Obama Admn keeping Oil drilling ban ($6 a gallon gas here we come) - Told You So

[kcballer]

It's pretty sad knowing that robots like kcballer cancel out the votes of people who don't live in fantasy land.

In their world, gas prices just started rising in the last 7 days. 

What a doofus! I've been talking about rising prices for a looong time.  Nothing Obama or any subsequent president can do will lower it to a sustainable level for anything long term.  The trend in oil will continue to rise long term as a) access to easy oil runs lower and lower, b) the only oil sources left become expensive and cost prohibitive unless oil rises continually and stays there. 

This is the truth but hey i'm from the 'far left' so i know nothing.  What a tool.   

[Soul Crusher]

 

[Soul Crusher]

Jeff Rubin: Only A Recession Stands In The Way Of $200 Oil
Gus Lubin | Mar. 2, 2011, 4:13 PM | 579 |  2


Congratulations to Jeff Rubin, who predicted triple digit oil by the end of 2010 -- he's just a few weeks off.

The former chief economist at CIBC says this is about more than chaos in the Middle East. He points out on his blog that Brent crude was above $100 per barrel before protests erupted in Tahrir Square.

Now for his next prediction. Rubin says oil is heading to $200 unless the oil spike throws the world into recession:

When I first predicted $200 per barrel oil prices in 2008 as the chief economist of CIBC World Markets, it was in the context of expecting another four years of global economic growth. Of course, that didn’t take into account the impact of triple digit prices on fuel-dependent GDP growth. Even $147 per barrel prices brought global economic growth to a screeching halt.

It is all the more remarkable that despite triggering the world’s deepest post-war recession and a rare, albeit temporary decline in global oil consumption, oil prices had already soared back to triple digit levels even before the Arab revolt.

And it will be difficult to keep prices from moving even higher as investors start piling on the oil bandwagon, particularly when they see most of Saudi Arabia’s much touted four million a barrel a day excess capacity is largely of the fictional variety while, at the same time, noticing how little effect monetary tightening is having on restraining China’s exploding fuel demand.

Another way to look at this is recession now or recession later.

Don't Miss: Peak Oil Guru Robert Hirsch Gives The Definitive Guide To The Energy Crisis

Tags: Oil, Peak Oil | Get Alerts for these topics

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-rubin-only-a-recession-stands-in-the-way-of-200-oil-2011-3#ixzz1FTzkvDK4

[kcballer]

And nothing Obama can do about it.  Haha thanks for posting Rubin he's been on this for a looong time now.  And gulf oil has very little to do with it.  Self owned. 

[Soul Crusher]

And nothing Obama can do about it.  Haha thanks for posting Rubin he's been on this for a looong time now.  And gulf oil has very little to do with it.  Self owned. 

yeah self owned KC - got it.    

[kcballer]

yeah self owned KC - got it.    

Are you or are you not posting an economist who believes we are at or near the peak and that oil will only go up? 

I believe you are, i have read and do read Rubins work quite a bit and really you have just strengthened the position i have that no amount of drilling will bring oil down to sustainable levels because oil is become more and more expensive to find and use in further and further away places. 

[Soul Crusher]

Whatever kc.  Its not only drilling, its the no coal, no nukes, no refineries, no natural gas, devaluing the dollar , wtf policies at treasury and the fed, etc.

[Soul Crusher]

- The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. - http://blog.heritage.org -
 


Morning Bell: How Obama Is Making Gas Prices Higher
Posted By Conn Carroll On March 3, 2011 @ 9:10 am In Energy and Environment | 53 Comments



 
Yesterday, for the first time since September 2008, the price of a barrel of crude oil topped $100 [1] on the New York Mercantile Exchange. But while the recent unrest in the Middle East has had some marginal effect on rising prices, the most significant factor has been increased oil demand worldwide. That is why, long before the recent protests even began, analysts were predicting $4 a gallon by this summer [2] and $5 a gallon by 2012 [3]. Anyone could have predicted that the recovering world economy, coupled with the continued growth of India and China, was going to push oil prices higher. So if an Administration wanted to keep gas prices down, they could have mitigated increased oil demand by increasing domestic oil production. But that is not what the Obama Administration has done. Instead of increasing domestic oil supplies, the Obama Administration has cut them at every opportunity, and Americans are now suffering because of those choices.
 
Back in February, when the protests in Egypt were first unfolding, Energy Secretary Steven Chu was asked what the Administration could do to combat rising world oil prices. Chu responded [4]: “The best way America can protect itself against these incidents is to decrease our dependency on foreign oil, in fact to diversify our supply.” It is now one month later and the Administration has not updated its talking points. Pressed on gas prices yesterday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said [5]: “We are also, as you have seen over the past two-plus years, very focused on the need precisely to develop other energy sources so that we are not as dependent on foreign oil as we have been in the past.” So what are these “other energy sources” the White House has been developing? How does the White House plan to “diversify supply” to reduce gas prices? The answers are corn, wind, sun, and electric cars. And they won’t help a bit.
 
According to Heritage analysts Nick Loris and John Ligon, Obama’s energy policy consists of [6]: increased biofuel production, increased electric vehicle production, and increased renewable power production. These are all terrible public policies. The major source of biomass production, corn-based ethanol, produces less energy per unit volume than gasoline, contributes to food price increases, costs taxpayers $4 billion to produce 2 percent of the total gasoline supply, and has dubious environmental effects. The electric cars the Obama Administration has invested in are prohibitively costly, do not fit the needs of the American consumer, and are also environmentally suspect. The other sources of energy the Obama Administration is subsidizing and promoting—wind and solar—not only make up a minuscule 1 percent of America’s electricity generation but are entirely irrelevant to gasoline supply in the transportation sector.
 
But not only has President Obama failed to diversify our energy supply in any meaningful way; he has actually proactively moved to cut our own domestic energy supplies [7]:

 •First, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar canceled 77 leases for oil and gas drilling in Utah in his first month in office. According to the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management, there are 800 billion barrels (a moderate estimate) of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation, which goes through Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. This is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.

 •Then last summer, President Obama needlessly instituted not one but two outright drilling bans in the Gulf of Mexico. The Energy Information Administration estimates that President Obama’s offshore drilling ban will cut domestic offshore oil production by 13 percent this year.

 •Last fall, Interior Secretary Salazar announced that the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic coast, and the Pacific coast will not be developed, effectively banning drilling in those areas for the next seven years. At least 19 billion barrels of easily recoverable oil lie off the currently restricted Pacific and Atlantic coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
 
•President Obama has also failed to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil lie beneath a few thousand acres that can be accessed with minimal environmental impact. Those 10 billion barrels are equivalent to 16 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia at the current rate.
 
“The Obama Administration is repeating the mistakes of President Jimmy Carter’s failed energy policies, which marred his term and stigmatized the 1970s. They are leading us straight into another national energy disaster,” Steve Forbes warned [8] in Politico yesterday. And what would that “energy disaster” cost the American people? According to The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis [6], an increase in the per-barrel price of imported crude oil by $10 in the first quarter of 2011 and by $20 in the second quarter would reduce gross domestic product by $20 billion, drop potential employment by nearly 100,000 jobs, and increase gasoline prices by 18 cents per gallon in 2011 alone.
 
Yesterday, Carney said that “the president is extremely aware of the impact that a spike in oil prices can have on gasoline prices and therefore on the wallets and pocketbooks of average Americans.” If that is true, and if Energy Secretary Chu really has recanted his belief that Americans ought to be paying $8 a gallon for gas [9], then the President must completely reverse his entire energy policy so far by allowing Americans to develop our own natural resources, issuing permits in a timely manner, and removing regulatory and litigation delays on energy projects [6].
 
Quick Hits:
 •According to a new book, President Obama believes racism is a “key component” of the Tea Party [10] movement.
 •A gunman shouting “Allahu Akbar” [11] opened fire on a bus carrying U.S. airmen in Frankfurt, Germany, killing two and wounding two.
 •The Ohio state Senate approved legislation that prohibits public-employee unions from bargaining [12] over health benefits and pensions while also eliminating their ability to strike.
 •The Wisconsin state Senate passed a new rule fining any Senator who misses two or more days of session [13] $100 a day.
 •House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R–WI) says [14] that President Obama has failed to produce a plan to shore up Medicare as required by a 2003 Medicare law.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.: http://blog.heritage.org

URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/03/morning-bell-how-obama-is-making-gas-prices-higher/

URLs in this post:

[1] the price of a barrel of crude oil topped $100: http://www.dallasnews.com/business/headlines/20110302-crude-oil-tops-100-per-barrel-for-first-time-since-2008.ece

[2] $4 a gallon by this summer: http://www.necn.com/12/31/10/Stocks-quietly-finish-mixedOil-prices-ri/landing.html?&blockID=3&apID=75f4dca7c13b4504965409c7a00b1b8f

[3] $5 a gallon by 2012: http://abcnews.go.com/US/oil-executive-gas-prices-soar-2011-2012/story?id=12509267

[4] responded: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20029935-503544.html

[5] said: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/03/what-is-the-white-house-doing-about-oil-prices-todays-qs-for-os-wh-322011.html

[6] consists of: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/03/What-To-Do-About-High-Oil-Prices

[7] proactively moved to cut our own domestic energy supplies: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/07/gas-prices-under-president-obama-in-pictures/

[8] warned: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50417.html

[9] Energy Secretary Chu really has recanted his belief that Americans ought to be paying $8 a gallon for gas: http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/04/24/steven-chu-forced-to-recant-belief-in-higher-gas-prices/

[10] President Obama believes racism is a “key component” of the Tea Party: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/03/02/obama-says-race-a-key-component-in-tea-party-protests?PageNr=3

[11] “Allahu Akbar”: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gunman-shouting-allah-akbar-kills-us-airmen-germany/story?id=13037467

[12] prohibits public-employee unions from bargaining: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704005404576176812441615134.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

[13] fining any Senator who misses two or more days of session: http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/117248828.html

[14] says: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50548.html

[Soul Crusher]

The End of the Drilling Permitorium? Guess Again
Pajamas Media ^ | March 4, 2011 | Jazz Shaw

________________________ ________________________ ___-



The first permit issued for drilling in the Gulf since the Obama administration declared a moratorium is ... not for a new well at all.

 Supporters of a sane, productive national energy policy must surely be popping champagne corks and blasting their vuvuzelas all across the land this week. After 314 days of the United States government holding the nation’s oil industry hostage in a fashion which hearkened back to the Carter administration, the first deep water drilling permit in the Gulf of Mexico has been issued.

Or has it?

As The Hayride points out, this wasn’t actually a new permit. It was awarded to Noble Energy for a well at the Santiago project, located off the coast of Louisiana, not far from the scene of the Deepwater Horizon blowout. Last summer the operators had already drilled more than 13,500 feet down, well on their way to the estimated 19,000 feet required to reach the oil when they encountered an obstruction. The permit in question was actually permission to bypass that obstruction and complete the original job.

None of that stopped Michael Bromwich, head of the Obama administration’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, (BOEMRE) from proclaiming it a glorious benchmark in the efforts of the oil industry to work with the federal government.


“This is a new well in the sense it is going into a reservoir and therefore was barred under the moratorium,” Bromwich said. ”So we treat an application for a bypass like this much as we do for new wells. I don’t think it’s right to say, ‘Oh it’s just a bypass so its not as significant as a permit for a new well.’”

The truth is that there is a significant difference which the administration is attempting to downplay. This was a well which was nearly completed at the time of the BP accident and it could have been online and producing long ago. But even though there were no serious concerns raised about this rig, they have been forced to jump through one hoop after another, installing new equipment and documenting modified protocols for months on end.

