Pelosi's oil slick

In 2006 Nancy Pelosi and her ilk said gave us control and we will make things better. All the problems are the fault of Bush and those evil, and crooked Republicans.
Well, the voters did, and things got worst. They have been in control and they are to blame for gas at $4.00 plus. They refuse to see the light of day. It is time to send Nancy Pelosi and the Democ"rats" packing. Return the Republicans they are not perfect but at least you could afford a gallon of gas.

VJ Machiavelli
http://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com

Looks like BIG OIL has her in their pocket-

Put on yout tap dancing shoes Nancy (Pa-looser)... the most pathetic excuse for a speaker this country has ever had. Go back to the sierra- club and tell your masters that re-election is just around the corner...

I'm all for returning Republicans to their home districts as card carrying civilians.

Hey VJ, The Republicans had control for almost the last 30 years and the democrats have had only 2 years. Explain to me how it is the Democrats fault that gasis $4.00 a gallon??? The price has been steadily rising since Bush took office 8 years ago! Put the republicans back in contril and gas will still continue to rise. Your lame excuses are just that.. lame.

Nancy Pelosi is incompetant as a leader. Our elected senators ,who are our voice ,can't have a vote? The opinion out here in the real world is that we need to drill now (some could produce in 3 to 5 years) also do all the other alternatives which will take many years to be operational. Just going public to the world that we intend to get at our own oil in the future will cause prices to drop.

one more time ...

We ARE drilling now. We are drilling new offshore leases as fast as the available equipment will allow. All existing and planned offshore exploration equipment is booked solid for the next 5 years, exploring already available offshre parcels.

There is absolutely NO shortage of offshore drilling opportunities. None. Anyone who tells you otherwise is just plain lying.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/18/business/ships.php?page=1

Scot- more mind numbing, misguided economic cause-effect analysis from you..

This recent price spike in oil has not been matched since the early 70's when gov't price controls were put into place...since then, and before this huge spike in pricing, oil pricing was relativley flat ( adjusted for inflation)

This has not been a republican vs democratic issue until now- both parties failed us when they did not think long term when it came to energy policy..

BUT- the solution for the current crisis couldn;t be clearer- WE NEED MORE ENERGY ( fossil fuel, alternative, windmill, squirrels on treadmills etc...).

Going on vacation instead of voting or even debating energy policy is the kind of "leadership" that has earned this speaker and her congress the amazingly low approval rating they have..

Scot S. Blakeley get your facts correct. After Dems controlled congress for 40 yrs., repubs had control for 8...

The woman is a disaster. The democratic leadership in general is a disaster. They wanted a majority, they got it and miracle of miracle nothing changes and yet they want a bigger majority, do who what exactly?

Gasoline was $2.20 per gallon when Bella Pelosi took over as madam speaker...now it's over $4.00 per gallon.

Hmmmm?

Paulo

Nancy's a real hoot!!. She won't allow the legislation to be called for a vote because she doesn't want to mislead the American public.
The vote won't be taken by the American public; it will be taken by the US House of Representatives in which her Dems have a majority.
Since her Dems are in the majority, this bill won't pass --- unless she fears that this issue will mislead her Democrats in the House. Really - the only misleading going on here is her handling of the House leadership.

Soct, wouldn't know a fact if it crept out of his gas tank and smacked him in the face.
Scot, Democrats controlled the House until 1995 and then got it back in 2006. In the past 30 years, Republicans and Democrats have just about split the difference in who rules the Senate. Democrats were in the White House for most of the 1990s.

But during many of those years, you had Bill Clinton veto ANWR, not do anything about developing alternatives, and basically develop no energy strategy. You also had Dems in the Senate filibuster any discussion about energy needs.
Sorry to burst your bubble again!

What she's saying, and what 99% of people don't seem to understand--most likely thanks to worthless "journalism" like this--is that offshore drilling won't budge oil prices for at least another 10 years. But Repubs are lying to our faces saying it would. It sure would be nice to have some real journalism. Y'know, just the facts, ma'am. It would also be nice if Obama would start criticizing McCain's policies instead of making these broad stroke comparisons to Bush.

