Redstate

This is definitely an issue where the leftist base of the Democrats is at odds with the majority of the American people - diametrically opposed. I think it's a win-win - get Democrats on board & get this problem addressed, & those who are against will not look good to the voters.

Where do they get the idea that if you introduce a bunch of extra supply of a given commodity, it will cause the price of that commodity to go down?

Furthermore, what crazy economic theory are they operating under that says that it would be a good thing to establish a supply of oil that isn't directly affected by fluctuations in the dollar?

Geez, how insane. Any reasonable person knows that the answer here is to nationalize our oil refineries. That'll fix everything.

------------

I was on Salon.com and arguing for an increase in drilling and someone pulled the nationalization solution out of nowhere and I was just flabbergasted. I mean I concede that there may be some serious market flaws, particularly around speculation, that seem to have an effect on oil prices out of proportion with the risk assumed by the speculating agents, but nationalization? Really? The same government that has been in the pocket of big oil according to the very people who decry a drilling increase can be trusted with central control of the most important resource to our economy?

I echo the positive sentiments that it appears we are approaching a political tipping point with respect to this issue. I'm heartened by McCain's change of heart here (I'll gladly absorb any flip-flopping fallout and I think McCain will too), and I vigorously applaud Bush's vocal and timely support of this.

While I don't believe that increasing drilling now will bring significant oil to market anytime soon, I do believe that the marketplace, observing aggressive action on the part of the number one consumer of the resource to reduce its demand for foreign oil, might very well adjust itself downward a bit well in advance of the first barrel of oil seen. It's been adjusting itself upward based on speculation, after all.

My only concern is this nagging feeling that the ratcheting up of oil prices is easier to achieve than ratcheting down might be, but so what? I see zero downside to increased domestic oil production other than some silly false dichotomy presented by those on the left who suggest that by trying to drill our way out of this we must abandon all efforts at researching alternative energy sources. I don't see this argument making a whit's worth of difference to the American paying 40 bucks to fill up his gas tank, nor do I see that American giving a rat's behind about the effects on California's tourism of some offshore oil rigs.

There is only one way the U.S. will ever have even a penny's worth of impact on global oil prices, and that is in about 10-20 years if we can successfully refine shale oil. Shale oil is not drilled however; it is squeezed or heated out of rock. This oil, although plentiful, will go for a minimum of 100.00 per barrel because that's nearly the the cost of extracting and refining it. As I've said before, we should be saying 'squeeze here, squeeze now'.

Don't believe that some tree-hugging liberals have successfully stopped oil companies from producing more oil and more money. You really believe that could happen? The truth is that the oil in the U.S. is too expensive to extract and there is no profit motive, perhaps until now that is. At 100.00 per barrel and higher, much of the U.S. oil will naturally begin to come on line as it's now economically sensible to go after it.

Oil prices will never again return to 2.00/gallon. They may come back to 3.00/gallon briefly but this is a losing battle in the long run. Even though we'll probably never exhaust all the oil in the world, the point is that oil gets increasingly more expensive to find, extract, and refine, as the easy-to-reach oil reserves are exhausted.

An exception of course is ANWR, which is the easy-to-reach kind of oil. But, should we really give up our most pristine national wildlife refuge for 6 months worth of oil that will have no impact on global prices. This entire argument is purely symbolic of republican vs. democrat, sadly. Why shouldn't republicans want to preserve a national wildlife refuge? Of course they do.

Now the offshore drilling is a different issue. This is the drilling variety, but it's relatively expensive oil because its 100 miles beneath the surface and extra care has to be taken to avoid big environmental disasters. So, even when the moratorium is lifted, don't expect a drilling bonanza and anything remotely resembling oil independence. This oil could help to moderate oil price increases over the next decade potentially. However, you can't just dismiss the monetary cost of oil spills. Billions of dollars of wealth can be destroyed in a single spill. This will ultimately have to be priced in as well, one way or another.

This issue is really about what comes first. Do you do something to help people who are struggling to fill up their tank, or do you give the treehuggers everything they want?

Environmentalists have been very misleading about the environmental damage from offshore drilling. The British and Norwegians have produced more oil from the North Sea than we are ever likely to see from our offshore areas, and they have done it without any significant spills from the offshore platforms affecting their coastline.

The Energy Information Administration estimates that there is 18.27 bbl of technically recoverable undiscovered oil in the lower 48 Outer Continental Shelf in areas that are unavailable for leasing or development. There is 40.92 bbl of oil that is in areas that are available for leasing and development.

You would think that with all that potential oil in open public areas that the oil companies would be rushing to lease and develop it. Of the 47.5 million acres of on-shore public lands currently leased to oil and gas companies, only 13 million acres are currently in production. Of the 44 million off-shore acres that are currently leased to oil and gas companies, only 10.5 million acres are currently in production.

Drilling in ANWR? What about drilling in NPR-A? The National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska was set aside by President Harding in 1923. Since 1980, NPR-A has been managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Of the 22.6 million acres available for lease in the NPR-A, oil companies have leased 3 million acres.
There is no oil production underway in NPR-A at this time.

Even if the moratorium on drilling ended today, it would be years before production could begin. The EIA estimated that if the moratorium was not re-instated when it expires in 2012, there would be no significant impact to domestic oil production before 2030.

Finally, what would be the total impact of making the oil available for drilling? With current US demand for oil at 21 million barrels per day (sorry I don't have a reference for this, I just recall reading it recently. If someone has an authoritative source for current US oil usage, it would be appreciated.) Even if that rate of use stays constant through 2030, how long will it take to use up 17 billion barrels of oil?

Open it all up now - declare a national emergency - (heck we declare 'disaster areas' for snow storms). Open up offshore drilling, drilling on federal lands, as well as ANWR.

Force Congress to try and block the Executive Order during an election year...
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison