Will More Drilling Mean Cheaper Gas?

[HAL 9000 96]

I may not be an expert in that field but from what actual miners have stated in one or two Discovery Channel type shows I've seen is that the cost of mining it and the inefficiency in the process reduces the actual yield by orders of magnitude.

Mining for oil

Discovery channel education Fukcin scholar

You are surely a government employee

You have got to be a true d-azz but I surely think I properly disclaimed. Err... there it is up there...

[HAL 9000 96]

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? So far I've heard "tax the oil comanies" but I'm not putting "tax oil companies" and lower gas prices together in the same sentence.

Also I've heard "conserve" Yeah, okay. We'll see how Americans go for that. We're all for conserving as long as someone else does it.

But more concerning to me is that what I've heard from some of his more ardent supporters is that they really don't want the price of gas to get lower at all. In fact I've seen some of you guys (you know who you are) even say you hope it goes to 8 or 9 bucks. It'll force us to figure something else out then. Do you think overall this is Obama's opinion or plan? Anybody know without linking me to a 12 page link or saying how Bush and McCain suck? Paraphrase please.

No pry taken

Conservation is a matter of choice at this time and probably will be so in the future unless, of course, the supply is federally controlled (and I strongly doubt that would ever happen).

As for working the oil companies to reduce their end of the deal you'd kind of expect the government to use those windfall taxes AND hopefully having the with to set price controls on the gas itself so that the added 'cost' to the companies' profits are not passed down to the consumers... would 1) put the money into the motorist's pockets as well as 2) separate the market price (control) from excessive speculation as has been the case to this point and 3) who the hell knows!

Obama will have to start focusing more in his speeches in the coming months on detailing his plans, that is for sure. I guess he could do that if the swiftboaters are not interested in continuing the smear game day after day. People do have an attention span to consider in this game.

IMO, drilling aside, I suspect that both Obama and McCain will end up sounding honestly very similar in the next few months as energy policy comes into the mainstream even more.

[HAL 9000 96]

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.

To me everything Gary says is what I believe to be true. I'm not saying this to be partisan. It all seems like common sense, but I'm honestly trying to see the otherside, since I believe there is an extremely good chance we are going to have to live under the control of the other side. I'm trying to size up what we are up against without guessing, but I am failing to see how good times are just around the corner.

I suppose the simple question to start with is that- is it wrong to think that Obama's plan is to bring good times to us in the short term? Is it his underlying goal to sort of "gut" the current system and rebuild better, brighter future in the coming decades?

I think that any short term fix is erroneous in design unless the transportation industry itself developed fuel cell technology and implemented it very rapidly on most new vehicles. Heck, even the oil companies proper could forego the investment expected of them to explore and drill and use it in establishing a nationwide network of fueling stations.

Then chances are, they could keep any proposed windfall taxes as write-offs on their investments as a way to keep the initially high consumer costs lower. Some federal oversight will be necessary though, since its no secret there will be a lot of profit to be made and that tends to bring out the worst in capitalist machines.

[HAL 9000 96]

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.

For that to be true the speculation that you mention as having an immediate price would still need to have the know how to foresee a VERY large supply in the mid-term future so as to warrant a lowering of speculated prices. Current offshore deposits last time I checked on US gov sites, are not enough to warrant such speculation.

You need large volumes that do not exist.

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.

According to Gary and the USGS its only 10 billion barrels under ANWR. The US market currently consumes 20.7 billion barrels per year.

[dalegg 143]

Obama has said time and again that immediate relief for the high gas prices will have to come on another front - taxes.

I'm sorry, but I will just never put taxes and relief from high prices in the same sentence. It's illogical

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The reality is...there is no magic bullet for lowering gas prices.

[GaryC 7]

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? So far I've heard "tax the oil comanies" but I'm not putting "tax oil companies" and lower gas prices together in the same sentence.

Also I've heard "conserve" Yeah, okay. We'll see how Americans go for that. We're all for conserving as long as someone else does it.