Gas prices have doubled during Pelosi's reign of incompetence.
Pelosi is a doddering and confused pension driven hack.

What she's saying, and what 99% of people don't seem to understand--most likely thanks to worthless "journalism" like this--is that offshore drilling won't budge oil prices for at least another 10 years. But Repubs are lying to our faces saying it would. It sure would be nice to have some real journalism. Y'know, just the facts, ma'am. It would also be nice if Obama would start criticizing McCain's policies instead of making these broad stroke comparisons to Bush.

Posted by: lani | August 4, 2008 12:20 PM

the "10 Year" mantra may or may not be accurate-

Lets say it is accurat- why does this mean we shouldn't pursue this resource? Won't we need energy in 10 years..?

Using your logic, NO resources should be used to develop alternative energy sources, since the timeline for any meaningful alternative sources to be available that can put a dent into our energy requirement, is +20 years...

Pelosi is an unmiigated disaster. She's all into "Saving the Planet" and in the process will destroy America. God help us if she prevails.

Scot, I'm not sure where you read your history, but the Republicans have not been in control for the last 30 years. A quick search would show you that the Republicans only took control of Congress during the Clinton administration. I believe it was 1996 when control changed hands. Before that the Democrats controlled the Congress for nearly 40 years. Now, if you are talking about the White House that is different, but you need really should have a better grasp of what is going on before you call people lame. Serious issues are solved by serious people who don't allow emotion to control their views.

Scot
It seems your question has been answered.

In just 18 months gas went from 2.20 a gallon to over $4.00 dollars. Lets not forget the cost of heating oil. Nancy Pelosi plan to save "OIL" is to turn the lights off in Congress as the Republicans speak. How what would the "MEDIA" do if that had been Speaker Newt who turn off the lights on the Democ'rats".

Face it scot you are on the wrong side.

VJ Machiavelli
http://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot
ps Obama is 47 But gallup only 45

First of all, I wish you would shine the same amount of light on Senator McConnell's obstructionism in the Senate. There is the classic ideologue's version of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. He doesn't care about America, as much as he does the Republican's agenda !!
Second, the Republicans had the House for what, 15 years, and it is only now, that they have this brillant plan to save America from it's Oil Addiction. Come on, you can do better than that, can't you? How many provisions were allowed for our Oil Addiction in The Contract With America ?/ There wasn't even one element of it, that dealt specifically with America's Oil needs. Yet,15 years prior to the Contract With America and the present gimmick , the Republicans are staging in the House, President Carter was trying to do something about it. He even created the Department of Energy, which under the present Republican administration, probably had it funds slashed and its staff cut. All that taking place, while in the past 8 years, the Oil Corps have raked in 600 BILLION DOLLARS. IN PROFITS. That is how much the Republicans care about working families in America !!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

heartburn-

The difference between spending of research now on alternatives and providing leases that can't be used is pretty clear, But I'll explain it to you because you seem to be having trouble.

There is a difference between why the two different paths may not show help for a similar period of time.

The alternatives sources require a continuous research path in order to become viable competitors to fossil fuels. That path CAN start tomorrow. Every day that the start of that path is delayed adds a day on to the end date of the alternatives making an effect on energy prices and availability.

The offshore oil leases are different. The technology is there to use them. The problem is that there is actually a glut of offshore leases available. It exceeds the capacity in equipment and resources to develop them. Adding more leases will do nothing to address the capacity issues. As a result, if the leases are made available tomorrow, or three years from now, there is no change to when those leases will make an impact on energy supply and prices.

You're being steamrolled into panic "Do Anything" response. There is no benefit to an immediate issuing of leases. None. There is a benefit to immediate funding for research in alternative energy sources.

