Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Matt Towery :: Townhall.com Columnist
Independence Day and The Politics of Oil
by Matt Towery
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Oil and gasoline are on everybody's minds as Americans take to the roads for the July Fourth holiday weekend.

John McCain has taken the subject head-on with his proposal to allow individual states to choose how and whether to increase oil and natural gas drilling off their coastlines.

But first let's take a peek at Iraq. Its government recently awarded several major oil companies the rights to drill in Iraq. Accusations flew that the Bush administration played favorites with the American oil companies up for consideration to drill, but it was actually Iraq's own leadership that made the choices, as the U.S. State Department duly noted. Whatever.

More interesting were comments about "protecting" the rights of the various ethnic and religious sects in that country; in seeing to it that they each receive their "fair share" of the money to be gained from the sale of the oil.

Interestingly, our firm recently polled Americans and asked who they believe should receive the proceeds of that oil. It wasn't the Sunnis, Shiites or Kurds that Americans want the proceeds to go to. It was the United States of America.

Now that's a novel idea. Take the money to be made from the sale of oil in Iraq, or at least a portion of it, as a payment to the American people for the massive amount of money and, more importantly, loss of life that our nation has given in order to liberate and keep the peace in that benighted land. In fact, most in the survey said that they believe the oil itself, for period of years, should be brought here to be refined. Talk about Independence Day!

I'm sure that there are a slew of arguments to suggest that the oil from Iraq wouldn't be enough to help our situation, or that it would take too much time for it to get into our production and distribution system. But the sentiments of most Americans are clear.

Stateside, John McCain's proposal that states be allowed to make their own decisions about offshore oil exploration and drilling has given his campaign an interesting boost in the Sunshine State. McCain's ally, environmentalist Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, surprised observers by adding that he's open to the possibility of more and closer-in drilling off Florida's pristine shores. Recall that Crist is the guy who, in effect, delivered the GOP nomination to McCain when he endorsed the Arizona senator just prior to the critical Florida Republican primary.

I was unsure about how Floridians felt about the issue. But in an InsiderAdvantage/PollPosition survey conducted for the Associated Industries of Florida, the question was asked straight up, with no wording that might steer respondents one way or the other. The results took me aback.

We asked, "Do you favor or oppose increased exploration and production of oil and natural gas off the coasts of Florida?"

Favor (61 percent)

Oppose (32 percent)

Undecided (7 percent)

The poll was conducted June 24 among 685 registered voters, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percent.

The Associated Industries poll survey tells me why John McCain has managed to stay just ahead of Barack Obama in the average of presidential polls taken in that state. Several polls have shown an uptick for McCain there in recent weeks.

Perhaps even more than most states, Florida is feeling the jolt of high gasoline prices. Not only commuters are affected, but so are tourists, which Florida relies on heavily for its tax base. Higher fuel prices mean many of those travelers are staying home this year or vacationing closer to home than faraway Florida.

And Florida is a big, fractured state geographically. If you do business there and have to travel, driving is often the best or only way to get to where you're going. Gasoline at over $4 a gallon starts to wear on the wallets of both everyday Joes and Jills, and on the corporations and businesses they patronize.

Other recent polling we've conducted in Florida tell us that people there are still devoted to the environment, and most prefer that oil exploration be done at least far enough out to sea that the drilling platforms can't be seen from shore. (They'll almost surely get their wish.) But as for resistance to the concept of more potential drilling, it has largely melted in the face of economic worries.

Of course we keep waiting, and the oil crisis isn't getting any better. But whether it's drilling at home or reaping some of the oil benefits from the nation we liberated and continue to defend, one thing is clear -- all Americans want for Independence Day is energy independence.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Matt Towery is a former National Republican legislator of the year and author of Powerchicks: How Women Will Dominate America.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Matt Towery's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
The U.S.A....
Has already murdered many innocent Iraqis. Why not add the rape of that benighted land to the list? Sure, take their oil, who's going to stop the world's largest military? Naked imperialism.

There's oil off NJ
They drilled it in the 50s, and it ran through the 60s, but has been moribund since. "My" senators (I voted for neither)swear there'll be no drilling off NJ (100s of miles out) while they're sens. They should be forced out of their limos at gunpoint and forced to walk or pay for their gasoline out of their own pockets, instead of mine.