None of that is a bad thing in and of itself. While human error and a cascading series of mechanical failures were to blame for Deepwater Horizon, a potential weakness in standard systems was identified and energy developers needed to respond. And they have.

The problem is that BOEMRE isn’t going to accept — at least at this point — a new safety system being put in place for the industry or each individual company. They currently want a discrete review conducted for each and every individual drill site permit, no matter how repetitive, with the same level of reporting and review required before the necessary paper is issued. Industry insiders have already expressed private concerns that such a system will continue a de facto permitorium indefinitely.

So how did this one approval slip through the ropes and into the ring? It’s a fairly safe bet that the president is feeling the pressure not only of public opinion and pleas from the energy industry, but from two separate courts effectively holding him in contempt for not obeying an order to get the oil rigs back in business. If they can show that some permits are going out it will probably lend some ammunition to the defense in their efforts to maintain the status quo.


But even issuing one single permit, no matter how many safety precautions have been put in place, won’t be enough to satisfy some of Obama’s hard-core anti-drilling base. Observe the reaction of David Dayen of Firedoglake fame upon learning that the Santiago well was not owned entirely by Noble Energy, but also in large part by — wait for it — British Petroleum. The phrase “fit to be tied” leaps to mind.

Putting two and two together, there does seem to be a pattern emerging which could lend itself to theories about how Barack Obama plans to keep his base happy as he faces a decidedly uphill battle for a second term. I’m not generally one given to conspiracy theories, but I may have to take a fresh look at the comments of one of his prospective challengers this week.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a potential presidential contender, accused the Obama administration Wednesday of favoring a run-up in gas prices to prod consumers to buy more fuel-efficient cars.

Barbour cited 2008 comments from Steven Chu, now President Barack Obama’s energy secretary, that a gradual increase in gasoline taxes could coax consumers into dumping their gas-guzzlers and finding homes closer to where they work. Chu, then a Nobel Prize-winning professor, argued that higher costs per gallon could force investments in alternative fuels and spur cleaner energy sources.


I’d really prefer not to think along those lines. Maybe my rose colored glasses are welded too firmly to the bridge of my nose, but I would hope that any sitting president would do anything in their power to avoid inflicting more economic pain on a nation already struggling with a fiscal crisis like this one. But then again, I also keep clinging to the idea that Devo will have another top ten hit any day now.

[Soul Crusher]

Bump.

[Soul Crusher]

Interior appeals oil drilling ruling
By: Dan Berman and Darren Goode
March 4, 2011 10:18 PM EST
www.politico.com

________________________ __________


 
The Obama administration has fired another shot in the fight over the speed with which the Interior Department is — or isn’t — letting oil drillers resume work in the Gulf of Mexico after last year’s Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill.

The administration late Friday appealed a judge’s orders directing the department to act on several pending Gulf Coast deep-water drilling permits.

Gulf state lawmakers and the oil industry have accused the department of dragging its feet on the permits, enacting a de facto moratorium against new drilling, while the department has said it needs to ensure that safety and environmental protections are in place.

Friday’s appeal challenges rulings by U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman, who on Feb. 17 gave the department 30 days to make a verdict on five pending deep-water drilling permit applications. He later added two permits to that order.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar hinted at the appeal during a Senate hearing Wednesday.

Feldman “in my view is wrong,” Salazar said. “And we will argue the case because I don’t believe that the court has the jurisdiction to basically tell the Department of the Interior what my administrative responsibilities are.”

“The policy we have in mind is unmistakingly clear,” he added. “We are moving forward with the development of oil and gas” production.

Earlier in February, the judge held the department in contempt, citing its “dismissive conduct” in blocking offshore drilling during last year’s spill.

The delay in issuing permits since last year’s Gulf oil spill is “increasingly inexcusable,” Feldman wrote.

