Will More Drilling Mean Cheaper Gas?

[dalegg 143]

Oil is apparently overpriced right now. Some predict that the bubble will burst and oil will be in the $70-$80 range following the correction. That'll ease things a bit in the short term. Drilling, no drilling won't have any effect on that correction. Yet if we focus on drilling rather than alternatives then we'll leave our kids to wonder a decade or two down the road what the ####### we were thinking not to develop a long term strategy and get busy towards realizing that strategy. Look at Detroit. You know where they are going right now for help with immediate fixes for more fuel efficient cars that they can actually sell? To their European subsidiaries who've been developing those models for decades. Say bye-bye to those R+D dollars and those well paid jobs. We could have had them if we had taken the warning signs seriously last time around. We didn't. Do we really want to make the same mistake twice?

Okay, but to Gary's point- This plan calls for most of the country to replace their cars. Also, I'm not so sure I believe that prediction.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Though Democratic Senator Barack Obama and most of his party are against the proposed expansion, McCain and his supporters may have the public on their side:

Hey I don't mean to pry, but what exactly is Senator Obama's plan to reduce the price of oil or at least stop it from continuing to rise?

He's the one planning to attack the issue where we can control it - on the demand side. You can look it up on his website. That said, what's McCain's plan to lower the price of oil? Drill off shore? To produce 7-10 years down the road an amount of oil that won't even make a dent - the mosquitopiss worth of oil as I like to call it? That's the plan? And you believe that will bring prices down anytime soon and / or by any significant measure? If so, I've got a few bridges to sell...

Well you just broke one of the rules, but I'll let it pass. Expand on the issue of attacking the issue on the Demand side. How? Talk to me like I'm a 5 year old.

I won't talk to you like a 5 year old 'cause you're not. You approach it from all angles: Invest in the development of alternate energy sources, push for better fuel efficiency (something we've neglected for far too long), set aggressive targets for renewable energy production, etc. Again, read about here. And to all the doubters out there: Germany did it. German companies and consumers slashed their use of so-called primary energy -- defined as energy generated by oil, gas, coal, nuclear and hydropower -- by 18.5 million tons of oil equivalent in 2007, a 5.6-percent reduction. Wouldn't it be worthwhile to work on America becoming the leader on that front? Or are you suggesting that America can't do it?

That talks about their electricity generation. The use of oil for transportation is much different. Tell me, just how are we to conserve oil enough to make any difference in relation to transportation? If you say things like mass transit then take into account that not everyone lives in big cities. If you say making the cars more efficent then take into account that the cars we have now must be replaced before these savings are seen. Not everyone can afford to replace their cars. If you say that we need to find alternative fuels for the cars we have take into account that new distrobution systems need to be developed, the cars must be retrofitted ect. Now tell me how this is going to be done before the country goes broke from the anticipated $10/gal gas. All those things must be done, no argument here. But it cannot be done before great harm comes to our economy. The wise thing to do is to grab every drop of domestic oil we can, wherever it may be WHILE we are doing the things that need to be done. Those that think we can drill our way out of this mess and those that think we can conserve our way out of this mess are both only half right. We must do both at the same time.

I would agree with you that there's a transition period that we must navigate. If there was significant relief to be expected from off shore drilling, I might just think that it may be worth it. But all indications are that the supply is rather marginal. It may make the difference of $9.50/ gal vs. $10.00/gal. If that. It will take 7-10 years to even get this oil into the pipeline. The average age of the cars on our roads is 9 years. Fuel efficient models are readily available. Therefore, I don't think it's worth it to effort the drilling.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Though Democratic Senator Barack Obama and most of his party are against the proposed expansion, McCain and his supporters may have the public on their side:

Hey I don't mean to pry, but what exactly is Senator Obama's plan to reduce the price of oil or at least stop it from continuing to rise?

He's the one planning to attack the issue where we can control it - on the demand side. You can look it up on his website. That said, what's McCain's plan to lower the price of oil? Drill off shore? To produce 7-10 years down the road an amount of oil that won't even make a dent - the mosquitopiss worth of oil as I like to call it? That's the plan? And you believe that will bring prices down anytime soon and / or by any significant measure? If so, I've got a few bridges to sell...