People have never been against drilling: self-appointed "greens" and "enviros" and their stooges the Dems. have been against drilling. And nuclear. And new natural gas storage. And more refining. And wind mills in their backyards(Kennedy and Kerry). Yadda.

If Clinton had signed the Anwar bill in 1996, we'd have that oil online for two years past.

It's even worth drilling again in PA where it all started, if oil is over $100 a barrel.

We aren't free and independent as long as we import 62% of our energy from despots, dictators, outright enemies, and criminals.

The best thing about $4 a gal. gas is finally Am. is waking up to the cost of energy and how we have for decades locked up our own resources while both exploiting others' and making ourselves vulnerable and dependent.

DRILL DRILL DRILL

Just Curious
We have proven reserves of oil both domestically and off shore that we could begin to access immediately. Every time someone so much as farts in the Middle East, Nigeria, Venezuela or Mexico, the per barrel price bumps by two to three dollars.

If we can mitigate the extortion of foreign suppliers and stabilize its effect on speculators by tapping reserves rivaling foreign sources, why in the hell don't we do it? Curious minds want to know. Should our curious minds ever be satisfied, that curious would probably turn to furious.

Puhlease!
"John McCain has taken the subject head-on with his proposal to allow individual states to choose how and whether to increase oil and natural gas drilling off their coastlines."

McCain has taken the subject HEAD ON? You're kidding right? His position is a carefully crafted weasel posture where nothing will happen. McCain is a global warming one-world without borders socialist who is determined to pass Cap and Trade and amnesty as soon as he can.

We are on the wrong track
We(the US) buys 20 million bbl/day of oil. We produce domestically 5 million bbl, ergo we must import the balance. 20 years ago domestic oil production was 9 million bbl/day. How can this be the path to energy independence? The answer is twofold. Obviously, we need to produce more oil domestically. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the idea of energy independence is a chimera, something of a desirable illusion that can never come to pass, and shouldn't. Some say that we are 5% of world population, but consume 25% of world oil. Both numbers are true, but the implied conclusion of unfairness is a fallacy. First, we buy that oil in a marketplace open to all buyers, making the implication that we cheat or steal this product so absurd as to defy credulity. The money we pay to producers of oil allows them to enjoy a much higher standard of living than they would by not pumping oil. Secondly, we use that energy to produce a fraction of worldwide GDP proportionate to the fraction of energy consumed. The right track is to get the gubmint out of the energy business yesterday, develop every source of energy available based on how well it meets the needs of consumers. Remember, the free market in any field, including energy is nothing more than consumers aggregately seeking the provider who best fills their needs at the best price. And it's all about filling needs, which explains why Rolls-Royce is still in business and Yugo is not.

OMG
I should not take bathroom breaks in the middle of typing a post, or maybe should try to proofread better.I left out a sentence after the question How can this be the path to energy independence? That sentence is "It is not." Sorry about any confusion, I'll try to do better next time.

energy
Enviromentalists have blocked energy projects in this country for years, by staging protests or filing law suits that make it to expensive for a private company to continue with a project.Some regulation is absolutely necessary, I think everyone would agree with that, but some of the reasons used are ridiculous. Enviromental groups should not be settin our national energy policy.

Moonbat Exterminator
Most oil is purchased throught the use of futures contracts, based upon the need of the refinery, the availability of transport, and the price at the destination, and the capacity of the buyer to handle the crude. If the free market were actually allowed to work, that is, if ANWAR and the continental shelf were to be opened to drilling by US oil producers, the resulting uncertainity in the oil futures market would force out many speculators.

These speculators (George Soros does this in the monetary markets) profit by betting correctly that a given commodity is going up, or down in price. Commodity speculators never take delivery of the commodity underlying the contract, and they are allowed under exchange rules to control far greater amounts of the commodity that the "purchase price" of the contract.

