Mika Brzezinski might be an Obama backer, but she really should sit down with Hillary Clinton. The woman who turned $1,000 into $100,000 could clue her in to the workings of the commodities markets. Be it cattle or crude oil, the concept's the same: these are "futures" markets in which prices are set on traders' expectations of what conditions will be some time down the road.
Mika's need for urgent remedial help on the matter became evident during the first minutes of today's Morning Joe. Ostensibly fulfilling her news-reading function, Mika veered from the prepared text to inject her own editorializing to the effect that lifting the offshore drilling ban today wouldn't lower gas prices for ten years.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Time for a look at some of today's top stories. President Bush is calling on congress to lift its ban on offshore oil drilling. On Monday the president ended a long-standing moratorium on the practice, saying new drilling would ease pressure on fuel prices [going off-script to inject her own views] -- in about ten years. Critics argue the production of gas from the offshore --
View video here.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Just read the news. Where are you going? What are you --
BRZEZINSKI: OK, come on.
SCARBOROUGH: So what are you -- you know, nuclear power will take five, ten years. Every solution will take five to ten years.
BRZEZINSKI: OK, but it's not a solution for today and let's not paint it as one, OK?
SCARBOROUGH: What is a solution for today, Mika?
BRZEZINSKI [mocking McCain's idea]: How about a gas-tax holiday?
BRZEZINSKI: Invading Iran?
If Hillary were to sit down with Mika, she'd do well to read this passage from the Investors Business Daily editorial of July 3rd, "Energy Myths":
• "Even if drilling works, it'll take a decade or more for the oil to flow."
This is quite an argument coming from the Democratic Party, which has made keeping oil off the market a linchpin of its energy policy for decades.If President Clinton hadn't vetoed the idea of drilling in ANWR back in 1995, we'd have that oil on the market today. Ditto if Congress had approved ANWR drilling in 2002, when President Bush requested it.
Even so, the larger point is false anyway. New oil will be flowing in some cases within three to four years, according to industry estimates. But the impact on prices will be immediate. Why? Because markets would suddenly have to discount future oil prices for the expected gain in oil supply. That would cause oil prices, especially in futures markets, to drop.
By the way, this isn't just conjecture. President Reagan, within a week of his inaugural in 1981, removed domestic controls on oil. Energy prices began tumbling almost immediately, with oil falling from $34 a barrel in early 1981 to just $11 by 1986.
It worked before, and it'll work again.
Of course Hillary wouldn't use the IBD editorial, since it criticizes Dems in general and her husband in particular. But that doesn't mean Mika shouldn't read it. Pronto.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Comments Policy
Actually
July 15, 2008 - 07:36 ET by American Infidelgas prices would go down immediately if the speculators were sure that oil companies were indeed going to fill the supply need by drilling offshore. Economic ignorance is the staple of our media today.
We've finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism, and they don't want to fight it. They would, except it would put them on the same side as the United States. Ann Coulter
Exactly!!
July 15, 2008 - 07:55 ET by HeavyChevyEven if its just the thought of us drilling on our own land will bring prices down, who the hell cares if it takes 10 or 15 years prices will be affected in our favor. Heck we could just place equipment in ANWR and I bet prices would dip right away even by just a little!
"9 out of 10 doctors agree that flag burning is the number one killer of liberals."
Prices wouldn't dip
July 15, 2008 - 08:39 ET by Remixer96Guys, I hate to burst your bubble, but futures markets don't work like the stock market. If they did, then we would see an immediate decrease in price depending on shifting expectations as short as three years or long as ten years out.
Instead, futures markets are typically done on a short term basis, usually with contracts lasting no more than 3 months forward (because futures markets were designed for manufactorers to use to keep production moving in teh presence of fluctuating prices). As a result, you'd have to get within 3 months of bringing the oil supply to market for it to make any difference on the price.
In my opinion, given that there are still other unexplored areas in which US oil companies can drill, and US companies hardly make up a significant market share of oil for them to affect the price of gas anyway (something on the order of 4%), I think there isn't a pressing enough need, nor reasonable enough expectation of payoff, for opening up another area we've explicitly reserved for wildlife.
