More politics over offshore drilling

[Pangloss]

Democrats seemed to blink over the issue of offshore drilling the last couple of weeks, but Republicans don't seem real happy about that. With Nancy Pelosi now supporting the so-called "Paris Plan", Republicans seem to be saying "er, wait a minute, don't give us what we asked for, we want to wait and ask for something else instead.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-offshore15-2008aug15,0,5866232.story

 

Amusingly, Pelosi seems to still be playing the no-beaches-for-oil card, grandstanding over the congressional federal restrictions and refusing an up-or-down direct vote on the issue. In an interview today she called it "a hoax on the American people". This from the same woman who earlier demanded that President Bush release oil from the national reserve. Hmm.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/15/MNCD12BC0J.DTL&type=politics

 

While all this political posturing is taking place, the American people seem to be doing the only actual work on gas prices, cutting back their driving habits by amounts that can only be described as astronomical. Between that and the rising international value of the dollar (ironically amidst increasing global economic concerns based on faltering American growth!), the price of oil has fallen faster than anyone could have predicted.

 

I think we should start a pool over which politician will be the first to declare that they "did something about the price of gas".

[D H]

While all this political posturing is taking place, the American people seem to be doing the only actual work on gas prices, cutting back their driving habits by amounts that can only be described as astronomical.

I find it interesting that nobody disputes that the recent drop in oil prices is due to reduced demand while at the same time Congress is still blaming the rise in oil prices on speculators. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/5944958.html.

 

Between that and the rising international value of the dollar (ironically amidst increasing global economic concerns based on faltering American growth!), ...

The immense decline of the American dollar was a bit too precipitous. The focus on the faltering American economy was also a bit overblown and ignored that the European economy has been faltering as well. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/deutsche-bank-says-euro-zone-recession/story.aspx?guid=%7BC3F278D5-6006-4F2A-A069-C5A7F1A31844%7D&dist=msr_1

the price of oil has fallen faster than anyone could have predicted. I think we should start a pool over which politician will be the first to declare that they "did something about the price of gas".

How about a pool on whether Congress will bail out the poor oil speculators who have lost their shirts and their trousers as a result of the spectacular drop in oil prices?

[Pangloss]

I find it interesting that nobody disputes that the recent drop in oil prices is due to reduced demand while at the same time Congress is still blaming the rise in oil prices on speculators. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/5944958.html.

 

On that particular issue they're both right. What seems to be happening is that reduced demand is causing a drop in the price per barrel because speculators are taking profits, believing the cap has been hit.

 

IMO what's silly is thinking that long-term reductions can be realized through offshore drilling or regular removals from the reserve. Those could have short-term impacts on speculation as well, but are unlikely to have lasting impact on prices because of overseas demand.

 

 

How about a pool on whether Congress will bail out the poor oil speculators who have lost their shirts and their trousers as a result of the spectacular drop in oil prices?

 

Rofl!

[bascule]

I find it interesting that nobody disputes that the recent drop in oil prices is due to reduced demand while at the same time Congress is still blaming the rise in oil prices on speculators. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/5944958.html.

 

Don't you think the two are not only related, but interdependent? I'm not sure why price drops due to decreased demand is a cause to ignore the effect that speculation had on the market.

[Pangloss]

News on this from Saturday: Apparently Pelosi has changed her mind, and will now allow debate and direct voting on the issue.

 

“It will consider opening portions of the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling, with appropriate safeguards, and without taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil,” she said in the weekly Democratic radio address on Saturday.

 

Until Saturday, Speaker Pelosi called the notion that more drilling would lower prices at the pump a hoax and said that there would be no votes on this issue on her watch.

 

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/08/17/congress-to-vote-on-drilling-ban/

 

This is a step forward, even though it will do nothing about oil prices. It's a step forward because it will put a stop to the daily harassment that House Republicans have been perpetuating on the floor, which has been earning them brownie points back home.

 

“Our members are finding at home that what we¹re doing here in Washington is appreciated,” said Rep. Roy Blunt, the House Republican whip, at a press briefing off the floor of the House on Thursday. “At least somebody is willing to fight for the No. 1 issue for their families today * and that’s gas prices, soon to be followed by energy prices, as we get to the fall.”