Hence, the appelation "speculator." Their influence is way beyond their financial holdings because they constantly "cover their bets," by trading in and out, or by taking opposite positions and waiting for fractional benefits before closing out. While they can stabilize a market, they are infamous for creating "bubbles" that tend to burst. Dot Com, real estate, secured lending, complicated deratives of same come to mind, anyone?

questions that arent answered
why do we continue to characteerize only arabs as making fortunes off of the increase in oil prices when the american and english stockholders of canadian oil wells are gettin infinitly more of the pie. canada is the leading exported of oil to the united Dtates and has been for many years. as leading ex xporter thay are the leading country for the money prize and yet nobdy says a word about tham , perhaps we are aftrain of them and dont want a war with canads.
what will no american insurance company insure american built nuclear energy plant now built or any that are contemplated. while thay will insure plants all over the world . our congress had to pass special legislation so that they became the insurer of these plants. why. dont they like private enterprise
3. nobdy in the dministrarion or almost all the right t or left wing bloggers has ever attempte an an answer to the question. assuming we are as our commander in chief has assured us many times not at war with iraq aor with afghanistan, but we are at warr with international terrorism. if this is so what event or series of event will have to bappen before we can say OK thats it. the war is over and we have won.

jayhawk
So you consider the Marshall Plan to be the *rape of Europe*? (Men just love, love, love to yell Rape about everything except actual rape, which they always claim is a Smear by a woman who asked for it). The rebuilding and re-provisioning of any nation that the Americans have ever done is with the expectation that those they assist will show proper gratitute by returning the favour when necessary. Same as those parents who sacrifice for their children have an expectation that when the parents need help, the children will be there to pick up the burden.

And as for your claim that we have *murdered innocent Iraqis*, have you been over there and asked any of them how they view the situation? Or are you one of those sitting on the kerb in New Orleans on your fat heinie chanting *We Wants HEP! We Wants HEP!* and accusing your fellow Americans of Murdering Innocent Black People?

Hypocrisy rules in D.C.
Ever notice that all those politicians
(both sides) who are for a “comprehensive”
plan for illegal immigration, and will not support the fence first-
Are NOT for a “comprehensive” energy plan that includes drilling here and now first?

Pols and Presidents since Nixon have decried our dependence on foreign oil, but alternatives have been ignored and imports increased.

They are either incompetent, liars or both.


Why is "GAS" in Canada $1.30 ...
[NATIONALLY] and why is gas in Tijuana Mexico $2.25? Answer these questions and you will have the answer to why where getting screwed at the pump. It has nothing to do with SUPPLY.

If Canada and Mexico are the leading exporters of oil to the US, and gas is two or three dollars less in these countries why are we paying $4.50?

Further, why are Americans paying on average 0.40 in gas taxes? [Sixty three cent here in California]

It seems to me that a lot of folks are getting rich off of the inflated oil prices. These same people are most likely the ones advocating offshore drilling and drilling in ANWR.

this is idont know
becaus they use a different system of measuremnt i wnant to say dummy but i i wont ill give yiou the benefit of a doubt. both of the figures you stated as being the price od gas work out to be much much more then the price in the United States. multiply each by abut 5 and than you will have their cost tanslated so that you can compare it to Ubnited States.

Hey Moonbat Exterminator

Nicely Put!
5% Population and Use 25% of Oil.
These are Democratic/Socialist Talking Points.
These numbers are correct but as you have pointed out, what is left out of the of the equation, is world output. If you own a company that produces widgets and you produce 100 widgets per day and the company down the street that also builds widgets, only they produce 1,000 widgets per day, then who would consume more energy?
America's GDP is number one in the world.
Next is Japan, then Germany, then China, then Great Britain.
America's GDP is greater than the sum of these four Country's GDP put together. That is why we consume 25% of the worlds oil. We are the country that produces the 1,000 widgets!
http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/infopays/rank/PNB2.html

Hey Anyone except Moonbats
Does anyone know what the laws are governing a states ability to prevent drilling in coastal waters off any state. That is, how far the state of California extends into the pacific ocean?

The 5%/25% fallacy
Yes we have 5% of the world's population but where did the 25% number for oil consumption come from? If we count our known reserves including the oil shales, which are American owned oil reserves, what percentage do we consume? Fast less than 25%. And it wouldn't matter if we consumed 50% as long as we paid for it.

Multiply what by 5...
What system of measurment are you talking about? The price of gas at a Seven Eleven in Saskatchewan is 1.30 gal. In Tijuana gas is 2.25...that's all that really matters if you live along the southern or northen boarders.

