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.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Actually
July 15, 2008 - 06:36 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 - 06:55 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 - 07:39 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 - 07:50 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 - 09:17 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 - 09:17 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 - 09:28 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 - 09:47 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 - 09:50 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 - 09:52 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 - 10:34 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 - 11:54 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 - 11:57 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 - 09:34 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 - 08:17 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 - 09:26 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 - 10:07 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 - 10:11 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 - 10:44 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 - 06:45 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 - 06:47 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 - 06:48 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 - 08:56 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 - 10:10 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 - 10:10 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 - 06:58 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 - 09:24 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 - 10:14 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 - 07:01 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 - 09:29 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 - 07:09 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 - 10:13 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 - 17:06 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 - 21:39 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 - 07:18 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 - 07:21 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 - 07:35 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 - 07:46 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 - 07:48 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 - 08:31 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 - 08:37 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 - 10:19 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 - 08:15 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 - 08:25 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 - 08:36 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 - 10:38 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 - 17:16 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 - 08:32 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 - 08:37 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 - 10:20 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 - 08:50 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 - 08:53 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 - 09:22 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 - 09:49 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 - 09:54 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 - 10:11 ET by Karma...here it is bassndude.
"It's called Morning JOE"
July 15, 2008 - 10:25 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 - 12:09 ET by marpelThis made my day. Thanks, Karma!
Thanks Karma Save a SeAL,
July 15, 2008 - 10:39 ET by bassndudeThanks Karma
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Computer Challenged
July 15, 2008 - 11:38 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 - 12:14 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 - 09:52 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 - 19:02 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 - 10:24 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 - 10:32 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 - 10:37 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 - 10:53 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 - 11:12 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 fight. I am concerned with facts however and the debate on this subject is lacking in that area.
@richb313:
July 15, 2008 - 11:44 ET by j. frank wilsonActually, folks such as Sheer Insannity beat the drum that ANWR drilling will solve all our problems.
In the meantime, common sense dictates that we should be taking steps that will actually address the issue.
The issue is we need
July 15, 2008 - 12:08 ET by athoughtor2The issue is we need oil....ANWAR to name one place has said oil. The other alternatives are aways off....Common sense dictates that we pursue the energy source that is as an immediate fix/solution as quicky as possible.
Common sense says that we also pursue the other alternatives while we drill. We will still need oil 20-30-40 yrs from now. How about Nukes? Clean coal?
We can consume less as well, individual choice/personal responsibility... but if one takes personal responsibility then how can we blame Pres Bush.
Or we can be beholden to OPEC and foreign sources of oil....Thought we wanted to be energy/oil independent?
What, exactly, are the
July 15, 2008 - 23:13 ET by RESTLESS 1What, exactly, are the steps you propose? Evirowhackos and liberal nut jobs are not allowing these steps to be taken. Don't you read anything other than lib talking points? NO NEW REFINERIES! NO WIND FARMS! NO NUKES!!! That is the mantra from your side. So, what do YOU purport we do about it??
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Nothing like the old Cherry Pick, j. frank
July 15, 2008 - 11:12 ET by BlondeHere's from your same source...the EIA.
Sorry...hyperlink not working here...
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/analysisdiscussion.html
ANWR Coastal Plain Assessment The technique explained in the "Method of Analysis" section is applied to the USGS estimates of technically recoverable oil published in the USGS report, The Oil and Gas Resource Potential of the 1002 Area, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska," Open File Report 98-34.
Three estimates of technically recoverable resources are assessed at two development rates for each estimate. The resource estimates provide a range from a 95 percent probability, a mean, to a 5 percent probability of exceeding the technically recoverable volumes of 5.7, 10.3 and 16.0 billion barrels, respectively, from the ANWR Coastal Plain.
The quantities of technically recoverable volumes for the same probability levels for the ANWR 1002 Area are 4.2, 7.7 and 11.8 billion barrels. 95 Percent Probability Case The USGS estimates that there is a 95 percent probability (a 19 in 20 chance) that at least 5.7 billion barrels of oil may be technically recoverable from the ANWR Coastal Plain of the Alaska North Slope.
The original oil in place corresponding to this recovery is at least 15.6 billion barrels. EIA scheduled daily production rates for postulated yearly development rates of 250 and 400 million barrels per year. The production rate peaks at 650,000 barrels per day for the development of 250 million barrels per year and at 800,000 barrels per day for the 400 million barrels per year development case. (Figure 3) Mean Case The USGS estimates that the mean or expected value of the technically recoverable oil is 10.3 billion barrels from the ANWR Coastal Plain of the Alaska North Slope. The original oil in place corresponding to this recovery is 27.8 billion barrels.
EIA scheduled production rates are for postulated development rates of 400 and 600 million barrels per year. The production rate peaks at 1.0 million barrels per day for the development of 400 million barrels per year case and at 1.35 million barrels per day for the 600 million barrels per year development case.
(Figure 4) 5 Percent Probability Case The USGS estimates that there is a 5 percent probability (a 1 in 20 chance) that 16.0 billion barrels of oil, or more, may be technically recoverable from the ANWR Coastal Plain of the Alaska North Slope. The original oil in place corresponding to this recovery is at least 42.3 billion barrels.
(edit) I missed the best part. Someone kindly edit this and bold it for me...I'm out of here: The USGS economic analysis of the ANWR 1002 Area calculates that once oil has been discovered, more than 80 percent of the technically recoverable oil is commercially developable at an oil price of $25 per barrel. In general, it is assumed that production from Alaska (including ANWR) would reduce oil imports by an equal amount. The imported refiner acquisition cost in 2020 is projected in EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2000 reference case to be $22.04 (1998 dollars). At this price, the potential ANWR oil recovered would have a value between $125 and $350 billion (in 1998 dollars.)
Edit #2 (besides bolding what I wanted bold)...if we take the price of oil and quintuple it ($125 per bbl instead of $25 as cited...in other words, times five)....the value is between $725 billion and $1.75 trillion.