But more concerning to me is that what I've heard from some of his more ardent supporters is that they really don't want the price of gas to get lower at all. In fact I've seen some of you guys (you know who you are) even say you hope it goes to 8 or 9 bucks. It'll force us to figure something else out then. Do you think overall this is Obama's opinion or plan? Anybody know without linking me to a 12 page link or saying how Bush and McCain suck? Paraphrase please.

No pry taken

Conservation is a matter of choice at this time and probably will be so in the future unless, of course, the supply is federally controlled (and I strongly doubt that would ever happen).

As for working the oil companies to reduce their end of the deal you'd kind of expect the government to use those windfall taxes AND hopefully having the with to set price controls on the gas itself so that the added 'cost' to the companies' profits are not passed down to the consumers... would 1) put the money into the motorist's pockets as well as 2) separate the market price (control) from excessive speculation as has been the case to this point and 3) who the hell knows!

Obama will have to start focusing more in his speeches in the coming months on detailing his plans, that is for sure. I guess he could do that if the swiftboaters are not interested in continuing the smear game day after day. People do have an attention span to consider in this game.

IMO, drilling aside, I suspect that both Obama and McCain will end up sounding honestly very similar in the next few months as energy policy comes into the mainstream even more.

Here is the part of Obama's plan that really gives me heartburn. You see, we have tried this very thing before. Carter did it in the 70's. We ended up with long lines, reduced supply and inflation. Taxing a company and then telling them they cannot raise their prices only leaves them one option. Reduced output. Why sell something you cannot make a profit from?

[HAL 9000 96]

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? So far I've heard "tax the oil comanies" but I'm not putting "tax oil companies" and lower gas prices together in the same sentence.

Also I've heard "conserve" Yeah, okay. We'll see how Americans go for that. We're all for conserving as long as someone else does it.

But more concerning to me is that what I've heard from some of his more ardent supporters is that they really don't want the price of gas to get lower at all. In fact I've seen some of you guys (you know who you are) even say you hope it goes to 8 or 9 bucks. It'll force us to figure something else out then. Do you think overall this is Obama's opinion or plan? Anybody know without linking me to a 12 page link or saying how Bush and McCain suck? Paraphrase please.

No pry taken

Conservation is a matter of choice at this time and probably will be so in the future unless, of course, the supply is federally controlled (and I strongly doubt that would ever happen).

As for working the oil companies to reduce their end of the deal you'd kind of expect the government to use those windfall taxes AND hopefully having the with to set price controls on the gas itself so that the added 'cost' to the companies' profits are not passed down to the consumers... would 1) put the money into the motorist's pockets as well as 2) separate the market price (control) from excessive speculation as has been the case to this point and 3) who the hell knows!

Obama will have to start focusing more in his speeches in the coming months on detailing his plans, that is for sure. I guess he could do that if the swiftboaters are not interested in continuing the smear game day after day. People do have an attention span to consider in this game.

IMO, drilling aside, I suspect that both Obama and McCain will end up sounding honestly very similar in the next few months as energy policy comes into the mainstream even more.

Here is the part of Obama's plan that really gives me heartburn. You see, we have tried this very thing before. Carter did it in the 70's. We ended up with long lines, reduced supply and inflation. Taxing a company and then telling them they cannot raise their prices only leaves them one option. Reduced output. Why sell something you cannot make a profit from?

They can make enough of a profit to kill overhead plus line the shareholders as in any other industry. No reason to think in such extremes other than wanting to.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I may not be an expert in that field but from what actual miners have stated in one or two Discovery Channel type shows I've seen is that the cost of mining it and the inefficiency in the process reduces the actual yield by orders of magnitude.

Mining for oil

Discovery channel education Fukcin scholar

You are surely a government employee

You have got to be a true d-azz but I surely think I properly disclaimed. Err... there it is up there...

You got ####### on you head

[GaryC 7]

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? So far I've heard "tax the oil comanies" but I'm not putting "tax oil companies" and lower gas prices together in the same sentence.

Also I've heard "conserve" Yeah, okay. We'll see how Americans go for that. We're all for conserving as long as someone else does it.