Today the exchange rate of the US dollar is slightly [US/CAN 1.022] below that of the canadian. So how is it that Canada is able to keep gas prices three dollars lower than US prices?...and don't say they mix water w/ their gas like some other idiot suggested.

Hey AudiR10
Why don't you tell jayhawk how you really feel?
Nicely put.
I'll bet while reading your post he spilled his latte.
LOL

Hey cuttyshark1
I think your talking price per liter.
Currently they were paying $1.32 cdn. per liter. Thats approximately $5.28 cdn per gal.
The Canadian Dollar is worth Appx $1.01 per in American Dollars.
http://www.torontogasprices.com/
The Canadian Government like the European Governments are doing everything they can to kill the free market so like good little Marxist they can control their population's energy. This is what we are seeing with Harry and Nancy and now Che Obama. Environmentalism is just a means to their end. Otherwise, they would have chucked the ethanol boondoggle. Environmentally the production and use of ethanol creates more greenhouse gasses than gasoline. This is not a theory but a fact.
Come this winter, many will die as a result of these policies or lack of policies. But in their eyes "The means justify the ends" or Their Consequentialism is justified for the good of all.


Has a mistake been made?
Despite this trend, there has been no drop in the number of wars in countries that produce oil. The main reason is that oil wealth often wreaks havoc on a country’s economy and politics, makes it easier for insurgents to fund their rebellions, and aggravates ethnic grievances. Today, with violence falling in general, oil-producing states make up a growing fraction of the world’s conflict-ridden countries. They now host about a third of the worlds civil wars, both large and small, up from one-fifth in 1992. According to some, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq shows that oil breeds conflict between countries, but the more widespread problem is that it breeds conflict within them... M.L. Ross

After reading this I have to ask: Has our Gov. made matters worse and in fact acting to fuel the problem? So the price of oil keeps raising to fund this conflict, maybe.

sandrob the reality is
that current energy methods such as oil, coal, nuclear, and ethanol aren't working because they don't meet overall energy demands. With the emergence of China and India consumption of oil is at an all time high placing huge strains on both suppliers and consumers. We can’t dig ourselves out of this problem and it’s disingenuous to say that offshore drilling is the answer.

Republicans say we need to open up ANWR, build more nuclear plants and permit for offshore drilling. What they don't say is that oil companies already control 10k leases here in North America [On and offshore] which are able to produce oil. Many of the sites mentioned are capped, meaning a decision was made by the [Oil] companies to take these sites offline…why?


In Addition...
What the government [Mostly Republicans and Big Oil lobbyist] won't explain is that these same companies have known for years that ANWR is known in the industry as a “Possible Reserve”. Possible meaning "having a chance of being developed under favorable circumstances" -Some industry specialists refer to this as P10 -i.e having a 10% certainty of being produced. - This is also known in the industry as 3P or Proven plus probable plus possible.” However there’s no certainty that drilling in ANWR will produce the amount of oil necessary to create energy independence, or reduce the cost of oil long term.

John McCain say’s that he has a plan for the US to be energy independent by 2040 through ; 1) Drilling offshore, 2)Build more Nuclear plants, 3)Provide founds for research in Hybrid batteries and Ethanol. However what McCain doesn’t include in his offshore drilling proposal is the damage to coastal economies, [600 billion annually] and the long term damage to the environment.

Nuclear is a clean way of providing energy but the increase in plants creates a huge waste problem. How do we dispose of the waste that nuclear plants create?

Ethanol is not viable on a large scale at all because it 1)Increases food prices, 2)Creates more farm subsidies…[“Pork barrel spending”] and is 3)Impossible to meet global demand.

That leaves McCain with one option left which is actually viable…that’s not a very good plan.

cuttyshark1
Two points:

First, make sure you are comparing apples and oranges (or in this case, gallons and liters). Canada uses the metric system so they sell their petro by the liter (or is that litre!) Since there is about 4.5L/gal you need to adjust your pricing accordingly and you'll be able to compare our prices with the canadians, eh!? And for a good explanation on why Canadian price is high (even though they produce enough oil for themselves while still exporting) see http://retail.petro-canada.ca/en/independent/2065.aspx

Second, Mexico does use the Imperial system still so their pricing is per gallon. But one thing to remember is that Mexican oil and gasoline is controlled by a government monopoly so prices are controlled by them. So, unlike what you learn in the link above from PetroCanada, PEMEX does not charge based on the global market (in other words, they heavily subsidize the price of gasoline and diesel fuel for their citizens). This has the side effect that since they are not maximizing their income they are also not investing in exploring for new oil or maintaining their existing fields the way they could (or should) and their capacity is declining more rapidly than it needs to.