Drilling will bring down prices, and reduce profitability of the oil companies. But they'll do it anyway -- indeed, they must -- because competition means those who don't drill will be worse off. That's the beauty of a competitive free market system.

Keeping these resources off the market, Pelosi is in the pocket of Big Oil, which would rather keep their high profit margins with protection from competition by the federal government.

You're being steamrolled into panic "Do Anything" response. There is no benefit to an immediate issuing of leases. None. There is a benefit to immediate funding for research in alternative energy sources.

Posted by: JT | August 4, 2008 1:05 PM

So- why no vote on an agressive alternate policy, or even a compromise on phasing out fossil fuels as you can replace with alternative sources??

Whatever your long term view is...

How did going on vacation help?

I knew it!! Media and everyone else will forget or refuse to acknowledge how this started. October,15 of last year crude was at approximately 75.00. Nancy Pelosi started all of this.

Just Google nancy pelosi + armenian + oil prices

"Oil-Price Increase a Symptom of Turkish Tensions : NPR
All Things Considered, October 15, 2007 · Oil prices hit a record high, .... House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will determine whether the Foreign Affairs Committee ..."

And here she is putting blame every where except where it belongs... Shameful!!!

NANCY PELOSI IS THE ONE TO BLAME for the high oil prices.

And just one other thing to note... Just by the mere mention of drilling and lifting if the ban by the President the crude oil prices have dropped from 148.00 to 123.00 per barrel. That is evidence to those of you who say drilling will not bring the cost down, will do just that.

Heartburn-

I'm in no way defending the lack of a vote on alternative energy proposals. That was a bad move.

However, that doesn't make the Republican proposals a good idea.

We need to have a honest, non-emotional debate on this issue. One that looks at actual facts, not just political gamesmanship. Both parties are failing in that. The best I can say is that the Democrats at least claim to support a more balanced position, I find very little in the Republican position that stands up to scrutiny.

This is too important for blind partisanship from either side.

Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | August 4, 2008 12:55 PM

Don- Some basic facts of life that might help you understand the difference between needing a reliable, relatively inexpensive energy source and ( your words) "our Oil Addiction"

We require cheap energy to maintain a healthy economy-

Healthy economies keep people employed-

Employed people are able to pay bills, educate, and feed their children.

Right now- fossil fuels are the ONLY source of energy that our economy can afford...

Saying the US is "addicted" to oil is like saying we are "addicted" to jobs or food...

JT, I agree there needs to be an honest, unemotional debate about energy. Unfortunately there is very little of that from the Left. All they do is trot out the same stuff: Oil is bad, Big Oil is bad, we won't get any oil for at least 10 years, Bush is an oilman, etc.
From those on the Right, you see mention of a comprehensive energy policy that includes development of alternative but also includes more oil development. We cannot solely drill out of this mess as T Boone Pickens said, but we still need oil and should begin drilling now, as T Boone Pickens said. It's funny how Pickens' comment that we can't drill our way out of this mess gets all the attention but his words to open more drilling in and around the U.S. gets no attention.
We need more oil today, tomorrow and 10 years from now. We also need to redevelop our nuclear power programs, need to begin getting and using more coal and cleanly, we need more natural gas exploration, we need more fuel cells, wind, solar. We need less food for fuel, which has really turned into a bad idea. We need to drill here and drill now. We need to build more refineries and power plants. We do ALL of that, and the economy will take off.
Will the Left get on board?

gas was $112/gallon when the republics took over congress in 1996. now it's over $4.00/gallon. it's all the republics fault.

Heartburn-

I'm in no way defending the lack of a vote on alternative energy proposals. That was a bad move.

However, that doesn't make the Republican proposals a good idea.

We need to have a honest, non-emotional debate on this issue. One that looks at actual facts, not just political gamesmanship. Both parties are failing in that. The best I can say is that the Democrats at least claim to support a more balanced position, I find very little in the Republican position that stands up to scrutiny.

This is too important for blind partisanship from either side.