Not a pressing need? When
July 15, 2008 - 08:50 ET by athoughtor2Not a pressing need? When will it becoming a pressing need, $5 a gallon $6 a gallon. If we wait till that price we will be even further behind the eight ball when it comes to domestic production.We will need oil in the future no matter what. We will need it for manufactoring...Will will still need it for our cars..If we can produce domestic oil, we can reduce our dependency on foreign oil...that's part of being independent. Are we just supposed to leave it in the ground and stay hostage to OPEC and other foreign providers?
it's just too damn bad we
July 15, 2008 - 10:17 ET by TruthMongerit's just too damn bad we didn't do this 10 years ago Mika
so let's not have to say this same thing 10 years from now, okay baby-cakes?
just sit there and look pretty until you've read a few books
First, I never said we
July 15, 2008 - 10:17 ET by Remixer96First, I never said we weren't in an energy crisis. I only said that other areas already exist for oil companies to explore, so why open new ones we've already dedicated to wildlife?
Second, oil should be one component of the US's energy future, but so should other energy sources. Though the specifics are fuzzy, in the long term we are going to need a more sustainable source of energy.
We do not have to explore
July 15, 2008 - 10:28 ET by athoughtor2We do not have to explore for oil...We know where there are proven reserves...ANWAR.
You are right, in the long run we are going to need a more sustainable source....However, we don't have 15-20 years to wait until those sources are produced in a way that makes them cost effective to the masses. Remember when the cell phone 1st came out. It was almost as big as a bread box and was very expensive. Not everyone could afford them. Now we have much more affordable units/models. While these cheaper units were being manufactored in a cost effective way we still had our land lines....WE are still going to need oil/gas in the meantime. I would think the person making 25K a year is a little more important than the caribou....
Why won;t Teddy K let us build wind farms off the coast of |MASS?
Just a couple of counter points..
July 15, 2008 - 10:47 ET by ontherightFirst - not all land that is currently leased would/could cost effectively produce oil; regardless of the wildlife that may be on or around it. Besides, who is more important? Animals or humans??
Second - There are other emerging energy sources in the works today. However, they are not currently cost effective to mass produce.
What this means; 1)increased oil production will increase profits which will increase money diverted to the research and development of alternative energy solutions; 2)increased oil production will create jobs and bolster the "sluggish" economy...that has been over-hyped by a disengenious media.
This is a win-win all the way around, for humans that is. And, even if you do consider the "feelings" of the local caribou, I think they will get over it.
http://www.anwr.org/...
"I only said that other
July 15, 2008 - 10:50 ET by ckc1227"I only said that other areas already exist for oil companies to
explore, so why open new ones we've already dedicated to wildlife?"
Why not? It's a bogus argument.
It makes more sense to go where you know the oil is versus going where it might not be. And the wildlife argument is a canard. There is no reason why both can't co-exist in the same area.
You know, here's an idea: Let's let the experts in that business decide where the best places to drill for oil is instead of politicians who probably can't change the oil in their own vehicle. You wouldn't go to your plumber for medical advice would you? Then why would you turn to Congress for advice on the oil business?
"Second, oil should be one component of the US's energy future, but so
should other energy sources. Though the specifics are fuzzy, in the
long term we are going to need a more sustainable source of energy."
Until that day comes, we use oil. In the meantime, feel free to start your own alternative energy company to try to develop a solution.
Remixer...let me
July 15, 2008 - 10:52 ET by bassndudeRemixer...let me guess...you dont hunt or fish do you? We have lakes here, one of my favorite spots is right around a pumping unit sitting in 30 feet of water. Except for the spawn, always a few fish there. My biggest deer was grazing around a pumping unit. He was munching acorns about 20 feet from it. Oil wells dont bother animals, wildlife or fish either one.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I'll try to do these all at
July 15, 2008 - 11:34 ET by Remixer96I'll try to do these all at once instead of one at a time.
@athoughtor2:
Indeed, we do need an interim program. However, I think we should be exploring options other than ANWR. I don't think the cost/benefit looks good in the long run for it.
@ontheright:
1st, indeed, humans are more important that animals in my opinion. However I don't think that means we should go storming into any area we establish as a reserve whenever we think it might be useful in 6 years time (taking the average between opinons here).
2nd, what would drive the incentive to make those energy sources cost effective? Entrepreneurs seek to fill a need, and if the demand for the alternative energy need rises I think that's good for alternative energy innovation. Again, we need an interim program that keeps us afloat, but should we really be cutting the free market incentives out from under us that would power the next wave of innoation? I think urgency can be a good motivator.
3rd, I would challenge your assumption taht more profits = more investment, because there is a great deal of investment outside the current energy companies. Thus, investment in them would be independant of current energy profits.
4th, I think the economy is sluggish. Ask anyone about gas prices, food prices, and the value of the dollar.
@ckc
Businesses are run by the profit motive, and by design externalize as many costs as possible including costs to the environment and other "public goods. That's their duty. Thus, I wouldn't want to leave it solely up to industry for fear of harming those public goods. However...
