Bush Says Drill, Drill, Drill — And Oil Drops $9!

Mean Green 93-98 · July 17, 2008

---And Russia (USSR), China, and India were a whole lot different than today and using very little oil compared to now. It would drop some but not like then and more of the American oil supply would be gone. Much of the off-shore drilling ban we now have was put into place when Bush Sr. was President. The Florida and California governors both oppose it now... and they are members of which political party?? We had a thread blaming the other party if I remember right. Off shore in International waters does make some sense, not Alaska.

Florida governor Charlie Crist now favors expanding offshore drilling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/us/19off...&ei=5087%0A

As for Arnold, he has an extremely liberal constituency that he apparently feels obligated to appease. Regardless of his motivation, I hardly think you can call his stance representative of Republican views.

UNTflyer · July 17, 2008

--Ever seen the TV series "Ice Road Truckers" on the History Channel which is mostly about suppling the oil industry in the Artic?? Yes it can be done... no it is not easy..or cheap.

Building the pipeline wouldn't be easy, no. I was responding to your statement that transporting the oil would be unbelievable difficult. But we're Americans, and the cost and difficulty of building that pipeline in the 1970s was greater by a factor of 1000. We can do it.

SUMG · July 17, 2008

Exactly.... They are out there drilling in international waters off our coast (Florida) and we don't. ... Dumb. It may have made sense when they weren't there but not now. I am not sure just how that is called the moral high road though. Alaska (Artic circle) is totally different... it is on our land, totally under our control, and unbelievably difficult to do and transport back to "civilization". --- Of course with all this Global Warming it may become the new tropical paradise....LOL... and be easy to drill.
Repeating the two governors involved, California, and Florida are members of which party again..?? Be honest and don't just blame the other party for everything you don't like...or just yell Liberal....whatever that means, since Conservative means little or no change which is what those Governors support...no change, no drilling... . .

Buddy, if you can't handle the descriptive term "liberal" ......then that is your freaking problem. Most of us know that most issues can come down to two sides...the conservative one and the liberal one. And most of us aren't 100% liberal or 100% conservative. But, we're usually enough of one of those, to where the overall description applies.

I thought you were a professor (at a junior college). Looks like you could handle difference of opinion a little more.

PROUD CONSERVATIVE......

sumg

UNTflyer · July 17, 2008

--- The real problem is that you asked an SMU grad and expected to get a credible answer...LOL. Since oil is an international commodity with widespead use, don't expect our politicians (either party) to have much impact on oil prices. it is about supply and demand and mostly about the increased demand in Asia. Drilling off the coast of Florida may help some in prices not climbing but don't expect a noticable drop in prices.
Let me guess, the absolutely yes was from a rabid Bush supporter that thinks he walks on water.

I didn't ask them their politics, because the only thing relevant is their experience. By the way, the "Absolutely Yes" gentleman was the CFO, who has been in oil and gas for almost 35 years.

You are just all over the place... In one post you say it makes no sense to drill in Alaska, the second biggest oil field in the world, then you say high prices are all about supply and demand... but not really the supply so much as the demand and increasing supply wouldn't do anything to lower prices much... This circular logic

Yes, it is about supply and demand. It's also a weak dollar. And financial uncertainty. And the war. But really of those other things are factors of the overall supply and demand. And speculation, which is at present about 60% of the current price, is all about the perception of future supply and demand. if politicians say they are going to lift the ban on offshore drilling, which would open up millions of square miles of oil field and increase supply, speculators will run to cover profits. This really isn't a very difficult concept, and it seems that you are the only "rabid" anything here. Bash Bush, bash conservatives, paint them all with this broad brush.

If you think the drilling ban is a conservative policy, perhaps you should go back and review the Senate votes on these issues.

meangreenacct · July 17, 2008

I didn't ask them their politics, because the only thing relevant is their experience. By the way, the "Absolutely Yes" gentleman was the CFO, who has been in oil and gas for almost 35 years.
You are just all over the place... In one post you say it makes no sense to drill in Alaska, the second biggest oil field in the world, then you say high prices are all about supply and demand... but not really the supply so much as the demand and increasing supply wouldn't do anything to lower prices much... This circular logic
Yes, it is about supply and demand. It's also a weak dollar. And financial uncertainty. And the war. But really of those other things are factors of the overall supply and demand. And speculation, which is at present about 60% of the current price, is all about the perception of future supply and demand. if politicians say they are going to lift the ban on offshore drilling, which would open up millions of square miles of oil field and increase supply, speculators will run to cover profits. This really isn't a very difficult concept, and it seems that you are the only "rabid" anything here. Bash Bush, bash conservatives, paint them all with this broad brush.
If you think the drilling ban is a conservative policy, perhaps you should go back and review the Senate votes on these issues.

