Releasing some of the oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, as Barack Obama proposed Monday, could have an immediate, though temporary, impact on oil prices, unlike lifting the federal bans on drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Still, the proposal strikes me as pandering, similar to John McCain’s call for a summer gas-tax holiday.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on So they said
- Phantom on Jail consultants straining patience
66 Comments
I agree – it is only a short-term fix and really accomplishes nothing.
True, Ben.
But remember what economist John Maynard Keynes is supposed to have said, “in the long term, we’re all dead.”
Driving down the price of oil would punish the speculators who are driving it up and let oil prices stabilize at a truer market price.
Agreed Ben. Although…
Taking oil out of the reserve, while only short term window dressing, wont take years to fix or undo like phucking up environmentally sensitive areas will do.
But it’s ALL pandering unless it’s working to decrease demand or support research and development regarding alternative energy.
Pandering is as pandering does.
And the sheeple vote…
Obama wants to pay for the ‘second rebate’ of 1,000 with the ‘record profits’ that the oil companies are making. So what about the record fund raising Obama is the recipient of? How much should he pay in?
Of those 68 million acres, how many of those leases have the rights to produce, drill, or even explore?
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/08/04/obama-shows-new-openness-to-offshore-oil-drilling.html
Some facts; most stories are just a barrage of political slogans. It is my contention that in order to have an opinion on opening off-shore areas to drilling you have to at least know where those areas are.
http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/08/04/alaska-oil-energy-biz-energy-cx_wp_0805alaska.html
More facts: pesky, pesky, pesky.
All the rigs available are already drilling. “Drill here, drill now” is a stupid political slogan. We already are.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/parker-drilling-second-quarter-2008/story.aspx?guid=%7B6E02FD4E-BA91-447E-9B02-999BCF6E639A%7D&dist=hppr
Not the skinny, but plenty of inferences can be made. And this is the most likely area for new drilling.
Sol–
A lot of oil is coming from public land. The offshore oil we hear so much about is American land out to 12 miles, if IRC.
That’s our land, held by the American people.
Why should the oil companies be able to drill our oil and not pay anything back to us, who collectively own it?
Private citizens giving their money to candidate is one thing. Private companies profitting from public land and resources is something quite different.
If they are going to exploit my resources, I at least want a cut of the profits.
Obama has received over $400,000.00 in contributions for oil industry executives and employees.
Obama is a bit ignorant, on this subject, but he is not a stupid man.
He is learning.
The radical green left is getting is ass kicked, on the energy issue.
MoveOn.org admits as much:
“Nancy Pelosi is not the only member of the anti-energy left looking desperate.
In an urgent email sent to their members last week, the far Left activist group wrote about the national debate over how to best lower gas and energy prices, “Here’s the truth: Right now, progressives are losing this argument.”
They’re right. We are winning and the Left is losing the argument over our country’s energy future because Americans know that thirty years of their policies has led to the current mess.
For decades, anti-energy, left-wing politicians have advocated higher prices and less energy. They were going to save the environment by punishing Americans into driving less and driving smaller cars. They favor a policy of no oil and gas exploration, no use of coal, and no development of nuclear power” Newt G.
Capn
Catch up.
“Speculators” are now driving the price DOWN not up!
Speculators now think that America is serious about:
Drill Here, Drill NOW!
And, the results have come very quickly.
Let’s drill in virgin forest areas, where we can endanger wildlife and make certain species extinct.
Perhaps a oil spill or two.
Okay, I got the Democrites greatest fears out of the way. Most Dems wouldn’t know oil from grease anyway.
Nothing else to say.
Just passing through…
ciao baby…
They are paying, Capt.:
There will be an auction on August 20th to resell the 10-year oil drilling leases bought back in 1997 and 1998. Though there is a moratorium on offshore drilling, companies are champing at the bit to purchase these leases to begin exploring right away.
More companies are drilling in deep water thanks to advancements in technology. The biggest problem is shortages in equipment due to a minimal amount of shipyards that can build the rigs, and what is being built is going to other countries.
The auction will take place at the Royal Sonesta Hotel in downtown New Orleans. Two sales held back in March produced a record $3.5 billion for the rights to more than 30 million acres. The bids in August will be for 18 million acres in the Gulf.