@ckc and bassndude:
It's true, I don't hunt or fish. However, I think it's still a risk to the environment there, and that has to be considered. The counter-argument of "it can be safe" isn't worth much, since the primary concern is if they don't do it safely.
Plus, if I don't argue the left perspective around here, who will? :-P
so you have done a CBA on
July 15, 2008 - 12:54 ET by athoughtor2so you have done a CBA on drilling in ANWAR? let me break this down. if we don't need to spend money on exploration for ANWAR b/c we know there is oil there. then our cost is in drilling, shipping and refining etc... now if we go and explore that costs money...then couple that with the drilling, shipping and refinign costs...so in anwar we will eliminate at least 1 cost. thus being cheaper than other exploration sites....
Let's not talk about the present value of money. We can drill now or relatively soon using 2008-09-10 dollars or can use 10-11-12 dollars. hmmmmmmmm
So b/c you don't have faith in the the oil companies to drill safely, based on what? the masses should suffer? I would bet the person making 25k doesn't give a caribou's arse about the impact on the caribou. they care about how much it takes to fill their tanks and the other impacts on their lives b/c of hire oil.
How about we drill and you don't benefit from the cheaper gas/oil. you can go to the gas station and give them the 4.50 you are paying when the rest of us are paying less. tell them you didn't support drilling in anwar so i'm going to pay you more.
I thought the left didn't want to be dependent on foreign oil....
Frank, remove the red tape,
July 15, 2008 - 12:57 ET by bassndudeFrank, remove the red tape, the drilling company can be there in 3 months, rig moved in and set in another 3 months, and the first hole drilled in 20 days. Figure that up.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I think there isn't a
July 15, 2008 - 10:34 ET by R D HelmI think there isn't a pressing enough need, nor reasonable enough
expectation of payoff, for opening up another area we've explicitly
reserved for wildlife.
Been grocery shopping lately? :-O
So, at what point will the need become pressing? When unemployment hits 7%? 10%? When inflation approaches double digits, or long after it gets there?
BTW-Animals can move. Ever seen a caribou run? :-)
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
yep.
July 15, 2008 - 09:17 ET by mbuelEveryone who understands the basic laws of supply and demand understands this SIMPLE concept.
The reason the speculators are able to purchase AND SELL high price oil contracts is because of constrained supply. If that supply is increased, and INCREASED HERE AT HOME, the speculators will no longer be able to sell oil at 140 dollars a barrel, and the price would be cut in half OVERNIGHT.
it's an absolute shame they spend more time in Screwl teaching the wonderful fallacies of marxism, instead of teaching the realities of supply and demand, and how capitalism has produced the lowest poverty levels of any system ever in history.
"The reason the speculators
July 15, 2008 - 10:26 ET by Remixer96"The reason the speculators are able to purchase AND SELL high price oil contracts is because of constrained supply. If that supply is increased, and INCREASED HERE AT HOME, the speculators will no longer be able to sell oil at 140 dollars a barrel, and the price would be cut in half OVERNIGHT."
Which is exactly why we wouldn't see prices fall immediately, because there would be no actual increase in oil supply for years. Supply is defined by the actionable transactions that could be made, not the potential ones we have in the future once we open more potential drilling landscapes. Again, you can't apply value-based stock market logic to the physical workings of a futures market.
instead of teaching the realities of supply and demand, and how capitalism has produced the lowest poverty levels of any system ever in history.
This'll get me in trouble... but this statement is both true and false. A perfect pure capitalist system, that exists only in math, would lower poverty rates more than any other system we can think of at present. Actual pure capitalism, with the friction costs of reality, tends to create much greater inequality in income and increase poverty (since wealth is drawn to the powerful and they use non-market forces to accrue more power). In the US, we strive for a balance with a form of regulated capitalism, where we try to get the most benefit from the system with the least drawback, and we do pretty well with poverty I'd say. So "capitalism", so simply defined, doesn't necessarily decrease or increase poverty.
I believe the logic of this argument is somewhat skewed...
July 15, 2008 - 11:07 ET by ontheright...on one hand, yes, oil supply/demand is a integral factor in the price of gas at the pump.
However on the other hand and much more pressing is the lack of refining capabilities in this country. It matters not how many barrels of oil we can produce, sell provide/supply, etc., if we are unable to refine the oil and get it to the filling stations. All the oil in the world is useless as automobile fuel if it cannot be cost effectively refined and in a timely manner.
