US oil firms seek drilling access, but EXPORTS SOAR

Timothy, much of the inefficiency built into our vehicles today is a result of all of the EPA emmisions control garbage that is required. Now I'm not trying to pick a fight with the tree-huggers or global warming fanatics, I'm just saying...........

I've won't argue that point.

Looking at it from a strictly capitalist point of view it makes sense. If you owned a huge infrastructure (oil) that produced tremendous profits for over a hundred years, would you be anxious to encourage other technologies that would make your technology and infrastructure obsolete?
That is why there is not refueling stations for hydrogen or electric or natural gas cars being added to conventional gas stations except at a very very modest almost microscopic level. It is not up to the oil companies to participate in the reduction of their own businesses it is up to government to encourage and new capitalists to provide the technology and infrastructure to push the old more destructive technology aside. When big oil sees this as inevitable and it starts to sap their profits they will embrace the new energy technology as their own just as T Boone Pickens, a Texas oil man, has embraced wind power.

Kathy, you're still falling into the aguments of national effects instead of global effects. Even if the ban was lifted, and the Oil companies exported the oil, does this not increase the total available oil world wide? Do you think that a global surplus would not reduce the price of oil globaly?

Hello, AngryWhiteMan --

The US is, I believe, the largest consumer of oil. Congress lifted the ban on Alaska exports when there was a "glut" of oil on the world market -- not when there was a shortage.

Should public resources -- oil on public land -- be used to help the domestic economy or the profits of global corporations? That's the question.

And since it would be ***2030*** before enough oil comes out of the ground to affect prices -- according to Bush's OWN Department of Energy ... who does Bush think he's kidding with his current grandstanding re offshore drilling?

Hello Kathy.

My argument is not so much about public resources going onto the global market literally. Although that may appear how I've stated it, my point is to look AT the global market. Whether we drill and keep the oil, or drill and sell the oil, it still increases the global surplus. And that should bring down prices.

Don't forget the speculation which many attribute to the rising cost is just that. They speculate about the future oil supply and demand. Bushes grandstanding as you call it has in fact contributed to a $9.00 drop in oil prices.

Actually Angry I think the recent rapprochement with Iran has more to do with the drop in oil prices. I do believe it was Bush's constant threats that helped drive them up.

In a true free market the price of oil would reflect supply and demand. Speculation could easily be damped down by a margin requirement of 50% on oil futures, a move well within the capabilities of the Bush administration. Do you see that happening?

Speculation could easily be damped down by a margin requirement of 50% on oil futures, a move well within the capabilities of the Bush administration. Do you see that happening?

I will conceed a portion of your point. However, as I have stated in several threads here, gas was just over $2.00 a gallon when the Democrats took control of Congress. It is now over $4.00 a gallon. You want to blame the Bush administration. I blame the democrats. They promised us change, and have not delivered. At least Bush has taken a step. What have the Democrats done, except hold hearings?

You want to blame the Bush administration. I blame the democrats. They promised us change, and have not delivered. At least Bush has taken a step. What have the Democrats done, except hold hearings?

Neither has done much of anything other than blame the other. I do believe the Democrats though are reluctant to offer bills to the president that will simply be vetoed so for the time being the government is at a standstill.

Just a thought-- Given the system we have to work in and with, maybe the people can elect just the right mix to keep the govt. at a stand still unless it is an issue the people are really behind and apply enough pressure to make them act. Anything else they could just sit on the hill and try to talk to death--sort of like now.

My issue is we were PROMISED relief at the pumps by the democrats as campaign promises. And this was when gas was $2.00 a gallon. Now it's over $4.00 a gallon. That's relief?

I do believe the Democrats though are reluctant to offer bills to the president that will simply be vetoed so for the time being the government is at a standstill.

That's good lucky. Rationalize the failure of the democrats by blaming it on Bush. I've got a more believable scenario for you. 300 investigations and over 600 over site hearings within the first 100 days of Dems taking power. No, they're not afraid of Bush. More like they're too busy with useless hearings to do any real governing.

Actually Angry I think the recent rapprochement with Iran has more to do with the drop in oil prices.

Bush made his announcement on Monday. Prices began dropping as he spoke.

The rapprochement with Iran wasn't announced until Wednesday.

What was it you said....oh yeah. Case Closed.