I'm confused by something in your post, are you saying speculation makes up 60% of the current price?

yyz28 · July 17, 2008

I'm confused by something in your post, are you saying speculation makes up 60% of the current price?

Speculation actually makes up 100% of the price (excluding taxes)... ...it may be 60% (or more, or less) of the PROBLEM, but EVERY gallon of gas is based on the replacement cost of the fuel, not the actual cost of that particular gallon of fuel you are buying. That price is plucked straight from Wallstreet daily.

meangreenacct · July 17, 2008

Speculation actually makes up 100% of the price (excluding taxes)... ...it may be 60% (or more, or less) of the PROBLEM, but EVERY gallon of gas is based on the replacement cost of the fuel, not the actual cost of that particular gallon of fuel you are buying. That price is plucked straight from Wallstreet daily.

The second point was really what I was trying to address. Obviously, the later is true. I was just trying to receive clarification on what was meant by the 60% comment.

UNTflyer · July 17, 2008

The second point was really what I was trying to address. Obviously, the later is true. I was just trying to receive clarification on what was meant by the 60% comment.

I had read on NPR, some economist said something like 60% the current price spike is due to speculation on futures contracts. Sorry, I wasn't clear on that. But yyz28 is actually correct. When you buy a gallon of gas, you are actually paying for the future price of replacing it.

BTW, oil is down another $3 today. That's a 10% drop in 3 days.

meangreenacct · July 17, 2008

I had read on NPR, some economist said something like 60% the current price spike is due to speculation on futures contracts. Sorry, I wasn't clear on that. But yyz28 is actually correct. When you buy a gallon of gas, you are actually paying for the future price of replacing it.
BTW, oil is down another $3 today. That's a 10% drop in 3 days.

Ok, just wondering because I had read where you had said in another thread that oil speculation does not lead to higher prices. So it seems the statement contradicts that, and therefore I was just trying to determine what you meant.

adman · July 17, 2008

I And speculation, which is at present about 60% of the current price, is all about the perception of future supply and demand. if politicians say they are going to lift the ban on offshore drilling, which would open up millions of square miles of oil field and increase supply, speculators will run to cover profits. This really isn't a very difficult concept, and it seems that you are the only "rabid" anything here. Bash Bush, bash conservatives, paint them all with this broad brush.

So wouldn't it stand to reason that the moment we/congress opens up every ounce of untapped oil to drilling that OPEC dials production back to keep prices high? That would put us right back where we are.

Now you might say: "With ANWR fields pumping we won't need OPEC. We will be self sufficient with cheap oil." Will that not lead to greater consumption on our part thereby forcing us to import more foreign oil yet again?

And just because we open ANWR will oil companies pump all they can or will they just let it trickle so prices stay high? I'm sure, no matter how harsh the conditions in Alaska, it means greater profits for US oil companies. Seeing how they won't have to pay any sheiks/kings etc.

UNTflyer · July 17, 2008

So wouldn't it stand to reason that the moment we/congress opens up every ounce of untapped oil to drilling that OPEC dials production back to keep prices high? That would put us right back where we are.

No. Not if they want to sell oil and make money.

And just because we open ANWR will oil companies pump all they can or will they just let it trickle so prices stay high? I'm sure, no matter how harsh the conditions in Alaska, it means greater profits for US oil companies. Seeing how they won't have to pay any sheiks/kings etc.

No. Not if they want to sell oil and make money.

Edited July 17, 2008 by UNTflyer

SUMG · July 17, 2008

Anyone seen those T Boone Pickens ads about his plan?

Pardon me, but I think he's full of crap. He's invested in a lot of natural gas and windpower...and now all of the sudden, it's dawned on ole T Boone that the only way to solve our problems is with natural gas running all vehicles and windpower supplying all of our electricity. As a matter of fact, in the ad, he trumpets the Democrat talking point of, "we can't drill our way out of this problem."

I'm all in favor of natural gas, btw. And wind power. It's just that T Boone's solution seems a little self-serving to me.

greenminer · July 17, 2008

Anyone seen those T Boone Pickens ads about his plan?
Pardon me, but I think he's full of crap. He's invested in a lot of natural gas and windpower...and now all of the sudden, it's dawned on ole T Boone that the only way to solve our problems is with natural gas running all vehicles and windpower supplying all of our electricity. As a matter of fact, in the ad, he trumpets the Democrat talking point of, "we can't drill our way out of this problem."
I'm all in favor of natural gas, btw. And wind power. It's just that T Boone's solution seems a little self-serving to me.