So j. frank....how do you feel about keeping all those dollars here in the good old U.S. of A? Hmmm?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
@Blonde:
July 15, 2008 - 11:23 ET by j. frank wilsonNo cotton pickin' cherry pickin' here.
To try to make the argument sound much stronger, folks pushing for more drilling throw around production numbers to make it all sound like a real big deal. Personally, I have no dispute with the production numbers you cited or their source.
But I'm interested in results. And that is the part of the reports I quoted. Can you present different results? From the "Impacts..." report:
"Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant." [emphasis added]
If you have a bone to pick with that, perhaps you should take it up with the EIA.
"Because oil prices are
July 15, 2008 - 11:39 ET by Indiana Joe"Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant." [more emphasis added]
Now, I don't know that "wellhead prices" are any different from the "international market." But, why the distinction? If they are, this is an "apples and oranges" comparison.
If not, it's still an "expectation." Normal market forces would still apply, and last I heard, the law of supply and demand had not been repealed. Bringing new production online would drive prices down more than not bringing new production online.
There was a little thing called the Arab Oil Embargo back in the 70s. Fear of a repeat performance has affected our foreign policy ever since. I think ameliorating that threat is more than enough reason to increase domestic production.
So, it "may not" help, or it "could" help to drill more oil. Hmm....
I say go for it.
Supply & Demand
July 15, 2008 - 11:55 ET by j. frank wilsonOne of the issues to consider is that oil production is elastic. If OPEC and other oil producers want to keep prices up, would it not make sense that if the US increases oil production they will reduce production - keeping total international oil volume just the same.
We could keep the costs
July 15, 2008 - 12:00 ET by bassndudeWe could keep the costs down here in the US. It would only be the international price for oil that was imported. Import less, pay less. The oil companies can export what we dont use here. However, I dont think OPEC is apt to do such a thing.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I'm willing to take that
July 15, 2008 - 18:35 ET by Indiana JoeI'm willing to take that chance. However, I don't think OPEC would cut production. Once other major sources of oil are online, I think they're going to realize that their near-monopoly on crude is coming to an end. I think they'll decide to make hay while the sun shines, pumping as much as they can while racing a falling price. They won't sit on it at $100/bbl to sell it later at $50/bbl.
I don't believe the mentality that buys gold-plated cars, or builds 120 room mansions, has much of a "save for a rainy day" component to it.
And so what if they cut production? We'll still be paying less for importing less. And keeping the money here. What part of "make our own instead of buying from folks who hate us" isn't obvious? Like the man said, let them eat oil.
Joe...
July 15, 2008 - 18:39 ET by Clear thinkerI don't see any down side either.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Bottom line here is if
July 15, 2008 - 19:21 ET by general companyBottom line here is if gas/oil goes down, they (Dems) will be toast in Nov, even if it is later all of the leftist banter goes up in smoke. If anything of significance gets passed this WILL (fuel prices will drop) happen, I personaly think the Dems pandoring will get the best of them here. If not, guess whos fault it will be? BTW the BDS is pretty high in this thread.
Unfortunately, it is the liberals/msm that are keeping score.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
general co...
July 15, 2008 - 19:29 ET by Clear thinkerThere are alot of things that could toast the dems.
We could win in Iraq.
The economy could start to perk up.
We could catch Bin Laden.
The price of oil could come down.
I could go on, but I won't. Just keep in mind that evry time you turn on the TV or pick up a paper the dems are working against all those items that could make it better for the average voter. That in my book is anti-American.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
ooops! guess they didn't
July 15, 2008 - 11:27 ET by athoughtor2ooops! guess they didn't realize someone would check and have a contra report. Sounds like most of the libs, they say one thing and expect everyone to take it as gospel and not challenge it. i.e Bush Lied....Obama is the messiah....
Nice work!
That 10 years is a crock of
July 15, 2008 - 11:50 ET by bassndudeThat 10 years is a crock of bull. If it takes 2 years, it will be politics that delays it. If you removed the red and green tape from ANWAR, there would be oil flowing in one year from the well there. And that is at the outside. Once the rig is set, it takes about 20 days to drill a very deep well. It takes longer to move and set the rig than to drill the hole.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Not only that, but
July 15, 2008 - 23:24 ET by RESTLESS 1Not only that, but movements of rigs are being needed less and less, with multi-directional drilling, one rig can drill many areas through on main downhole. Improvements in multilateral technology is making rig move more and more rare. More often than not, it is weather that shuts rigs down, not the need to move.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Does not have a clue
July 15, 2008 - 10:42 ET by richb313Mika does not have a clue and is doubtless living in another universe. In the real world 70% of the oil used in this country is used for transportation. Thats cars, planes , trains, ships etc. Allmost no oil is used for the production of electricity as coal, natural gas, hydro-electric, and nuclear power are the major players. Approx 2% to 3% of electricity generated uses oil as a fuel source. All the alternative methods added together do not rise to a fraction of 1%. An article on Junk Science.com is where I got those figures but they were cited from a government survey of energy use.
This means about 29% or so of all the oil used in this country is for other stuff such as manufacturing, chemical industry, pharmacutical industry, etc. We are a Hydro-Carbon based economy. Thanks to the advances in Organic Chemistry made in the early 20th century we all have benifitted from an increased life span and a higher standard of living. I am tired of hearing oil bashed. Oil is not the enemy. The way we use it might be improved but to blame a chemical compound for the ills of the world is frankly idiotic.
We need oil. There is no way around it. There would be world wide famines if it were not for oil. We need more oil, not less. We do need to move to another energy source not because oil is bad, but because the world economy is expanding and oil will become too valuable to burn. This is a goal we should work toward and will naturally achieve as the price of this commodity becomes higher.
It only takes 2 to 3 years to bring a new oil field on line. The ten year figure spouted like some kind of mantra is too stupid to take seriously. It might take ten years to fully develope infrastructure where none exists but there are alternative methods of production. Typically oil is produced from a well and then pumped through a pipeline to holding tanks at refineries. Where no pipelines exist such as some areas off the east coast etc oil can be produced to anchored super tankers and then off loaded to other tankers for delivery to refineries. This system already exits and is used in many areas around the world.