The "truth" of the matter is this: Congress, the evironmental whackos and our "radical" EPA has crippled our oil and gas companies (along with almost every other industry) with their "boutique fuel" blend requirements.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/7c02ca8c86062a0f85257018004118a6/f4914cfd52d5e82285257196006785b9!OpenDocument
Unfortunately the market cannot undue and/or immediately correct what the idiots in congress and the activists have perpetuated on the American, tax-paying citizen. No matter what the futures markets, oil & gas companies and current POTUS do.
Politicians and their fudning lobbyists got us into this and they will have to get us out of this. And if they don't do so in a timely manner, they should ALL find themselves looking for a job come next election season.
"Again, you can't apply
July 15, 2008 - 11:11 ET by athoughtor2"Again, you can't apply value-based stock market logic to the physical workings of a futures market."
Let me see....I believe the VALUE of oil will increase over the next 3 months...I BUY a 3 month futures contract today, that in 3 months allows me to buy oil at today's prices + a little vig for time value.
The same tenet in the stock market, BUY low SELL high does apply to the futures market.
I think the prices would go
July 15, 2008 - 11:44 ET by kgI think the prices would go down a bit but the price of oil would drop and production from the middle east would increase.
Mika should stop quoting Democrats with the ten year lie. Oil people say as little as one year and a max of six years to start pumping.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
Her Royal Clintoness also
July 15, 2008 - 07:45 ET by motherbeltHer Royal Clintoness also said at the time that as soon as she was elected the price would begin to drop because everyone knew that she had "a plan" for energy independence.
I'm sick of liberals complaining about every possible solution while they continue to whine about the problem. I think the truth is that the only solution they see as viable (they will never say it out loud), and actually have their sights set on right now, is nationalizing the industry and having government set the prices.
Yeah, that'll work.
Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson
Future Planning
July 15, 2008 - 07:47 ET by Red JeepWell, Democrats if we start drilling now in our country and the surrounding oceans and no alternatives work over the next 5 to 10 years, then there will be a solution within a decade. Just announcing we will drill will bring down prices. No super rich Arab wants to return to being a camel jockey for tourists to earn a living because all they have is oil and sand and pyramids.
If good alternatives are created plus we have our own oil in 10 years we will be in terrific shape. It is like saving for retirement. Call it future planning. Got it?
It's always 10 years with the loony liberals...
July 15, 2008 - 07:48 ET by c5then10 years before off-shore drilling impacts gas prices...
10 years before the world ends due to global warming, uh, cooling, uh climate change...
It's no wonder they are mentally frozen and can't make a decision and take action. All their 10 year predictions conflict with each other and they don't know what to do. Where are the polls when you need them?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Yeah, c5, it's like the old
July 15, 2008 - 09:56 ET by motherbeltYeah, c5, it's like the old "2 weeks" in "The Money Pit!" LOL
Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson
cheers
July 15, 2008 - 11:10 ET by mom_roxDidn't Ted Danson also use the 10 years in a comment about oceans in crisis?
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944
Ted Danson
July 15, 2008 - 11:10 ET by mikebromo"The oceans are going to die in another 10 years" Ted Danson said that about 20 years ago!
Adding oil to the world market
July 15, 2008 - 07:58 ET by DelsaWILL lower the price of products made from OIL.
We can begin adding more oil to the market in 1 to 5 years and the price will come down.
Period.
I would vote to keep Mika's price for gas higher than mine for at least 10 years
Florida real estate? call me!
Oil Is A Vital Part Of So Much
July 15, 2008 - 10:24 ET by JDWWe can begin adding more oil to the market in 1 to 5 years and the price will come down.
If congress supports Bush's override the market will drop the price of oil immediately.
Pelosi has admitted the oil problem but will not subscribe to drilling, she is advocates the draining of our reserves as the best method of lowering prices.
JDW
SAPPY NEWS
DAILY WAVE
Reserves
July 15, 2008 - 11:14 ET by mikebromoWe don't need the reserves if we drill for our own oil. Use the reserves when we are drilling in the USA, the price of oil will come down.
If I get this right, most
July 15, 2008 - 08:01 ET by athoughtor2If I get this right, most dems and libs say it will take 10 yrs to make an impact....Well if Pres Clinton didn't veto ANWAR drilling then that gas could/would be in our tanks now.....If we started drilling in 2001 when Pres Bush entered office, blocked by DEMS and Repubs who were afraid to take a stand...we would be atleast 1 1/2 yrs away from having that gas in our tanks....They all talk about energy independence but do nothing for it except bloviate, thanks Bill O for the word.