The net of this is you need to do your homework before posting!

So the bottom line is...
That present methods won't work for American long term, or short term for 5 reasons;

1)Long term, present methods contributes to global warming.

2)Long term, present methods hurt the enviornment.

3)Short term, US consumers are hurt by instability in 3rd world countries producing oil.

4)In addition US consumers are hurt by instability in global markets.

5)Finally, present methods provide limited options for US consumers.

@Colosteve...No I understand
"Second, Mexico does use the Imperial system still so their pricing is per gallon. But one thing to remember is that Mexican oil and gasoline is controlled by a government monopoly so prices are controlled by them. So, unlike what you learn in the link above from PetroCanada, PEMEX does not charge based on the global market (in other words, they heavily subsidize the price of gasoline and diesel fuel for their citizens). This has the side effect that since they are not maximizing their income they are also not investing in exploring for new oil or maintaining their existing fields the way they could (or should) and their capacity is declining more rapidly than it needs to."

But living along the boarder I also know that I can save 2 dollars by driving 30 minutes into Tijuana for gas. What system THEY use is irrelevant to me...just the saving's I get.

Not grounded in reality
All we hear from the liberals are reasons why we can’t. We can’t use natural gas, propane,fuel oil, kerosene, gasoline, diesel, ethanol and coal because they cause global warming. We can’t use nuclear because it leaves behind waste. Another can’t is hydro because it requires dams, something the liberals will not allow. For some unknown reason, they think biofuels are OK, but they are also carbon-based and release CO2. While we are strangle holding our economy and the consumers, the rest of the world is laughing and drilling, drilling, drilling and building nuclear power plants. Another can’t is hydro because it requires dams, something the liberals will not allow.

The libs are buying into the propaganda that windmills and solar panels can provide all the energy we need, from home heating, to running our cars, to fueling the planes, trucks, farm equipement and the enormous energy requirements of industrial plants manufacturing everything we use. What are these libs smoking?

cutyshark1 says:
"However what McCain doesn’t include in his offshore drilling proposal is the damage to coastal economies, [600 billion annually] and the long term damage to the environment.

Nuclear is a clean way of providing energy but the increase in plants creates a huge waste problem. How do we dispose of the waste that nuclear plants create?"

What is the source for your ludicrous assertion that offshore drilling would cause ANY "damage to coastal economies"? How about environmental damage? When is the last time you heard ANYTHING at all about spills from offshore oil rigs.

The "huge waste problem" you attribute to nuclear energy is an old argument about old technology. Today's nuclear reactors are nothing like the primitive Chernobyl, or even Three Mile Island, reactors.

Why does it seem that progress can only be made by dragging "progressives" kicking and screaming into the future?

Environmentalists the big problem
No doubt the biggest problem for U.S. energy development is the extremist global warming superstition driven environmentalists and their Democrat (and some Republican) sock puppets in the Congress.

A case in point involves litigation against a 1200 megawatt coal fired power plant here in Georgia. Can there be any doubt that we need more power plants and that coal is plentiful supply of energy in this country? Of course, the power plant meets all of the regulations of the Georgia and Federal environmental regulators, but that isn't good enough for the extremist Sierra Club! They have managed to get some activist judge to overturn the power plant's permit from the State of Georgia to build on the specious ground that the plant emits carbon dioxide! It is no matter to these extremists that carbon dioxide is the stuff you and I breathe out and that plant life, such as trees breathe in. It doesn't matter to these extremists that one volcanic eruption can emit more of this stuff in one day than all the activities of humanity in many years and nature deals with it.

The real goal, I am convinced, of the "environmental" movement is to put humanity back to the stone age! The global warming scam is their means of doing it.

