GOP congressmen on energy tour

As far as I can tell, the oil companies want those leases before the Congress and the White House change hands. They can't be sure that the Democrats will play as nice as the Republicans have. So they are all grabby grabby right now!
Ain't no way opening up ANWR makes a bit of difference. Except to give ExxonMobil another point on their dividend and a bigger bonus to their CEO.

Flyover? Flyover? Now where have I heard of that being done before???

Oh, yeah!! "W" Flying Over After Katrina Destroyed New Orleans!!!

Congress wasted all of the time that they had long ago. Now, like money, they're wasting time that they don't have.

Can't you just see these guys flying around, joking, attending buffets, and drinking while we send $700 billion a year out of the country?

If they really want to do something, all they have to do is run the $300 billion that they don't have as grants through the RUS for wind farm implementation instead of bailing out Freddie Mac for foreign central banks.

This will create 500,000 jobs and they will get the money back from the additional tax base.

You can visit Alaska a million times and nothing will get done.

Athena,

If opening up ANWR will make no difference, then just how does that cash get to the dividend and the CEO bonus?

The thing you forget is that leases from the gov't to the oil companies are not free, they are paid for by the oil companies and that would be money to the treasury - it might help fund one of your many socialist proposals.

The Congressional trip is a silly waste, but the GOP does have Obama pinned pretty good on energy. Drilling is becoming popular with voters as gas prices go up. He must weigh the cost of doing nothing with the effects of another flip-flop.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Nice mini vacation at taxpayers expense-

Since President Bush said drill, drill, drill the price of oil dropped $17.00 per barrel.

Hmmmm?

Dumbocrats ....Wrong Again!

Paulo

they won't drill what they already have because they know it's not profitable nor will it reduce the cost at the pump for anyone in the u.s. by a significant amount anytime soon, if ever. nothing but another election year right-wing talking point. they should go back the gay marriage agenda. or maybe threat level orange. remember that?

If the people who hold the leases on the 68 million acres don't want to drill there then they should be forced to give up the leases. Let someone else drill on them. We wouldn't be in this fix if Reagan hadn't discarded President Carter's energy policy, that European nations still use. whiteagle38

"Emerging oil technologies"; you mean like oil shale?

Kicking the habit: Headlong rush to oil shale won't end energy woes--Tribune Editorial

A junkie gets desperate when his junk runs out. He's got to have more, and he'll do just about anything in order to keep feeding his habit.
America is like that about oil. As our supply from foreign sources gets more expensive and rumors float around that those dealers are running out, we're panicking, ready to trade our natural resources, even the future of the planet, for one more hit.
And Utah Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett are backing the deal, right behind President Bush. They want to fast-track the development of oil from shale and tar sands before the effects of the processes on the environment can be fully evaluated.
Because oil shale development uses huge amounts of water and creates tons of carbon dioxide, that fast-tracking could threaten the eastern Utah and western Colorado landscapes and Utah's precious water resources and hasten the dangers of climate change caused by greenhouse-gas emissions.
Fortunately, other Western lawmakers are not in such a headlong rush to sell out. Colorado Democratic Rep. Mark Udall and Sen. Ken Salazar slowed the frenzy toward oil shale and tar sands development by convincing Congress to approve a moratorium on Bureau of Land Management rule-making needed before permits are issued.
Hatch and Bennett are demanding that the delay be rescinded to give the energy industry whatever it needs to put oil from shale and tar sands
on the market as soon as possible, while admitting that oil from shale could not possibly be available in time to provide relief from today's high fuel prices.
On the other hand, Bush has no compunction about tying the fast-tracking of oil shale and tar sands development to pump prices, just as he saw the value in tying the 9/11 attack to Saddam Hussein, although he had nothing to do with it.
But the energy industry is not ready with technology to make oil shale development feasible. It is experimenting with a variety of processes, and the moratorium does not affect those experiments.
A year's wait to determine the potential benefits versus the costs of oil shale development and to refine better technology is reasonable. In the meantime, and for the forseeable future, it would be more in our interest to beat our addiction with energy alternatives and conservation.
It's time we kicked the oil habit for good.