We are 10yr away from getting using this oil...But we are 15-20 yrs away from cheaper alternative fuels we can use in our cars....Hmmmmmmmmmm
If the pols want to do whats right for the people of this country, then why do they keep their plans to themselves and not try to enact them now....Kerry did the same thing with Iraq as well.
Agreed: 15-20 years for an
July 15, 2008 - 10:29 ET by bradbenj5952Agreed: 15-20 years for an alternative energy source is a prediction, meaning, they don't really know. What we do know is that we have oil, oil is energy, energy we can use today, thus if we go get it we'll have it to use. Granted it is a limited resource. There is not an endless supply in the earth. So we'll have to develop alternatives one day. But until that day comes, oil is the best thing going.
I heard an environmentalist on the radio this morning talking about how we need to greatly reduce our dependence on "fossil fuels" and transition to more clean energy sources like electricity. Say what? Do these people not know that because they have for all intents and purposes banned nuclear power, much of the electricity being produced is from fossil fuels, that's coal and oil. Oh yeah! Silly me. We can erect wind generators. That will solve the problem. And, and, and use renewable energy sources like turn our food into fuel. Yeah, that's the ticket. We can't build more reservoirs because we might hurt the mating environment of the jumping monkey mouse or some such critter. Hey you enviro-nuts, read my lips: there is no viable and economic alternative energy source that we have other than hydro, nuclear and fossil fuels.
Leave it to the unbelieving, socialist left to transform a blessing and gift from God, Who has ever looked to our care, and turn it into something evil!
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31
This is the same excuse
July 15, 2008 - 08:09 ET by dmntd1This is the same excuse they gave ten years ago, when gas, at the pump, was less than half what it is now.
I did some pro-active fact checking last week. Gas prices went up a whopping $0.75 in President Bush's first 6 years, with a Republican congress. In the 18 months since the Dems took control of the Congress, it's gone up $1.75. And they campaigned on lowering gas prices.
Makes me wonder.... if they're campaigning now on providing healthcare for all, if they get elected, will it be healthcare for none?!?
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his imminent relationship with a superior law and with an objective will that transcends the particular individual - Mussolini
dmntd1,
July 15, 2008 - 11:13 ET by R D Helm... if they're campaigning now on providing healthcare for all, if they get elected, will it be healthcare for none?!?
Its like a local radio guy around here says, "If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it is free."
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
"If you think healthcare is
July 15, 2008 - 18:06 ET by Rukus"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it is free."
Hey RD, can I use that as my tag? Awesome quote!
"Nuke 'em 'til they... oh hell, just shoot 'em!"
Sure Ruk.
July 16, 2008 - 22:39 ET by R D HelmThe quote came from Herman Cain, who was once Neal's fill-in host, but now has his own show.
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
Maybe it will take 10 years
July 15, 2008 - 08:18 ET by YahooWatcherBut it's like planting a tree - the best time to do it was years ago. The second best time to do it is right now.
Gasbag Mika
July 15, 2008 - 08:21 ET by Mulligan22I didn't realize Mika was such an expert on oil. This is the same logic that says why go to college because it will take 4 years to get a degree and then there's no guarantee you'll get a job with it. Hers' is the same mindset that gave us corn based ethanol.
We will be using oil in 10 years. We will be using oil in 20 years so lets go get it. It may not lower the price of gas, but it will slow the rise in the price.
My questions for Mika is simply what will lower the price of gas today for consumers? Why is producing more energy domestically a bad thing? Doesn't it provide good paying jobs as well as energy?
My prediction is there will not be a majic bullet alternative to show up for maybe 50 years. Until then it's going to be a combination of many things which must include more domestic production. Oil, shale to oil, coal to oil and whatever else we can find.
"Left" and "Logic" seem to
July 15, 2008 - 08:35 ET by Killgrave"Left" and "Logic" seem to be mutually exclusive terms, if we are to take this idiot for her word.
When it comes to oil production and consumption, our only value comes from IMMEDIATE benefit. So to plan for something 5 or 10 years down the pike has little to no value.
But for environmental concerns, FUTURE is all that matters. Since something may or may not happen 10 or 20 years from now, we must make DRASTIC changes NOW.
If Mika's ilk had their way.......
July 15, 2008 - 08:46 ET by CapitalismRulesWe would be using clean, renewable energy like wind and solar power, electric cars and hydrogen buses. Problem is these things will take way longer than 10 years (assuming she's right, which we all know she is not), more like 50 to 80 years, before we see gas go down....hmmm, 10 years......80 years. I'll take the 10 please.
