in Florida waters, leaving it up to each affected state to decide where to permit drilling. McCain and Bush said the additional oil supplies likely to be found in the closed areas would help reduce gasoline costs.

However, Guy Caruso, who heads the federal Energy Information Administration, said consumers would see little savings at the pump.

"It would be a relatively small effect, because it would take such a long time to bring those supplies on," Caruso said during a briefing at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the EIA's new long-term international energy forecast. "It doesn't affect prices that much."

Most energy experts say it would take five to 10 years to find oil in the closed areas and bring the crude to market. Caruso said the additional supplies would amount to only a couple of hundred thousand barrels of oil a day.

"It does take a long time to develop these resources, and therefore the price impact is muted by that," he said.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is against opening more offshore areas to drilling for many of the reasons cited by Caruso.

-------------------

Sorry folks, but the "drilling will do little to gas prices" claim is utter bullshit.

Hermit, your quoted stories are quite myopic in nature - what they are totally disregarding is the reaction of OPEC - they would immediately increase production thus lowering the price down around $100 - $115 a barrel, get it back down hovering at $3 a gallon to create the illusion that drilling isn't necessary. So despite the fact no oil would be produced for a few years, we actually WOULD get immediate reduction in gas prices, and a lot more than 3 or 4 cents a gallon.

OPEC doesn't want us to drill our own oil, and they know as soon as they reduced prices, the leftist movement in our country would pick up the cue to call for a halt to domestic drilling - "see, prices are going back down - we don't need to drill here!".

And we're not trying to drill our way out of this problem, but we need to drill our own oil to deflect the gun barrel OPEC is pointing at us, as we pursue alternate energy sources, rather than the leftist claim that we want to drill INSTEAD OF looking for alternate energy sources.

Oil would drop just on the announcement that our government had passed legislation authorizing domestic drilling of ANWR and offshore.

This is simply another indication of Obama's lack of understanding of the large-scale economics involved with running the country.

His inexperience is further exposed by his intended policies of initiating windfall profits taxes on the oil companies.

NO corporations pay taxes, least of all the oil companies.

Their end-users pay the taxes for them.

As their expenses (taxes) increase, so their prices increase to absorb the higher costs.

So all Obama's plan will do is cost us regular folks more at the pump.

mmmmm, smell that?

It's the sweet, intoxicating aroma of I told ya so.

[pickenpieces]

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

And let me quote myself, above, from Aug 19 2008, 06:07 PM. This quote is not the US, but echos the reasoning of lower prices worldwide. I do not believe the announcement of possible further drilling had quite the effect you believe type-O.

Olerex: Falling consumption pulls gas price down

Gertrud Levit

gertrud.levitatchararipaev.ee 06.08.2008 13:50

Falling consumption influences gas price more than any other matter, even though neither geopolitical tension nor other risks have decreased.

Same topic in BBNStatoil lowered fuel prices by EEK 0.60

Both Neste and Olerex gas station chains have lowered the price. Petrol 95 will cost EEK 15.30, and diesel EEK 19.05, reports postimees.ee.

The main reason for lowered prices is the falling consumption of fuel in developer industrial states during the last half year, Olerex market director Antti Moppel said.

Next to the rising price of food, the soaring price of gas has been too much for the consumer. Less cars are being used not only in Estonia, but also in many larger states, Moppel added.

http://www.balticbusinessnews.com/Default2...1a0&ref=rss

[L 7]

Wow.

Quite a twist on the old standard "you just answered your own question."

Even worse.

You just questioned your own answer.

And it perfectly illustrates the faulty logic of this oft-repeated Lib claim.

Because it's NOT a war for oil, nor our "51st state."

And pretty much all but the most blindly partisan or poorly informed of the left (which are you?) have dropped that dated rhetoric in light of the recent talks about complete withdrawal as Iraq regains control of their country (our stated purpose all along, BTW).

Oh yeah, just paid $3.44/gallon here in Georgia (the state, not the country :lolo:)

Yeah, domestic drilling will only drop the price at the pump by a few cents, and it will take 8-10 years to do it.

Only took a month for it to drop over 50 cents just on the announcement of lifting the executive ban on offshore drilling (i.e., announcing our intentions)

And because it was such a sweet call on my part, I simply MUST quote this timely exchange from page 5 of this thread...

mmmmm, smell that?

It's the sweet, intoxicating aroma of I told ya so.