Well you just broke one of the rules, but I'll let it pass. Expand on the issue of attacking the issue on the Demand side. How? Talk to me like I'm a 5 year old.

I won't talk to you like a 5 year old 'cause you're not. You approach it from all angles: Invest in the development of alternate energy sources, push for better fuel efficiency (something we've neglected for far too long), set aggressive targets for renewable energy production, etc. Again, read about here. And to all the doubters out there: Germany did it. German companies and consumers slashed their use of so-called primary energy -- defined as energy generated by oil, gas, coal, nuclear and hydropower -- by 18.5 million tons of oil equivalent in 2007, a 5.6-percent reduction. Wouldn't it be worthwhile to work on America becoming the leader on that front? Or are you suggesting that America can't do it?

Hey big dog you gotta price for all that? Baracks wbsite doesnt mention a price!

Yes it does. Look again. And tell me, are you saying that we're not as innovative and capable as the Germans?

Oil is apparently overpriced right now. Some predict that the bubble will burst and oil will be in the $70-$80 range following the correction. That'll ease things a bit in the short term. Drilling, no drilling won't have any effect on that correction. Yet if we focus on drilling rather than alternatives then we'll leave our kids to wonder a decade or two down the road what the ####### we were thinking not to develop a long term strategy and get busy towards realizing that strategy. Look at Detroit. You know where they are going right now for help with immediate fixes for more fuel efficient cars that they can actually sell? To their European subsidiaries who've been developing those models for decades. Say bye-bye to those R+D dollars and those well paid jobs. We could have had them if we had taken the warning signs seriously last time around. We didn't. Do we really want to make the same mistake twice?

Okay, but to Gary's point- This plan calls for most of the country to replace their cars. Also, I'm not so sure I believe that prediction.

Again, the average age of our cars is 9 years.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Though Democratic Senator Barack Obama and most of his party are against the proposed expansion, McCain and his supporters may have the public on their side:

Hey I don't mean to pry, but what exactly is Senator Obama's plan to reduce the price of oil or at least stop it from continuing to rise?

He's the one planning to attack the issue where we can control it - on the demand side. You can look it up on his website. That said, what's McCain's plan to lower the price of oil? Drill off shore? To produce 7-10 years down the road an amount of oil that won't even make a dent - the mosquitopiss worth of oil as I like to call it? That's the plan? And you believe that will bring prices down anytime soon and / or by any significant measure? If so, I've got a few bridges to sell...

Well you just broke one of the rules, but I'll let it pass. Expand on the issue of attacking the issue on the Demand side. How? Talk to me like I'm a 5 year old.

I won't talk to you like a 5 year old 'cause you're not. You approach it from all angles: Invest in the development of alternate energy sources, push for better fuel efficiency (something we've neglected for far too long), set aggressive targets for renewable energy production, etc. Again, read about here. And to all the doubters out there: Germany did it. German companies and consumers slashed their use of so-called primary energy -- defined as energy generated by oil, gas, coal, nuclear and hydropower -- by 18.5 million tons of oil equivalent in 2007, a 5.6-percent reduction. Wouldn't it be worthwhile to work on America becoming the leader on that front? Or are you suggesting that America can't do it?

That talks about their electricity generation. The use of oil for transportation is much different. Tell me, just how are we to conserve oil enough to make any difference in relation to transportation? If you say things like mass transit then take into account that not everyone lives in big cities. If you say making the cars more efficent then take into account that the cars we have now must be replaced before these savings are seen. Not everyone can afford to replace their cars. If you say that we need to find alternative fuels for the cars we have take into account that new distrobution systems need to be developed, the cars must be retrofitted ect. Now tell me how this is going to be done before the country goes broke from the anticipated $10/gal gas. All those things must be done, no argument here. But it cannot be done before great harm comes to our economy. The wise thing to do is to grab every drop of domestic oil we can, wherever it may be WHILE we are doing the things that need to be done. Those that think we can drill our way out of this mess and those that think we can conserve our way out of this mess are both only half right. We must do both at the same time.