More knowledge and less hype is needed on this subject as it is vital to our collective futures.
sigh
July 15, 2008 - 11:05 ET by candanceI don't understand the point behind the "ten years away" argument. That's like saying I shouldn't bother saving up to buy a house because it would take me ten years to get a down payment. I shouldn't invest in medical school because it'll take ten years to make a profitable salary. I shouldn't start an IRA because it'll take several decades to mature.
That's the way a teenager thinks. To the rest of us, it only makes us want to do it even faster so ten years doesn't become twenty.
We only come to two conclusions from this: libs really don't care how expensive gas gets or they're too obtuse to analyze their arguments.
@candance:
July 15, 2008 - 11:12 ET by j. frank wilsonPerhaps you can't understand the "10 years away argument" because it doesn't make sense. Please take a look at the EIA information (above).
Perhaps there is a third conclusion. Maybe this is like the astonishingly stupid "War on Drugs." Maybe the answer is to reduce demand...
How accurate is EIA
July 15, 2008 - 11:18 ET by richb313I am curious. Have you checked out any EIA reports from 10 or 20 years ago? I am curious if they were in the ball park on any of thier projections. I honestly do not know the answer to this question, but it has been my experience that all projections or predictions of more than a couple of months, or at the most one or two years, are mostly guess work.
Maybe the answer is to
July 15, 2008 - 11:25 ET by dvdaughtryMaybe the answer is to reduce demand...
How do we do that? The only way I know is to make it so expensive the market doesn't want it.
I can only guess your way is to find "alternative" sources. Problem with alternates is they are alternates for a reason.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
A quick, off topic, question.
July 15, 2008 - 11:49 ET by KarmaPerhaps there is a third conclusion. Maybe this is like the
astonishingly stupid "War on Drugs." Maybe the answer is to reduce
demand... j. frank wilson
Are you surmising that legalizing drugs, which may drastically lower the price, will reduce demand for them?
@Karma:
July 15, 2008 - 12:04 ET by j. frank wilsonI don't think drug demand is related to price. I think legalizing drugs would have several positive benefits - considerably reduce the very expensive prison population, reduce the crime required to raise money to buy currently expensive drugs, and I suggest demand would be reduced because pushers won't be pushing.
The proven international cure for drug use is time - people age and outgrow it.
We need to dramatically reduce the demand for drugs. The War on Drugs is over - Drugs won. It's time for an entirely new approach.
b@ck to you j. frank
July 15, 2008 - 12:41 ET by Karma...reduce the crime required to raise money to buy currently expensive
drugs, and I suggest demand would be reduced because pushers won't be
pushing. j. frank wilson
Cheaper drugs = less demand?
Why would pushers not be pushing? Because they couldn't compete with Walgreens on the corner?
zero logic at use
July 15, 2008 - 12:54 ET by candanceDemand will go down because pushers won't be pushing? Now that their product is perfectly legal they will suddenly lose interest in selling it?
Since the end of prohibition in 1933 alcohol abuse continues to thrive and average age of teens who experiment with it keeps getting younger. Nope, no evidence of "the pushers will stop pushing it" there.
Oxycontin is prescribed as a pain killer for terminal cancer patients in the hope that these doctors can keep a sharp eye on it - yet Oxycontin abuse continues to expand.
The proven international cure for drug use is time - people age and outgrow it.
Says who? Says the fact that clinics across the globe are filled with 30 and 40 somethings?
considerably reduce the very expensive prison population, reduce the crime required to raise money to buy currently expensive drugs
Hey if that's all there is to it, let's lift all the restrictions on guns and set those criminals free as well! After all, if it's not illegal the "cool" factor will drop and people will stop buying them!
@candace:
July 15, 2008 - 13:23 ET by j. frank wilsonAlcohol has been with us since the dawn of civilization. Are you going to tell me you are not bombarded with advertisements for beer, wine and hard liquor? The pushers never stopped.
Do you think Prohibition in America worked? If that was a success, you must love what we're doing in Iraq.
If drugs were available by prescription to addicts at a reasonable cost, they would not have to commit crimes to raise the huge amounts of money required to sustain their habit. In the meantime, they can work and hold jobs. Or don't you think alcoholics work today?
Criminals sell drugs because they can make a huge profit. Is that news to you? Illegal coke is what - $2,000 an oz? And pharm prescription is $25 or $35? Gee - why is that?
And if you deem the present system a success, with our prisons filled with petty drug criminals - we put more people in prison than any other Western nation - is that working for you? Do you feel safer and that's money well spent?
Do we have more drug addicts than we did when drugs were legal? Why is weed against the law in this country? Because the government woke up one morning and discovered that some Black folks were smoking it! Can't you see how racist the War on Drugs really is? Or do you think the penalties for crack should be more severe than for powder coke?
Did these people commit any
July 15, 2008 - 13:34 ET by athoughtor2Did these people commit any other crimes then just the "petty" drug crime? How many of those "petty" drug crimes were plea bargained down? I'm pretty sure our jails are also filled with murderers, rapists and other scum.
They should raise the sentences for powder coke...not lower the sentence for crack. Most studies say that crack is more addicting then powder...That is one of the reasons why the penalty is so severe, trying to dissuade use. Also b/c crack is relatively cheap in comparrison to other drugs, people can steal smaller less valuable items to pay for their addiction and habit.
althoughtor2:
July 15, 2008 - 14:13 ET by j. frank wilsonI would be very interested in reading a reliable study that shows there is a significant difference in the addictive attributes of crack vs. powdered cocaine.
And, yes, the national prisons are filled with petty drug users and some low-level dealers. Stuffed to no purpose but wasted money and ruined lives.