Posted by: JT | August 4, 2008 1:41 PM

I agree- the politics are getting in the way of any legit policy from either side.. the reality is that we will likely end up with a compromise solution that moves thing in a positive way but leaves everyone unsatisfied.

I disagree that the DEM policy is in any way balanced- when you consider that Pelosi is offering as a solution market price "fixing" in the form of releasing from the strategic reserves.. this is the equivalent of the romans handing out bread to the starving masses at the circus...long on form short on function. This goes for the fake out tax holiday as well...

Pelosi phrasing her inaction as part of the goal of "Saving the planet" is insulting everyone's intelligence and is completly in line with how her enviro-socialist financial backers want her to frame the debate..

There is very little balance in the DEM "solutions"

All this bickering back and forth about who held the congress for more years is immaterial. Regardless of who was in power there was sufficient lack of will within all of Congress and in the White House to plan for the future. So here we are today, dealing with an energy crisis that some would like to solve with "business as usual". I can only wonder, to what end do you see oil drilling resolving our issues? So you get more oil in 10 years, then what? What are you going to propose the next time oil runs scarce? By that time we will have destroyed all of our natural resources, won't be able to breathe and it will be our children and grandchildren left to solve the issue. Too many U.S, citizens lack foresight and the strength of character to understand and prepare for the long-term consequences of our actions. And besides, the oil companies themselves have repeatedly admitted that the cost of extraction for what is left in today's global oil fields is too high. It is the reason most of the oil companies are getting into alternative lines of business, such as alternative energy. Use your brains, take your head out of the sand and do the right thing for the world.

John D-

Like the rest of the right wing ideologues you ignore the simple fact: We are drilling here, NOW. We're driling offshore as fast as the industry can. There is nothing to "begin now" on that front. No politician of either party can do anything to increase offshore drilling faster than it already is. As long as the Republicans keep beating that utterly meaningless drum, thay are proving that they aren't interested in a real solution, just political hits.

JT,
Love your reference about offshore drilling. Your only problem if you actually read it, is that its SWEDEN, BRAZIL, and other countries doing the drilling!!!!! NOT AMERICA!!! thats filling the orders for the deep sea rigs. The article discusses beautiful deep blue waters off the coast of Brazil that turns out to be an oil gold mine. And guess what, BRAZIL is going after it!!!!!

It's amusing how the Republicans have all the answers and yet, our economy hasn't been this bad, since Bush Sr. was in office. They are the masters of the obvious though !! Of course, it's about jobs, but then, any grammar school student could have told you that !! What isn't sensible, are Hummers, SUVs, Air-Conditioned Stadiums, more highways and less train passenger service II Another no brainer is to continue to bail out Airlines. Develop that great railway system we had from yesteryear, more mass transit and less automobiles. Now, that is a revolutionary idea !! Duh !! No, instead, we allow the Oil Corps to rake in 600 BILLION DOLLARS, IN PROFITS, in the last 8 years !! How is that for addicted to Oil !!!?
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Part of the debate here that's misleading on the part of the dems is saying that domestic drilling would only reduce the price of oil a few cents. However when the oil is produced in the USA, a lot more money stays in the USA.

A good analogy is would you rather pay your kid $4/hour to mow your lawn, or the neighbor kid (who throws rocks through you windows) $4.02, while your own child is unemployed.

JT, how can you say for sure that all of the drilling capacity is currently being utilized? Even if it is, does it not make sense to focus your limited resources i.e. drilling capacity on the areas that stand to produce the most oil? I’m just not sure you can use that as a reason to not open up known reserves. Also, to the point of not drilling at all, do you honestly think everyone is going to start driving electric cars tomorrow? It will take at least one to two decades to transition America's automobile fleet to whatever alternative energy wins the day. But for arguments sake, let's say Wind and Solar power are the clear winners and we somehow managed to transition our cars to electric in the next 6 months, do you honestly think Solar and Wind would be able to supply our energy needs. Better yet, do you think the current electric industry would be able to supply the electricity and more importantly at the current rates? The answer is no. It’s going to take a long time to transition and you should not throughout the baby with bath water just because you don’t like oil. The reality is that we need oil today and will need it for the foreseeable future so why fight it. The same goes for building power plants like coal and nuclear. You cannot simply put up wind turbines and think the problem is going away.