I would agree with you that there's a transition period that we must navigate. If there was significant relief to be expected from off shore drilling, I might just think that it may be worth it. But all indications are that the supply is rather marginal. It may make the difference of $9.50/ gal vs. $10.00/gal. If that. It will take 7-10 years to even get this oil into the pipeline. The average age of the cars on our roads is 9 years. Fuel efficient models are readily available. Therefore, I don't think it's worth it to effort the drilling.

I dont see a cost!

Edited June 20, 2008 by ={Rogue}=

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Though Democratic Senator Barack Obama and most of his party are against the proposed expansion, McCain and his supporters may have the public on their side:

Hey I don't mean to pry, but what exactly is Senator Obama's plan to reduce the price of oil or at least stop it from continuing to rise?

He's the one planning to attack the issue where we can control it - on the demand side. You can look it up on his website. That said, what's McCain's plan to lower the price of oil? Drill off shore? To produce 7-10 years down the road an amount of oil that won't even make a dent - the mosquitopiss worth of oil as I like to call it? That's the plan? And you believe that will bring prices down anytime soon and / or by any significant measure? If so, I've got a few bridges to sell...

Well you just broke one of the rules, but I'll let it pass. Expand on the issue of attacking the issue on the Demand side. How? Talk to me like I'm a 5 year old.

I won't talk to you like a 5 year old 'cause you're not. You approach it from all angles: Invest in the development of alternate energy sources, push for better fuel efficiency (something we've neglected for far too long), set aggressive targets for renewable energy production, etc. Again, read about here. And to all the doubters out there: Germany did it. German companies and consumers slashed their use of so-called primary energy -- defined as energy generated by oil, gas, coal, nuclear and hydropower -- by 18.5 million tons of oil equivalent in 2007, a 5.6-percent reduction. Wouldn't it be worthwhile to work on America becoming the leader on that front? Or are you suggesting that America can't do it?

That talks about their electricity generation. The use of oil for transportation is much different. Tell me, just how are we to conserve oil enough to make any difference in relation to transportation? If you say things like mass transit then take into account that not everyone lives in big cities. If you say making the cars more efficent then take into account that the cars we have now must be replaced before these savings are seen. Not everyone can afford to replace their cars. If you say that we need to find alternative fuels for the cars we have take into account that new distrobution systems need to be developed, the cars must be retrofitted ect. Now tell me how this is going to be done before the country goes broke from the anticipated $10/gal gas. All those things must be done, no argument here. But it cannot be done before great harm comes to our economy. The wise thing to do is to grab every drop of domestic oil we can, wherever it may be WHILE we are doing the things that need to be done. Those that think we can drill our way out of this mess and those that think we can conserve our way out of this mess are both only half right. We must do both at the same time.

I would agree with you that there's a transition period that we must navigate. If there was significant relief to be expected from off shore drilling, I might just think that it may be worth it. But all indications are that the supply is rather marginal. It may make the difference of $9.50/ gal vs. $10.00/gal. If that. It will take 7-10 years to even get this oil into the pipeline. The average age of the cars on our roads is 9 years. Fuel efficient models are readily available. Therefore, I don't think it's worth it to effort the drilling.

I dont see a cost!

Try your glasses. It's there.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Perceptions are bs and you know it.

[darkhorse 0]

Though Democratic Senator Barack Obama and most of his party are against the proposed expansion, McCain and his supporters may have the public on their side:

Hey I don't mean to pry, but what exactly is Senator Obama's plan to reduce the price of oil or at least stop it from continuing to rise?

He's the one planning to attack the issue where we can control it - on the demand side. You can look it up on his website. That said, what's McCain's plan to lower the price of oil? Drill off shore? To produce 7-10 years down the road an amount of oil that won't even make a dent - the mosquitopiss worth of oil as I like to call it? That's the plan? And you believe that will bring prices down anytime soon and / or by any significant measure? If so, I've got a few bridges to sell...