2. Office of National Drug
July 15, 2008 - 14:23 ET by athoughtor22. Office of National Drug Control Policy
Dr. Lee P. Brown, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, expressed concern about current federal sentencing policy for crack and powder cocaine due to the "differential between the impact on 'low end' users and traffickers versus 'high end' users and kingpins, and the differential of the impact on African Americans versus others who use or traffick in narcotics." In a January 19, 1995, letter to the Commission, Dr. Brown said that research evidence does not support the 100-to-1 differential between crack and powder cocaine on which both the federal mandatory minimum penalties and the sentencing guidelines have been based.
In my opinion, one of the goals of sentencing policy in general should be to eliminate race-based differentials. However, the research does not clearly support elimination of the sentencing differential for powder versus crack cocaine. In fact, the greater availability of crack cocaine, the greater degree of addictiveness of crack cocaine, the impact on many inner city communities, and the greater systemic violence which surrounds the crack trade indicate that some differential may be warranted.
It appears that more time is warranted to further examine both the impact in differentials in sentencing which are less than 100-1, through "modeling" of sentencing guidelines which dictate a lesser statutory ratio; and to study the viability of utilizing the federal sentencing guidelines to punish based on offender characteristics involving violence.
this is just one quick snipet i found doing a crack v. cocaine stduies search on google. the above info is from the link at the bottom of this message
Report to Congress - Appendix B - Cocaine and Federal Sentencing ...
This conversion figure is the proportion of molecular weight of crack cocaine to
that of powder cocaine (303/339). See U.S. v. Paz, 927 F.2d 176 (4th Cir. ...
http://www.ussc.gov/... - 16k - Cached
→ Jimmy Crack/Coke & I don't care
July 15, 2008 - 14:31 ET by Cool ArrowI don't see how the introduction of baking soda to Cocaine makes it more addictive by volume.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
it's not the baking soda.
July 15, 2008 - 14:44 ET by athoughtor2it's not the baking soda. it's the fact that the high from crack comes on faster. it is cheaper and thus people can use it more often...
→ It's not cheaper
July 15, 2008 - 14:47 ET by Cool ArrowThe delivery system, smoking vs snorting, is more efficient and faster, but those who use powder know how to convert it.
It's a matter of minutes
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Hardly a research study -
July 15, 2008 - 14:32 ET by j. frank wilsonbut I will thank you for the support for my statement.
Lee Brown was one of the first national figures to suggest we need to reduce demand as opposed to the losing battle of fighting supply. Treatment instead of prisons; education; money spent smart.
He didn't last very long in Washington, DC, because the right wing was scared to death to appear to be "soft on crime." Although his suggestions made a tremendous amount of sense.
Dr. Elders made some of the same suggestions. She was gone almost as fast as Gen. Garner in Iraq.
The fact that Dr. Brown and Dr. Elders are Black didn't have anything to do with it - I'm sure.
→ Dr. Elders
July 15, 2008 - 14:38 ET by Cool ArrowShe lost any chance of credibility when she advocated teaching masturbation to public gradeschoolers.
Maybe she thought that was something the Teachers' Unions might be adept at, I don't know.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
@Cool Arrow:
July 15, 2008 - 15:04 ET by j. frank wilsonAnother Urban Myth. But oh so clever of you to bring it up! As Dr. Elders said, "That isn't something children need to be taught to do."
That whole "issue" was a smokescreen for the fact that she suggested the US needed to study the legalization of drugs. She did not advocate that we do it. She said we should examine it.
→ No myth J. Frank
July 15, 2008 - 15:18 ET by Cool ArrowIn 1994, she became a lightning rod for criticism after she said schools should consider teaching masturbation to students as a means to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. - CNN
This stuff is too easy to google. I didn't know there was any controversy as to whether she advocated it
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING!
July 15, 2008 - 15:28 ET by R D Helm:-)
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
@Cool Arrow:
July 15, 2008 - 15:31 ET by j. frank wilsonYou found it on the Internets so it must be true!
What the H, frank?
July 15, 2008 - 17:32 ET by BlondeWas that "neener, neener, neener" I just saw you type?
Dude, that was from CNN. Urban myth, huh?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
→ Thanks Blonde
July 15, 2008 - 17:38 ET by Cool ArrowGood catch.
Precisely the reason I chose CNN as a source. Hardly a bastion of conservative thought.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
De nada, Cool
July 15, 2008 - 17:43 ET by BlondeThese libs just love tossing around their little "facts"....urban myth, huh? Prove it, little libbie.
Notice the chirping crickets.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
@Blonde:
July 15, 2008 - 17:54 ET by j. frank wilsonStill waiting for your numbers on ANWR oil is going to be such a wonderful benefit.
In the meantime, I'm still waiting for proof that Dr. Elders advocated teaching self abuse, as Cool Arrow claimed.
Waiting...
Listen, Frank
July 15, 2008 - 17:58 ET by BlondeI don't take my marching orders from the likes of you. Furthermore, I don't disprove things I didn't say....so, if you want an answer to your question....look it up yourself.
I merely used your own source to disprove your grandiose statements. Tough.
Proof about Jocelyn Elders...what, you want her to walk up and knock on your forehead?
Could you possibly be more childish?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
@Blonde:
July 16, 2008 - 09:51 ET by j. frank wilsonYou tried the Ann Falter "I used a million footnotes so it must be true" scam and it didn't work.
The EIA reports clearly state increased drilling and pumping - from ANWR or the OCS - won't have a significantly positive effect on oil prices. You responded with paragraphs of production numbers - facts but no conclusions.
I asked you for a conclusion - and you aren't willing to provide one. Apparently you think it's bad form for me to ask you to prove your point. Or, to make one, for that matter.
So we're left with the EIA conclusion that ANWR might reduce the price of gasoline less than six cents per gal. In the mid-2020's.
Personally, I would like to see an Administration prepared to come up with a comprehensive energy plan that would address this issue well before that.
But then I would also hope for an Administration that doesn't go to war without a plan for the post-fighting period. Guess that's not our problem in Iraq, however - because the fighting just doesn't seem to ever end.