Sorry, but it's getting
July 15, 2008 - 08:48 ET by bobthemanSorry, but it's getting harder to watch Morning Joe. I think he could do better by getting rid of Mika or any sidekick for that matter and just host a show solo.
This Mika chick is too much to stomach. She doesn't add any value to the show. If it weren't for her dad, she wouldn't be were she is because it's pretty obvious she has little capacity for facts or intellectual thought.
http://politicsofdes...
Totally agree....
July 15, 2008 - 09:31 ET by unkeeafI've never seen anyone who interrupts the host or the guests more often than she does on that show. It's really very hard to follow what is going on when she starts breaking in with her inane comments. I'm assuming she is in the position because she is a shill for the left - an MSNBC necessity on any show. Nothing else makes sense. She is certainly not there because of her wealth of talent or her astute observations.
RE: too much to stomach.
July 15, 2008 - 09:37 ET by MrltavernI'm hearing you. Her father was an important part of the Carter administration, she happens to have nice cans and is a liberal broad so she was shoe in at MSNBC (Make Sure No Bush Compliments). But what a ding bat huh? Yes, I actually like Joe but he's hardly on his own show anymore and I can't watch this factless wonder spew her ideological BS every morning!
Joe's absence
July 15, 2008 - 11:19 ET by mom_roxJoe's wife gave birth prematurely. I believe the birth weight was just over 2 lbs. I'm sure the family spent many a restless night at NICU. Reports are that the infant is now at home, doing as well as can be expected.
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944
The Sky is Falling and I Can't Get Up!
July 15, 2008 - 09:15 ET by CrashIs this the only albatross of talking point democrats have left to sell us on the idea that we should all just roll over and die? They should just come out and say, "what's the point, we're all gonna' die anyway." Wait they tried that with Iraq.
The loons couldn't convince us stop burning fossil fuels with their lame global warming "settled science" scheme. So plan B must have been; "Even if drilling works, it'll take a decade or more for the oil to flow." While the left drills for despair, we on the right will strike the mother load using their recycled campaign slogan ... "hope". Not because we're dreamers, but, because we're doer's, we are optimists, we are capitalists, and we are the only hope this country has left.
it will send a message to the competition plain and simple.
July 15, 2008 - 09:25 ET by lunaticcringeradioopec will realize that we(mainly conservatives) are getting fed up with being under their thumb and we are willing to take matters into our own hands. of course there will not be an immediate MEANINGFUL overnight change in oil prices, mainly because opec knows it can rely on democrats to care more about undermining republicans instead of getting on board with doing what's best for this country. but just the announcement alone might even make a difference in the price of a barrel today because it is a step in getting out from under the thumb of opec and toward more independence. and the more steps we take, the more drills that are drilling, the more pumps that are pumping, and the more REFINERIES that are refining will present opec with more competiton and force them to drop their prices to compete.
ok who here wants to get started drilling for oil now while it's $4.
and who here wants wait to drill for oil when it's $10
psssst we should have been drilling when it was $.87
who here believes that this conservation scheme is actually doing a damn thing. i'm not advocating wastefullness, but the jimmah caarta days of wearing a sweater in the oval office is a lil bit ridiculouly overkill.
lunaticcringeradio
I think OPEC will start
July 15, 2008 - 09:36 ET by general companyI think OPEC will start lowering prices once we make a commintment to drill our own oil. Then I think the bottom falls out when we start cutting back on their suppy.
I think they will try to keep the price around what they feel we can affordably drill for our own.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Now THAT'S a reasonable scenario, gc.
July 15, 2008 - 11:38 ET by Indiana JoeEven if it takes time, the idea that we will be able to drill our own oil will have to make OPEC think about the future. With most of the country screaming about prices, OPEC would want to remove the incentive for us to find an alternate supply.
I think the announcement that we are going to drill would result in immediate lowering of prices, followed by a gradual slide as we came closer to actual production. In the end, they'd shoot for making their prices competitive with the cost of us drilling our own oil.
Didn't oil prices drop $11
July 15, 2008 - 18:16 ET by RukusDidn't oil prices drop $11 a barrel overnight ? I may be wrong. It may have gone up since then.. .
"Nuke 'em 'til they... oh hell, just shoot 'em!"
what is with this 10 year stuff?
July 15, 2008 - 09:32 ET by MrltavernIf Obama would come out tomorrow and say "I want to pursue drilling off our shores" the liberals like Mika Dingbatski would say "ok, it seems like a good idea now".