I am not a liberal, I am a realist. I am fed up with all the rhertoric about what to do about energy demands as well as all the pipe dreams about how to fix our suckling at the teet of the oil well. Its time for new ideas and fresh minds, not the same old worn out debate.

Obviously they didn`t teach R.I.F. (reading is fundemenatal) when you went to school because perhaps you didn`t read the whole thread. If you did, you selected your arguement. You make no mention of alternative energy nor conservation. You just seem to relish in "I just squashed another liberal insect" and DRILL DRILL DRILL UNTIL THE BARRELS ARE FILLED!!

We use 20 million barrels a day and there is NO way to produce this domestically unless old Jed Clampett makes another lucky shot.

Why the price has fallen may be as much to reduced demand or future drilling is an arguement yet answered.

So while you are thumping your chest and pontificating on your soapbox over "told you so" please turn to page two of your book of infinite knowledge about petroleum production and economics.

BTW I forgot the Iraq War was about WMDs. Please forgive me of my lapsing memory in my old age.

Maybe my Depends (OPPS! I crapped my pants!)) are full since you thinks this is all SHEET!

Where is Jeb when you need him?

edited for syntax and spelling

[TypeO]

Obviously they didn`t teach R.I.F. (reading is fundemenatal) when you went to school because perhaps you didn`t read the whole thread. If you did, you selected your arguement. You make no mention of alternative energy nor conservation. You just seem to relish in "I just squashed another liberal insect" and DRILL DRILL DRILL UNTIL THE BARRELS ARE FILLED!!

Physician, heal thyself (i.e., take your own advice and read my post - it's quoted in your reply.)

You accuse me of a "drill drill drill" mentality yet my post clearly states my position, if you had read it.

You just seem to relish in "I just squashed another liberal insect" and DRILL DRILL DRILL UNTIL THE BARRELS ARE FILLED!!

So while you are thumping your chest and pontificating on your soapbox over "told you so" please turn to page two of your book of infinite knowledge about petroleum production and economics.

I relished only in that my post, initially ridiculed for being "wishful thinking" instead proved to be nail on the head, dead center bullseye.

Vindication, pure and simple.

Reduced demand?

Do you think people JUST started to curb their usage when oil hit $144/barrel?

They've BEEN cutting back for some time now, so again, despite all the claims to the contrary, it's our domestic production intentions that have the biggest impact.

Wanna see it under $100/barrel?

Let congress lift the congressional ban on domestic drilling as well (like THAT would ever happen - Pelosi won't even allow an up or down vote, now THERE'S leadership from the number 3 in charge of our country!)

No, we can't produce ALL the oil needed for consumption - never suggested we could - but if we made a significant reduction in the amount we currently use - 20% seems realistic - OPEC would be sweating bullets.

No we're not the top consumer anymore, but we're still one of the largest, and China and India couldn't make up for that much of a reduction in our usage.

Bottom line is, OPEC has to sell oil.

They can only reduce production just so far to influence pricing, but eventually they're swimming in oil.

So prices go down way before we actually begin to see those first barrels of domestic oil.

And AGAIN, for the bazillionth time, then we have breathing room (gas price wise) while we develop alternative sources into practical application.

[marolyn]

OK, I will play along. And where do we get this oil from until we have all these alternative fuels?

here's a start....how about we stop exporting oil

ANALYSIS-US oil firms seek drilling access, but exports soar

07.03.08, 2:40 PM ET

United States - By Tom DoggettWASHINGTON3 (Reuters) - While the U.S. oil industry want access to more federal lands to help reduce reliance on foreign suppliers, American-based companies are shipping record amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel to other countries.

A record 1.6 million barrels a day in U.S. refined petroleum products were exported during the first four months of this year, up 33 percent from 1.2 million barrels a day over the same period in 2007. Shipments this February topped 1.8 million barrels a day for the first time during any month, according to final numbers from the Energy Department.

The surge in exports appears to contradict the pleas from the U.S. oil industry and the Bush administration for Congress to open more offshore waters and Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.

“We can help alleviate shortages by drilling for oil and gas in our own country,” President Bush told reporters this week. “We have got the opportunity to find more crude oil here at home.”

“As a nation, we can have more control over our energy destiny by supplying more of the oil and natural gas we’ll be consuming from resources here at home,” Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum (otcbb: AMPE.OB - news - people ) Institute, said in a letter last week to U.S. lawmakers.

