The arguement I keep hearing about this is that it "doesn't cause any short term relief to consumers." To be honest, that's true. Drilling, permitting, funding, mobilization, geologic work and planning all take time. In fact, unless your one of the really big boys, it's going to take a few years. The big guys might be able to force stuff in under a year.
Still, "not providing relief to the consumer today" isn't reason enough to bury your head in the sand. The price of oil has had an upward trend since 2002. Despite all the talk about speculation, the price wasn't carried by speculators that long. There were several market rallies, tests and drops in that time.
People might not like it, but while drilling isn't going to solve the problem alone, it sure isn't going to hurt to keep some of the money we send importing oil here in America, as opposed to sending it places populated by people who don't like us.
likwidshoe
· 1 year ago
We also shouldn't plan that field of corn and soybeans, because those fields won't bring down the price.
Because supply and demand have nothing to do with price.
Welcome to Democrat illogic. It is the exact opposite of reality based.
Bat One
· 1 year ago
Actually, a sustained and believable commitment to explore and drill for more domestic crude oil would go a long way removing some of the appeal of speculation within the oil market.
Furthermore, while such a commitment might not bring down the price of crude to any great extent, it would put downward pressure on future rises in prices. Gas at $4 per gallon is nowhere near as painful as gas at $5 or $6, which is certainly where things are headed if the balance between demand and supply is not reestablished.
Rob B.
· 1 year ago
I agree, Bat. I think we need to concerntate on the longer term picture of energy, because Congress never really has, and let the situation equalize. Instead, Congress normally knee-jerks from crisis to crisis like a drunken sailor.
sanity
· 1 year ago
Rob said:
The arguement I keep hearing about this is that it "doesn't cause any short term relief to consumers." To be honest, that's true. Drilling, permitting, funding, mobilization, geologic work and planning all take time. In fact, unless your one of the really big boys, it's going to take a few years. The big guys might be able to force stuff in under a year.
Agreed.
Unfortunately that is the mantra we have heard from the Left all these years. How many YEARS have they said it would take too long...and if they started it awhile back we would be already reaping the rewards.
We won't benefit from anything unless we start first.
Likwidshoe states:
We also shouldn't plan that field of corn and soybeans, because those fields won't bring down the price.
Welcome to rise in food costs for the benefit of ethanol.
Without all the subsidies, would ethanol even be worth it?
Bat one states:
Actually, a sustained and believable commitment to explore and drill for more domestic crude oil would go a long way removing some of the appeal of speculation within the oil market.
Also agree with this point.
China has stated they will raise thier prices, thus specualtion shows a decrease in China's usage and the price for oil fell.
If we begin more exploration, drilling, and loosening the strangle hold the government has on these bans on our energy exploration, the price for oil would decrease even more...at least that is what I would SPECULATE.
sanity
· 1 year ago
Everytime I think of Obama and his mantra of CHANGE, makes me think that is all I will have left of my money when he is done taxing (no change there) everything.
Windfall profit tax?
Hello?!?! Who do you think the oil companies are going to pass that along to?
The CONSUMER.
So your windfall tax is nothing more than taxing the already taxed consumers of this country, not the oil company.
Also, when all these changes come into play, and we rid ourselves of oil (which won't happen for a long, long time), we the consumers will also have to buy new vehicles to support the different energy, so that is more out of pocket for the working person.
How many other taxes (he is a democrat of course) does Obama want to put on the American people?
The strange thing is, I really believe if Obama wins, it will be the Media that put him there. It won't be because of his record (he doesn't have one), it won't be for him reaching across the aisle in bi-partisanship (he never has and is the MOST liberal democrat in the senate).
Seriously, besides being a good speaker / oratator when reading from a teleprompter, what has this man done to qualify him a as presidential candidate?
Besides being black. Yes, I said it.
If he was white, he never would have gotten as far as he did, and if he was a republican with his background, he wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.
So what is so great about Obama? I am all ears, if you can tell me without saying "he isn't Bush".
Bat One
· 1 year ago
[quote]Congress normally knee-jerks from crisis to crisis like a drunken sailor. [/quote]
Rob B.,
I know of quite a few formerly and occasionally "drunken sailors", including, recently, John McCain, who object to being compared to Congress.
Kudzu Fire
· 1 year ago
I still say: drill here. drill now. pay less. The Marxist Messiah is just looking to increase the power of government
All Comments
Still, "not providing relief to the consumer today" isn't reason enough to bury your head in the sand. The price of oil has had an upward trend since 2002. Despite all the talk about speculation, the price wasn't carried by speculators that long. There were several market rallies, tests and drops in that time.
People might not like it, but while drilling isn't going to solve the problem alone, it sure isn't going to hurt to keep some of the money we send importing oil here in America, as opposed to sending it places populated by people who don't like us.
Because supply and demand have nothing to do with price.
Welcome to Democrat illogic. It is the exact opposite of reality based.
Furthermore, while such a commitment might not bring down the price of crude to any great extent, it would put downward pressure on future rises in prices. Gas at $4 per gallon is nowhere near as painful as gas at $5 or $6, which is certainly where things are headed if the balance between demand and supply is not reestablished.
Agreed.
Unfortunately that is the mantra we have heard from the Left all these years. How many YEARS have they said it would take too long...and if they started it awhile back we would be already reaping the rewards.
We won't benefit from anything unless we start first.
Likwidshoe states:
Welcome to rise in food costs for the benefit of ethanol.
Without all the subsidies, would ethanol even be worth it?
Bat one states:
Also agree with this point.
China has stated they will raise thier prices, thus specualtion shows a decrease in China's usage and the price for oil fell.
If we begin more exploration, drilling, and loosening the strangle hold the government has on these bans on our energy exploration, the price for oil would decrease even more...at least that is what I would SPECULATE.
Windfall profit tax?
Hello?!?! Who do you think the oil companies are going to pass that along to?
The CONSUMER.
So your windfall tax is nothing more than taxing the already taxed consumers of this country, not the oil company.
Also, when all these changes come into play, and we rid ourselves of oil (which won't happen for a long, long time), we the consumers will also have to buy new vehicles to support the different energy, so that is more out of pocket for the working person.
How many other taxes (he is a democrat of course) does Obama want to put on the American people?
The strange thing is, I really believe if Obama wins, it will be the Media that put him there. It won't be because of his record (he doesn't have one), it won't be for him reaching across the aisle in bi-partisanship (he never has and is the MOST liberal democrat in the senate).
Seriously, besides being a good speaker / oratator when reading from a teleprompter, what has this man done to qualify him a as presidential candidate?
Besides being black. Yes, I said it.
If he was white, he never would have gotten as far as he did, and if he was a republican with his background, he wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.
So what is so great about Obama? I am all ears, if you can tell me without saying "he isn't Bush".
Rob B.,
I know of quite a few formerly and occasionally "drunken sailors", including, recently, John McCain, who object to being compared to Congress.