Come out from under that
July 16, 2008 - 10:26 ET by athoughtor2Come out from under that rock.....Does anybody have a concrete plan for a war after the 1st shot is fired? They have ideas and a game plan, but it's not written in cement. Should Patton have waited for Montgomery to get to Messina 1st, that was the plan. D-Day was not an original plan at the outset of the war. The Germans said they would not use churches and historical sights to hid in, but they did. so what do we do then? You adapt. Grnated mistakes were made in Iraq, but we are over coming them.
it was the 1st thig that
July 15, 2008 - 14:42 ET by athoughtor2it was the 1st thig that came up on google. one of the items i read is that the "high from smoking crack comes at a much faster rate." the gist of that was that it is cheaper and the high is faster so one would look to use it more often to maintain the high.
illegal drug use and
July 15, 2008 - 14:48 ET by athoughtor2illegal drug use and distribution are just that illegal. "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" they chose to do the drugs...thus wasting their own money and ruining their own lives. if they didn't do the drugs then they would never have been in the courts for those crimes....
okay wilson
July 15, 2008 - 13:45 ET by candanceThe pushers never stopped.
This is exactly my point. Pushers don't stop pushing when something becomes even more available. That's simply self-conflicting logic.
Prohibition in America did not work because alcohol had been legal for so long that people could not imagine life without it. I *never* said prohibition should have stayed. My only point was that making a substance legal has no bearing on how much it is abused.
Alcoholics and drug users work all the time. In fact I work with at least two dozen at my job right now. But again that has nothing to do with my post. Your assertion is that making something legal means people don't have to break the law to get it - yet by that logic we should lift the bans on any number of things.
And pharm prescription is $25 or $35? Gee - why is that?
*spits out drink on screen* You really think that bottle of pills from Walgreens only cost 30 bucks? Um no, that's the copay after your insurance pays the bulk of it. The actual retail price of a bottle of pills can be higher than 200 dollars. Buying that legal pill from a dealer on the street will cost you more than double. Granted they are not as expensive as crack, but they're not as effective either. And furthermore, you are off your rocker if you think insurance companies would offer copays on recreational drugs.
To say the price of drugs will drop is laughable, especially since we're on a thread right now that deals with high prices as a result of high demand. If anyone knows they can sell crack for a thousand bucks a pop - be it the guy on the street, the drug company, or the government - that's what the price will end up being.
I agree that the punishment for all drugs should be equal, but we can't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
you feel safer and that's money well spent?
Do you feel safer with all the people going to court because of a seat belt violation? Do you feel safer with Martha Stewart thrown in jail for a white collar crime? Do you feel safer in knowing your tax dollars pay for your child to get birth control behind your back? It's disingenuous to only care about government waste when it involves an issue you care about.
candace:
July 15, 2008 - 14:19 ET by j. frank wilsonIllegal drugs are highly profitable because the retail price is so much more than the cost of production. The spread is created by the fact that the product is illegal.
Making drugs available by prescription to addicts will significantly reduce the price because the premium will be reduced.
I was referring to pharmaceutical coke, not other prescription drugs. There again, however, the huge profits add considerably to the cost. Not to mention we now have retail advertising for prescription drugs - boy, wasn't that de-regulation a great idea. Another Bush Administration brainstorm.
Based on your comments it appears you might think the War on Drugs is working. Frankly, it's hard to tell. Let me make it very clear: I don't.
Am I following you correctly?
July 15, 2008 - 14:37 ET by KarmaSo, all you need to do to get a prescription is to claim you are an addict or actually become one by first buying the more expensive "street" drugs? Will this be like birth control and abortion where a juveniles' parents have no right to know?
the cost
July 15, 2008 - 14:53 ET by candanceFirst off I need to mention that it's been a pleasure debating someone who can actually contend for their views in an intelligent way. Quite the breath of fresh air for us NBers. Even though we disagree I respect your tenacity.
Okay, that said, back to business.
*assumes intimidating stance and growls menacingly at opponent*
The spread is created by the fact that the product is illegal.
No. The cost is set by demand. If people refused to pay 100 bucks a hit the pushers would make a better deal.
Making drugs available by prescription to addicts will significantly reduce the price because the premium will be reduced.
What benefit would a company get by lowering the price? If an addict is willing to steal to get the money now, how would that change down the road? They would simply steal just as much and keep using the money to buy more and more. Think a pharmacy or doctor would be able to stop them from getting their hands on extra? Go to any random pharmacy in your city and ask a staffer how many patients they see manipulate several doctors to get extra pills. Happens all.the.time.
I actually don't think the war is working, at least in its current state. But I don't think throwing up our hands and making everything legal will work.
@candace:
July 15, 2008 - 15:12 ET by j. frank wilsonThank you for the kind words. And you debate in a polite, reasoned manner, as well. A breath of fresh air on NB, believe me!
*growls back*
If currently illegal drugs were available by prescription, the price would come down by 80% or 90%. How much does it cost to purchase the US Government weed - precious little that remains, and mostly bunk, at that (so I am told - never tried it myself).
The Federal Government would collect the current tax and that would pay for education and treatment programs. The essential part is that the illegal market would vanish. Yes, to some extent it would be replaced by an illicit market. But that can be minimized, as well.
The prescription drug analogy isn't strictly true due to the different nature of the drugs. However, I hope you would grant that the current War on Drugs isn't working (actually, you did). And that making it legal in the sense of a controlled system would add that essential element - control.
I'm not suggesting we give up - I'm suggesting we try something that might work. Currently we're using the Israeli approach - we don't achieve success so we re-double our efforts.
→ Why prescription?
July 15, 2008 - 15:23 ET by Cool ArrowIf currently illegal drugs were available by prescription
But prescribed for what malady? And if it shows up on a tox screen, can the employer begin the road to dismissal? Sorry, boss, you can't do that, I have a prescription.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Third paragraph.
July 15, 2008 - 15:31 ET by KarmaI believe his third paragraph infers the malady.