The Interior Department on Monday announced the approval of the first deep-water drilling permit held up since last year’s spill. The permit, issued to Noble Energy for a well partly owned by BP, was not one of those that Feldman’s ruling addressed.
 
 
© 2011 Capitol News Company, LLC

________________________ ________________________ ___--


Yeah, Obama wants lower oil prices.      

Typhoid Barry is his name for a reason.   
 

[Soul Crusher]

BUMP

[Soul Crusher]

Oil May Rise as Federal Reserve Stimulus Plan Weakens Dollar, Survey Shows
By Mark Shenk - Nov 5, 2010 12:00 AM ET
Business Exchange

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________


Crude may increase next week after the Federal Reserve announced plans for bond purchases, weakening the dollar, a Bloomberg News survey showed.

Twenty-nine of 49 analysts, or 59 percent, forecast crude oil will rise through Nov. 12. Thirteen respondents, or 27 percent, predicted prices will fall and seven estimate there would be little change. Last week, 54 percent said futures would decline.

The dollar tumbled after the Federal Open Market Committee said on Nov. 3 the central bank will purchase as much as $600 billion of assets through June under a program known as quantitative easing. When the U.S. currency declines investors purchase raw materials as a store of value.

“The market is going higher, higher, higher,” said Peter Beutel, president of Cameron Hanover Inc., a trading-advisory company in New Canaan, Connecticut. “Everything is being interpreted as being bullish here: quantitative easing, inventories that appear to have peaked, equities at new highs for the year, the dollar at new lows for the year and demand that appears to be improving.”

U.S. gasoline inventories fell 2.69 million barrels to 212.3 million last week, the lowest level since Nov. 20, 2009, the Energy Department said on Nov. 3. Supplies of distillate fuel, a category that includes heating oil and diesel, fell 3.57 million barrels to 164.9 million. It was the biggest drop in distillate fuel supplies since the week ended Sept. 19, 2008.

Crude oil for December delivery has increased $5.06, or 6.2 percent, to $86.49 a barrel this week on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Prices are up 7.6 percent from a year ago.

The oil survey has correctly predicted the direction of futures 47 percent of the time since its start in April 2004.


     Bloomberg’s survey of oil analysts and traders, conducted
each Thursday, asks for an assessment of whether crude oil
futures are likely to rise, fall or remain neutral in the coming
week. The results were:

                    RISE      NEUTRAL    FALL
                     29          7        13
To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Shenk in New York at mshenk1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Dan Stets at dstets@bloomberg.net



________________________ ________________________ _____________


Please reada book fo once. 

Lets see that was even before the ME flare up. 

[kcballer]

Why do you keep bumping this?  The rise in oil price has very little to do with what any president can do and will continue that way into the future.  You could have the most pro drill president ever and the price would probably dip $10 for a year then continue it's ever increasing rise, leaving a legacy of pollution in its wake.  If you're so pro oil why not move to the gulf coast and feel the effects of the policies you so desperately want introduced? 

[Option D]

Why do you keep bumping this?  The rise in oil price has very little to do with what any president can do and will continue that way into the future.  You could have the most pro drill president ever and the price would probably dip $10 for a year then continue it's ever increasing rise, leaving a legacy of pollution in its wake.  If you're so pro oil why not move to the gulf coast and feel the effects of the policies you so desperately want introduced? 

dude...it rained last night.. its obamas fault in this pricks eyes

[Soul Crusher]

dude...it rained last night.. its obamas fault in this pricks eyes

I can't wait to see the bullshit justifications you give in a year to defend voting a second term for the messiah.

 

[Option D]

I can't wait to see the bullshit justifications you give in a year to defend voting a second term for the messiah.

 

i dont justify anything.. but i dont lie either

[kcballer]

Oh yeah and in case you still don't get it - Exxon has stated that "The 10-year average reserves replacement ratio is 121 percent, with liquids replacement at 95 percent and gas at 158 percent."