*GASP*entrepreneurship*GASP*

Quoner · July 17, 2008

Anyone seen those T Boone Pickens ads about his plan?
Pardon me, but I think he's full of crap. He's invested in a lot of natural gas and windpower...and now all of the sudden, it's dawned on ole T Boone that the only way to solve our problems is with natural gas running all vehicles and windpower supplying all of our electricity. As a matter of fact, in the ad, he trumpets the Democrat talking point of, "we can't drill our way out of this problem."
I'm all in favor of natural gas, btw. And wind power. It's just that T Boone's solution seems a little self-serving to me.

UNTflyer · July 17, 2008

*GASP*entrepreneurship*GASP*

I'm all for Pickens making a buck or two. But we as citizens should realize that Pickens has an interest in oil production staying stagnant. He has invested tens of millions in natural gas and has a dream of all cars running on CNG.

Eagle1855 · July 17, 2008

that is brilliant.

UNTflyer · July 18, 2008

I saw today that Pickens is calling for Al Gore to be Obama's "Energy Czar".

Q: If Obama wins the election, should Al Gore go in and be the energy czar?
Pickens: Well, you know, you asked me a question, I don't know I would certainly not-in that case I think I would be for Al Gore for energy czar.

The man just lost all credibility with me.

July 18, 2008

I saw today that Pickens is calling for Al Gore to be Obama's "Energy Czar".
The man just lost all credibility with me.

Maybe I am reading it wrong, but he clearly says he is not for Gore being the energy czar in your quote.

Pickens: Well, you know, you asked me a question, I don't know I would certainly not-in that case I think I would be for Al Gore for energy czar.

UNTflyer · July 18, 2008

Maybe I am reading it wrong, but he clearly says he is not for Gore being the energy czar in your quote.
Pickens: Well, you know, you asked me a question, I don't know I would certainly not-in that case I think I would be for Al Gore for energy czar.

If you ever see a Pickens interview, he tends to cut himself off in the middle of a sentence.

They have since change the transcript to read:

Q: If Obama wins the election, should Al Gore go in and be the energy czar?
Pickens: Well, you know, you asked me a question, I don't know. I would certainly not... In that case, I think I would be for Al Gore for energy czar

I haven't actually heard the interview, so maybe how I'm reading isn't what he meant... But given Pickens' opposition to oil production and his push for green energy, this statement doesn't surprise me.

adman · July 19, 2008

No. Not if they want to sell oil and make money.
No. Not if they want to sell oil and make money.

I disagree.

FirefightnRick · July 19, 2008

http://www.star-telegram.com/national_news/story/768907.html

Despite growing public support for ending the ban, even in California, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she won’t allow a vote.
"I have no plans to do so," Pelosi said Thursday.
It’s an example of the vast power placed in the office of the speaker, who sets the agenda for the 435-member House. Members can force a vote if enough of them sign a petition, but that’s a rarity because it requires Democrats to line up against their boss.
In this case, Pelosi is going against a rising tide of public opinion. Faced with rapidly increasing gasoline prices, 73 percent of Americans now favor offshore drilling, according to a poll conducted by CNN/Opinion Research Corp.
Support is growing even in California, where a majority has long supported the ban. A new Field Poll survey shows that just 51 percent now favor the ban, compared with 56 percent in 2005.

Rick

UNTflyer · July 19, 2008

http://www.star-telegram.com/national_news/story/768907.html
Rick

OF COURSE she won't allow a vote. She can't afford to piss of the San Francisco liberals she represents.

yyz28 · July 22, 2008

OF COURSE she won't allow a vote. She can't afford to piss of the San Francisco liberals she represents.

It's not that simple. She has every intention of allowing the vote if Obama wins the election. ...then they can claim the mantle of having "gotten the country back to affordable gas". The last thing the democratically controlled congress is going to do is let this be a victory for the minority party who is for it with Bush in the whitehouse.

...this is a timing issue.

untbowler · July 22, 2008

It's not that simple. She has every intention of allowing the vote if Obama wins the election. ...then they can claim the mantle of having "gotten the country back to affordable gas". The last thing the democratically controlled congress is going to do is let this be a victory for the minority party who is for it with Bush in the whitehouse.
...this is a timing issue.

And course they are playing off that Americans are two stupid figure out her coniving.

Keep the handouts coming and the people love you, while the government takes your land, money, and rights.