When the cost comes down
July 15, 2008 - 15:46 ET by athoughtor2When the cost comes down users/addicts would consume more. If I have $100 dollars to spend I will spend it, thus increasing consumption and use. Why buy 1 when you can get 2?A black market for these new legal drugs would exist. When one can not get them legally for what ever reason, they will then turn to the black market to get them.
prescription drugs
July 15, 2008 - 15:54 ET by candanceI contend that there is very little control over those who abuse prescription drugs now. Many, many abusers "doctor hop" to get what they want, fake illnesses, manipulate nurses, and lie to pharmacies. And nothing can be done because the substance is technically legal, the doctor wrote a legitimate scrip, and a pharmacist can be sued for malpractice if they try to tattle on an abuser. There are simply too many privacy laws and too many vague loopholes for abusers to get caught.
You should also consider that the fastest growing substances for abuse among teens are scheduled drugs like Xanax and Adderall. They're pushed as being safer since they're technically legal. And again, there is very little control being taken over the problem.
Moving the drug war from the streets to the pharmacies would go from the frying pan to the fire.
Also, another poster brings up a good point about reasons for writing scrips. Schedule I drugs are labeled such because there's no tangible benefit for that substance other than recreation. You can't wish away cancer or AIDS so drugs are necessary. You can get rid of an addiction, thus negating the need for the drug.
Third, it would certainly never be covered by insurance and would face stiff resistance from pharmacists. And what about someone who dies under the influence - would the producers get sued bankrupt? Would these drugs be sold "as is" with no guarantee of safety?
The Federal Government would collect the current tax and that would pay for education and treatment programs.
Right......like the lottery pays for education too. And the cigarette tax. And the gas tax pays for better highways. No, I'm afraid the revenue gathered would simply disappear into a black hole like all the government's money.
wilson
July 15, 2008 - 12:23 ET by candanceThe EIA information is based on the assumption that government restrictions and red tape will cause production to be put off until 2017. It's also based on estimates of exactly how much oil can be found there, which we don't have a precise assessment of yet.
And as many others here have noted, if Clinton hadn't used this line ten years ago we wouldn't be talking about it now.
Lowering demand? There are two ways of doing that: come up with a secondary product or make it too expensive for mass consumption. Since secondary products can't seem to get off the ground, the only other option is to make it a luxury for the rich. Hence my assertion that libs aren't bothered by high prices.
I'll try again.
July 15, 2008 - 13:52 ET by KarmaPerhaps there is a third conclusion. Maybe this is like the
astonishingly stupid "War on Drugs." Maybe the answer is to reduce
demand... j. frank wilson
It appears you want to combat our drug addictions and oil addictions in the same manner.
You somehow arrive at the conclusion that cheaper, legal drugs, will, in some round-about way, lower our demand. Would your logic not follow, that we need to lower the price of oil to lessen our demand?
Or would you just rather retract your "maybe" correlation between the two?
Karma:
July 15, 2008 - 14:26 ET by j. frank wilsonHow will lowering the price of oil lessen demand?
We desperately need to reduce our use of oil. We need to increase the use of alternatives. Drilling and pumping won't solve the problem - did you read the EIA reports? That's just not the answer - and no amount of Bush Administration of other Republican propaganda is going to change that.
Legal drugs will reduce demand because criminals will not be able to make a fortune producing and retailing them. The profit motive will be removed. See, with legalization comes control. Once something is illegal control is gone. It's never going to be a perfect world, but it certainly can be a heck of a lot better.
Are more young folks smoking cigarettes than ever before? Demand is down - although the price is way up?
jfw, drilling got us into the oil age, and more drilling will
July 15, 2008 - 14:51 ET by upcountrywaterkeep us there. supply and demand..
alternatives, what that ; horses.
BTW fuel cells are OLDER than the internal combustion engine.
atomic powered cars, is a great choice..
prices are up on cigarettes, because of taxes fees AND FINES.
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
j. frank wilson
July 15, 2008 - 14:59 ET by KarmaYour words are in italics.
How will lowering the price of oil lessen demand?
I never claimed that. It's your logic that claims lowering the price of something can lower demand. Drugs, remember?
We desperately need to reduce our use of oil. We need to increase the
use of alternatives. Drilling and pumping won't solve the problem -
did you read the EIA reports? That's just not the answer - and no
amount of Bush Administration of other Republican propaganda is going
to change that.
We need to reduce our need for oil. Correct. Drilling and pumping will help in the interim. What does all this other crap have to do with that?
Legal drugs will reduce demand because criminals will not be able to
make a fortune producing and retailing them. The profit motive will be
removed. See, with legalization comes control. Once something is
illegal control is gone. It's never going to be a perfect world, but
it certainly can be a heck of a lot better.
Sorry j. frank, but the producers and retailers will still make a fortune. The only difference is they will no longer be called "criminals". They will be called "big pharmacy". The profit motive remains or grows. Demand will not decrease with legality. You're right, it's never going to be a perfect world, but it certainly could be worse.
Are more young folks smoking cigarettes than ever before? Demand is down - although the price is way up?
Now you got it. You UP the price to reduce demand. Not the other way around. Now, about your lowering the price of drugs?
Karma:
July 15, 2008 - 15:24 ET by j. frank wilsonI said legalizing drugs will reduce demand. You introduced price and I said I did not believe high prices were a bar to higher consumption.
Even if "big pharmacy" makes a profit, it would not be on the scale of illegal drug sellers today. Please remember - other nations have experimented with this.
Cigarettes are legal. Heavily taxed, yet legal. Advertising is restricted. Education campaigns are heavily against them. Considerable advertising is for them. Legal drugs would have to be advertised.
We've up'd the price of oil; demand is down and the price keeps rising. I say we reduce demand.
In the meantime, what is your suggestion? Are you happy with the War on Drugs? Is that working for you?
j. frank wilson
July 15, 2008 - 18:48 ET by KarmaWhen something is cheaper, are people more inclined to buy it? You advocate cheaper drug prices. Get the connection?
