posted July 24, 2008
I would urge anyone who is interested in seeing the price of gasoline decrease to pay attention to the debate in Congress this week. If it is not clear who is responsible for the high price of gasoline then you are not paying attention. At first Congress blamed the oil companies. Now they blame speculators. The blame lies with Congress.
On July 15 President Bush announced that he was lifting the executive moratorium on offshore drilling. The price of a barrel of sweet crude went down 15%. Harry Reid will not even allow a vote on lifting the Congressional ban on offshore drilling. The Democrat leadership in Congress is refusing to do so. Ask yourself why?
The reason is simple. They want to keep the price of gasoline high to force the American people to conserve.
America has vast oil resources, and the only thing standing between the American people and our oil is this Democrat Congress. Nancy Pelosi even stated that drilling domestically was "a complete hoax."
They tell us that we can't drill our way out of this problem. That is like telling a thirsty man that he can't drink his way out of thirst. These are the same people who gave us ethanol as a solution to the energy crisis.
Sue Thompson
Soddy-Daisy
* * *
Funny that Ms. Thompson states that the Democrats stand between us and "Our" oil. First of all, how about getting the syntax correct - it's not the "Democrat Congress", it's the Democratic Congress. As far as drilling, I suggest that Ms. Thompson proceed straightway with drilling and first and foremost do so to remove her head from being buried in the sand. Anyone who knows anything about offshore drilling knows how long the process takes, in terms of application, licensure, drilling, etc.
The most conservative estimates from the pros are that it would be at least eight to 10 years before any oil was pumped from offshore oil wells. As for "our oil," well, that's the typical kind of American presumptuosness that I would expect--after all, we're Americans--we own everything. Oh, and, the democrats want us to conserve? Gee that's an interesting concept - conservation. I was always told that it was the Republican party that was conservative (at least until George W. came along). Ha, what a joke. I guess somehow that conserving gas and oil is a bad thing. What an interesting concept.
When Bill Clinton entered office he had a national deficit of $347 billion dollars. When he left office he had reduced that to $18 billion dollars. In Bush's first year, it went up to $133 billion. From 2004 on it has run $596 billion. The national debt under Bush has risen from $5.7 trillion to $9.5 trillion. In February Bush proposed a $3.1 trillion budget. All of this sounds pretty conservative to me, doesn't it to you?
BTW, the oil prices are not controlled by congress or the president, however much we would like to think that our government is that powerful. The oil prices are determined by the international markets and futures trading. If you want to get into this blame game, I suggest that you at least get a fundamental understanding of the rules.
Dr. G. Norman West
Sewanee, Tn.
* * *
Dr. West, your comment stating that we were dealing with a Democratic Congress was misleading in that while the Congress is to use a democratic process, the Democrat leadership seems to be doing all it can to stymie that practice on any action that may increase the domestic production of petroleum.Denying votes on even the the most basic production issues.
Oil will be part of our energy mix for the foreseeable future. Conservation and domestic production are not mutually exclusive concepts. Freeing ourselves from the whims and manipulation of foreign energy powers at least in part is a good thing.
Bill Erickson
Hixson
* * *
Well, it seems the kind Dr. Democrat is quick to beat the drum of the liberal war party.
Perhaps it is he who should get his facts straight. The Democrats claim that no oil would be produced for 10 years that is simply not the case, having worked for Amoco (prior to the BP merger) in the mid 90's, I can tell you that the California coast has rigs in place that with minor maintenance and upgrades could be producing a significant amount of oil in the next 12 months.
This would not be America's oil as one of the few things you are correct about is it is a global marketplace. However, even the oil such as the oil shale in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah basin, which could take up to 10 years to bring to market would have a tremendous effect on the spot price today of crude oil. Because, if you understood the futures market you do not have to have all of that black stuff being pumped into barrels sitting on a dock to impact the price of the commodity it is based on supply/demand and the future potential for either to increase. Currently it is out of whack as the increase in demand over the next 10 years is expected to be very large, however, without bringing on some new supply options we will exceed the capacity of the current fields. The markets (both stock and commodity) are forward looking creatures and sometimes simply the threat of producing more oil (or less) is enough to have great impact on the pricing.
Another thing that this do nothing congress doesn't understand is that another problem with the current oil production is 'who' produces it. If you follow such things you would see that if a Nigerian scratches his nose with the wrong hand, then oil prices go up. Chavez is currently dealing with Russia to build a strategic alliance, purchasing weapons with guess what? Our oil dollars. Even though it is a global marketplace it doesn't take a Dr. or a rocket scientist to realize that if we produce more of the worlds supply of oil we would be able to keep more of our dollars at work in the United States.
Please don't even get me started on nuclear energy. But, just a quick question. Do you have any idea how many windmills you would have to build to generate the same amount of electricity as one large nuclear plant?
Mark Maynor
* * *
Economists and energy analysts rarely agree on anything regarding commodity markets, but the prevailing consensus is that oil prices dropped for two reasons: decreased demand and a strengthened dollar. Even the White House refuses to take credit for this one. Strangely, John McCain made the same argument as Ms. Thompson to a townhall meeting two days ago, though he readily admits that he knows very little about economics. I wish the solution were as simple as he suggests.