To AWM:

Although that may appear how I've stated it, my point is to look AT the global market. Whether we drill and keep the oil, or drill and sell the oil, it still increases the global surplus. And that should bring down prices.

Not according to Bush's DOE - emphasis added

A report last year by the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration said 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." It added, "Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."

The quantities we're talking about are simply insignificant in the global market.

Bush made his announcement on Monday. Prices began dropping as he spoke.

Source, please. Markets respond emotionally to announcements - but I haven't seen anything about a major price drop after Bush's comment.

Well Angry if you feel a few well chosen words by the master speaker pulled down the price of oil maybe you could explain why he couldn't do it sooner? Could have saved us all some money. In fact he should give a speech every day until it gets back down to a realistic level, don't you agree?

What issue? Bush has done nothing on bringing the price of oil down. The congress (both Democrat and Republican) have done nothing to bring the price of oil down. I could point to speeches the president of Iran made that could easily be attributed to bringing the price of oil down but I won't. Why bother? Oil prices fluctuate. If you want to attribute it to Bush's speech fine. I reiterate my question. Why didn't he do it before and why isn't he doing it continuously if it is so effective?

Timothy, are we talking about oil, or total economic policies? You started the post about oil shortages during Republican Administrations. I corrected you by pointing out that the first, under a Republican, was actually an embargo against the US. It had nothing to do with shortages, and our price crunch was not felt world wide (like now). I also pointed out that the second crisis was caused by a radical extremist event. This did have world wide impact, and caused a barrel of oil to rise from $10 to $35, during a Democrat Administration. I then pointed out that during the following Republican Administration, the world experienced an oil glut, causing prices to fall.

So your answer is to shift the discussion to trickle down economics, blaming 9/11, economic surplus and deficit, and the have and have nots (on this, you will get a big fat "kiss my rear end"! I worked hard to get where I am, and I have no sympathy for someone who won't get off their rear and work, and expects the government to just hand them their share of my labor.)

So either defend your original comments against my retort, or tie these comments to the oil crisis. That's the discussion here.

If they are sitting on leases and not drilling of course they should give them up. It wasn't leased to them so they could NOT drill. If they won't drill what they got why should they get more? Simply more Republican doublespeak for their darlings the oil companies.

If they are sitting on leases and not drilling of course they should give them up. It wasn't leased to them so they could NOT drill. If they won't drill what they got why should they get more? Simply more Republican doublespeak for their darlings the oil companies.

Lucky, try this link, then try this link for a short course on exploratory drilling. Then try to understand that 90% of the exploration and analysis in ANWR has already been completed. It was done before the region was declared a Wilderness.

As for offshore, most of the existing leases are deep ocean leases. What is needed is opening up the more shallow water areas off the coasts. These are less expensive to explore and drill. But to give up the leases they already have would cost the oil industry millions in lease and exploration expenses they already have expended. Do you seriously think they are just going to eat that loss. No, they are going to pass it off to us. Democrats always think they can control and punish an industry with taxes and flawed legislation like this. They are so used to government control of the people, that they think this can work on the Corporations. But they don't realize that in a free enterprise, government regulation is passed on to the consumer.

Actually Angry I think Americans are coming to realize that lack of regulation is passed on to the consumer as well, at the gas pump, at the bank, at the supermarket, all the places where folks like you have assured us that the free market and good old private enterprise will deliver us the best deal possible and no oversight needed thank you very much. That 400 million dollar retirement package the Enron exec just got, well that's just the cost of doing a little business and if you don't like it too bad. Don't sweat it, it's all good. Hey a little oil spill here or there, well you can buy your fish from a fish farm in Chile or China just as long as Exxon gets to keep on making those record profits.

Oh Yeah! That's what we need. More Government Regulation! I can smell the relief now!

That's why our vehicles can average at best 20 something MPG with all the EPA regulated emissions control crap required, while in Europe the same cars get 35+ and in Japan they get 40+.

Your quoting the Liberal Mantra of more government control over peoples lives. I bet you think the Constitution is a living document. Thank God SCOTUS ruled on the 2nd Amendment already.

Obviously you didn't read the link I posted about the roadblocks to drilling the currently leased lands because of all the bureaucratic BS that has to be satisfied. 2 or more years for BLM to update Resource Management Plans. Yep. More Government screwing up our lives. Just what we need.