Pelosi isn't the smartest woman ever, but the Republicans generally aren't much better.

Drilling offshore won't do any good. We need to start investing in good alternative energy sources. And Congress just blocked that crucial legislation for solar.

Way to go.

Posted by: Steve Walker | August 4, 2008 2:54 PM

Yes, Steve, there is a global demand. What a brilliant discovery you made! Here's another discovery....there are US offshore oil leases that haven't been explored yet due to that global demand. Another even more astounding discovery....the US continues to auction off shore oil leases.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20080804/ts_usnews/anoffshoreoilboominthegulfofmexico

Now, tell me where the exploration ships to drill new leases off the US will come from. Are they magically going to appear? Can Bush snap his fingers and turn Aircraft carriers into oil exploration ships? Are we going to go to war against South Korea to seize the ships they're building? Do you have one you're not using in your backyard Steve?

It's very simple Steve. No available exploration ships, no new offshore oil.

Pelosi should be asked to resign. She has no regard for the American public, or for the democratic process. The democratic congress has failed the American people. Congress needs to listen to the people and stop dictating and forcing their own agenda.

Go back home Pelosi you have shown your hand and lost the support of the people.

JT, we can drill more. To say we are at the brink and unable to drill more is hogwash. This country geared up and went full steam ahead after Pearl Harbor. Energy is a national security issue, we can gear this country up again and develop what is needed to get the resources -- responsibly - -that we need. We can do it, that is, if the Democrats and trial lawyers get out of the way. Those on the Left are always about what we CAN'T do. How about being about what we CAN do for a change??

If Dems were so sure that opening up more drilling would do nothing to help prices (or as JT so elequently argues no drilling would take place anyway) they would just allow a vote and show the voters they were right. Something tells me they aren't so sure of themselves...

It is very funny to hear Democrats say "even if we drill now, we wont see the results for more than 8-10 years". So lets not drill.
These are the same people that in the next breath will say, "I know that embryonic stem cell research has not produced one treatment or cure for any disease, but lets spend billions of dollars to see if it will".
I think that we are all using the wrong strategy, if we want drilling off shore, we need the Dems to think that President Bush is against it. He steadfastly refuses to allow any drilling. That will get the drills ready, the tankers set and the refineries open and moving.

By the way, do any Dem's have money invested in oil? Just wondering. Seeing that the Democrats have way more money than do Republicans, you would think that there would be one or two that are making a bundle on oil.

Or, do the Dem's try to invest in companies that don't make too much money.

Example of kitchen conversation at the Pelosi house:

Mr. Pelosi - "Honey, what company do you think we should invest our retirement money in"?

Speaker - " Which company looks like the least profitable? Are there any that look ready for bankrupcy? Lets thow all of our loot in there. Stay away from those big drug companies. Look at this, a company that makes beautiful covers for Amish horse buggies. People will need alot of these soon. That will be a hot stock".

John D, where's your secret stash of oil exploration ships? Got some in your back yard? Are the Democrats and trial lawyers hiding them?

Do you know how long it takes to build a ship of that type John? About 4 years.

Do you know how many shipyards in the US make them? None.

Tell me how your "Pearl Harbor" spirit is going to address those facts. Are we to nationalize shipyards to force production? Where are the ships coming from John? Don't talk platitudes, talk specifics.

Nancy Pelosi, bless her heart.

She has no clue as to what is going on energywise.

