The Dems’ drilling rhetoric just ain’t cutting it
Here’s some snort-worthy handwringing collected in the WSJ’s Political Perceptions blog. The Dems know they’re getting whipped like cheap margarine on this issue, and they’re looking for new ways around that:
The New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg argues that’s because they’re making the wrong arguments. Saying that the idea is a gimmick, won’t produce results quickly or isn’t a complete answer to America’s energy problems isn’t very effective, he writes. The better argument: Because oil is a global commodity, whatever the U.S. drills from off its own coasts doesn’t go directly to America but gets spread out on a world market. “The point is easy to understand,” Hertzberg writes. “We take all the risks. We pay all the costs. But we don’t get all the benefits, such as they are. Once the oil comes out, some time in the far future, it gets sold to whoever’s buying at that day’s price. The impact on price will be spread across the globe—which is why, as even the Bush Administration’s Department of Energy admits, that impact will be ‘insignificant.’” Bottom line, he says: “It’s a drop in the bucket, and it’s not even our bucket. It’s China’s, India’s, Europe’s—everybody’s. We get a thimbleful. But our wind and our sunlight aren’t going anywhere.”
Hertzberg’s example, deriding energy savings of a few pennies per gallon down the road, doesn’t really explain what’s wrong with saving a few pennies per gallon down the road. Save me a dollar a tank? Where’s the downside? Is there any reason besides reactionary NIMBY environmentalism not to do this?
Besides, gasoline by me has dropped about a quarter a gallon over the past couple of weeks. That’s real money–nearly five dollars a tank I’m saving. (Well, it’s real money to me; maybe it’s just a drop in the bucket to Hendrik Hertzberg.)
Also, if we drill, that’s money that will enrich American oilmen instead of Saudi princes, the Mexican national treasury, and Venezuelan caudillos. What’s more, the American oilmen pay taxes on that income in America. We like it when that happens. Well, not really. Most conservative ideologues want to roll back the income tax. But if some treasury’s going to get the benefit of the oil trade, how about ours?
Without even drilling, the prices are already sliding. Do you think that was the earnest discussions of wind power that brought the prices down? Did everyone just take Obama’s advice and inflate their tires? Or have changing attitudes toward exploration put an end to wild speculation on oil prices?
I suspect your answer to that question will depend on whether you have a D or an R after your name.
Well, the WSJ has some more examples of political rhetoric that are worth your attention–but when you’re done let me send you over to the New York Times, where we see Montana’s Democratic governor assuring Montanans that
Obama ”ain’t ever going to take your gun away.”
The NRA disagrees with governor Schweitzer. So do I.
__________
LATE NIGHT AFTERTHOUGHT: I’m still up, working through my backlog of e-mails about registration troubles, but I was thinking about the second story:
Montana? Obama thinks he can carry Montana, and is spending money there?
That’s some kind of audacity, all right.
_____________________
{Post by See-Dubya}
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Nancy Pelosi Passes Gas « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)
- The Dems’ drilling rhetoric just ain’t cutting it — The 2008 Elections
- The Georgia Crisis and Nancy Pelosi
- Obama Uses Don Quixote Windmill Logic: « Riggword Weblog
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Barack Obama, Enviro-nitwits, Guns
Legal Insurrection
» Calling For Sparkman Apologies
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia ArchivesRiehl World View
» Update2: No Cancer?? Suicide! Staged As Homicide - Live Stream Of Sparkman News ConferenceAmerican Thinker
» The Wilding of Sarah PalinFounding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Radio Equalizer
» Media Matters Admits Rush Didn't Make Key Racist RemarksMudville Gazette
» Threatswatch: US Embassy Denies Secret Eikenberry Talks With TalibanHot Air
» 3rd quarter GDP 2.8%, not 3.5%
Hertzberg is setting up the argument for nationalizing the oil industry.
Well if the Jayson Blair Project says so it must be true.
Millions of these Rich Oilmen are people with pensions invested in the Market. And that does included a whole lot of public employees. Another good reason to drill here is National Security–we are vunerable to foreign intrest that may not coincide with ours–Russia?
But a vunerable America is good for Leftist Fascist and the Jayson Blair Project I suppose.
Excellent article about T Bone’s wind power scam in this months National Review. It seems the Danes have the most developed wind generation capacity and are finding it does not work. And they don’t have to run power lines as far as the Picken’s Plan.
Right now I am reading ObamaNation by Jerome R Corsi. Excellent read. Learn to fear and loath the Chosen One all over again.
I really believe the nation needs to have a Red state/Blue state divorce. Mark Levin has made the statement “it took 100 years to get to where we are today, it may take 100 years to get to get back to where we need to be.” I don’t want to wait 100 years. For starters I won’t be here which means the rest of my life will potentially be spent in a socialist Hell hole from which I can’t escape. This isn’t the 15th century where we can seek out new lands to escape government despotism, we’re trapped.
I’m ready to split the country into Liberal and Conservative halves. Of course we’ll have to build a high wall to keep the Libs from coming over once they have descended into full blown Soviet style Big Brother oppressive Marxism.
A win by McCain may piss the Left wing off because they won’t be able to implement their socialist agenda as quickly but an Obama win literally scares the crap out of me and many Conservatives.
Maybe the more Conservative states will follow Oklahoma’s lead and reassert their Constitutional rights and we can seek protection from the Fed from the our state governments.
If drilling won’t affect the price, how do the dems explain that the price of gas has dropped about 40 cents based merely on the belief that drilling is more likely to occur?
Translation: Any republican idea, by definition, is wrong.
“Only a drop in the bucket”? And the downside here is what? Positive output is positive output, whether it be a penny drop or two dollars.
“It’s China’s, India’s, Europe’s— everybody’s.” I’m glad he pointed this out. Reminds me of the spice melange from Frank Herbert’s “Dune”. The Democrats are realizing that resources are finite, but fail to connect the dots. (Considering that all economics is based upon the idea of finite resources, it’s pretty scary that they’re just now figuring it out, but I digress.) How much power, not just monetary, would the United States gain from possessing such a resource? Consider the influence we could have on China and others who don’t respect human rights. Imagine for a second the shoulder shrug we could give to Venezuela and the Middle East if we could ween ourselves of foreign oil. We could say, “OPEC, pound sand. We don’t need your oil anyway… Oh, you wish to drop your price? Ok, we’ll listen, but only if you drop below…”
This is also SOP for our lefty friends. While the price of gas will drop by a few cents per gallon at the personal level, the overall economy benefits by a price reduction for all goods/commerce. The lefties won’t mention this because it’s just too logical.
Someone needs to communicate the folly of wind to Pelosi and the public at large.
It took me 15 minutes to determine that to create 3.2 GW (the output of the nation’s largest nuclear power plant, Palo Verde) of wind power would require ~76,000 acres. And that is being very generous because I assumed a 100% efficiency using GE’s newest wind turbines that produce nameplate power of 2.5 MW. Physics limits maximum windmill efficiency to 59% and real maximum is far less than that. So, being generous with efficiency and using wind advocate estimates of 60 acres per MW we arrive at the 76,000 acres. In contrast, Palo Verde occupies 4000 acres, most of which is empty space. And lets not forget that Palo Verde operates 24/7 365 days a year at 2/3 power at least allowing for routine maintenance shut downs.
Wind power is a boondoggle and a scam. Politicians support it either because they are eco-Marxists, ignorant, or for pure political reasons regardless of their actual beliefs on the subject.
You can take my guns from my cold, dead hands, Obama.
Almost all oil that is produced in American stays in America. Are the Dems saying that we pump the oil in our country and send it somewhere to the highest bidder? Or do we just send it to storage tanks waiting to be bought by somebody? I don’t know for sure, but I think the only way the “world market” plays into this is that the price is determined by the world market. At any rate, if it were not for imported oil, the USA would have a trade surplus rather than a huge trade deficit. Would that not be a good thing? We spend about 3 times more on imported oil than we do on the war in Iraq…..and the money we send to out comes back to buy our infrastructure, the Chrysler building recently….and about 40 billion from Dubai is about to buy various foreclosed properties.
We are giving out country to illegals and selling it to people who don’t like us much…..and not being allowed to do anything to fix the problems.
Is it any wonder people are mad?
So, a 1% increase in California’s state sales tax means the difference between a deficit or a surplus in next year’s fiscal budget, but if we all save 2 cents per gallon of gas that has no affect on the economy at all. Not that I think 2 cents is the maximum drop we’ll see, just trying to show that a little change can make a big difference when dealing with top-dollar, recurring purchases (like buying a tank of gas every other week).
How much oil do 20 million illegals consume?
How many power plants are required to provide power to 20 million illegals?
The eco-Marxists should be our allies on illegal immigration but they’re too afraid of being called “racists” to say anything.
Amen. Uncle Sam trained me to use it, our founding fathers made sure it was Constitutionally protected (and thank God common sense barely prevailed in understanding that simple concept). So if they ever come for my guns, I pity the poor SWAT team they will need to get them.
DerKrieger
I’ve have never understood how we lost our states rights. I’m in Idaho. Do you think oklahomas move would work here?
LC
California is 17 billion short. Better recalculate.
Inflation is at 5%. 2 cents saving just become smaller
Amen DerKrieger (”Wind power is a boondoggle and a scam.”) Sadly, it also turns out to be death to raptors and other flying things. Follow the money and you find Nan & Co., hypocritical purveyors of creeping Nanny State-ism, telling us that they know more and are better humans than anyone who disagrees with them.
700 billion dollars are leaving this country every year to buy oil. There is no need to ask why our currency has lost 40% of it value in just 6 years.
True, for a very simple and obvious reason that libs don’t seem to realize – it costs money to transport the stuff, and if it gets sold to China or Europe, somebody has to pay a tanker around 30,000-50,000 dollars a day to transport it there. It’s cheaper for them to buy closer to home, i.e. Russia and the M.E., and our oil tends to stay here for the same reason. And also, it pays to point out that the primary supplier of oil to the U.S. is…. the U.S. Very little of our oil goes offshore. Next is Canada, and third is Mexico. Same reason – short supply lines.
We aren’t just giving away money. We get something of value in return – oil to power our economy. It’s called trade, and it works to the benefit of both sides. I just can’t get into this school of thought that we are losing by importing oil. From one standpoint, we are actually gaining, since we are preserving our own resources for future need. And, in addition, much of that money is coming back to us in the form of investment in American companies, real estate, government bonds, etc., all of which benefits us. One real argument against importing so much oil is that it puts us at a disadvantage geopolitically. The ability to use our own oil to replace that of real or potential adversaries like Venezuela would strengthen our position in the world by precluding threatened cutoffs of supply, the likes of which Europe is facing with Russia. The argument that we would deprive our enemies of revenue, however, is simply misguided – somebody else, e.g. China and India, will simply step in and buy that oil instead. Also, the argument that importing oil is the cause of a weak dollar is, as far as I can see, simply not true. Our government has pursued a weak dollar policy for decades for the purpose of keeping our exports competitive. One way they do that is by keeping interest rates very low. And as the dollar weakens due to Fed action, the price of international commodities like oil, when denominated in dollars, increases, not the other way around. In other words, it isn’t just the value of the commodity changing, it’s also the price in dollars that changes as the dollar weakens or strengthens. Just another of those unintended consequences of government manipulation of the currency and interference in the market.
And I say again, the U.S. has more coal than any other country in the world. It’s a resource used in a process called Fisher-Tropfsch and produces gasoline or jet fuel (synthesize the coal gas/methane into liquid hydrocarbon fuels).