 

What a crock. But hopefully this puts a stop to that nonsense and returns the House to doing real business.

 

Unfortunately the current plan still calls for some grandstanding shenanigans:

 

The broader energy bill to be debated on the floor of the House covers conservation as well as new investments in alternative fuels. The plan mandates the release of some 700 million barrels of oil from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve to “reduce the price at the pump within 10 days,”Pelosi said on Saturday.

 

Yeesh. But I get it now -- someone pointed out to her the hypocrisy of demanding oil be released from the reserve while opposing offshore drilling on the grounds that it wouldn't affect pricing. (chuckle) Way to go, Some Unnamed Adviser.

[bascule]

According to the DOE "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"

 

I don't have a source, but I think we can expect the Strategic Petroleum Reserve will have an effect before that.

[Pangloss]

I'm surprised, I thought you were opposed to tapping the reserve. You don't think that's kind of a one-shot tease-effect, rather than any kind of real impact?

[bascule]

I'm surprised, I thought you were opposed to tapping the reserve. You don't think that's kind of a one-shot tease-effect, rather than any kind of real impact?

 

I'm not a proponent of tapping it (I mean, normally I'm a proponent of tapping all sorts of things, but...), however on the pantheon of "things that will actually accomplish lowering oil prices" it's certainly far, far above offshore drilling.

[Pangloss]

Ah, ok.

[bascule]

McCain says we have to drill here and we have to drill now! (oddly enough, that's the same thing Newt Gingrich is saying, except he adds "Pay Less" at the end)

 

McCain turns 72 in a week or so. By the time 2030 rolls around and offshore drilling actually has an effect on oil prices, he'll be 94 (i.e. most likely dead). Why exactly do we have to drill now? McCain will likely be dead before any benefit is seen.

[Pangloss]

What in the world does that have to do with it?

[iNow]

What in the world does that have to do with it?

 

I think it helps to shed light via context-set example on just how false the claim truly is that drilling now will have any impact on the pocket books of the populace.

 

Drilling - Won't help in the present.

Issue - Why does McCain keep repeating that it will in practically every speech?

Humor - McCain will likley be dead by the time any benefit is seen from offshore drilling.

 

 

That last one may not have been funny, but it is certainly true.

[bascule]

Yes, McCain has been insisting that we have to drill here and we have to drill now, which is apparently some sort of Republican talking point as it seems to be parroted all over the place.

 

However, McCain will likely be dead before it has an effect on gas prices, at least according to the DOE.

[Pangloss]

Well I didn't think it was funny or "light-shedding". Commenting on his age in no way refutes his position on whether we need to start drilling for more oil at the present time. The oil won't be more or less useful when it does come out just because John McCain is dead (if he is). And it certainly wouldn't come out of the ground faster if he were 62 instead of 72.

 

It struck me as a stealth comment about his age, but it isn't even relevant in that regard, because by the time that oil comes out he will have already smacked into his constitutionally-mandated eight-year term limit -- a time period which, as I understand it, he has a very high statistical probability to complete (not to mention having to get re-elected after only four).

Edited August 25, 2008 by Pangloss

[bascule]

Commenting on his age in no way refutes his position on whether we need to start drilling for more oil at the present time.

 

I think it's ironic he's claiming we have to drill now when he'll be dead before we see any benefit from it.

 

The oil won't be more or less useful when it does come out just because John McCain is dead (if he is).

 

But why the sense of urgency? The Republican talking point is most certainly now now now!

 

And it certainly wouldn't come out of the ground faster if he were 62 instead of 72.

 

John McCain has certainly made it sound like this sort of drilling will have an immediate benefit. However, it won't have any benefit within his own lifetime (probably). That's the point.

 

It struck me as a stealth comment about his age

 

Oh boo hoo. It's a comment about the sense of urgency he's placing around drilling and the fact that he'll be dead before we see any real benefit.

[Pangloss]

John McCain has certainly made it sound like this sort of drilling will have an immediate benefit. However, it won't have any benefit within his own lifetime (probably). That's the point.