Generally those who brag about being self made overlook the fact that they made it on the shoulders of others, employees, co-workers, government.

As to the cars I guess Angry doesn't realize that they have stringent air polution controls in Europe and even more so in Japan. It was Bush that early on shot down any increase in the CAFE standards which definitely would be helping American manufacturers right now. The decision to give tax breaks to folks that bought big SUV's and pickups amounted to a tax subsidy for waste.

And I suppose Angry thinks that the Constitution is a dead document with little relevance in today's world which is why conservatives don't trouble themselves about adhering to it except when it suits them and they can use it to justify some other outrage.

Never said I was self made. I said I worked hard. Still do. 12 hours a day sometimes 7 days in a row. And what I earn, I like to keep.

As for cars, I guess Lucky has researched all the technology that is allowed in Europe and Japan, but cannot be easily adopted here because of the EPA mandated equipment that must go on cars. I'm sure Lucky has googled the EPA website about importing Non-US vehicles. So tell me. Why are Toyota's getting better MPGs in Japan than here?

And I suppose Angry thinks that the Constitution is a dead document with little relevance in today's world which is why conservatives don't trouble themselves about adhering to it except when it suits them and they can use it to justify some other outrage.

Living vs literal. You are obviously too young to comprehend the tug of war that has been going on in the courts over this very issue. Try googling "rulings on the Constitution". Pick a subject, start a thread, and I will happily debate you on it.

Don't we all?

No. But do you really want me to get into welfare fraud (part of the reason for the second comment) on a thread about the oil crisis?

AWMan63
So tell me. Why are Toyota's getting better MPGs in Japan than here?

With all due respect, here's one reason why: People in Japan will trade HP to buy a car that is efficient.

Most cars in Japan and Europe are small, lightweight, and low HP especially as compared to US. Many of the cars driven in Japan will fit into the back our American PU trucks. It has very little to do with US Govt. EPA regulations (although the Tata Nano is an exception).

I have added a couple links for reference:

Japan Proposes Tougher Fuel Economy Regulations; Passenger Car Fuel Economy to Increase 23.5% by 2015 http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/12/japan_proposes_.html

By amending the exhaust emission standards for cars, trucks and buses, the Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MLIT) introduced "new long-term regulations" on September 26, 2003, that are the most stringent in the world. http://www.japanfs.org/db/501-e

you were the one that brought up Reagan. I just pointed out that his economic plan sucked

True, I brought him up. Your statement about Republican Pres and oil crisis prompted that. During his presidency, we had an oil glut. Prices came down. His overall economic policy, here is what I know about that:

I joined the Navy just after he took office. In 1980, while opposed by the Carter administration, congress authorized a military pay increase in an attempt to close the military pay gap. Reagan added to this in 1981, and the increase over the 2 year period equaled 28%. Prior to this, E-5 and below were considered at poverty level. After the increase, E-3 and below were considered at poverty level. The rational was that most (most) E-3 and below were single, lived on base, ate on base, and generally only had one bill (car payment, if any). I made E-4 in my first year, E-5 in my second, then got married. I spent the entire Reagan years in the military. During that time, each pay increase was just at or slightly above the cost of living index. We were not rich. But we lived comfortably. And to my recollection, the economy was sound. I don't remember anything out of our reach.

During the Clinton years, and I wont get into the whole Clinton hates the military thing, but each pay increase for military was at 1 to 1.5% below the cost of living index. So the gap has gotten larger again. While the pay increase implemented in Bush's first budget of between 5 and 10% was the largest for the military since 1982, it did not close the pay gap. The pay gap was estimated at roughly 15% before this raise. That is what a Democrat does to the military.

No doubt your Rep., and you more that likely screwed over many to get were your at today.

I considered a snappy come back for this statement, including my past being littered with the bodies of libs who got in my way. But I wont. If you read my bio, you may get an idea of who I am, and where I came from. I'm simply and American who loves his wife and kids, works hard for what he gets, pays for what he wants, and wishes the government would keep their hands out of my pockets.

My sympathies, Timothy. If your history is true, and I have no reason to think otherwise, I can surely understand your animosity to big business. And since Workers Compensation laws are written on a state level, I'm sure your not happy with your state legislatures for allowing this type of action to take place.

Typo there, I meant good, not God,

Happens to the best of us john!