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=72497
Capn
Are you seriously THAT ignorant about the energy exploration business?
The standard royalty, for ANY landholder, is 1/8th of the PRODUCTION from the well.
This is before expenses or taxes.
Then, you have property taxes, corporate income taxes, taxes on dividends and other distributions, and the tax revenues paid in by oil industry employees.
Oil companies pay more in taxes and royalties, to the government, than they make in profits!
Agreed. Obama was right the first time.
And Franklin, seriously, do you get paid to post your bullsh*t crap?
“They’re right. We are winning and the Left is losing the argument over our country’s energy future because Americans know that thirty years of their policies has led to the current mess.”
The “left” hasn’t been in charge the last 30 years.
Conclusion: Right now off-shore rigs are drilling at capacity, and rigs under construction are already contracted. There are millions of acres under lease, and millions of acres of leases for sale.
“Drill here, drill now” is complete political bullshit which Obama has taken advantage of to help drive through a conprehensive energy policy. We need this man as president.
Gee, Franklin, I guess I did know that, since I went out and inspected my father-in-law’s oil well in western Kansas two weekends ago.
What you want me to believe is that oil companies who made more money in profits than any company in the history of the US in the last few quarters are already paying enough to us peasants.
Yeah.
That’s where we differ. I want my 1/8th of public land profits too. And I’m willing to bet that it’s not an insignificant amount even when it’s divided by 375 million other Americans.
Libs
You have already lost this argument.
Your leaders are folding on you.
They have to, since your position is so insane!
You WANT higher prices for energy, since ONLY with higher prices can most of your ideas even come close to being competitive with oil and gas.
You fight “all of the above” energy solutions, because you want to favor wind and solar, while you punish carbon based fuels.
It won’t happen.
Anything you do get, for your pet projects? It will come at a high price!
DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW!
You lost.
Suck it up!
I want my 1/8th of public land profits too.
—–
Well, get off your a$$ and start a drilling company.
If the leases are on Fed. property, paying a portion to the coastal states is just pandering to the presidential election votes. Same as bush one did when he declared the moratorium.
Repubs. must be happy that they have a bumper sticker slogan that Mcsame can deliver at his campaign events, but even with that he sure was flubbing up.
Excuse me . . . I meant 1/8th of public land production as Franklin rightly pointed out.
Agnatha
The LEFT is against offshore drilling
The LEFT has done all it can to stop new refinery construction.
The LEFT stands in the way of ANWR drilling.
The LEFT stands in the way of clean coal.
Agnatha, be honest with yourself, at least:
YOUR leaders admit they are hurting, on this issue!
beber
New rigs can and will be built.
Your arguments are bogus.
Anti–
The landowners who get the 1/8th don’t do anything except . . . uh . . . sit on their asses.
Try reading next time. (Dang homeschooled kids.)
To spell this out for Franklin:
Obama has shifted his position of off shore drilling because he knows the shift is meaningless. No more drilling will occur, and in no different locations with the possible exception of the east Gulf. In return, he gets the Pukes to agree to a paradigm shift in long- term energy policy.
Transportation costs, for domestic production, are obviously lower.
It takes ENERGY to import foreign oil.
We will SAVE ENERGY through domestic production.
The landowners who get the 1/8th don’t do anything except . . . uh . . . sit on their asses.
—–
Well, get off your a$$ and buy some land…..
Capn
The oil companies pay for the lease, whether it ever produces or not.
Then, the oil companies pay at least a 1/8th royalty, in most cases, on any production.
Then, they pay a huge amount in taxes.
Alternative energy, like Ethanol, Solar, or Wind, CONSUME tax revenue in the forms of heavy government subsidies.
I mean, you had to see it coming CapnA.
Some of you liberal p*ssies are just helpless.
Franklin, I thought you had a better grasp of the markets, enough to realize they are forward looking, but only by 6 to 12 months. A proposal for offshore drilling which will have a minimal impact in over a decade, is not moving speculators one iota.
The threat of releasing from the spr, on the other hand can move the market and burn speculators. I believe Clinton did it a couple of times. You don’t even have to carry through every time.