Whether the global warming jihadists want to admit it or not, oil is here to stay. None of their alternatives have worked out to compete with it for energy density. An example of that is the fraud of the ethanol mandate. All that has done is cause a huge increase in food prices, all so that they can add something to the gas tank that simply doesn't go as far!

The solutions to our energy problems are obvious to anyone not infected by the global warming religion. We should develop and exploit our own resources including oil, gas, coal, nuclear and solar as well. In the meantime, private industry can continue development of fuel cells and other alternatives.

minky
You are right. It's been over 20 years since Exxon Valdez and Three Mile Island, and we still hear the same old tired arguments on why we can't. Some things never change. Liberals have all the excuses, but no workable solutions. The key word is workable.

The rest of the world is drilling where?
1)If the rest of the world is drilling then why is the majority of oil produced on the North America continent being sent oversea's?

2)Why not keep supply here for consumers, and lower prices since American demand is at an all time high?

Gambler512; "All we hear from the liberals are reasons why we can’t. We can’t use natural gas, propane,fuel oil, kerosene, gasoline, diesel, ethanol and coal because they cause global warming."

No, Americans already use oil, coal, and natural gas. The question is whether these methods for supplying natural gas and oil meet our energy needs in the future. [I don't happen to think so]

In addition will we as a nation find alternative methods such as; Solar, Wind, and Hydro. By [FIND] I mean provide a way to produce alternative methods on a large scale. The person who descover's a way to provide alternative energy on a large scale where it's beneficial to most consumers will be the Bill Gates of the 21 century.

minky here's a few...
What is the source for your ludicrous assertion that offshore drilling would cause ANY "damage to coastal economies"? How about environmental damage? When is the last time you heard ANYTHING at all about spills from offshore oil rigs.

The "huge waste problem" you attribute to nuclear energy is an old argument about old technology. Today's nuclear reactors are nothing like the primitive Chernobyl, or even Three Mile Island, reactors.

How about;

DOE-Department of Energy
USGS-United States Geological Services
NRC-Nuclear Regulatory Commision
AAA-American Automotive Association


cuttyshark
"The rest of the world is drilling where?"

China is drilling off the Cuba coast in our backyard. They are drilling wherever there is oil and making deals to get more oil daily. Although not exactly drilling (more like digging), Canada is tapping their vast storage of tar sand and shale oil, making 3.5 million barrels a day just from tar sand alone. And they are aggressively pursuing the production of oil with technology using high-pressure steam injection into the earth to separate and move oil to the surface. The French gets 85% of their electricty from nuclear. Every country is smart enough to maximize the use of resources available to them. The American greenies are killing us.

"why is the majority of oil produced on the North America continent being sent oversea's?"

Simple, the oil companies can make more money for their stockholders by selling the oil overseas.

"Americans already use oil, coal, and natural gas. The question is whether these methods for supplying natural gas and oil meet our energy needs in the future. [I don't happen to think so]"

You are entitled to your wrong opinion. We are nowhere close to running out of oil. According to Jimmy Carter 30 years ago, we should be out of oil by now. When we do run out way, way down the road, new sources of energy will be available. It always does. In meantime, we have lots of coal not being used, oil and natural gas untapped, and we haven't built a nuclear plant in 40 years. Talk about economic suicide.

The market
is a wonderful thing. It works better than any coercion by environmentalist or the government. We will know when the world is running out of oil by virtue of gas prices. When the level of oil is bottoming out, prices will skyrocket, and I am not talking about $4. I don't know what it will take, but at some point, the consumer will say I just afford it anymore. People will stop buying gasoline cars. Automakers will stop manufacturing gasoline cars because no one is buying them. The oil companies will voluntarily move to other viable sources of energy, and the automakers will build cars to use the new fuels. Then, the libs can whine about the obscene profits of Big Solar or Big Wind.

So, you libs, quit getting depressed over nothing. Eat a couple organic hot dogs.

Gambler5121 who said...
We were running out of OIL...geeze you folks need to read the intire text and stop taking out snippets to support your partisan political views.

My whole arguement is that we have enough supply in North America to meet US consumer demand, just not enough to meet future demands. Therefore it's neccessary that we as a nation develope alternative energy methods.