But environmentalists and other opponents to expanding drilling areas could seize on the record exports to argue Congress should not open more acres if U.S. refineries are churning crude oil into petroleum products that are sent out of the American market.

“It doesn’t look good to say: ‘We need more oil.’ But then export the refined products that you’re getting. It doesn’t seem to be consistent,” said Jim Presswood, energy lobbyist for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

But many energy experts say oil and petroleum products are traded globally, and it may make economic sense to export gasoline refined along the U.S. Gulf Coast to Latin America and import European-refined gasoline to U.S. East Coast markets.

“The fact is that the (United States) participates in global markets for both crude and refined products, and there are any number of variables that impact supply and prices in those markets,” said Bill Holbrook, spokesman for the National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association.

The 1.6 million barrels a day in record petroleum exports represented 9 percent of total U.S. refining capacity of 17.6 million barrels a day.

However, with refiners operating at 85 percent of capacity during the January-April period, the shipments represented a much a larger share of total U.S. oil products produced.

The exports were also equal to half the 3.2 million barrels of gasoline, diesel fuel and other petroleum products the United States imported each day over the 4-month period.

The biggest share of U.S. oil products exported went to Mexico, Canada, Chile, Singapore and Brazil.

U.S. consumers are paying record prices for gasoline and diesel fuel, which the Bush administration blames in part on tight supplies.

While the administration argues that more supplies would help to bring down prices, U.S exports of diesel fuel in April averaged 387,000 barrels per day, up almost seven-fold from 59,000 barrels a day in the same month a year earlier.

U.S. gasoline shipments in April averaged 202,000 barrels a day, the most for the month since 1945, when America was sending fuel overseas to ease supply shortages in other countries during World War II. Gasoline exports in April 2007 were almost half at 116,000 barrels per day.

Residual fuel exports in April were 377,000 barrels per day, the fourth highest level for any month, and up 10 percent from 344,000 barrels per day a year earlier.

John Felmy, the chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute, said a portion of the oil products exported, especially diesel, was fuel that did not meet U.S. clean air requirements and therefore could not be sold in America. “You may have some that you’re not able to use,” he said.

Also, while U.S. gasoline demand is down due to high prices and a weak American economy, there is “strong economic growth outside the United States” where fuel is often subsidized and demand is high, said John Cook, director of EIA’s Petroleum Division.

However, both the EIA and API admitted they did not know why daily U.S. gasoline exports to Canada skyrocketed to 41,000 barrels in January-April this year from 9,000 barrels in 2007.

The EIA said more U.S. diesel is going to Latin American to fuel power plants because of a shortage of natural gas in the region, and China has switched to diesel from coal to run some of its generating facilities in order to reduce smog ahead of the summer Olympics next month in Beijing. (Editing by Christian Wiessner)

Copyright 2008 Reuters,

[Uncle Bill]

here's a start....how about we stop exporting oil

Interesting article, but it seems to miss the point, there isn't a shortage of worldwide crude oil, there's a shortage of domestic crude oil. If we were exporting crude the story would make more sense.

[marolyn]

Interesting article, but it seems to miss the point, there isn't a shortage of worldwide crude oil, there's a shortage of domestic crude oil. If we were exporting crude the story would make more sense.

huh?

[pickenpieces]

Crude or gasoline, people complain that we dont have enough refineries in the US to keep prices low and stable. Shipping out a refined product still undercuts that end supply we use in our autos.

The arguement of more refineries is negated by those who support the free enterprise that allows that export.

Where are the cries towards the oil companies to keep the product here, increasing the supply and keeping costs down?

marolyn posted a great bit of information.

[Uncle Bill]

huh?

If we take foreign oil and refine it and sell it abroad it helps our balance of trade. There is no shortage of gas or other refined products here. What we need is more domestic oil, we import too much crude, thats the problem.

Again, we are NOT exporting oil we are exporting value added products made from oil.

hth

[pickenpieces]

Why are conservatives not conservative?

They want to exploit the resources and not cutback on their consumption, thus lowering the price and helping out the environment as well. Its all about more, not less.

Slowing down when driving, reducing un-needed trips in the car are conservative, but that meaning goes out the window with the chest beating, DRILL DRILL DRILL proponents.

Its a sham. The conservatives are liberal with their desire to exploit and deplete resources. What an oxymoron.

[Uncle Bill]

This is one subject I agree with the democrats on, including nobama, lets do what T. Boone Pickens suggests.