This relates to gas purchases rather than drilling, but it is still relevant.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_government_really_make_more_in.html
In considering whether oil companies make less in profits than they pay in taxes, it is important to remember that they still make a lot of money. It is also important to remember that tax money from oil companies (and let’s face it, they also spend a lot on lobbying) compose a set of strong incentives that must be considered in the history of government interaction with oil companies.
Also, the “drill here, drill now” bullsh*t crowd likes us to forget (if we ever really remembered) that oil companies right now do what is profitable for them in the short term. The idea that the ANWR reserves (and unless either or both candidate is going to flip flop on this-and this is of course a possibility-remember that neither candidate is in favor of drilling ANWR right now) and off shore drilling (and there are places where off shore drilling can be done that will tap the reserves underlying where off shore drilling can not be done) will reduce prices is based on, as has been pointed out, the naive assumption that everything else remains the same, and it will not. Oil demand is going to increase dramatically with the exponential rise of automobile use in China and India, and any oil use will be driven by oil that is simplest to extract and refine. What that means is that if and when oil producers go to more difficult to estract and refine oil, it will be because prices are high. Using less and less oil to do the same amount of transportation work is the only long(er) term solution to high gas prices. The only one. Period.
What about the royalty waiver for production from public lands? Has that been rescinded? BTW, if that royalty would be paid, it would be a deduction for income tax purposes.
“Some of you liberal p*ssies are just helpless.”
Re: Anti
DNFTT
“New rigs can and will be built.
Your arguments are bogus.” — Franklin
You’re sounding a little frazzled Franklin.
It is sad but to get the votes Obama will have to of necessity pander to the obtuse.
Drll’er here, drill’er Now!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/19/MNG3SHQOBQ1.DTL
This is the program to which I made reference above. I believe it is still in effect.
Agnatha
Posted August 5, 2008 at 2:12 pm | Permalink
“Some of you liberal p*ssies are just helpless.”
Re: Anti
DNFTT
——
Re: Agnatha
See BlueJay, KFG, Capn’A, Chas, soon yourself. See also Helpless Ball Babies.
Build the rigs, build the refineries, build the pipelines, and drill. If it takes a few years to see a the benefit- so what, we will be ahead in the long run.
Explore supplemental energy in the mean time.
“Agnatha
“The LEFT is against offshore drilling.”
Gross oversimplification. Some are and some aren’t. Guess what, that applies to some conservatives as well.
“The LEFT has done all it can to stop new refinery construction.”
Exaggeration, of course. Again. The classic technique of the unrepentant bullsh*tter.
“The LEFT stands in the way of ANWR drilling.”
Uhm, right now John McCain also stands in the way of ANWR drilling.
“The LEFT stands in the way of clean coal.”
Single sentence talking points. Technology and economics also have something to do with disincentives for “clean coal”. And of course, there is the reality of CO2 emissions and that the evidence (in spite of the efforts of right wing and libertarian shills to argue otherwise) indicates that anthropogenic effects of CO2 production on climate are being observed. Again, energy generation in this country is the result of the interaction of public and private concerns and actions. The question isn’t whether government intervenes, it’s how and in favor of what.
“Agnatha, be honest with yourself, at least:
“YOUR leaders admit they are hurting, on this issue!”
1) You presume too much to assume you know who “my leaders” are.
2) I laugh when someone like you tells me to “be honest with myself” (Did you even look at my latest factcheck link? It actually, if indirectly, supported an argument you advanced). You clearly have no self objectivity whatsoever.
The reality is, there is plenty of bullsh*t in politics, but conservatives have dominated the public agenda since Reagan got elected to his first term as president. The reality also is, there are a lot of coaltion conservatives who confuse ANY opposition to them with “the left”.
Then, the oil companies pay at least a 1/8th royalty . . .
except that Bush waived the royalties.
Capn
They DID do something:
They offered their land for lease, and they agreed to take that land out of ag production to do it, and they agreed to “ingress and egress” of service vehicles and pipeline and storage space.
What do homeowners “do” to deserve the profit when they sell their homes?
OWNERSHIP matters in a free country, Capn!
I believe the threshold amount was a clerical error, which the Repubs. blocked removal of.
meant inclusion of.
AV
Yes, of course royalty payments are deductable.