"Big Pharmacy" profits will dwarf that of the street seller. By the way, I have no problem with "big anycompany" making huge profits, but if you get your wish, it will be your side villifying "big pharmacy".
I don't quite follow your 3rd paragraph.
Is demand for oil down worldwide? If not, how does that effect price?
I suggest we let one or two of our quasi-socialist states try your little experiment for 20 years to allow for a generation to adapt to your plan. No federal help whatsoever, then other states can determine if yours is a better path. Am I happy with the War on Drugs? Short answer; yes. Is it working for me? I guess so; no drugs or drug related attacks on my person or property since we took the fight to them, so-to-speak.
Karma...
July 15, 2008 - 18:56 ET by Clear thinkerSame here. The drug war is working well where I live.
One item that people miss when arguing the legalizing drug issue is the potency of the product. Yeah, I know a few of you just said "huh?", but hear me out first.
Let's say that pot is legalized, either the government growing it, or a drug company growing it, the pot's potency will be limited by law. Once that potency get's boring to the consumer guess where they will go to get the good stuff? If you guessed "back on the street" you win!
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
FACT
July 15, 2008 - 11:15 ET by cvgbuckeyeTHE BAD NEWS
* We are the world leader for several reasons but, sorry to say it but our strong military is the biggest reason.
* We have a strong military because of our strong, free enterprise democracy.
* Energy prices are the most dangerous threat to our economy since The Civil War.
* Economic colapse is imminent unless we make radical changes, starting like yesterday, NOT TOMMOROW, NOT NEXT WEEK.
* Guess what happens right after economic colapse!
THE GOOD NEWS
1. We are sitting on enough domestic oil, TODAY, that would allow us to stop importing ONE MORE DROP of crude oil for the next SEVENTY YEARS.
2. IN ADDITION we should start immediately to do A through Z
A. Domestic oil exploration in every domestic venue that exists. From scratch, we can have a new well producing in less than 90 days, (thats just 53 days longer than Barack Osama's total experience).
B. Immediately start construction of 8 to 10 new oil refineries, (NOT ON THE COASTS but somewhere in the deserts of Nevada where old Harry lives).
C. We should immediately start construction of enough nuclear power plants that would supply enough electricity to power every city with a population of over 100,000 people.
D. Lets start funding assistance to our auto industry to convert over half of our auto traffic to alternative fuel users in the next 5 years and at the same time regain dominance in the auto manufacturing world again and put our auto workers back to work like they were in the 1970's.
BOOTOM LINE
Don't try to tell me that we would not gain any economical benefits for at leats 10 years. THAT IS A #$@^&* LIE and we should tell the dems, left, press that they are nothing but a bunch of liars.
I propose that if we started all these things AND MORE, on Wednesday, July 16, 2008, WE WOULD SEE GAS PRICES AT THE PUMP THAT WOULD BE BELOW $2.00 a gallon by years end, and the speculation inflation of energy would colapse instead of our economy. We put them on the moon folks. We CAN DO.
WHERE AM I GOING WRONG HERE?
The real world
July 15, 2008 - 11:34 ET by richb313I am sorry to burst your bubble. Oil is a fungible commodity. That means it does not matter if we produce everydrop of oil domestically the world wide price of oil is the price we pay for it. That does not mean we do not drill here. If anything it means we need more domestic production due to National Security Concerns. The total known reserves of oil are there to meet the needs of this country but a large percentage of it is very expensive to produce due to location, type of oil, and other considerations. A lot of the reserves are so small as to not be worth producing at all until the price rises considerably more than it is today.
We need to develope other methods of energy production, however wind and solar will never meet those needs. They are good for supplemental production but since they depend on sources that are not reliable (sun needs to shine, wind needs to blow) they simply cannot be used as a basis for any National Energy scheme.
In the meantime we need a more secure source of oil and domestic prodution is the only current solution. It is a short term solution none the less. We should increase as much as possible our domestic production while at the same time converting to anternative energy sources especially for transportaion which uses 70% of our current oil.
In the meantime we need a
July 15, 2008 - 11:42 ET by dvdaughtryIn the meantime we need a more secure source of oil and domestic prodution is the only current solution. It is a short term solution none the less. We should increase as much as possible our domestic production while at the same time converting to anternative energy sources especially for transportaion which uses 70% of our current oil.
Reading that on the surface, I think I can get on board with that. However, only if and when the alternate source is as profient as petroleum.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
I like it cvg, although
July 15, 2008 - 17:24 ET by general companyI like it cvg, although I do not think it is completely necessary to produce all of our own oil. I think it is important to be able to effect the price of oil, so when opec gets chapped, we can immediately increase our domestic production. That being said, I don't think we should be doing any business with any country that is not a democracy. I think we can influence more countries by pulling our money rather then by subsidizing there motives. And before anyone suggest it, yea I think some times we can help them by turning their dictatorship into Democracies if they are particularly offensive or dangerous
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
You went wrong, by not
July 15, 2008 - 11:38 ET by athoughtor2You went wrong, by not mentioning the jobs that would be created with these construction projects....The personel to man, sorry person, up these new plants and refineries. Oh and with more oil revenues coming in, they can speed up the R & D, perhpas hire more scientist....but i won't argue with your points.
Nice job....
Or maybe the dems want to wait and hope they win the white House and then enact your list to take credit....Nah that can't be the dems would never play politics with the economy or peoples lives. They care too much about the wroking man, or sorry working people.
cvbuckeye, Permits, 28 needed for the various beaurocrats
July 15, 2008 - 12:26 ET by upcountrywaterto START the planned oil refinery in Dakota. If they don't get sued
Once the permits were completed for the Alaska pipeline , construction took only 2 years..
How many more permits are needed now than in 1970's when the Alaskan pipeline was built??
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
upcountry
July 15, 2008 - 13:56 ET by BlondeI was just at lunch & read something totally astonishing....we'd better start drilling now....and everywhere.