This technology is just about as old as Moses, proven as a method to produce gasoline or jet fuel, requires no offshore drilling, can go to market as fast as Fisher-Tropfsch refineries can be built, is an energy source for the next 150 years. We could still drill but why. Why drill for China, India, the world, and enable big oil market supply manipulation.
As a public service I host The Silver Bullet Web Sit that explains Fisher-Tropfsch and shale oil exploration. America has a rich energy future but lacks the leadership to get there.
I’ll take a thimbleful over nothing at all. Every little bit helps. But the real fallacy these people like Hertzberg are making is framing this argument as an either/or situation. It’s not the Republicans who want to limit energy sources; it’s the Democrats. They’re the ones who say we can’t drill here and we can’t build a refinery there, and we can’t use climate friendly nuclear power anywhere. What energy sources have Republicans sought to keep off limits? Can someone name even one?
Republicans want to do it all. We’re a big country; we can chew gum and drill at the same time. Democrats want to limit drilling because “it’s a drop in the bucket.” But you don’t hear Republicans demanding that we stop developing wind and solar power because “it’s a drop in the bucket” compared to oil and coal, do you?
Republicans believe we can drill for oil and at the same time work to develop wind, solar, and nuclear energy. Developing viable alternatives to oil is going to take time. We don’t need to put our economy and our country at risk while we do it. When we do discover an alternative energy source that is just as cheap and reliable as oil, Republicans will be the first to rush forward to embrace it.
If you believe the time to get off oil is now, go ahead and do it. No one is stopping you. It’s an opportunity to show the rest of us how to do it. Do something Democrats have never tried before: practice what you preach. Then you can write a book about it and make millions… except ink is made from oil, darn it.
One reason oil is so expensive for the US is because the dollar is so weak. We have been pumping umpty-diddly dollars out of the country on a daily basis buying foriegn oil, and the dollar has fallen 40% against World currencies as a result.
So, even if the price of oil on the World market were to say exactly the same, it would cost us 40% more, because we pay for it in weak dollars.
If we produce more at home, that is less money we dump on the World market by buying foreign oil, and our dollar will recover. This can lower our energy costs more that supply/demand related reductions in price ever could.
There are so many ways the republicans can attack the ban on oil, it rather sickens me that they’re so obtuse. Those reason can be broken down as follows:
Oil Speculation:
If the dems truly believe that oil speculation is to blame for high energy costs, then explain to me how flooding the market with oil at some unknown point in the future (est. 1 year to 6 years away) doesn’t dampen the speculators? Why would they buy futures knowing at an uncertain time, more oil will be flowing into the world market?
Environment:
If the environment is a global issue, then the dems are going to have to explain to me how Angola’s more environmentally conscience than the US. The dems are perfectly willing to put the “health” of the planet in the hands of people who don’t care about the health of their citizens?? Third World countries drilling is a geopolitical problem, as well as an environmental one.
Geopolitics
The dems are going to have to explain why allowing third world countries to rule the tap is beneficial to anyone on the globe. Not only are these gov’ts unstable on their own, but with the influx of cash oil brings, it brings more instability, not less.
Prices
The dems favorite line is that drilling won’t solve prices today…but isn’t that counter their argument that high prices are due to speculation? Not to mention, the transfer of wealth has made the few that are wealthy have even more control of their populations. The US doesn’t have to turn on the tap unless oil prices hit a certain threshold, but we have to know that we can drill and turn on the tap at any given movement. The US, in essence, has the ability to control prices globally.
And I don’t buy that us drilling would only be a drop in the bucket. With the OCS and shale, we’re about 8-10 Saudi Arabias.
Pelosi and Reid won’t allow a vote. They know drilling will help at the pump. They want to keep those prices up to make the GOP and President Bush look bad and try to get a bigger sweep in November.
We had something similar happen here in the Peoples Soviet Socialist Republic of Maryland recently. Our former governor, a republican, wanted to put slot machines at horse race tracks and collect taxes off of it. The democratic controlled state legislature opposed it and wouldn’t even allow a vote on it. They made it look like the governor failed to deliver on his promises. Now that we have a democrat governor, they have no problem with slots.
Something similar may happen if the democrats sweep the election in November. They’ll allow the drilling next year, but they’ll say it’s more environmentally friendly or some nonsence like that.
Are you saying the weakened dollar and the huge trade deficit, (due entirely to imported oil), are good things?
The investments you speak of are also oil rich countries buying our office buildings, our land, our housing, our companies, etc., etc. How can we hope to be a soveriegn nation and control our own destiny while we are rapidly selling our nation to various foreign countries, some of whom really don’t like us? Doesn’t make sense to me that any benefit from spending 700 billion/year on imported oil could come close to outweighing the negatives caused by the selling of America, literally.
Thank you BOB.
You may add, the drilling industry creates local jobs.
It is ALWAYS better to keep investments in our own country.
That is true. However, anyone who has operated a business in a capitalist market will tell you that you only make money off a resource when there is a need for it.
If alternative energy sources truly start to work out, you will see a reduction in the cost of oil… and in a few decades you may find the US sitting on a resource… that no one else needs.
From a business perspective, you’ve just missed the opportunity to reap the maximum profit. And remember that profit fuels retirement accounts (from stock in oil companies) and tax revenue for services in our country.
I’m all for free trade but we have the resources here. Yes even coal. Keep up with new technology.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080519092205.htm
and
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080215135731.htm
At $55 dollars we have many options.
oops
55 dollars a barrel (typing in the dark)
Excellent article see-dub.
I would point out that 3 weeks ago, the price of gas around nashville was at 4/gallon.
This morning, the station up the street had it at 3.31/gallon.
Its costing me about 10 bucks a week less now to fill my car up. Even if its 10 bucks, its savings that add up.