To be clear, I meant that the CALCULATION of the royalty payment was made “above the line” on GROSS production or gross revenue, in most cases.
A lease is a contract. Not every contract is the same, but most are very similar.
“Build the rigs, build the refineries, build the pipelines, and drill. If it takes a few years to see a the benefit- so what, we will be ahead in the long run.” – anti
And again, what do you not understand about using 25 percent of the world’s oil, and possessing 2 percent of the world’s reserves? God, it’s like arguing with babies. You’re the same people who believed for decades that the oil companies went around drilling good wells, then capped them, waiting for the price to raise. I haven’t heard that one in a while.
And again, what do you not understand about using 25 percent of the world’s oil, and possessing 2 percent of the world’s reserves?
——
Again, so what. I prefer not to live like we are in a third world country. If you would like to live that way and only use a very small percentage of oil and can deal with the consequences, great. There are many other countries to choose from.
I don’t know I’d consider it pandering as much as condescending to the level of the electorate, either way it should help to nullify Mcsame’s rant.
Drill in Detroit! NOW!
‘Drilling in Detroit ‘
Tapping Automaker Ingenuity to Build Safe and Efficient Automobiles
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/drilling-in-detroit.html
“Clean” coal is much more of a technological pipe dream that wind farms.
“Franklin” might as well advocate “sweet smelling s#it.” Sounds like a good idea, but no one’s figured it out.
(Albeit, most CONs on ths forum are convinced their s#it don’t stink.)
econ posted August 5, 2008 at 2:01 pm
“Transportation costs, for domestic production, are obviously lower.
It takes ENERGY to import foreign oil.
We will SAVE ENERGY through domestic production.”
———-
Higher energy efficiency has ZERO “transportation costs”. It also saves energy by not drilling, not lifting, not refining, and not distributing.
Lowering gasoline demand will eliminate the need to build (very expensive) new refineries.
Bumper stickers that need to be seen:
“Eggheads for Obama
(Begalla is wrong, I hope?)”
Do ALL OF THE ABOVE
Why is that so hard to understand?
If your alternatives are actually successful, and can make oil and gasoline “obsolete” — why in the world should we “hoard” what we have?
Lets produce this oil and gas and gasoline, now, while we can still make the tax revenue on those resources, and while there are still employment opportunities, in that industry!
Let me spell this out for you Anti. If you use 25 percent of the world’s oil, and have two percent of the world’s oil reserves HOW ARE YOU GOING TO BREAK YOUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL or affect prices? How can you change anything? GAWD.
You really can’t be that stupid can you? To think you can just drill a bunch of holes, and somehow magically change the fact that we use 20 million barrels of oil every day, 60 to 70 percent of it from foreign sources?
Yep, you can be.
Let’s not do all of the above, Franklin. Let’s conserve what petroleum we do have for the purposes of feedstock, while aggressively pursuing the development of “alternative” energy sources, which will provide employment opportunities of its own. Or, if we pursue madly more petroleum development in the U.S., let’s fully quantify all costs of such development, and add that to the cost per barrel. You know, costs associated with spills, environmental damage, things like that, which it seems at present are “socialized”. Just a thought.
And, when the reserves peter out, as they will, there will be in place (hopefully) the alternatives such that it doesn’t matter, rather than the inevitable total collapse of the country and its economy when the oil runs out.
Yeah, it’s pandering.
It’s also a compromise.
It’s an example of Barack Obama’s philosophy of leadership: the antithesis of polarization.
It makes no difference to the Republic Party that they know additional leases for off-shore outer-shelf drilling won’t produce a drop of new oil for years and years; and that when it might, that contribution to the world supply of crude oil won’t make a whit of difference in the price of a barrel; and that (given that Big Oil is already sitting on more that 70 million acres of American permitted, environmentally-approved, and explored oil leases… and does not choose to develop those resources; THEY have a SLOGAN!
“Drill Here! Drill Now” is the only argument they’ve got. It’s the perfect Republic Party argument: four short words that fit on a bumper sticker.
So what the hell? Give it to ‘em. But, in the process get the funding and the programs in place to promote conservation, alternative fuels, and a 21st Century approach to the realities and consequences of 8 years of (The Big) Dick Cheney’s sweetheart deal for Big Oil which is what got us into this situation in the first place.