Paulo, President Bush has said many things. Most of them have been 100% wrong. Why am I not surprised you apparently hang on his every word?

I hope they push it all the way. There are enough tax payers on both sids interested in drilling, I think they will forgive a trip on that behalf.

I like this, more oil is good, our OWN oil even better.

I can't wrap my mind around the idea that Dems are opposed to this. I couldn't have heard more fussing from them about the war being because of our desire for their oil. Here is a perfect chance to make that aspect go away, and they are completely opposed to it.Where's the logic?

I agree with George. They must have heard how beautiful Alaska is in summer so they want to see it before they let the oil companies drill. Unless they plan on nationalizing the oil that is in ANWAR and off the coasts, the US will probably see none of it. Those of you who think the oil companies will keep it here and refine it here need to wake up.

Once agian folks that don't understand the industry shoot thier mouths off.

The gov't issues the leases to the oil companies, the oil companies pay money to the gov't. Some of teh lease will hold contain no oil and natural gas, otehr will contain oil and natural gas. It is up to the oil companies to determine which leases are economically feasable to drill on and which aren't. Either way, the gov't makes money off the leases.

Some of the leases that they currently have either contain no oil or oil that is not economically feaseable to get. That is why those leases are not being drilled.

Then for those who are afraid that the oil will be shipped out of teh country, they do not understand that oil is a global market. It would still increase global oil supply and thus reduce prices (everything else being equal). For example, if the oil in ANWR were to be shipped to Asia, that would mean that the supply that Asai used to get from the the middle east would be freed-up to be sold elsewhere at the lower price that I expalined above.

Teresa, oil companies don't produce oil, they produce profits. They have a couple of very expensive and fruitless drilling adventures already under their belts off Alaska. The expense and risk involved is not worth it to them when they are currently setting record quarterly profits by doing nothing. Even if they went ahead, there is no guarantee of the amount of oil they will capture, the cost involved to extract it (some of it is not just under miles of water but miles under the ocean's floor) the ability to refine it or ship it away to be refined then brought back or that it will even benefit the United States at all. It will most likely get sold to India or China to the highest bidder. Too much money, too much time, too high of a risk and no need to bother when the status quo is lining their pockets.

Terrry doesn't mention that OPEC members (say Saudi Arabia) could simply reduce the supply of oil available on the market to compensate for additional oil from Anwar. They would do this to keep prices high and there's not a damn thing we could do about it. The oil companies would bag tens of billions in more profits, throw up their hands and say "what can we do, it's supply and demand". Terry is the front-man for the big corporate con.

dts - Yes OPEC could do lower the supply, that is why I said "everything else being equal". What effect would that have on OPEC - their oil inventory/reserves would increase since there was no sale and they would have less of our cash? Is that bad? What is it you have about using US oil and natural gas reserves - is the part of all the great paying jobs this would create? Is it the fact that the money would primarily stay with American companies and not go off to OPEC? What's your issue with American corporations - they wouldn't hire you?

lochnessmonster, dt, it's ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Reserve), not ANWAR. Anwar was Sadat.

And, actually, Terry has done a good job of encapsulating the economics of a fungible commodity such as oil. But you just don't get it, do you? Is it that you deliberately misunderstand, or are you just dense?

What's your issue with American corporations - they wouldn't hire you?

Posted by: Terry | July 19, 2008 9:31 PM

Two words, Terry the Tool:

Corporate Malfeasance

Deceptive and fraudulent activities carried out by corporate officers, investment banks, brokerage firms and investment analysts have cost investors billions. Trusted financial market professionals abandoned ethical principles (repeatedly, in both bull and bear markets, in the most materially advantaged country ever) as they pursued excessive material well being. Laws and regulations designed to protect shareholder interests failed to do so. (C.I.R. Inc.)

S&L, junk bond and treasury market scandals, Enron and energy market scandals, sub-prime loan market scandals.

And you have to ask?

http://extras.sltrib.com/bagley/Archive.asp?Vol=content&Num=1

http://extras.sltrib.com/bagley/Archive.asp?Vol=content&Num=7

What part of my previous post don't any of you understand?

The problem with Terry's scenario is that the minute increase in supply created by drilling in ANWR and other coastal areas won't even be a blip on the radar of the global oil supply. You'd be adding an eye droppers worth of crude to a tanker and expect the per barrel price to be reduced by a significant amount. Even the oil companies have admitted as much.

Good choice of words, dave.

"Well, it is - the reason it is contained is because we have the extra troops there. That is self-evident," Rumsfeld said, showing a little irritation. "Come on, people are fungible. You can have them here or there. We have announced the judgment. It is clear. You understand it. Everyone in the room understands that we needed additional - the commander decided he'd like to retain in-country an additional plus or minus 20,000 people and that is what we are doing."

Oh, yeah. You were speaking of oil, but in Bush's America the two are interchangeable. To former corporate CEO, Don Rummy, people are fungible, like so many replaceable parts. Anyone who thinks Big Oil has the nation's best interest at heart is...well, dense.

http://extras.sltrib.com/bagley/Archive.asp?Vol=content&Num=4

dts,

Obviously reamrks from someone that has never worked in a corporation. For every one bad corporation you hear about, there are 100's doing the right thing and contributing to job creation to their communities along with billions in charity. As far as corruption, do you want to compare th ethics of the 535 Congressman to the 500 CEO's of the Fortune 500 - I'll bet my money on the CEO's.

Marty, if it is only an "eyedropper" worth of oil that are in these leases off teh coast and in ANWR, then I guess there won't be a whole lot of interest in the leases now will there. If the leases are purchased by the oil companies and come up dry, then the oil companies would lose money and then you would be very happy.

You never know until you try

What about Bush, McBush and the Republican's failed energy policies don't fungible Dave and Terry the Tool understand?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/opinion/20friedman.html?hp

You answered your own question. No, there is not enough oil, even on the higher estimates, to justify the expense in drilling. This being a comparative figure with reference to the global oil pool. They can tap it all and it won't result in a significant drop in actual prices, particularly here in the U.S. Nor would that drop be anytime soon. Most aggressive estimates put any effect (if any) on barrel price at least five years out. Refineries are backlogged, foreign refineries require a cost prohibitive amount of shipping and for the other reasons I listed above, the entire idea is not the quick fix that is being sold.
My personal happiness certainly does not revolve around the bottom line of oil companies. But they sure seem to be happy playing the game.

dts - an opinion piece from the NY Slimes - there is something I'll put faith in.

As the writer tries to waeve this from expensive gasoline into the "global warming crisis". Gore is nothing but hype.

Gore wants to reduce payroll taxes by taxing carbon - those payroll taxes pay for the liberals favorite program - SOcial Security. The increase in the nations elcetric grid will have to be borne by the nation's electric customers

As things stand today, we need gasoline - the other means of powering our cars are not there yet. Electric is great - if you want to travel 50 miles at a time, the electric grid has hard enough time handling todya's demands let alone addig up juicing up cars and no one every considers what the source of the electricity is. Solar cars - tell that to the folks in Seatlle where they don't see the sun. Natural Gas - fueling issues and this will just turn into higher natural gas prices.

I do agree with a good mix of energy sources and Boone Pickens plan is an interesting starting point. Although I disagree with his heavy realiance of wind power since because of its lack of dependability it is hard to use as a base load energy source. Also, he wants to ship that electricity across the country and the further you ship electricity the less of it gets to the end user. However, to not drill for the existing sources of oil and natural gas is denying the solution to the problem.

I would trust McBush instead of ObaCarter.

Since Bush said drill, drill, drill, the price of oil has dropped. But NOT at the gas pump. Guess who's keeping the difference?

Since Bush said drill, drill, drill, the price of oil has dropped. But NOT at the gas pump. Guess who's keeping the difference?

Posted by: Don | July 21, 2008 12:28 AM

Well, probably your local friendly gas station operator. (Most gas stations are locally-owned franchises, not owned by the oil companies.) When the price of oil goes up, the local operators get squeezed. First, because they know that replacing the gas that they sell will cost more; this pushes them to raise prices. But, it's hard to raise prices because of local competition; if their price is higher than that of the guy across the corner, who gets the business? Finally, most gas sales are credit card sales; the credit card companies take a percentage of the sale, which works out to more in dollar terms than it does with lower prices.

So, high gas prices squeeze gas stations. Then, when the price of oil comes down, there are two incentives not to lower the pump price immediately. First, will it last? "Prediction is difficult, particularly when it involves the future." Second, the gas station operator needs to get well from the squeeze so that he can stay in business. It's all fairly simple economics.

Yes, Terry - Tom Friedman as a source? Gimme a break!

Is anyone else offended that the executive branch (your tax dollars) is paying for this (campaign) trip and that only freshman Republican members of Congress were invited?

I see some of the people who contribute to this blog know what they are talking about, and some don't know their butt from a hole in the ground. They holler when a company makes money off of selling a product, but when they drill a dry hole and lose money, i don't hear them complain. What is wrong with a company making a profit, and why do some bitch when a gas station owner makes some money off of one tank of gas and loses some on the next tank. What amazes me is the people who drive their suvs and drink fuel like it is going out of style, bitch about the price of gas. I don't see anyone twisting their arms to make them buy the gas. It is called supply and demand, and as long as you waste gas, the demand is high as so is the price.. As far as drilling for oil, that is the only way you will get it, or buy it from Chavez in venezula and send the money to him to buy guns to kill the poeple in his surroundind area. I vote for drilling here, keeping our people in jobs, and in a year or two, the price at the pump will come down.Don't look for 1,00 dollar gas any more, so buy a small car with 4 cylinders, drive the speed limit and have a tune up regularly and get some good gas milage.If you don't want to do that ,buy a bike and pedal it to work.

Wow,

I thought Friedman ("The Earth is Flat") was the hero of you flat-earthers. Denial to the end, I guess.

And elmerk, it's not about making a profit that's a problem---it's how they do it. When Oil companies make $80 billion dollars of profit, do they need tax breaks and exemptions from royalties? Should they be allowed to harm and destroy ecosystems forever for the temporary extraction of oil?

Not all corporations are created equal. Some provide a living wage, health benefits, pensions. Others have a history of exploitation, abuse of workers rights, tainted products (Walmart comes to mind). Guess which direction things have gone under Bush and the republicans? Yeah, the Walmart business model, kids.

Meanwhile, those of us who saved, stayed out of debt, were responsible, see our 401's collapse, our fixed income swallowed up by inflation and soaring energy cost. We can't make any money in safer investments because of 2% returns on CD's. But all you people can offer us is more failed republican policies and bailouts (from both parties) for the greedy fools that got us into this mess. Bill Moyers nailed it:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07182008/transcript4.html

Talk about the Fox in the Henhouse--and these are the guys TD Terry and Fungible Dave say we should trust with our money:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/where-credit-is-due-timeline.html

Before the Civil war our great country used whale oil for lighting, cooking, and industrial applications as a lubricant. It was during this time that the whale was over hunted and facing extinction. The American People cried out to Lincoln to put quotas and price ceilings on whale oil. Lincoln refused.

This prompted a group of investors to drill in Pennsylvania for oil. It wasn't long after this discovery of oil that there was no longer a need for whale oil. Yes the free market corrected itself.

Historically speaking we as Americans will tolerate high prices for the energy we need only for a short while. At that point we begin looking for alternatives and technological advances in the efficient use of our energy sources available.

This was proven again during the late 70's & early 80's when gas prices again began to soar during the same time legislation was passed down to remove the led from gasoline. Very quickly our auto industry began to produce more energy efficient cars and technology to increase the efficiency of gasoline leading to the oxygenate additive MTBE.

The Naysayers said it would never last and unleaded gasoline would go away. Well it didn't and now you cannot buy a car that takes regular gasoline. Once again Americans never went back.

Now we have soaring prices and Americans screaming for better technology and energy efficient applications to help reduce the price of petroleum and to find alternatives.

Ethanol now replaces MTBE in most places helping to move us toward a cleaner more efficient fuel all the while reducing greenhouse gas air emissions and bringing down the price of fuel.

Americans will not go back. We will continue to move toward hybrid cars and cleaner burning fuels that are controlled by Americans.

The free market is the best way to correct this energy crisis. It's about time congress stepped away from an issue they cannot solve.

And Atlas Shrugged again!