The article states directly what i believe our biggest problem is…the 33% of product we export to other countries. we need to keep more here at home, to help keep the price down. but even if we did distribute it, it would still put more supply into the mix, regardless of the amount. and that still has a lowering effect on the price.
drilling is a win/win.
You mean people like me, who work in gas and oil production? Well, I’m not getting rich, but I am making a pretty good living. Dems complain about American jobs being “shipped overseas” and yet they have no concern about the Americans who do this work. Maybe it’s because we think it’s a good idea to drill and they know most of us won’t vote for them.
The other thing I wonder about is why drilling in a tiny piece of ANWR, for example, is such a horrible tragedy for the environment and the landscape, yet wind farms which as someone pointed out that are not only hideous but kill birds, are OK? Is it really the libs position that we must do the absolute worst thing just to say they’re doing something? “As long as it doesn’t really make a difference, we’re for it”. I know this sounds insane, but I’m really trying to understand this way of thinking.
P.S. Alaska drilling has had decades of environmentally-friendly results, not to mention the yearly stipend given to AK residents from oil revenues. Again I say, how is this a bad thing?
I just can’t understand liberal logic. Drilling for new oil to increase supply is bad and will not work. Releasing oil from the strategic reserve to increase supply is good and will work.
It just doesn’t add up!
What I don’t understand is the environmental argument for not drilling.
The argument boils down to: Do not alter, re-shape, or tweak the environment in any manner. Leave it alone.
But the oil we (and the left/libs/Dems) are now using came from somebody’s environment…and extracting that oil required altering, re-shaping, and/or tweaking somebody’s environment…….so why is that OK….?
There is no such thing as “liberal logic”.
Which article? I do believe 33% of product is a way to make it look like much more oil is shipped from the US than is really the case. 33% of what “product”? Yes, the USA ships certain oil products out of the county that are in demand and sometimes would not even be available to other countries if we didn’t sell it to them.
But, shipping oil out of the USA is not why we have a problem with importing 13 billion barrels a day. If this shipping was stopped completely today we would still have virtually the same need for imported oil. It certainly is NOT 33% of the 19 billion barrels of oil we use each day. No where even remotely close to that.
There is a government site that breaks down US oil use, where it comes from, where it goes, etc.. I can’t remember where to find it at the moment, but when I do I’ll post it…or maybe someone else knows?
Then, as usual, we’ll be in the forefront in the development and exploitation of those energy sources – but on a practical basis, there’s nothing on the horizon that can replace oil. People really seem to have no concept of how pervasive oil based products are in their lives. I wasn’t making an argument for not drilling anyway. I’m all in favor of it. I was just disputing the point that we get nothing for the 700 billion we spend importing oil (which, by the way, includes oil we import from Mexico and Canada, hardly to be considered among our enemies, even if they are sometimes lousy friends).
The audacity of polls.
Actually, what I was saying was the trade deficit is a result of the weakened dollar, not the other way around.
Wind power can provide constant power if they’re placed somewhere where the wind blows continuously. Like in congress.
Basic economics
Money multiplier rule #1
For every dollar invested in this country 6 dollars are created.
For every dollar invested outside this country $1.50 is created.
With geopolitics sometimes creates a negative return on your investment. Oil is a great example.
Superb points. One might also add that if we believe oil is a finite resource, production a decade away can only be to our benefit, otherwise, when you really need it, it will again be “a decade away.”
As for this, all you have to do is see what the Obama Mini Me (Deval Patrick) is trying to do in Massachusetts. He is trying to double the LTC permit fee from $100 to $200.
I wonder how many people get priced out of the market by that kind of increase? And who is to say there won’t be more in the future?
Patrick wants to kill he gun market by overpricing and attrition, but all he will do is be effectively giving subidies to criminals, both financially, and in terms of increased opportunity to commit crimes without fear of being confronted by a competent, gun owning, law abiding citizen.
Does anyone think Obama won’t do the same?
Obama doesn’t believe in the free market. Look at his voting record. What little there is of it. LIbs. don’t understand the concept of a free and open market. There afraid the rich will get richer. Go ask a poor man for a job, Bill Clinton said it another way. “all money is created by the government”? WHAT?
that would only work in theory..
if that third world country invested back into the US.. It doesn’t always work that way.. Sometimes that money from oil gets invested into a gold plated Rolls Royce… OR another 50,000 sq. ft. summer home..
if we drilled domesticly, that would be to American workers, buying American homes, buying Normal cars to drive to work and home and maybe have enough money left over to take a vacation and drive through a couple of states to see Yellowstone Park.
Pelosi wanted a “Comprehensive” energy plan.
Sounds a lot like the Republicans’ all-of-the-above plan.
I say drill, drill, drill and then drill some more. When its gone, we’ll be the leader in Solar, Wind and COAL!
Well said, Family Man! The government’s main functions are to provide for the common defense and maintain a criminal justice system. In most other things, they should just get out of the way. I cringe everytime I hear a politician talk about “getting our economy going.” Stop over-taxing small business owners and messing with the minimum wage for starters…that’ll go a long way. Funny that many of our leaders have never even run a business.
BTW, is anyone else sick of Bill O’Reilly’s constant demonization of the oil industry, among other stupid things? Last night, he presented Jerome Corsi’s book on Obama as if it was some screed with no basis in fact. The way Bill pretends not to know anything about the Democratic nominee is simply nauseating! Guess he’s still courting Obama for his big Factor appearance…
Nancy Pelosi must be enjoying her reign as deity of the House. She has all the attributes of the Roman Emperor Caligula “vicious, treacherous, drunk with power, an evil, insane monster posing as Emperor”. Maybe she will soon, like Caligula, proclaim herself a “God”.
As opposed to enriching Vlad Putin, mohammedan terrorists and Hugo Chavez?
