Another 4 years of the failed Bush energy policy

[dilloduck]

I am not sure that I agree with offshore drilling and I am against drilling in ANWAR, so I am not sure that I would lay the blame anywhere. However, it appears that it is inappropriate to lay the blame at the foot of either party, since if there is blame to be laid, both parties were complicit.

Why are you against offshore drilling and drilling in ANWAR ?

 

[ReillyT]

Why are you against offshore drilling and drilling in ANWAR ?

I am against drilling in ANWAR due to the limited amounts of oil that is believed to be in the ground there, which, by the time it is extracted, would have only the slightest impacts on the price of gasoline. [At least, that is what I have read.] I don't think this compensates for the possibility of environmental degradation.

I am not sure that I am against offshore drilling. I would need to read more about the amount of oil available, its effect on the price of gasoline (not just short term, but long term), and the possible environmental affects. I just don't know enough to make anything approaching an informed judgement.

 

[007]

Perhaps you are right that the Democrats are more to blame that additional drilling hasn't occurred. However, the ban on offshore drilling took place in 1982. Since then (according to my rough calculations), we have had 18 years of Republican presidents and 8 years of Democratic presidents. We have also had 12 years of Republican congressional control and 14 years of Democratic congressional control. During only 8 years did one party control both the Presidency and the Congress. That includes 6 year of full Republican control (2000-2006) and 2 years of full Democratic control (1992-1994).

What do these figures make of your argument (which may nonetheless be correct)?

Well, your "rough calculations" are a little off... as you can see from the table below, since 1945 the dems have had control both the house and the senate 48 out of the last 62 years, including having a democrat President for 20 out of those 48, as opposed to the repubs who have had both the house and the senate for a meager 12 years out of the last 62, with a repub President a pathetic 4 of those.

Now you tell me... who's been running the country for the last 62 years? Who's had the opportunity, or not, to get things done? The dems man, period. The repubs have been at the MERCY of the democrats for years, and still are. As much as I hate to admit it, the minuscule amount of time the repubs DID have to get something done, they squandered it like a bunch of sissy sons a bitches, or maybe better described, plain old business as usual, status quo, stinking politicians.

 

[ReillyT]

Well, your "rough calculations" are a little off... as you can see from the table below, since 1945 the dems have had control both the house and the senate 48 out of the last 62 years, including having a democrat President for 20 out of those 48, as opposed to the repubs who have had both the house and the senate for a meager 12 years out of the last 62, with a repub President a pathetic 4 of those.

Now you tell me... who's been running the country for the last 62 years? Who's had the opportunity, or not, to get things done? The dems man, period. The repubs have been at the MERCY of the democrats for years, and still are. As much as I hate to admit it, the minuscule amount of time the repubs DID have to do something, they squandered it like a bunch of sissy sons a bitches, or maybe better described, plain old business as usual, status quo, stinking politicians.

That is why I prefaced it with the year 1982, when the ban on offshore drilling was enacted. However, you are right. My rough calculations were off. For some of those years, the Republicans controlled one house of Congress and the Democrats the other. I just assumed Democratic control from 1982 until 1994, but you are right that the Republicans controlled one house of Congress for part of that time. Of course, that only makes my point stronger, but who am I to quibble?

Does the composition of the Congress 62 years ago have anything to do with today's energy policy? Maybe, but I would need some convincing.

 

[007]

That is why I prefaced it with the year 1982, when the ban on offshore drilling was enacted. However, you are right. My rough calculations were off. For some of those years, the Republicans controlled one house of Congress and the Democrats the other. I just assumed Democratic control from 1982 until 1994, but you are right that the Republicans controlled one house of Congress for part of that time. Of course, that only makes my point stronger, but who am I to quibble?

Does the composition of the Congress 62 years ago have anything to do with today's energy policy? Maybe, but I would need some convincing.

I'm not shy to blame any politician, repub or dem. I have a rather intent sort of hate for most any politician. I think they're all crocked sons a bitches. I've just aligned myself more with the repubs over the years because they more closely represented what I believe. No more. Starting with this RINO mccains coronation, I am no longer a member of the republican party.

As far as us not drilling or exploring for new oil within our borders or off shore, the number one reason has been politicians, [insert party here], that have been beholding to the environmental extremists, which historically have been the dems more than the repubs.

I don't like paying $4.19 a gallon for regular, which is what it is here in Reno, Nevada. The dems promised when they took control of both the house and the senate that they were going to BRING THE PRICE OF GAS DOWN. What a LAUGH... it's more than DOUBLED in the last two years.

We need to drill, here in America and off shore. We have more oil here in shale and such than the stinking arabs have. We need to get at it, NOW, otherwise gas WILL be $10 a gallon. Anyone who stands in the way of getting it should be run out of office... i.e., hussein, pelosi, and mister kullyfornia ahhnold.