Cuttyshark1; "why is the majority of oil produced on the North America continent being sent oversea's?"

Gambler5121; "Simple, the oil companies can make more money for their stockholders by selling the oil overseas."

Again that's precisely the point I'm trying to make. It's not a question of SUPPLY but PROFITS. Americans...both liberal and conservatives are being held hostage by the oil companies. Also, to think that we as a nation can dig our way out of the current situation is disingenuous to say the least.

Please visit the links below to broaden your view of the current sitution.

DOE-Department of Energy
USGS-United States Geological Services
NRC-Nuclear Regulatory Commision
AAA-American Automotive Association
Satellite Imaging Group
Industrial Info.com





cuttyshark
"It's not a question of SUPPLY but PROFITS. Americans...both liberal and conservatives are being held hostage by the oil companies."

Imagine that, a company trying to maximize profits. Bad boy.

"Also, to think that we as a nation can dig our way out of the current situation is disingenuous to say the least."

I did not suggest we dig for oil, although we are starting to do some of it. My point was Canada is getting a big chunk of their energy from digging for shale and tar sand oil. Like every other country, except the US, Canada is using what they have. They happen to have an abundance of such oil. The French get most of their energy from nuclear. Here in the US, our strength is in coal, petroleum, natural gas and nuclear (if the enviro wackos would go away).

US exports?
Contrary to assertions being made, Us exports very little crude oil. Here is the latest data for April:

US Production
Alaska 21 MMbbl
Continental US 134 MMbbl
Total US 155 MMbbl

US imports
commercial 297 MMbbl
strategic reserve 0.5 MMbbl

Refinery consumption 444 Mbbl
Exports 0.4 MMbbl

so you can see we export 0.2% of our production, not the majority as claimed. To be fair, we did export 0.9 MMbbl in March so that's about 1/2 of 1 percent.

For sandrob: States own the submerged lands out 3 miles from the high water line, except for Texas where, due to the prevailing land law of New Spain / Mexico when Texas was annexed, it is 3 marine leagues (about 10.2 miles). Mineral rights in the ocean from the 3 mile state zone out to the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) boundary are owned by the US and administered by the Minerals Management Service under the Outer continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, along with the Submerged Lands Act. The boundary of the US EEZ where it intersects with that of Cuba and Bahamas off of Florida runs more or less right through the midpoint between the countries. The exact line is proposed as a treaty which probably will never be signed until US and Cuba have more normal relations, but there is an interim agreement that gets approved periodically.

One thing I don't understand is if it is true that there are millions of leased acres that aren't being explored (and I can't find any source for this assertion) it shouldn't be a problem if ANWR or additional offshore areas are leased, since oil companies won't drill anyway what's the problem???

scott s.
Good point about the export issue. Sinc we have to import a major portion of our oil consumption how would we ever be a major exporting country for oil? But you have to read sharky's point carefully--he says "North America" which, of course, includes two oil exporters out of the three NA countries--Canada and Mexico. And, of course, the exporting Canada does is mostly to the good ol' us of a!

As to the canard about the Oil Companies sitting on their leases, there was an OpEd page article in the WSJ recently by either the head or one of the top executives from a major oil company addressing exactly that issue. His point is that they lease the land and, after getting various permits, etc, dealt with, they then will drill test wells and perform other geological studies to determine if there in fact is recoverable oil. All this takes a lot of time and during that time the lease appears to be idle. If they do find recoverable oil (or gas) they then will set up to drill the actual wells to recover the oil and during all this time the lease still is listed as idle. Not until it actually is bringing in oil for commercial sale does the plot change to "producing". And, of course, not every plot has recoverable oil, even at existing prices, and none of it is easy to get to like it was 100 years ago--they are now digging wells to incredible depths today that wouldn't have even been possible even a decade ago. And the number of rigs to do the digging is quite limited as well.

Hey Rick
Any word on an Appeal?
You hit the head right on the nail!
Eco-socialism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Eco-Socialism, Green socialism or Socialist ecology is an ideology merging aspects of Marxism, socialism, Green politics, ecology and the anti-globalization movement. Eco-socialists generally believe that the expansion of the capitalist system is the cause of social exclusion, poverty and environmental degradation through globalization and imperialism, under the supervision of repressive states and transstatal structures; they advocate the non-violent dismantling of capitalism and the state, focusing on collective ownership of the means of production by freely associated producers and restoration of the Commons.
The above are the Extreme Environmentalist.