[marolyn]

If we take foreign oil and refine it and sell it abroad it helps our balance of trade. There is no shortage of gas or other refined products here. What we need is more domestic oil, we import too much crude, thats the problem.

Again, we are NOT exporting oil we are exporting value added products made from oil.

hth

ok, assuming there is no shortage of gas or refined products here, tell my why we need to expand drilling...if we have all the gas we need and the oil companies are making gazzilions in profits, isn't competition in the free market supposed to drive down prices? ... isn't joe ceo supposed to say, i'll cut my price and settle for 29 billion in profits instead of 30 billion the competition is making and back and forth, until profits are minimized?

[Uncle Bill]

ok, assuming there is no shortage of gas or refined products here, tell my why we need to expand drilling...

There is no shortage of gas/ refining capability. According to the latest data from the Refinery Inputs and Utilization web page the refineries operated at only 85.7 percent of capacity in the week ended Aug. 15, down 0.2 percentage point from the week before and the lowest since the week ended May 2.

the aboved mentioned web site

We import too much crude from unstable regions and unfriendly country's. We need to use our own natural resources and quit counting on using those of other country's. What's so hard to understand?

[marolyn]

What's so hard to understand?

...if we have all the gas we need and the oil companies are making gazzilions in profits, isn't competition in the free market supposed to drive down prices? ... isn't joe blow ceo supposed to say, i'll cut my price and settle for 29 billion in profits instead of 30 billion the competition is making and back and forth, until profits are minimized?

...also, while we are at it... i don't understand how alaskans get money from the oil wells located in their state... oil companies are drilling on public lands that the taxpayers own and pay to maintain...how come i don't get a check for that?

...and one more thing...how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?

[Uncle Bill]

...if we have all the gas we need and the oil companies are making gazzilions in profits, isn't competition in the free market supposed to drive down prices? ... isn't joe blow ceo supposed to say, i'll cut my price and settle for 29 billion in profits instead of 30 billion the competition is making and back and forth, until profits are minimized?

...also, while we are at it... i don't understand how alaskans get money from the oil wells located in their state... oil companies are drilling on public lands that the taxpayers own and pay to maintain...how come i don't get a check for that?

...and one more thing...how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?

I've been addressing the supply issue in this thread, the price issue is much more difficult to pin down. this site gives as good of an explanation as I've read

On the alaskan question:

The Permanent Fund Dividend is a program benefiting Alaskans without a felony conviction who have resided in the state for at least one calendar year preceding the date applied for a divide and intend to remain an Alaska resident indefinitely at the time applied for a dividend. The amount of each payment is based upon a five-year average of the Permanent Fund's performance and varies widely depending on the stock market and many other factors.

Though the payouts have varied from the smallest ($331.29 per person in 1984) and the largest ($1,963.86 per person in 2000), they usually vary between $600 and $1,500 ($900 and $1,800 when adjusted for 2005 dollars). Although the principal or corpus of the Fund is constitutionally protected, income earned by the Fund, like nearly all State income, is constitutionally defined as general fund money [subject to legislative appropriation for any purpose ... but, in practical political terms, the public tolerates spending Fund income mostly only for 'inflation-proofing' and for paying dividends].

The first dividend plan would have paid Alaskans $50 for each year of residency up to 20 years, but the U.S. Supreme Court in Zobel v. Williams disapproved the $50 per year formula as an invidious distinction burdening interstate travel. As a result, each qualified resident now receives the same annual amount, regardless of age or years of residency. In effect, this equal-amount aspect mathematically means a greater percentage of added income for people of lower incomes. Conversely, any cut, limit, cap, or end of the equal-amount PFD would mean low-income Alaskans would experience the greatest percentage loss of income. The PFD payout-about October of each year--is acknowledged to have a substantial effect on Alaska's economy, both in total and especially in rural Alaska where unemployment can reach 60% and where cash is scarce.source

If you live in Alaska and aren't a felon you should be getting a check.

On the tootsie pop question: In my case 3

[TypeO]

Why are conservatives not conservative?

They want to exploit the resources and not cutback on their consumption, thus lowering the price and helping out the environment as well. Its all about more, not less.

Slowing down when driving, reducing un-needed trips in the car are conservative, but that meaning goes out the window with the chest beating, DRILL DRILL DRILL proponents.

Its a sham. The conservatives are liberal with their desire to exploit and deplete resources. What an oxymoron.