By the year 2050, China & India will have 1.1 BILLION automobiles (YES, THAT IS CORRECT), up from the 17 MILLION they have today.
The cite on this little gem is by James Brooks, "At Tokyo Auto Show, a Focus on Fuel, Not Fenders," New York Times, 4 November 2005, C1, p4.
If we think demand is off the hook now, give it another 42 years. So the liberals here better get a grip, and learn about supply and DEMAND.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Hi Blonde, Supply and demand, ain't an option for these kooks.
July 15, 2008 - 15:13 ET by upcountrywaterOil flowing from mother earth, her blood, is off limits to, sanity. So stating "supply and demand" issues is a crime, an unthinkable action.
Stop thinking like that, repeat after me... alternatives, sustainability, green...repeat... The artbellian coasttocoasters, shadow people dreamland, that's the future hope for mandkind, opps (personkind) ..
While China and Canada drill off 45 miles off your states' coast.
China will have all those cars we will have all the bicycles, plugging up the steeets..you know like those pictures we viewed of China when we were kids.
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
allow me to love
July 15, 2008 - 17:50 ET by JIMMY1660allow me to love America
no obama wants us to speak Spanish. i believe Chinese should be taught. once we leave the middle east.
chicoms will take over, because of the oil. china has no natural resources. and they have no PC. kill the muslims take the oil, whose is going to stop us.
so written by Clancey{Bear and the Dragon}
it is written on Chairman Mao's stone.
If we would have been
July 15, 2008 - 12:05 ET by marpelIf we would have been allowed to drill by liberals like Mika, it would not be 10 yrs away. And why the heck doesn't Joe say something to her? That's what galls me. I wish I had 5 mins in a room with her...you boys out there would probably like to see that cat fight, right? LOL
Dang, I can't stand this stupid woman....she's tedious.
stand by for bunny hugger heads to explode
July 15, 2008 - 12:16 ET by wizardjrOil futures just dropped $10. Just by announcing that we can drill has already put a dent in the speculative bubble in oil prices. Exactly what they said couldn't happen.
All these nay sayers above here are sooooo wrong about the effects of just moving in that direction.
And then there's the BS about the poor animals we'll be disturbing. What animals? ANWR is a frozen hell hole. The caribou only go there when they're forced away from their preferred mating grounds. In addition, the caribou herds in the pipeline area have increased by leaps and bounds. The prisine wilderness of ANWR will kill you in five minutes flat if you were unprotected by very special equipment. What a crock of nonsense these fern fondlers keep coming up with.
Fern Fondlers??
July 15, 2008 - 12:18 ET by bassndudeFern Fondlers?? LOL....
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
got that from another blogger
July 15, 2008 - 12:33 ET by wizardjron one of the other threads some time back, using bunny huggers and tree huggers together seem clumsy and when fern fondlers cropped up I latched onto it as a great alternative
wizardjr, you left out foliage-friggers.
July 15, 2008 - 13:06 ET by R D Helm:-)
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
wiz, what is interesting is Canada is drilling just across the
July 15, 2008 - 13:03 ET by upcountrywaterborder, right now ..Ice Road truckers are delivering the drilling gear, driving 70 mph on sea ice..
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
we need the Green River shale
July 15, 2008 - 13:59 ET by wizardjrJust like our cousins to the north, we've got 'rock oil'. They've got the Athabasca tar sands and we've got the Green River shale deposits. They are using theirs while we sit on our butts (again).
There's been some good experimenting on how to commercially extract the oil from the shale and it is economical at $70 a barrel. Once its in production the costs could come down, particularly if some new process is invented.
All told, the full extent of the shale deposits rivals what the Saudis have. Amazing.
wiz, i was in that oil shale , Carters pork barrell project, in
July 15, 2008 - 15:55 ET by upcountrywaterearly 80's, The technology at the time used lots of water. There ain't much water there, Reagan pulled the plug on that project, boom & bust..I moved. Now there is some inplace technology that may pull oil out of there, at a profit.. electric heaters running for years + horozonal drilling..who knows.
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
I caught this early this
July 15, 2008 - 13:44 ET by bigtimerI caught this early this morning here before getting some shut-eye...
Mika is truly dumber than a box of rocks...she's doing her job following her leftist buddies playbook of course....not understanding a thing herself though...she is just a parrot.
A real bimbo to-boot.
These people are the very reason we are in this mess...have been for decades...
Btw...of course she had to throw in the gas holiday mocking, more than anything that burned me though was her insertion of invading Iran...
I detest her...period.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Democrats have been pushing
July 15, 2008 - 14:51 ET by buddycDemocrats have been pushing the 10 year argument for 30 years. It isn't the only solution but it is a very important action. It is a no brainer (what does that say about Mika? Well she is smarter than her father). McCain's plan for 45 new and immediate nuclear plants will also help.
allow me to love
July 15, 2008 - 17:20 ET by JIMMY1660allow me to love America
folks out West are being made millionaires after one year of setting up drilling wells on their property. why are they being paid so soon. takes years for the oil to get to the pump.???
how about takes weeks to set rig up, months to bring the well in.
some one's math is way off. oh you mean it can be done sooner
and make a difference. months not years.
treasonous bastards!!!
Oil
July 15, 2008 - 18:51 ET by weirdoneThank you Jimmy. Worked in the oil patch for over thirty years and have never heard such BS concerning time from rigup to gas pump. 99% of the pols do not have a clue and that includes Obama. The pipe line from the North Slope is already in existance and not fully used due to the decline in Prudhoe Bay. No way will it take then years from ANWAR to the gas pump.
Offshore drilling wouldn't lower...
July 16, 2008 - 09:35 ET by ThalpyOffshore drilling wouldn't lower gas prices for ten years. However, if we waited for another ten years to begin drilling, offshore drilling wouldn't lower gas prices for twenty years. Is that Mika's message?
Off to the yellow brick road with you Mika. There may be a brain out there, somewhere--with your name on it. Don't get your hopes up just yet.