That's crude oil.  So over the next 10 years one of the biggest oil companies in the world says for every barrel of oil they produce, they will find .95 of crude.  That means reliance on higher priced oil extraction methods such as oil sands and shale, which i will add, are only economically affordable with triple digit oil prices.  Do the math and tell me where the price of oil is going?

[kcballer]

Oh yeah bama's fault, gulf of mexico rigs and anwar destruction = $50 a barrel right?   

[Soul Crusher]

Why We Need to Drill Here and Drill Now
Pajamas Media ^ | March 8, 2011 | Steve Everly




The president's policy won't create more energy — or more jobs.

It is truly astonishing how the Obama administration has not only failed to address the problem of rising gasoline prices, but actually spent the last two years making the problem worse.

In 2008, with a federal offshore drilling ban in place and a Congress that cared little for allowing more domestic energy production, gasoline prices began to spike toward $4 per gallon. With billions of barrels available for development offshore, our government’s decision to keep those resources under lock and key received the justified scorn of Americans who suddenly had to work longer just so they could afford to drive to and from work.

With the entire country holding their feet to the fire — even then-candidate Obama reversed his position on offshore drilling — Congress finally lifted the offshore moratorium in September 2008.

So what did candidate Obama do when he became president? He and his administration spent two years recreating the same web of regulations and bans that led to record-high gasoline prices in the first place.

Upon taking office, President Obama’s Department of Interior, led by Ken Salazar, began taking deliberate steps to reduce domestic drilling. From canceling oil and gas leases throughout the American West to banning offshore production to refusing to issue deep water drilling permits, the Obama administration has imposed virtually the same regulatory agenda that Americas soundly rejected in 2008.

The result of these policies is also the same as last time. Oil prices above $100 per barrel for the first time since 2008. Two years ago the Energy Information Administration predicted a 9% increase in domestic production for 2011, but because of the Obama administration’s bans and delays on offshore drilling, EIA now projects a decline of 220,000 barrels per day in 2011. Several drilling rigs have left the Gulf, and at least one major drilling company, Seahawk Drilling, was forced to file for bankruptcy after “an unprecedented decline in the issuance of offshore drilling permits,” according to Seahawk’s CEO.


Meanwhile, gasoline is heading back to $4 per gallon. Prices at the pump set a nationwide record for February, and some experts are predicting $5 per gallon gas by year’s end. Recent unrest in the Middle East has intensified the situation and caused prices to spike even further.

What is the White House doing in response to these rising costs?

President Obama thinks Americans should just “ride out” the situation and hope that prices will stabilize. The deputy secretary of energy says OPEC has “ample supplies” of oil, and the administration’s position is to hope that foreign dictators “will continue to support our economic recovery.” Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says consumers just shouldn’t worry about higher prices, while White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee miraculously claims that high gasoline prices won’t hurt the economy.

In fact, the president’s latest budget actually includes billions of dollars in new taxes on American oil production, which will further increase gas and diesel prices, kill more American jobs, and increase our dependence on overseas energy.


New taxes won’t create more American energy, and Americans deserve a better response than being lectured with “don’t worry, be happy.”

We have more than 80 billion barrels of oil offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf, more than 10 billion barrels in one small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and an astounding 800 billion barrels – three times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia — in shale oil deposits in parts of Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah.

All of these resources represent opportunities to lower prices at the pump and boost the American economy. A recent study, for example, found that offshore drilling in Alaska could create 50,000 new American jobs every year and generate $160 billion in new federal revenues. Additional offshore and onshore drilling could create hundreds of thousands of additional jobs and generate even greater revenues, which could be used to reduce the massive federal deficit.

But all of these resources are also off limits due to Obama administration policies.

For the past two years America has been transformed back into a grand laboratory for the anti-drilling ideology that defined our energy policy for three decades. It didn’t work then, it’s not working now, and it won’t work in the future.

It’s time to end the senseless bans on oil and gas drilling so we can permanently lower gasoline prices, create more American jobs, and lessen our dependence on foreign dictators for our energy supplies.