Could you possibly make a more biased, generalized and unfounded statement?

You use one of the most grossly overused and least truthful liberal attack stereotypes and apply it to every person who claims conservative ideals.

Name anyone - ANYONE - who claims they only want more oil and could care less about alternative energy sources.

It's as moronic a stereotype as that of the 60-year-old, balding-with-a-ponytail, pot-smoking, flag-burning, tree-hugging, protest-sign carrying hippie liberal.

NO conservatives hold the opinion your idiotic post attributes to ALL conservatives.

The only reason we want to drill is to ease the price pressure at the pump WHILE WE BRING ALTERNATIVE SOURCES TO PRACTICAL USE.

As for those who don't want to cut back on their usage, that's basically an income-based issue.

And everyone who makes good money isn't necessarily a conservative. There's plenty of rich liberals as well, and they are just as likely to espouse all the right "talking points" while refusing to inconvenience themselves by actually cutting back - hell, they can afford it, right?

Get a clue before you toss that many people into a single bag like that.

I don't see how you can even lift a paintbrush that wide.

[pickenpieces]

When I say conservative I dont mean just republicans. I mean the idealogy. True conserving. Anyone can exploit.

From the Kansas City Star. 8-13-08

GOP, Democrats pander on about oil

By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist

Dont take this personally, but plenty of Democrats and Republicans think Americans are pretty ignorant when it comes to oil.

The politicians realize that far too many Americans are used to cheap gasoline, like to drive big vehicles, take dim views of conservation and think alternative energy is still Buck Rogers fantasy material.

For example:

On Wednesday, GOP leaders repeated their irresponsible challenge to Democrats to come back to Washington right now to vote on a bill that would allow expanded drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, all to supposedly slash gasoline prices.

This incessant drill-now whining from Republicans and far too many followers across the country ignores key facts.

No. 1: There isnt that much oil on the shelf where President Bush wants to remove drilling restrictions. Experts predict 18 billion barrels might be there, which could provide 1 million barrels of crude a day, or 5 percent of the nations appetite. While that would affect prices a bit, it wouldnt lead to a wholesale swoon.

No. 2: The crude wouldnt get to the pumps in the form of gasoline for five years (at the shortest) to 10 years (which is more likely, given all the regulatory, financial and construction hurdles faced in offshore drilling).

No. 3: The oil companies arent even making promises that they would drop everything and hurry to drill there. Dont be shocked, but the industry actually wants to make money. It realizes that the costs of exploration and drilling might or might not be sustainable, depending on what happens to future oil prices.

While drilling for crude in previously protected areas is worth considering, it by no means is worth rushing to willy-nilly embrace in the heat of the 2008 campaign season.

Democrats often arent any better than their GOP colleagues, however.

Democratic leaders such as U.S. Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts — chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming — are out and about in Kansas City and other parts of the country, taking credit for boosting the fuel efficiency of future new vehicles.

True, Congress finally passed a bill requiring higher gas mileage years from now.

Yet this is the same party that routinely failed — when Bill Clinton was president and when the Democrats controlled Congress — to boost fuel efficiency standards at different points over the past quarter-century.

Locally, Democratic Reps. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri and Dennis Moore of Kansas previously had opposed higher gas mileage laws, kowtowing to local car manufacturing companies.

Meanwhile, many politicians of both parties still go along with imposing a tariff on imported ethanol while excessively subsidizing corn ethanol with tax dollars, all to keep Midwestern farmers happy.

The result: Cheaper cellulosic ethanol is kept out of our markets, boosting sales of corn ethanol that knocks down a vehicles miles per gallon.

Finally, a number of politicians support pulling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which supposedly would cut prices at the pump.

It’s a short-sighted idea, one President Bush has wisely resisted.

The reserve is for real national emergencies — like a terrorist attack or an abrupt end to imported oil — not just to make it cheaper for Americans to drive around in SUVs.

Many Democrats and Republicans will do and say anything to make it appear theyre trying to bring down gasoline prices — even if most of their ideas are foolish, especially when stacked up against better solutions (you knew this was coming):

Drive fewer miles. Drive smaller vehicles. Invest in alternative energy to replace fossil fuels.

Its a simple recipe for success in cutting fuel consumption — and prices.

But given recent history, count on plenty of politicians to continue to support risky oil exploration, embrace costly ethanol subsidies and try to supply Americans with cheap gasoline.