Anytime you can avoid sending money out it is a good thing. Our just buying oil with dollars is not really the best model of trade. It is not being paid for with exports. We do get something of value but no return on dollars spent.
And we can not let ourselves depend on these foreign sources–it is just too risky. And if we drill T. Bone and Nancy Pelosi’s Clean Energy Corp goes away as all scams should.
This is funny: Bill Clinton’s administration saw the creation of three times as many private sector jobs as have been created under Republican rule. Also, the only sustained increase in middle-class incomes since the 70s.
The free market is a wonderful thing. Gas usage drops (4% or so) and the price of gas drops. The idea that a bunch of windbaggery about drilling that might increase global production by a drop or two five or ten years down the road is bringing down prices today the product of overwrought imaginations.
Any serious conversation about the cost of oil begins with conservation and alternatives.
EVERYTHING on the table–do it ALL but start drilling IMMEDIATELY! Just the threat and (I believe) the House Republicans actions since the recess sent my tank of gas from $72 a week ago to $69 yesterday. That is LUNCH for me for a DAY!
None of that will happen unless we tie the drilling rights to a comprehensive energy plan that gets really serious about those alternatives, as well as nuclear.
What is Hertzberg talking about? He’s wrong. Oil can’t be purchased on an open market! Oil can only be obtained by invading other countries.
Why else would we have invaded Iraq?
Technically, he’s correct. Money is an artificial medium of exchange. It isn’t the same as wealth – it’s just a convenient way to do business and to keep score.
That’s ludicrous. The commodity has the value. As I just noted, money is just the way of keeping score. That’s like saying you buy food from the grocer, and get nothing of value because you eat the food and have nothing left.
I live in IL and I can tell you that Obama never saw anti-2nd Amendment legislation that he didn’t like and vote for. When he came out in favor of the Heller decision, I wish there were at least one less star-struck reporter out there to ask him what he sees as the difference between what D.C. was doing and what Chicago is still doing.
Congress should remove ALL taxes on domestically produced oil that is processed and sold within the US. And tax the crap out of imported foreign oil or exported domestic oil. For once, provide some incentives to make it here and keep it here!
This one? The one we’re all posting about?
If you dislike the %, then please tell Forbes Magazine to STHU. It’s their numbers. Product refers, in this case, to crude oil.
I agree. Decreasing the amount we send out of the country isnt a solution to the problem. But like any puzzle, there are many pieces that fit together to make a whole. Would not reducing the amount we send from our shores, and using it here, benefit us? Of course it would. the 33% in question is the amount of what we produce that is sent overseas. not our total consumtion. 2 different statistics involved.
the actual government site is here.
Down the bottom left of the page, you can click on links to find whatever stats you wish, including the import/export data (which is here, just in case)
Using the numbers that forbes put out, you’re right…its not a cure to reduce the export of our own oil. but it would help.
I live in Corpus Christi, Texas. This is the seaport where T. Boone’s windmills are are delivered everyday. You should see how “green” these windmills actually are. First you have a big ‘ol boat from Switzerland deliver them (two or three tugs help park it in port). Then you have two or three cranes unload them and set them on the ground. When the 18 wheelers arrive, those giant cranes load them on the trucks. Each windmill comes in 6 pieces and each piece needs it own 18 wheeler. Since they are oversized loads, each 18 wheeler is escorted by 2 vehicles carrying the appropriate warning signs. Plus, whenever the 18 wheeler entourage goes through a major city on its way to its destination, it is accompanied by a police escort. Anyone know the carbon foot print for that?
I basically agree. we need to go with viable alternative fuels and let the private sector develop accordingly.
Maybe this had to do with the Republican majority Congress at the time? How about “welfare reform”?
We use 25% of the world’s oil and have 25% of its proven reserves. If we followed your plan, the price of gas would shoot up so high you’d be praying to get back to $4/gallon. By the way, why so eager to give Exxon free money?
I get what you’re saying chapoutier, but I don’t believe that government is best place for alternative fuels to gain their leverage.
If the money and market are there, industry will meet the challenge. Tying the hands of oil companies into a decision that includes technologies which they may not be experts in would further hurt our situation, not aid it (IMHO).
I, personally, like ideas around incentives for alternative fuels rather than regulations which would seek to punish oil companies for having their primary interest in… well… oil.
I realize that this is not implied in what you are saying, but it seems to be what some of the democrat leadership is suggesting. (e.g. Trying to force the companies to drill in unproductive areas before they can gain other leases)
“We” will get really serious about those alternatives when they become economically viable, which is unlikely in anything like the near future (or when you libs get out of the way and stop obstructing development, as you have with nuclear power for the past 40 years). In the meantime, the world runs on oil. We can either produce it here or buy it elsewhere. We can’t live without it.
Or maybe neither was responsible and it was because of the internet boom where for about 5 years there you couldn’t help but make money hand over fist.
This statement is just as dumb as the “Why drill now if it won’t help us for 5-10 years” that you decry liberals for having.
These alternatives will not progress at anything near the rate we need them to unless we get serious now. We should have done this a decade ago, but it seems that no one wants to do anything until we are on the absolute brink of crisis.
Sorry, should read:
We use 25% of the world’s oil and have just 3% of its proven reserves. If we followed your plan, the price of gas would shoot up so high you’d be praying to get back to $4/gallon. By the way, why so eager to give Exxon free money?
Given the lackluster performance of the Congress during its most recent six-year Republicn majority with a Repuiblican president, regarding jobs and the budget deficit, it’s probably safe to say that Clinton’s accomplishments came despite the Republican Congress, rather than because of it.
Clinton, btw, ran for president with welfare reform as a cornerstone of his platform and the final version of the bill — one of the last significant pieces of real bipartisanship in the last 20 years — was largely shaped by his hand. You may remember him winning that game of chicken with Newt Gingrich back when the government kept being shut down.