Then there are the Bought and Paid For Environmentalist such as Al Gore, James Hansen from NASA and Carl Pope of the Sierra Club.
Then you have the Democratic Socialist such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. They benefit either by money or political achievemnet.
All of the above are aware that Global Warming has been disproved and ethanol is worse for the environment than gasoline. These are the scum of the earth. Watch them this winter when seniors are dying because they can't afford Fuel Oil. Think about these people as they make money and place blame on their policical opponents.
Then you have the Ignorant Environmentalist. Judges and some people in government who believe Global Warming is a proven fact. People who believe that they are more responsible when they donate money into the Sierra Club. Democrats that tow the party line and could give a hoot about the environment.
College Kids that believe what ever their ignorant professors tell them.
If we could get Al Gore as a defendent in front of a jury. We could do unbelievable damage to the Extreme Environmentalist and the Bought and Paid For Environmentalist.





Scott S
Thanks... I searched but to no avail.
If I'm reading it right then the states really don't have a say once you get past a specific point off the coast.

Hey CuttyShark1
You said:
"We were running out of OIL...geeze you folks need to read the entire text and stop taking out snippets to support your partisan political views.

My whole argument is that we have enough supply in North America to meet US consumer demand, just not enough to meet future demands. Therefore it's necessary that we as a nation develop alternative energy methods."

The reason I took out these snippets is that much of what you contend is either too bizarre or flat out false.
Example: "just not enough to meet future demands"
Can you tell me what our provable oil reserves are?
If not, then why did you make the statement.
If you comeback with a number then you cheated and looked it up.

CuttyShark1... Take a moment and read my post to rick regarding Eco-Socialism. Do you fall into any of the categories I listed?

One last question. You said:
"develop alternative energy methods"
Which would be faster, "develop alternative energy methods" or Passing a law that stops environmentalist from filing illegitimate and harassing law suits. Getting rid of the Extinct Species Laws.
Put all permitting on fast track. then drill for oil and be producing oil within two years.
Drilling and Producing are the easy part.
If you choose "Alternative Methods", which methods?

cuttyshark1
I'm sincerely sorry I called you CUTYshark1 in my previous post. I don't even know you!!

When I read your quote below, I couldn't believe it. You really hit your head on the nail with this:

"In addition will we as a nation find alternative methods such as; Solar, Wind, and Hydro. By [FIND] I mean provide a way to produce alternative methods on a large scale."

Exactly! And the answer is YES!! In the meantime, we have to continue to provide for our energy needs by drilling, refining, and using oil. It's as simple as that. Thanks for pointing out the simple logic behind it.

Hi Minky
Bite Me!
LOL

Sandrob
Well, I'm not sure how I deserve the "bite me", but I will admit that I stole your "head on the nail" gag.

Cuttyshark
I'd wait a little on that claim that you are saving 2.00 a gallon. The Mexican oil has a higher sulfer content and through this will destroy your engine and converter. So if you are only driving a 5.000 dollar car it's going to take you quite a while to "save" anything.

AudiR10
You get the 5-star post for the day!

The latest insanity - 55 mph
The so-called Republican Senator Warner and Democrats are trying to push a 55 mph speed limit on us again.

First of all, 55 mph speed limits for major interstate straightaways are unreasonable. They amount to a violation of liberty. Why should the average American have to pay another price for the screwup of our politicians?

Second, decreased highway speed limits are known to increase fatalities because they encourage traffic to shunt onto more dangerous local roads. Yet more people to pay the price for the politicians' screwup.

Third, as speed limits decrease, those who move goods and services over long distances are less productive. They lose a lot of time. The market determines what it is the most productive amount of fuel usage, not a committee of Democrats who wish for their decree to override reality. But truckers are expected to pay the price for politicians' screwup.

Fourth, a 55 mph speed limit will mean snarling traffic jams where there were none before. Even if it only costs the driver an average of 5 minutes a day, that is a tremendous amount of productivity lost. Add businesses to the list of casualties caused by the politicians' screwup.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.