If there were truly a “liberal” mainstream media, someone would ask John Sidney McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term) exactly how his energy policy differs from Shrub’s.
Instead, the story is McC*nt’s tire guages.
Oil — even newly developed American oil — isn’t gonna change the cost of oil since the Law of Supply and Demand never applies to a cartel-controlled enterprise. (Yawn, do I have to mention DeBeers and the diamond racket again?)
There is NO SHORTAGE OF OIL in America. This isn’t the 1970s and there’s no oil embargo and no lines of cars at the pumps or “No Gas” signs in front of filling stations. You can get all the gasoline you want if you pay Big Oil’s price.
Obama’s so-called “flip-flop” on domestic production is a
liefabrication. Way back in Iowa, Barack told Iowa corn farmers to their faces that ethanol is nothing but a transition fuel. No candidate — from either party — ever had the courage to say that to Iowans during a caucus campaign.That’s leadership.
It’s bi-partisanship.
It’s the most anti-Shrub approach to governing possible (which sounds pretty attractive to 80% of Americans).
If you have to give the children a piece of candy to them them to be silent so you can get the job done, Just Do It. But don’t give them the whole jar, they’ll make us all sick.
Not the smartest place to promote more nuke plants!
“Nuclear power alone is not enough. Drilling alone is not enough. We need to do all this and more,” he said at the plant, home to an operating reactor and a decommissioned one that suffered a partial meltdown in 1966.”
Now here’s a leader that understands economic issues.
Obama: Stronger dollar would ease energy costs 1 hour, 59 minutes ago
PARMA, Ohio (Reuters) – U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Tuesday that the softness in the dollar was contributing to higher costs for gasoline and if it were to rise that would ease some of the problem with costly fuel.
ADVERTISEMENT
“If we had a strengthening dollar, that would help,” Obama, a Democratic senator from Illinois, told a town hall forum in Parma, Ohio.
He spoke in response to a question about whether he thought the United States should go back on the gold standard. Obama said he did not favor that but said the best way to help the dollar would be to improve the U.S. economy.
“The way to strengthen the dollar is for us to get our economy back in shape,” he said.
LOL! Obama’s Energy Plan for America has them desperate to catch up. And he is willing to make reasonable compromises on drilling – if given assurances alternative energy and conservation is part of the package.
McCain comes out for offshore drilling and millions immediately pour in to his campaign from oil companies… Republicans desperately try to bury THAY news….
Obama has thus clearly stated the problem. The lagging American economy is weighing on the strength of the dollar. However I missed any commentary regarding the definitive solution to this problem.
Obama’s economic game plan:
Releasing oil from the SPR,
Raising capital gains tax,
Opposing oil companies
Speaking against free trade
How do these accomplishments and/or rhetoric improve the plight of the dollar?
Obama understands the economy just like he can read the score of a basketball game off a scoreboard. that’s about it.
Obama is playing politics with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. President Bush began filling the SPR several years ago in case it becomes necessary to go to war to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The SPR would help carry this nation for a short period of time while the Straits of Hormuz are closed until the U.S. Military can win a victory and reopen that vital waterway. The left wants to open up and take the oil from the SPR, not for the miniscule effect it would have on gas prices, but as a way of preventing any U.S. action against the Iranians. Once again the dems put political victory above the Countries best interests.
The left wants to open up and take the oil from the SPR… as a way of preventing any U.S. action against the Iranians.
LOL!!!!! And how many guys shot Kennedy??????
While I’m not a fan of Paris Hilton, her video reply to McCain using her name in one of his latest ads is worth watching.
http://cdn.funnyordie.com/videos/4178033806
After watching the relatively short and humorous video, would those who don’t agree with “Paris’s” plan please state why. (Paris in “” because I’m sure she wasn’t the one who scripted the video, but give her points for doing it.)
Both candidate’s plans are shaky. I guess they haven’t really had the time to think them through yet. I get a little nervous dipping into our oil reserves because if some emergency cam up, we may not have that reserve we may need. Look at one example like Germany. At the end of WWII, they had jet aircraft which could have offered them a big advantage in the war if they only had enough fuel for them.