Someones mentioned it before on this post but your logic seems to tow the Democratic party line.... and here's why.

The idea that drilling will not have an immediate effect really reflects an ignorance of how the futures markets work.

Lets say an oil company like Exxon says it will start drilling off the coast of Florida. That knowledge alone will effect the futures market IMMEDIATELY.

Of course I think most of us agree that oil is artificially overpriced. ANY factor that may increase the supply side of oil will decrease the price of oil today.

Of course since most Democrats think the government knows more about business and economics than actual "real businesses", They say things such as drilling today will not help us.

common sense would dictate - let us allow for more drilling even if there is only chance it will help? It sure as heck cant hurt anything- it may even create a few jobs!. But again, I think democrats are a little deficient when it comes to common sense.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Someones mentioned it before on this post but your logic seems to tow the Democratic party line.... and here's why.

The idea that drilling will not have an immediate effect really reflects an ignorance of how the futures markets work.

Lets say an oil company like Exxon says it will start drilling off the coast of Florida. That knowledge alone will effect the futures market IMMEDIATELY.

Of course I think most of us agree that oil is artificially overpriced. ANY factor that may increase the supply side of oil will decrease the price of oil today.

Of course since most Democrats think the government knows more about business and economics than actual "real businesses", They say things such as drilling today will not help us.

common sense would dictate - let us allow for more drilling even if there is only chance it will help? It sure as heck cant hurt anything- it may even create a few jobs!. But again, I think democrats are a little deficient when it comes to common sense.

Just read Barrys website Poodles dont have seeing eye dogs!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Though Democratic Senator Barack Obama and most of his party are against the proposed expansion, McCain and his supporters may have the public on their side:

Hey I don't mean to pry, but what exactly is Senator Obama's plan to reduce the price of oil or at least stop it from continuing to rise?

He's the one planning to attack the issue where we can control it - on the demand side. You can look it up on his website. That said, what's McCain's plan to lower the price of oil? Drill off shore? To produce 7-10 years down the road an amount of oil that won't even make a dent - the mosquitopiss worth of oil as I like to call it? That's the plan? And you believe that will bring prices down anytime soon and / or by any significant measure? If so, I've got a few bridges to sell...

Someones mentioned it before on this post but your logic seems to tow the Democratic party line.... and here's why.

The idea that drilling will not have an immediate effect really reflects an ignorance of how the futures markets work.

Lets say an oil company like Exxon says it will start drilling off the coast of Florida. That knowledge alone will effect the futures market IMMEDIATELY.

Of course I think most of us agree that oil is artificially overpriced. ANY factor that may increase the supply side of oil will decrease the price of oil today.

Of course since most Democrats think the government knows more about business and economics than actual "real businesses", They say things such as drilling today will not help us.

common sense would dictate - let us allow for more drilling even if there is only chance it will help? It sure as heck cant hurt anything- it may even create a few jobs!. But again, I think democrats are a little deficient when it comes to common sense.

This is hardly worth a response. But let me ask you: Have you noticed that oil prices came down a tat upon the news that China will raise fuel prices to the public which is expected to curb demand?

"This could change the psychology of the market completely," said James Cordier from Liberty Trading Group, referring to the anticipated fall in demand from China.

Analyst Eric Wittenauer from Wachovia Securities agreed. "As the developing countries of the world are underpinning the demand side of this market, this could prove bearish for commodities," he said.

BBC

The fact is that demand can be curbed right here, right now. Supply cannot be increased with US off shore drilling in most of the next decade. It takes less than a decade to implement measures that will have a lasting effect on demand. There are jobs in this effort. Well paid jobs. Jobs with a future. It's the sustainable and hence the right way to go.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Dude everybodies drillin! Except us. Going to the website to figure it out. Oh thats right 20 gazillion green jobs.

[dalegg 143]

I would agree with you that there's a transition period that we must navigate. If there was significant relief to be expected from off shore drilling, I might just think that it may be worth it. But all indications are that the supply is rather marginal. It may make the difference of $9.50/ gal vs. $10.00/gal. If that. It will take 7-10 years to even get this oil into the pipeline. The average age of the cars on our roads is 9 years. Fuel efficient models are readily available. Therefore, I don't think it's worth it to effort the drilling.