 

[ReillyT]

I'm not shy to blame any politician, repub or dem. I have a rather intent sort of hate for most any politician. I think they're all crocked sons a bitches. I've just aligned myself more with the repubs over the years because they more closely represented what I believe. No more. Starting with this RINO mccains coronation, I am no longer a member of the republican party.

As far as us not drilling or exploring for new oil within our borders or off shore, the number one reason has been politicians, [insert party here], that have been beholding to the environmental extremists, which historically have been the dems more than the repubs.

I don't like paying $4.19 a gallon for regular, which is what it is here in Reno, Nevada. The dems promised when they took control of both the house and the senate that they were going to BRING THE PRICE OF GAS DOWN. What a LAUGH... it's more than DOUBLED in the last two years.

We need to drill, here in America and off shore. We have more oil here in shale and such than the stinking arabs have. We need to get at it, NOW, otherwise gas WILL be $10 a gallon. Anyone who stands in the way of getting it should be run out of office... i.e., hussein, pelosi, and mister kullyfornia ahhnold.

Perhaps the price of gasoline is not very much within the control of politicians. Even if we increased production in the US, it is not clear how much the price would go down. It is a fungible resource. The only way to ensure that high gas prices won't be a problem is to find an alternative means of powering our cars and cities, but that has been politically unfeasible until recently. I don't disagree with you that shortsightedness has gotten us where we are today, but I am not sure that the current crop of politicians is to blame, or that expanding drilling is the long-term answer.

 

[007]

Perhaps the price of gasoline is not very much within the control of politicians. Even if we increased production in the US, it is not clear how much the price would go down. It is a fungible resource. The only way to ensure that high gas prices won't be a problem is to find an alternative means of powering our cars and cities, but that has been politically unfeasible until recently. I don't disagree with you that shortsightedness has gotten us where we are today, but I am not sure that the current crop of politicians is to blame, or that expanding drilling is the long-term answer.

I'm not convinced that new drilling will bring the cost of gas down either. I think once the oil cartel gets it up, they keep it up, one way or the other. But one thing is certain, if we DON'T drill, we're fucked. At least if we drill now we could keep the price of gas what it is, and give science and industry time to create new forms of affordable energy.

And thank you for the sarcasm free debate.

 

[jreeves]

So is this the same energy bill that the Oil Companies helped bush create?......NICE.....

That Obama voted for and MCcain voted against because it was full of pork for special interests.

 

[ReillyT]

I'm not convinced that new drilling will bring the cost of gas down either. I think once the oil cartel gets it up, they keep it up, one way or the other. But one thing is certain, if we DON'T drill, we're fucked. At least if we drill now we could keep the price of gas what it is, and give science and industry time to create new forms of affordable energy.

And thank you for the sarcasm free debate.

No problem. My problem with drilling is that I am doubtful that it can have a long-term or even medium-term significant effect on the price of gasoline, but that it could have environmental effects. If alternative fuels are the answer, then lets just go balls out on that front, instead of risking the environment to tap resources that may not even make a difference.

 

[jreeves]

You mean the Shrub/Cheyney SECRET ENERGY PLAN?

No, we can't.

Perhaps you should ask Cheyney to tell us what the secret plan was.

Personally, I think we're living out that secret plan RIGHT NOW.

How's it working out for us?

Ask Obama why he voted in favor of it then?

 

[Shogun]

Your pic and comments have been worn out. For awhile now.

then blame yourself for voting us into this circumstance. If you don't like the results of your vote then perhaps you should learn how to vet your choice a little better next time.



next time being 2012.

 

[Shogun]

Holy shit man... what the **** are you smoking... how do you get from, it's the dems fault for high gas prices because of the decades of obstruction and denial to explore and drill our own oil to WMD and bush hatred syndrome and personal attacks? Are you all there? ****... get a grip.

Hey, I posted evidence to support my position.. pictures are worth how many barrels of oil these days? Crai about personal attacks some more, dude.. It will probably make your goofy ass "the dems say we cant drill even though we had almost complete control of government fo 8 years" opinion even more relevant.


Why don't you get a grip, yo? I realize that you feel a lot of bitterness right now because your previous presidential candidate pretty much fucked you in a plethora of ways but crying about bush haters won't make his pathetic incompetence and saudi handjobs any less of a fact.

 

[Shogun]

Old man bush and Jeb were part of the problem, but that was also back when gas was $1.25 a gallon. Lay blame where blame is due. That far from exuses the dems.