But more concerning to me is that what I've heard from some of his more ardent supporters is that they really don't want the price of gas to get lower at all. In fact I've seen some of you guys (you know who you are) even say you hope it goes to 8 or 9 bucks. It'll force us to figure something else out then. Do you think overall this is Obama's opinion or plan? Anybody know without linking me to a 12 page link or saying how Bush and McCain suck? Paraphrase please.

No pry taken

Conservation is a matter of choice at this time and probably will be so in the future unless, of course, the supply is federally controlled (and I strongly doubt that would ever happen).

As for working the oil companies to reduce their end of the deal you'd kind of expect the government to use those windfall taxes AND hopefully having the with to set price controls on the gas itself so that the added 'cost' to the companies' profits are not passed down to the consumers... would 1) put the money into the motorist's pockets as well as 2) separate the market price (control) from excessive speculation as has been the case to this point and 3) who the hell knows!

Obama will have to start focusing more in his speeches in the coming months on detailing his plans, that is for sure. I guess he could do that if the swiftboaters are not interested in continuing the smear game day after day. People do have an attention span to consider in this game.

IMO, drilling aside, I suspect that both Obama and McCain will end up sounding honestly very similar in the next few months as energy policy comes into the mainstream even more.

Here is the part of Obama's plan that really gives me heartburn. You see, we have tried this very thing before. Carter did it in the 70's. We ended up with long lines, reduced supply and inflation. Taxing a company and then telling them they cannot raise their prices only leaves them one option. Reduced output. Why sell something you cannot make a profit from?

They can make enough of a profit to kill overhead plus line the shareholders as in any other industry. No reason to think in such extremes other than wanting to.

But that isn't what happened. You can't force a company to do what it is your saying. If you taxed them and the capped the price it's a very sure bet they will reduce output.

[HAL 9000 96]

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? So far I've heard "tax the oil comanies" but I'm not putting "tax oil companies" and lower gas prices together in the same sentence.

Also I've heard "conserve" Yeah, okay. We'll see how Americans go for that. We're all for conserving as long as someone else does it.

But more concerning to me is that what I've heard from some of his more ardent supporters is that they really don't want the price of gas to get lower at all. In fact I've seen some of you guys (you know who you are) even say you hope it goes to 8 or 9 bucks. It'll force us to figure something else out then. Do you think overall this is Obama's opinion or plan? Anybody know without linking me to a 12 page link or saying how Bush and McCain suck? Paraphrase please.

No pry taken

Conservation is a matter of choice at this time and probably will be so in the future unless, of course, the supply is federally controlled (and I strongly doubt that would ever happen).

As for working the oil companies to reduce their end of the deal you'd kind of expect the government to use those windfall taxes AND hopefully having the with to set price controls on the gas itself so that the added 'cost' to the companies' profits are not passed down to the consumers... would 1) put the money into the motorist's pockets as well as 2) separate the market price (control) from excessive speculation as has been the case to this point and 3) who the hell knows!

Obama will have to start focusing more in his speeches in the coming months on detailing his plans, that is for sure. I guess he could do that if the swiftboaters are not interested in continuing the smear game day after day. People do have an attention span to consider in this game.

IMO, drilling aside, I suspect that both Obama and McCain will end up sounding honestly very similar in the next few months as energy policy comes into the mainstream even more.

Here is the part of Obama's plan that really gives me heartburn. You see, we have tried this very thing before. Carter did it in the 70's. We ended up with long lines, reduced supply and inflation. Taxing a company and then telling them they cannot raise their prices only leaves them one option. Reduced output. Why sell something you cannot make a profit from?

They can make enough of a profit to kill overhead plus line the shareholders as in any other industry. No reason to think in such extremes other than wanting to.

But that isn't what happened. You can't force a company to do what it is your saying. If you taxed them and the capped the price it's a very sure bet they will reduce output.

Having it happen in the past means we can prevent it from happening again. Besides I think the idea of the tax is on windfalls, which by definition is a tax on excessive profit. Not exactly an assault on the company bottom line.

Plus, not everything needs to be black and white punitive. If you have faith in American corporations, imagine what incentivization can do.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Seems that McCain was for the windfall profits tax before he was against it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Come on over...

[HAL 9000 96]

Good one Reinhard!!

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Big dogs nose is soooooo DEEP!