I don't understand that excuse to not drill off shore b/c it takes 10 years. Who cares??? What is our crisis going to look like in 10 years? Are they then going to say in 2020, it's going to take 10 years when we're really hard up for Oil? What is this resistance to drill off shore??? I can't get it. Or is just a Bush thing? That these liberals in the media hate BUsh so blindly that anything he says they resist.
I am an advocate for all kinds of energy. Wind Solar gas nukes AND oil. Why can't we pursue all?
Why have people in this country and in Congress lost their common sense and brains?
Mr.L
Mika, the Whiner
July 15, 2008 - 09:37 ET by BacchusIf alternative energies were already viable and prepared to displace fossil fuels, wouldn't they already be competing more vigorously in the marketplace? They're simply not ready. GM warned last week not to count on their electric car, The Volt, for the new CAFE standards, because their technology isn't ready.
It's obvious the left doesn't have a viable, workable, energy solution right now, other than Hope and Change; well, that plus $2 gets you a cup of coffee.
Nope...
July 15, 2008 - 11:20 ET by ontheright...that and 5.45 gets you a cup of coffee. :-)
Because "hope and change" are worthless without a workable plan.
"We can't drill our way out
July 15, 2008 - 09:50 ET by Free Thinker"We can't drill our way out of this", "It will take 10 years to affect the price of gas", or " We must find alternative sources of energy now". I am tired of all these lame, empty sayings. Pelosi and Reid have a 9% approval rating for a reason.
Let's assume a disruptive technology was created this afternoon and GM introduced a car that runs on water. How many years will it take for that car to be a mainstream vehicle? How will our infrastructure have to change? What about my perfectly good truck I have right now? How expensive would that car be?
It took the telephone 85 years, the internet 30 years (built on existing telephone platform), the printing press 400 years, the internal combustion engine 75 years to be used by most people. All the while we will still be using gas made from oil. Who cares if it will take 10 years? It will have an immediate impact on the market. And 10 years from now it will have an impact on existing supply for the demand that will be greater than it is today.
Mika is just an airhead gleefully reciting the dnc's talking points without giving them any critical thoughts of her own, if there are any.
Ten Years Mika?
July 15, 2008 - 09:53 ET by allanfTen years Mika. Really? The ony thing that takes that long is a government project. We went to the moon in 9.
Mika's Right, Drilling won't Work - -Pumping it will
July 15, 2008 - 10:22 ET by JayTeeWhen will a New Media Person VISIT a Well head Drilling site, and ASK..."How long did it take to Drill this Well ?"
And the Answer is a LOT closer to 30 Days than Five Years.....what a bunch of IDIOTS ...report the TRUTH you dummies....not Preach as you do not know it...
The Republican Revolution will not be Televised
I'm The Boss
July 15, 2008 - 10:49 ET by CellaInside Cable News has the video of Joe telling Mika to, so to speak, SHUT UP.
She kept interrupting and he finally had enough. It is priceless!
He points out that he is the host!
Cella...can you post a link
July 15, 2008 - 10:54 ET by bassndudeCella...can you post a link to that? Would love to see it.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I'm not Cella, but....
July 15, 2008 - 11:11 ET by Karma...here it is bassndude.
"It's called Morning JOE"
July 15, 2008 - 11:25 ET by mom_roxdelicious. Karma, thank you for the link.
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944
This made my day. Thanks,
July 15, 2008 - 13:09 ET by marpelThis made my day. Thanks, Karma!
Thanks Karma Save a SeAL,
July 15, 2008 - 11:39 ET by bassndudeThanks Karma
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Computer Challenged
July 15, 2008 - 12:38 ET by CellaThanks, Karma.
I am computer challenged. But I will try to learn.
This is so funny. I am glad you could help share it.
You're welcome Cella.
July 15, 2008 - 13:14 ET by KarmaLike most here, always glad to help those in need.
Too be honest, posting that link fell just within my capabilities.
Challenged, schmallenged. Who cares? You got the job done.
10 Years!!!??!!!!
July 15, 2008 - 10:52 ET by ArcherB10 years you say? Oh, then I guess there is no point in drilling if it is going to take 10 Years!
While we are at it, we send millions of kids to school every day. That takes 12 years to complete. We should stop sending kids to school.
How long does it take for Social Security to pay out? Why does money get stripped from my check twice a month if it's going to take 50 years of working for me to see any of it?
My wife and I were thinking about having another child, but I hear it will take 18 years for him/her to reach adulthood. Why bother?
I was looking to purchase a new house, but the bank people want to make my loan 15 years at least. What's the point if it is going to take 15 years (actually 30) to pay off?
(Are we starting to see a patern here?)