I don't know about off shore drilling but I've heard that drilling in ANWR would be very significant. True that this is a mute point since either of our candidates are vetoing the idea, but it does open the door for candidates in 2012.

I just do not believe Americans will be able to stomach this transition period. They are coming out to vote in record numbers because they want things to be better, not worse for a while so that it will be better 20 years from now. Americans don't work that way, and its going to cost the Democrats dearly in 2010 and 2012, because the message I am hearing from Obama is nothing near the line of "we all need to be willing to cut back on our lifestyles for a while for the good of our children". I'm hearing "Change you can believe in" and "take back America" and "hard working Americans are struggling with the high price at the pump"-- these statements suggest to the average voter that upon Senator Obama's election the situation will get better, when it won't. Its kind of misleading don't you think? And its the kind of misleading statement that will actually affect people personally which is why they will be pissed....is what I think.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Dale we got 60 years worth of oil in the ground in the U.S. Plenty of time to figure out alternatives.

[Ban Hammer 13,965]

Yes it does. Look again. And tell me, are you saying that we're not as innovative and capable as the Germans?

farfegnugen

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I would agree with you that there's a transition period that we must navigate. If there was significant relief to be expected from off shore drilling, I might just think that it may be worth it. But all indications are that the supply is rather marginal. It may make the difference of $9.50/ gal vs. $10.00/gal. If that. It will take 7-10 years to even get this oil into the pipeline. The average age of the cars on our roads is 9 years. Fuel efficient models are readily available. Therefore, I don't think it's worth it to effort the drilling.

I don't know about off shore drilling but I've heard that drilling in ANWR would be very significant. True that this is a mute point since either of our candidates are vetoing the idea, but it does open the door for candidates in 2012.

I just do not believe Americans will be able to stomach this transition period. They are coming out to vote in record numbers because they want things to be better, not worse for a while so that it will be better 20 years from now. Americans don't work that way, and its going to cost the Democrats dearly in 2010 and 2012, because the message I am hearing from Obama is nothing near the line of "we all need to be willing to cut back on our lifestyles for a while for the good of our children". I'm hearing "Change you can believe in" and "take back America" and "hard working Americans are struggling with the high price at the pump"-- these statements suggest to the average voter that upon Senator Obama's election the situation will get better, when it won't. Its kind of misleading don't you think? And its the kind of misleading statement that will actually affect people personally which is why they will be pissed....is what I think.

If you read his energy policy proposals and listen to him when he speaks about it, I don't think there's a misleading message in regards to the pain at the pump. What's misleading is the suggestion that drilling off shore will somehow get us back to lower gas prices when it is clear that it won't. Obama has said time and again that immediate relief for the high gas prices will have to come on another front - taxes. This is where Obama presents solutions specifically to those that need it the most while McCain leaves them in the dust in favor of those that can deal with 4.00 gas on their own.

[Niels Bohr 72]

The past is history, the future is a mystery...

The solution is for all of us to use bikes! Reduce the demand for oil, and hopes for the oil price to go down. Heck, OPEC is a cartel (ECON 101). You know cartels, they can do whatever they want, like the mafia. If we persuade OPEC by our actions of not depending on oil, it may turn things around.

It's not gas that's affecting the consumers, it's everything that uses oil. For example, increase in freight fares, airline fares, cell phones costs, plastic costs...you name it! And, you live on a fixed income within a company that gives you 2% raises with inflation at over 5% you will be making less money than last year. Not only you will be making money less than last year, you also have to pay more for consumer goods and food!

For me, I'm okay since I get bonuses and raises more than 5% anyways. My gasoline bill for my car only went up $10 compared to last year for a full tank of gas, from $25 to $35. It doesn't affect me much. For those who are concerned, think about switching your financed car or lease car into a hybrid!

Edited June 20, 2008 by consolemaster