It’s time to move forward with responsible American energy production.

It’s time to drill here and drill now.

[Soul Crusher]

IBD/TIPP Poll: Americans Back Offshore, ANWR Drilling
Investor's Business Daily ^ | 3/7/2011 | Sean Higgins



With the price of gas up 39 cents at the pump in a month and heading higher amid turmoil in much of the Middle East, Americans wonder why the U.S. isn't doing more to exploit its own oil resources.

They favor drilling in territorial waters, 67%-29%, according to a new IBD/TIPP poll. That is up from 61%-30% from last May and 64%-25% when Republicans touted drilling in the 2008 election as oil topped $147 a barrel.

There's also been a solid shift toward drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, with support at 54%-40%. That's up from 49%-43% last year.


(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...

[kcballer]

Americans back it because most of America doesn't live anywhere near ANWR and most of America is as ill informed as you 333.  Drilling for oil will not lower prices in the long term.  It may have some effect on short term prices, but they will continue to go up.  The fact we are even talking about drilling in anwr, which poses geographical challenges for transporting the oil, not to mention the environmental impact of any kind of mishap, shows just how scare oil really is, and why it would HAVE to stay high in order for the economics to make sense in drilling in deeper and deeper water and further and further away from our major ports and cities.  Do you not see the issue here?  If the oil was easily removable it would have been done a long time ago.  The cost must be high enough to sustain development of more technologically advanced methods of extraction in even more remote places on Earth.  That alone tells you what impact this will have on oil prices - zilch.  It may stop it's rise for a few years but it will not cause a downward trend because quite simple - the cost of extraction, transportation etc will not allow it.  Unless you propose a government subsidy to offset the losses.

[Fury]

Americans back it because most of America doesn't live anywhere near ANWR and most of America is as ill informed as you 333. 

"I'm a far-lefty, thus I'm better than you and know what's best for you. I'm never wrong. Ever."

[kcballer]

"I'm a far-lefty, thus I'm better than you and know what's best for you. I'm never wrong. Ever."

Oh it's mr generalization back to post generalizations about a topic he less knowledge than his 'partner' 333

[Soul Crusher]

High Energy Prices Are Obama’s ‘Explicit Policy Goal,’ Inhofe Says
CNS News ^ | March 10, 2011 | Christopher Neefus



CNSNews.com) – A prominent GOP senator on energy issues accused President Barack Obama Thursday morning of having set an “explicit policy goal” of making energy prices more costly for Americans.

“My message today is simply this: higher gas prices - indeed, higher prices for the energy we use - are an explicit policy goal of the Obama administration,” said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla), ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “Let me put it another way: the Obama administration is attacking affordable energy.”

Inhofe’s comments come as crude oil futures traded up on anxiety over unrest in the Middle East and broke the triple-digit mark in recent weeks. As of Thursday, light crude was trading at over $101 per barrel.

“We have, in fact, 163 billion barrels of recoverable oil - nearly six times higher than what President Obama and the Democrats like to claim,” Inhofe continued. “Let's think about 163 billion barrels for a moment: that is enough to maintain our current levels of production and replace our imports from the Persian Gulf for more than 50 years.”

The senator, who regularly rails against the Obama administration’s support of so-called “cap-and-trade” legislation, said such policies are about starving the country of energy supply.

“You see, the cap-and-trade agenda is also about energy austerity,” Inhofe said on the Senate floor. “The hope is that if we restrict enough supply, the price will increase, and we can then simply shift to less costly alternatives. Yet this is wishful thinking.”

“If you think $4.00 is too much for a gallon of regular, fasten your seat belts.”

Inhofe made the speech in support of the Energy Tax Prevention Act, legislation designed to bar the Environmental Protection Agency from moving to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act, which Republicans claim is outside the agency’s purview. After he introduced the bill last week, it quickly picked up 42 more co-sponsors, including Democrat Joe Manchin (W.Va.).