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Why, Ill tell you why/
July 15, 2008 - 20:02 ET by general companyMy wife and I were thinking about having another child, but I hear it will take 18 years for him/her to reach adulthood. Why bother?
Because the first 10yrs are such a blast and the next 8 you get to buy and learn all of the new technology. : ]
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Offshore & ANWR Drilling & Pumping
July 15, 2008 - 11:24 ET by j. frank wilsonjust isn't going to solve this problem. For years the Bush Administration has done nothing to solve America's energy problem. Once again this President Bush has proven to be far less a President than his Father - who signed the first offshore drilling ban.
The comments here about gas prices today vs. gas prices 10 years from now are not backed by facts. Hope apparently, but not facts.
Here's what the Energy Information Administration has to say about it:
The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.
- Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf
For years the right wing nutz have screamed "Drill in ANWR!" Apparently this has worked to dupe a certain percentage of the rubes. It won't, however, solve this problem. Again, here's EIA on the subject:
Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.
Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Report #: SR-OIAF/2008-03
Released Date: May 2008
To finish those numbers - and shatter the "lower gas prices in 10 years" myth - there are about 20 gals. of gas in a barrel of oil; and the price of crude oil is about 75% of the price of a gal. of gas.
So in a best case scenario ANWR would reduce the price of gas less than six cents per gal. In other words, the average state tax of $.214/gal. has more impact on the price of gasoline than drilling in ANWR would. And this assumes the cost of drilling up there will be reasonable. And that is 10 years away.
Better than 100 MORE YEARS
July 15, 2008 - 11:32 ET by wiwfBetter than 100 MORE YEARS OF $50 a gallon gas, you dumb idiot blonde.
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
The energy problem can not
July 15, 2008 - 11:37 ET by athoughtor2The energy problem can not be solved over night. There is no magic wand or genie in a bottle. However, more supply will never hurt. We could have been producing wind farms, but Teddy K doesn't want any off of Mass. We can't have any in the midwest b/c of the flight path of migratory birds, dems caved to that as well. Of course we have the 70's mantra of NO NUKES. If we had built more refineries that would have helped, but no.....can't do that....The efficency of those refineries would have gotten much better in the 90' and 2000's then the 70's when the last one was built. So just about every tool the President has is off the table by the dems, libs and enviromentalists. So what would be your suggestion, peddle bikes and treadmills like in the Flintstones? But don't forget the unions would protest for having workers work to hard. So that alternative energy source is off the table as well. Looks like we are all F'd
Uh-huh
July 15, 2008 - 11:53 ET by Indiana JoeYeah, higher production of a needed commodity is a BAD thing. Forget all that "supply and demand" mumbo-jumbo. Never mind common sense; your betters have spoken. They just looked in their crystal ball and told you, so sit down and shut up. Bitch about people doing "nothing," then bitch when they try to do something. And for God's sake, don't do what the "right wing nutz" want.
Too much of a chance they'll be right!
Never Claimed it Would Solve the Problem
July 15, 2008 - 12:12 ET by richb313Like so many who have no real knowledge of the subject you fail to understand the basic premise. No one to my knowledge has claimed that drilling in Anwar would solve the problem. It is only common sense that when you need something you go where that something is. Our dependence on oil as an energy source will be largely self correcting. The problem is that we depend on oil for a lot more than energy production. At least 25% to 29% of the oil used in this country is for stuff other than energy production. It is the basic building block of our chemical industry to just name one.
There is no real argument to be made for not drilling and extracting oil. Since the early 80's the oil industry has totally transformed itself. There is no discharge allowed not only by law but as an economic reality from the process of drilling and producing oil. All chemicals and other materials used in the drilling of oil are recovered and mostly recycled and used again. This has had the result of lowering the total requirement for the amounts of drilling mud and chemicals used. I know of no area in the United States where any wildlife has been impacted in a negative fashion by oil drilling, production, or transportation. Even when you consider the Exxon Valdez and the massive oil spill that resulted in an economic and environmental disaster the actuall results were a net gain to the environment in short order. After the initial damage and clean-up was concluded the department of fisheries in Alaska put a 2 to 3 year hold on fishing in the affected areas. As a result of this action the fish population, which had been decimated by over fishing, actually recovered to levels not seen for many decades. Other bird and wildlife populations have successfully recovered as well. One can only hope that such a spill does not occur again but the odds are that one will. It will again be a disaster. Everything that can be done to prevent this must be done.
I used to work offshore for over 26 years in the Diving / ROV Industry. I am currently on disability and do not own a single share of any stock and do not recieve one penny of income from any oil or related company so I do not have a dog in this f