Let’s see, we have a balloning debt. We have more that we (some anyway) want the government to do. We have a very valuable asset that we are not using. Selling that asset will bring in untold Billions into the trasury. It will probably lower energy prices and it has a very small chance of hurting anything. So, what is wrong with selling dirlling rights and taxing the product procuderd? NOTHING
That’s the point. Government doesn’t (shouldn’t) create jobs, but sure can stifle them.
Clinton wouldn’t have reformed welfare without the (conservative) guiding principles of self-determination and self-sacrifice. Without the Republican Congress guided by the remnants of Reagan conservatism, there would have been no such thing as welfare reform.
I realize this is O/T, and I apologize to all for hijacking. I was trying to emphasize the point that conservatism releases individuals to perform at their best, resulting in all kinds of financial and other benefits to society.
I wont argue with the few positive things clinton managed to hammer out.
But that doesnt dodge the question of what to do inthe present, that we all have to live in and deal with, and with an approval rating that is almost (if not already) single digits…what we see NOW is the do-nothing democrats fumbling around and wringing their hands.
So, what’s their stance on our current situation? Talking about Bill until the cows come home doesnt fix anything.
Believe that do you? Oh well. I thought we were doing well until 2006/7-Democrats take Congress- but if you say so it must be true.
The 70s were great with the stagflation, 21% prime interest rate, 444 Days of Shame and the oil embargo?
Are you really Jimmie Carter? Come on now, you can tell us.I’ll bring the peanuts. Have to go now and hang the clothes on my Federally Approved, tax credited, Green Certified Solar Powered Clothes Dryer, Mr. President.
Since I don’t knwo how to use the quote feature, I’ll respond to Bemused here:
That 3% of the world’s “proven reserve” only holds true at a cost of $40 per barrel. It means that we only have 3% that could be drilled at a profit, not a loss. At $140 per barrel, virstually ALL of our oil in ANWR, NPR-A, oil shale, etc., become profitable to drill.
Now, you want ot make the claim that reducing taxes will INCREASE the cost of oil? Reducing taxes enourages more drilling/production which brings more oil to market. Are you saying the laws of supply and demand have been revoked in this case?
The Goverment at all levels takes in more in taxes than the oil companies make in profit. It’s accepted that the Dem’s “windfall profit” tax will increase the price at the pump as oil companies pass on the burden. But reducing the tax will also cause an increase? I’d be interesting in a reasoned explanation as to how that works.
But the real purpose of eliminating the taxes on DOMESTIC oil is to encourage the production and sales WITHIN THE USA! Hertzberg wants to make the case that oil is fungible. Elminating taxes on Domestic oil provides an incentive to keep it here.
BTW, the line about giving Exxon more “free money” is an intersting euphemism. Exxon and other oil companies are providing a product they pay for, refine, and distribute. I would expect them to make a profit off that. Nobody “gives” Exxon “free money.” It’s the Government who is getting the “free money.” They provide no real service and collect more than the oil companies do in profit. What about THAT “free money?”
Supply and Demand can be so tricky…
Now that’s funny. That’s what we’ve been saying about domestic oil exploitation for the past 10 years. The problem with you Marxists is, you just don’t trust anybody but the government to do anything. And you conveniently ignore the fact that the reason the vast majority of electric power in this country isn’t generated by nuclear is because of you and your ilk.
Coming from you, that’s even funnier.
Regardless of who controls Congress and the White House, when the economy does well, the government takes credit. When the economy does poorly, they blame the other party, industry, and Wall Street (but never themselves).
What is troubling is when a group of politicians (of either party) believe they can “fix” things with more regulation/legislation. They are supposed to be listening to their constituents whom they represent but instead are more worried about positioning themselves for the next election.
Say what you will, but many will see the manner in which the House concluded the session as running away from this issue until they can gain a larger majority in November and then come back and look like heroes. To see-dub and Michelle’s point, all this talk now about drilling from the Democrats is yet another stalling tactic.
Just received this email from democrat senator in Missouri. They never stop, they never think, they just want the power. NUTS
Dear Ms. __:
Thank you for contacting me regarding domestic energy production. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.
Our leaders need to be more up-front about what is really going on with energy production in this country. Oil companies already have an opportunity to increase domestic oil supply, but they sit on their hands and ask for more land when there is no evidence that they need it. Approvals for drilling on federal lands are at an all-time high and leasing to areas like the Outer Continental Shelf is already occurring.
Combined, oil and gas companies hold leases to nearly 68 million acres of federal land that they’re not using both in Alaska and in the Gulf. This is over 80% of available federal land and the federal government provides these leases at a discount. Congress needs to pass legislation that would force oil companies to fully utilize these existing areas which contain some of the most abundant supply of oil in this country. It only makes sense that they explore and develop the millions of acres they already have access to before Congress permits drilling in new areas.
Energy experts contend opening new areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would not lower prices at the pump for years and then only by a few cents. Additionally, it would fail to move the country toward energy independence. With only 3 percent of the world’s oil supply and 25 percent of the world’s demand, it is clear America can not drill its way to lower prices. Our country instead needs real solutions to the energy crisis.
Congress, for example, is taking a hard look at oil speculation and whether there should be more regulation in this area to more accurately reflect the rates of supply and demand. This could mean a more fair and reasonable price at the gas pump. I also believe that continued investment in alternative fuels is the best way to reduce America’s addiction to oil and America’s best long-term energy strategy. Unfortunately, some members of Congress continue to block legislation that would help address this crisis and allow our nation become energy independent.
Also, I want to take this opportunity to dispel the myth that appears to be circulating that China has partnered with Cuba to drill off the coast of Florida. Some of my constituents are concerned that this is happening, but there is no offshore drilling venture between Cuba and China at this time.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to let me know if I can address any other issue that is important to you.