 

[Shogun]

I'm not convinced that new drilling will bring the cost of gas down either. I think once the oil cartel gets it up, they keep it up, one way or the other. But one thing is certain, if we DON'T drill, we're fucked. At least if we drill now we could keep the price of gas what it is, and give science and industry time to create new forms of affordable energy.

And thank you for the sarcasm free debate.

oh well hey, at LEAST you put a lot of thought into finding a reason to talk shit about dems, eh?


Again, why isn't your FREE MARKET CAPITALISM hardon speaking up about this, dude? How can you talk about "oil cartels" when they are the epitome of your free market ideals? WHO SAYS that oil companies will have any reason to lower the price of gas EVEN WITH the ability to suck dry American resources for ridiculous salaries? Again, CAN YOU NAME ONE SINGLE COMMODITY THAT HAS REDUCED PRICES TO REFLECT A PRE-INFLATED COST TO CONSUMERS?


Meh.. I know I know.. it's all the democrats fault.

:yawn:

 

[Toro]

There are 68 million acres on federal land held by the oil companies that are available for drilling but are idle.

But drill in ANWR anyways.

 

[jreeves]

There are 68 million acres on federal land held by the oil companies that are available for drilling but are idle.

But drill in ANWR anyways.

Do the 68 million acres of federal land have oil? We know there is an enormous amount of oil in Anwr though, so why not allow drilling there?

 

[ReillyT]

Do the 68 million acres of federal land have oil? We know there is an enormous amount of oil in Anwr though, so why not allow drilling there?

There is oil there, but it is not an enormous amount (at least to my thinking). According to the Energy Information Administration, commencing drilling in ANWAR would result in an increase of approximately 800,000 barrels per day by 2027. That sounds like a lot, but it is estimated this would merely reduce the cost of a barrel of oil by 75 cents.
Green Car Congress: EIA: ANWR Oil Production Would Peak at 780K Barrels per Day

I believe the price of crude oil is approximately $130 per barrel at the moment, so by 2027, we would be able to reduce the price of oil per barrel by about .6% (that is an estimate) if prices remain the same as today. That is a rather insignificant savings.

You might want to check my numbers because I am shit at math, but I think this is right.

 

[jreeves]

There is oil there, but it is not an enormous amount (at least to my thinking). According to the Energy Information Administration, commencing drilling in ANWAR would result in an increase of approximately 800,000 barrels per day by 2027. That sounds like a lot, but it is estimated this would merely reduce the cost of a barrel of oil by 75 cents.
Green Car Congress: EIA: ANWR Oil Production Would Peak at 780K Barrels per Day

I believe the price of crude oil is approximately $130 per barrel at the moment, so by 2027, we would be able to reduce the price of oil per barrel by about .6% (that is an estimate) if prices remain the same as today. That is a rather insignificant savings.

You might want to check my numbers because I am shit at math, but I think this is right.

This study was done under a supply-demand model. We all know that oil prices aren't strictly being driven by supply and demand. What would the promise of an additional 600,000 barrels of oil mean to Opec? Lost oil revenue, which could very well drop the price of a barrel of oil a lot further than the supply-demand model that was used in this study.

Even if a barrel of oil is reduced by a dollar, why not?

 

[ReillyT]

This study was done under a supply-demand model. We all know that oil prices aren't strictly being driven by supply and demand. What would the promise of an additional 600,000 barrels of oil mean to Opec? Lost oil revenue, which could very well drop the price of a barrel of oil a lot further than the supply-demand model that was used in this study.

Even if a barrel of oil is reduced by a dollar, why not?

Because there is a potential environmental cost as well. If we don't know how much oil there is with certainty, but it appears it will only reduce the price of a gallon of gasoline by a few pennies, the question becomes why we risk environmental degradation when it won't make a real difference to American consumers. I would be happy to have cheaper gas, but does it really matter that much whether gas is $4 or $3.97 (although we can probably expect the real prices in 2018 to be even higher)?

If there is an environmental risk, then I would at least like to know that there is some basis for believing drilling in ANWAR will actually make a real difference.

 

[jreeves]

Because there is a potential environmental cost as well. If we don't know how much oil there is with certainty, but it appears it will only reduce the price of a gallon of gasoline by a few pennies, the question becomes why we risk environmental degradation when it won't make a real difference to American consumers. I would be happy to have cheaper gas, but does it really matter that much whether gas is $4 or $3.97 (although we can probably expect the real prices in 2018 to be even higher)?

If there is an environmental risk, then I would at least like to know that there is some basis for believing drilling in ANWAR will actually make a real difference.

Fair enough, what specifically do you believe would be enviromentally risky about drilling in Anwr? Even though I do believe if Congress and the President were serious about drilling in Anwr and offshore drilling you would see a substantial drop in the price of oil.