Domestic drilling is a tricky subject in that a. it offers no short-term relief to consumers, and b. it will not make a meaningful impact on global oil supplies. The Department of Energy’s eia.gov has plenty of research on the real world effects of domestic drilling in regards to the scope of global supply vs. domestic demand and the minimal savings we would subsequently face in the U.S.
In a similar vein, Nanci Pelosi recently called for the President to open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower oil prices. The SPR could offer some limited short-term relief, but as a matter of policy, the U.S. government shouldn’t use it to regulate global commodities markets. Temporarily diverting new oil from the SPR (as we are currently doing) has proven to be a much more prudent method of federal control. Pelosi’s “solution” seems more like a way to appease supply-side hysteria without offending her environmental constituents.
David Morton
Chattanooga
* * *
I have to shake my head as listeners to right wing talk radio try to correct a college professor on a matter of correct grammar when they are wrong. Democrat is a noun. Democratic is an adjective. The proper name of the party is the Democratic Party. Saying Democrat Party is like saying Republic Party. See how silly that sounds?
By parroting such non-sense you are just confirming that your talking points come from AM radio demagogues or Fox News.
As for Mr. Maynor, if you are familiar with the oil industry then you know there are old wells that were capped when oil was $20 a barrel. Those wells are coming back on line since they are now profitable. You should also be aware of the refineries that Big Oil has closed as the various companies have merged. The press releases even state that the new companies hope to save money but cutting "excess capacity." Are you not aware that Flying J took Shell to court over the shutdown of a profitable refinery?
And as been been pointed out by the Democratic Party, big oil has options to drill on federal land and offshore that they, Big Oil, has yet to exercise. The oil companies are not using what they have. The cheap oil age is coming to an end and they know it.
The oil companies are just trying to divide up the last available sites in preparation when peak oil really hits and prices jump to a level that will make today's prices look cheap.
R.W. Young
Chattanooga
* * *
A better title might have been "Congress stands between international oil companies and our natural resources" considering there are millions of acres of leased lands that the oil companies aren't using now.
Actually, T. Boone Pickens, a Texas oilman who backed G.W. Bush and was one of the largest contributors to the "Swift Boaters against Kerry" says we can't drill our way out of this problem. And, yes, it is a hoax. We cannot produce enough domestic oil to dramatically change the price of oil since oil is traded on a world market. Oil companies already have land here to drill, but would rather use the high gas prices to subvert environmental concerns now, while the gettin is good.
The fact is that we had a Republican-controlled house and Senate plus two oilmen in the White House for six years. These two oilmen let the oil industry right their (our) energy policy behind closed doors, saying it was none of the public's business who wrote the policy. This is undisputed and was the cause of a lawsuit by the conservative watch dog group Judicial Watch. Combine the six years of a Republican authorized "smash and grab" energy policy, the Republican ethanol bill, and the war in the middle east fought on borrowed and printed money and somehow you come up with the cost of gas being the fault of the Democratic controlled Congress?
The much-hated and ridiculed former President Carter stated during his term that finding alternatives to oil was vital to our future, over 30 years ago. One of the first acts of President Reagen was to remove the solar panels from the white house, signifying that we should ignore those extremists who warn of a future oil crisis. This cycle continues to repeat itself. When oil is cheap, those on the right use it to say there is no need to look for alternatives. When oil is in high demand, those same people say we need to get rid of environmental laws to "help the consumer.' Heads Oil companies win, Tails the people of this country lose. That is the hoax.
The ethanol bill was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress, with the blessings of George Bush and with Bill Frist being a co sponsor. The two biggest critics of the ethanol bill were Diane Feinstein and Chuck Shumer, both Democrats. To blame environmentalists or Democrats for a bill that was pushed through by politicians from corn producing states and the largest agricultural firms in the world is at best misleading, more likely an intentional lie. Do a search and see who ADM, Monsanto and the other massive agricultural firms donate their money to before you start throwing stones.
From Reuters in 2005
{"We're pretty good about growing corn here in America," President George. W. Bush said. "Therefore it makes sense to promote ethanol as an alternative to foreign sources of oil." The Senate voted 69-28 to put aside an attempt by Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York to strip the ethanol incentives from the bill. Schumer cast the ethanol plan as a tax that would boost fuel prices and benefit agribusinesses like Archer Daniels Midland Co., which has about 30 percent of ethanol market. An ADM spokesman was not available for comment.}
From the Washington Post 2005
{"I firmly believe this is not good public policy," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). She cited a state study that found air quality deteriorated in some California communities during hot summer months, when motorists were using ethanol blended with gasoline. Feinstein pushed through an amendment exempting her state from having to use its share of mandated ethanol between April to October. The vote was 12 to 10, with panel Chairman Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) opposing the amendment. "I don't support an opt-out for one state," he said.}
We won't even use this last quote to argue about how much Republicans respect "State's" rights.
Remember, using the Internet to fact check is almost as easy as just making stuff up, but maybe not as good as pushing a false agenda.
B. Vance
Johnson City
bvdisc@gmail.com
| Dining Out | Business | Movies | Focus | About Us |
| Church | Living Well | Memories | Outdoors | Real Estate | Student Scene | Travel |