All best,
Senator Claire McCaskill
1) Bill Clinton’s administration was not responsible for that boom. It occurred on his watch……..but he did not create it. It was more Bill Gates than Bill Clinton.
2) You refer to it as ‘Bill Clinton’s administration’……and then use the term ‘Republican rule’….
……….real subtle….
By the way, I am also ‘addicted’ to electricity, heating and cooling, and food. Do the democrats want to remove this ‘addiction’ too. I am a scientist and this crap about addiction to a major civilization framework frosts me, so does the idea that corn ethanol will save us. These jerks have added more poverty to the world than I thought possible. May God have mercy on their souls, as I would not.
Fine, and when that is gone, then what? Do we get serious about wind, solar, geothermal then?
Shut up with the marxist crap and try to have a real conversation. And your statement is not true. It should be private industry leading the way with huge incentives and maybe even subsidies for research from the government to spur them on. But private business, on its own, does not seem to be taking this too seriously. And why would they? Alternatives are not profitable yet and they want profit. Problem is that by the time they are profitable, it will be too late and we will yearn for the days of $4/gal gas.
First, you assume too much, I have expressed support for nuclear on this very thread if you care to know. Despite that, lets not pretend that nuclear does not have some real risks to it. People opposed to it are not just doing so for the hell of it. That said, I think it is something we are going to have to deal with.
That was really profound. Care to expand?
Nothing like pandering to the lowest common denominator, the SUV driver. Gets votes, but ultra-selfish, short term fixes are at the expense of the future.
Bemused:
Here’s a definition of “proven reserves:”
1 Proved reserves are estimated quantities that analysis of geologic and engineering data demonstrates with reasonable certainty are recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions.
Here’s the link:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html
Please notice the DATE of these estimates and take a guess at the cost per barrel of oil at that date.
we need to puy nancys pic on all the gas pumps we all have printers and tape. hey let everyone see who is screwing us
So, if Hertzberg’s argument were valid, why would oil producing countries, like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela not have prices somewhat equivalent to our own, instead of something like $0.91 and $0.12 (USD per gallon of regular unleaded), respectively? Or, Kuwait ($0.78) or Egypt ($0.65) or Nigeria ($0.38)?
Great point, Barry F. It also doesn’t answer the question of why average U.S. gas prices have dropped at least 40 cents per gallon since the discussion began just a couple of weeks ago.
While I am happy to hear you say this as it agrees with what I believe, I’m not so certain that the Democrat leadership believes this. Much of what we have seen seems to be along the lines of forcing industries rather than providing incentives.
I do not know that it’s fair to say that private business doesn’t take this seriously. Could you define ’seriously’ in objective terms? Many companies are doing R&D on alternative fuels, some of them even “Big Oil”.
Depending on the technology, each of the alternative sources have their own issues with which to contend. For example, wind energy is great but there are challenges in storing the energy when its produced to when it can be consumed and used.
Sure. You have the IQ of a tomato plant.
It won’t be gone in this century. And wind, solar, and geothermal are already in use, and have been for many, many years. If they were as viable as you seem to think they are, they’d have much wider application already. The problem is, the wind doesn’t always blow, the sun doesn’t always shine, and you can’t store electricity in quantity. Geothermal simply isn’t of significance as yet but I readily admit that I know very little about it other than the basics.
Once you put in the government incentives (and control), it isn’t private industry anymore. I call you a Marxist simply because that’s what you are. Sorry you can’t handle it. Private industry will, and has always, lead the way in developing new and better technologies. The problem is, none of the ones you favor are all that new, and none are better. Rather than deal with reality, you leftists always try to force your fantasy world down our throats.
You’re looking in the wrong direction. People on your side are looking for even higher prices. Obama’s only problem with $4.00 oil is that we got here too quickly. The frogs are feeling the heat, in other words.
There is one other point about domestic drilling that I made earlier. It’s the only way we can avoid being held hostage by those who would do us harm, the way Europe is right now with Russia. Just wait until we get serious about Iran and they decide to close the Straits of Hormuz.
Oil has dropped because China turned off a large part of their economy for the Olympics and because of some demand destruction due to high gas prices. The threat of drilling won’t affect prices until there is oil being pumped.
The positive side of drilling is that it’s OUR oil – we can’t be held hostage for it and the amazing price per barrel goes into American pockets, not middle east dictators’.
Just block the text and click the button above. It’s a pain that every website/blog seems to have a different software. Maybe we agree on something.
By any measure we have only a small fraction of the world’s reserves; more to the point, opening offshore drilling will increase those reserves by only a small fraction, years from now. Oil shale appears to be a mirage, btw, as people keep saying they can get oil out of it economically, but no one’s done it yet. Interesting to see how that plays out.
I want to make the claim that if we increase taxes on foreign oil, the cost of gas will go up because we import about two-thirds of our oil and won’t be able to make that up. Interestingly, we would drive the price down for our overseas competitors as American demand for “their” oil dropped.
The windfall profits tax — which I am against — will have a negligible effect at the pump because if government took half of all profits in taxes that would amount only to 4% of oil company revenues. To the extent that they passed that 4% on and prices rose, consumption would drop, with offsetting price pressures. Probably a tossup. Similarly, cutting taxes in ways that reduced price would increase demand, and thus put upward pressure on prices. In the long run, either effect is probably relatively small.
Oil IS fungible. We even sell some of our Alaska oil to Japan because it’s cheaper to sell some domestic and import from Mexico or Venezuela. Are you going to forbid exports of oil? Are you eliminating taxes at the pump (excise taxes), at the well (royalties) or at global HQ (corporate taxes) And, at $140/gallon, why do oil companies need further incentive?
If Exxon is drilling for oil on public land that you and I own and not paying for it through taxes, royalties or some other mechanism, it is getting free money. C’mon, stick up for your property rights!