 

No he doesn't. He talks about how we need to start drilling now, but he realizes the benefits are not short-term. Here's a video of him saying the following quote:

 

"I don't see an immediate relief, but I do see that exploitation of existing reserves that may exist -- and in view of many experts that do exist off our coasts -- is also a way that we need to provide relief. Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoJ5UBxuRxk

 

(That video was posted by the Obama campaign. That's irony.)

 

He's absolutely right about the psychological impact on the trading market, as you yourself were talking about just last week.

 

But why the sense of urgency? The Republican talking point is most certainly now now now!

 

Two wrongs don't make a right. Not every single point made by the partisan right has to be countered by something equally obtuse and sophomoric from the partisan left. Here's a thought: Let's step above that sort of thing and rely on facts and figures instead of obfuscation and distraction.

[iNow]

Here's a thought: Let's step above that sort of thing and rely on facts and figures instead of obfuscation and distraction.

 

I find this ironic. Isn't that exactly what McCain is doing as pertains to his attempts to extinguish the anxieties of the public (relying on obfuscation and distraction)?

 

 

Public: Gas prices are too high! I can't feed my family! My electricity is about to be shut off! I'm going to default on my mortage!

 

JM: That's why I advocate drilling now. We need to become independent and supply our own oil.

 

Public: Oh. Phew. It sure sounds like drilling will help.

 

 

Rest of us: WTF? That's not going to do anything for like 20 years. Also, there's only enough oil to last about 3 or 4 months. Why aren't we doing something more lasting, something more immediate, something more worth our effort and energy?

 

 

"We need to drill Now!" He's using the anxieties about present energy costs to trick people into legislation which will have little to no impact on them.

[bascule]

And at the cost of environmental protections that hippie environmentalist nut George H.W. Bush felt were prudent enough to warrant an executive order. I'm surprised they haven't drug him out to tow the party line yet.

 

Yes, one side of the fence is certainly overblowing this to absurd proportions...

[Pangloss]

I find this ironic. Isn't that exactly what McCain is doing as pertains to his attempts to extinguish the anxieties of the public (relying on obfuscation and distraction)?

 

Indeed, unfortunately both candidates have participated in misleading statements regarding the lowering of gasoline prices. I also think that McCain has been the "worse" of the two in general, but then somebody brings up nuclear power and tapping the oil reserve and Obama gets iffy again.

 

But speaking as an Obama supporter at the moment, just to throw in my two cents, I think we just need to give it time. His bipartisan, well-reasoned nature will surely rise over a good man who's just unfortunately been living in Washington too long. I believe this will be clear by November, and I believe the Obama administration will build 90 nuclear power plants and convince nearly everyone of their value, whereas the McCain administration would have thrown in the towel at the first sign of difficulty and a chance to compromise on some assault weapons bill.

[iNow]

 

 

This, it should be noted, is the primary solution emphasized by the woman John McCain says "knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America." At least he left a "probably" in there as a hedge.

 

Incidentally, that comment is actually a little chilling. Imagine Sarah Palin was actually an extremely learned governor on energy issues, rather than just an extremely effective shill for Alaskan energy interests. She still wouldn't be the country's leading energy expert. She's been governor of Alaska for 18 months. She did not study energy before that. She is not a hydrocarbon engineer, or an energy economist. She is not a geologist or a surveyor. She studied journalism in college, and did not proceed to cover energy as a beat. Obviously, it's a good and authentic thing that John McCain is utterly unaware of the existence of expert opinion on this issue, and I wouldn't dare criticize his inspiring faith in the common-sense wisdom of the finest governor Alaska has had within the last year, but it's still worth pointing out.

[Pangloss]

When do we start?

[iNow]

 

 

 

 

 

When do we start?

 

When do we start what, exactly? Solving the energy problems of our nation and planet with that tiny sliver, do you mean?

[Pangloss]

Well actually what I was asking is when we can do TWO things that are right at the same time, as opposed to insisting that only one of those things be done because if both are done then people might stop doing the more important thing.

[iNow]

Well, thanks for clarifying. I would never have guessed that based on your previous response.

[Mr Skeptic]

My own opinion is that we should avoid drilling in the US, other than to have enough to run the country's basic needs in case of war/embargo, and import what we need. Then, when everyone else's oil is used up, we can sell our own, or use it ourselves while we let them spend the big bucks trying to figure out how to be sustainable.