As you prove again and again.
PS: If I can’t take credit for Clinton I won’t be blamed for Carter. You guys have to make up your mind. Personally, I prefer to stand with Truman on the subject of where the buck stops.
About 1.2 billion from Big Oil from 2000 to 2005, according to the American Petroleum Institute. Not nearly enough. And again, I get it. They don’t want to dump a lot of money into it while they can still make huge profit from oil. They are in the business of making money for their shareholders, not being philanthropists.
But where does that leave us?
…but it will still be mostly over there than over here.
Well, except better in the fact that they will never run out and we have them here.
Please. That is just paranoid. However, if any good has come of this it is that the prices have kicked enough people around that we are finally having real discussions about long term energy issues.
But in some places it is consistent enough (I have spent significant time in Wyoming in my life and if there is one thing that has it is CONSTANT wind). And if we were talking about relying solely on wind or solely on solar, you would have a point. But we are not. We are talking about integrating these into a comprehensive energy plan that greatly reduces our reliance on oil.
The real fantasy is thinking oil will always be around and/or will always be cheap and/or continuing to think that we can have a foreign policy being led by the nose by our reliance on oil. This will not change even if we open up the US to more drilling.
I admire anyone who thinks that 1.5 billion dollars isn’t a lot of money. I guess it’s all in whose money it is, right? After all, it isn’t yours, so why shouldn’t you decide where to spend it? And you wonder why I call you a Marxist. Now let me ask you another. Why should oil companies be the ones to try to put themselves out of business? There are lots of companies out there doing the research you demand, mostly on government subsidies, just as you prefer. Why don’t you pick on them for not bringing your dreams to fruition?
Maybe you missed the part where I said I didn’t blame the oil companies and that they are not in the business of being philanthropists.
But again, where does that leave us?
I dont disagree with you on the face of your discussion. I have a slightly different take about why people like Gore and Obama want to have gas prices higher, but i do agree that we need to be looking forward in regards to energy development and consumption.
Gore has made statements, here in Tenn, that if gas prices were higher, we’d just simply stop using oil. From things he’s said, i believe obama wants to use the issue as a “let the government help you” and issuing those energy credits he was talking about previously.
I don’t agree though, that we’ll reach a point where gas is really so high we’d beg for 4/gallon. There is only so much people are willing to pay before they simply stop. 4/gallon caused alot of noise…companies couldnt afford to have it go much higher or they’d lose business.
It leaves us with the same market opportunity where the company that makes the breakthrough on this new technology becomes the next “Microsoft”.
The difference isn’t always about shareholder value, although I concede that this is the single largest influence. As others have mentioned in other posts here, the companies doing the research are at least considering the cost/benefit values. …plus, just as companies are considering their shareholders, we should not pretend that the politicians are the real altruists here. They are primarily concerned with keeping and building their political leverage and getting elected.
There was a time when the steam engine was a primary source of transportation, but we don’t talk about coal reserves now because technology brought us the combustion engine. We cannot predict what the next evolution will be, but in the meantime we should make the most of the resources we have which powers our world today. Not drilling for ourselves in the hope that some salvation will come in the form of alternative fuels is too risky.
Salt #93, excellent post.
What’s “paranoid” about saying that is Obama’s problem with $4.00 per gallon gasoline? He said it himself on MSNBC, in response to the question about high prices (26 seconds into the clip) – the infamous “I think I would have preferred a gradual adjustment” statement.
“By any measure” is a bit weasel-y. What we’re dealing with is the dichotmy of “3%” vs. graphs that show total oil availability sans the “proven” qualifier. THe graphs celary show the US overwhelming Saudi Arabis, Iran, Iaraq, Venezuela, and others.
BTW, Jordan, which had virutally no “proven” reserves as of the last EIA report, is now developing their own oil shale (or is that oil sand?). Why? Because it’s now “proven” based on the current market prices.
It’s that Supply and Demand thingie again…
True, but my point was lowering/eliminating taxes on DOMESTIC oil production and usage.
But so what? The ultimate result will be less profits for the Saudis, Venezuela, and other countires that sponser terrorism. This is what we call a win-win scenario.
Interesting slight of hand here. The tax is on profits, not revenue. While a tax may “represent” only 4% of revenue, the actual tax hit is on profit. That’s a bit more than 4%.
You also assume that the “4%” will somehow reduce consumption. Perhaps for some, but many of us don’t drive around for luxury. We HAVE to get to work. I think you’re dreaming about the effects but that’s my opinion.
The point is to make it an incentive to NOT be fungible. I would forbid nothing; I’m not a liberal Democrat. Oil companies would still have the option to sell wherever they want. I simply propose removing the tax on oil pruduced and sold domesticaly. Keep it on foreign oil.
The REAL interesting thing is how long the new dynamic will last. At what point does our own production drive down global costs to the point where some of our domestic production become marginal, or even a loss?
A day I would LOVE to see!
“My property rights?” Like I actually have some right to it?
Are you saying that the oil companies don’t pay for these “leases?” Then why are they called “leases?” Besides, a 20% profit on leased land for which that is the only “investment” is a damn good rate of return. I’d lease my back yard for free for that kind of return.
OK. What the heck are you talking about?
I have to go – life calls. But just as one last parting shot, I’ve seen estimates for total US commercially viable reserves (including offshore, Alaska, shale, et al) as high as 1.5 trillion barrels. And estimates for world offshore resources exclusive of the US of nearly as much. That doesn’t include coal reserves, which also can be converted to oil. Even if these estimates are too high by as much as half, we’re not going to run out anytime soon – not for centuries. And that period will extend even further if we get serious about nuclear power. The whole business of alternatives is less about shortages of oil than it is about political power, just as with the global warming hoax. And conservatives aren’t the ones who crave political power.