YO PELOSI!!! My Explorer runs on G-A-S...there is no alternative fuel source. Wind won't work. Solar won't work. Natural Gas won't work. Nuclear won't work. GASOLINE!! My Explorer is paid off and has 100,000+ miles on it so it has no trade-in value. I can't afford a fancy new hybrid, electric, solar powered, wind powered Prius with a nuclear generator backup battery pack like Al Gore does't drive.

The ONLY alternatives for us poor folks is to drill more OR the Democrats could have their rich Hollywood buddies who have 20 cars in each garage buy everyone fancy new vehicles. Maybe Nobel Peace Prize Winner Al Gore could sell one of his multi-million dollar private jets to give Priuses to folks. Where do I stand in line for that?

No, instead, we allow the Oil Corps to rake in 600 BILLION DOLLARS, IN PROFITS, in the last 8 years !!

Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | August 4, 2008 3:38 PM

Allow them to rake in profits?

Since when do WE, ALLOW or NOT allow anyone to make a profit?

Large Oil sends 40% of their earned income to the gov't in the form of taxes..

They earn about 10 cents in profit per dollar of revenue ...

So yes - $600B is an awful lot of money - but when you consider the huge costs to get into the oil business, the huge amount of capitol required to stay in the business, and the inherent risks and volatility in the oil business - a 10% rate of return is pretty conservative.

The costs are so high in that sector that there are very few corps that are even in the business- this means that the few that are in that sector divide up large portions of revenue

Or- if you like, perhaps you would like to have the oil industry be non profit?

Could you imagine the efficiency gained and how much cheaper oil would be then? (roll eyes!)

Just curious- What is an acceptable level of earnings in your socialist utopia?

Where are the ships coming from John? Don't talk platitudes, talk specifics.

Posted by: JT | August 4, 2008 5:22 PM

Your being dishonest- you posted earlier

"...One that looks at actual facts, not just political gamesmanship..."

It is a fact that we will absolutely need offshore production capacity and infrastructure- it is a platitude to dismiss this on face value because it is not in place now..

Another fact is that there is no reason for anyone to invest in this type of infrastructure, knowing what kind of "no action" political leadership we have in congress now.

You are dismissing the ability of the free market system from being able to produce creative solutions- to suit your poltically based argument.

Everything starts with everyone agreeing on what should be done- if we sit around and wait for the stars to align and a perfect solution to jump out at us- the lights will be going out very soon..

Heartburn-

Dishonest? How? I'm asking for a fact based discussion on a particular topic, the lack of exploration ships.

Reality: The ship builders that can are building exploration ships as fast as they possibly can, because they can make a huge profit doing it. But like everything, there are actual limits in reality to what they can produce and how quickly they can ramp up new production. There's plenty of incentive to invest in producing these vessels as it is rihght now, regardless of US Congressional inaction.. The asking price for an exploration ship as gone up about $100 million in the last year (25%).

If you or John D would like to counter those facts with facts of you own, that's great. But all I've gotten from either of you is platitudes about "Pearl Harbor" and that the market will provide somehow. I'm asking how.

Where's the new capacity going to come from? How long will it take? In the global market for these kinds of ships, what leads you to believe that new capacity would be used on US offshore leases?

I'm discussing facts. I'm discussing reality. This isn't politically based, it's the reality of the oil industry at this moment. You guys are making the solely political arguement. No specifics. No facts. Just platitudes and recriminations.

Pelosi is simply stupid. How did this idiot become Speaker of the House?

How ironic that a Big D Democrat has such little regard for Little d democracy.

I hate the totalitarian, fascistic Democrats and everything they stand for. I will never vote for a Democrat in my lifetime.

Never has a party worked so hard to impoverish the American people and destroy our economy. How anyone can vote for a Democrat is beyond me.

Stephanopoulos is a dope and is rude. Most people know exactly what Pelosi was talking about. Speakers for decades have refused to let phony choices come up for a vote because it's too easy for some demogogues in Congress to push for a vote on "free" food for everyone in America or "free" gas or "no taxes" or any other quick fix. If you are a responsible Congressman and vote against it, you'll get hammered in political ads. It's so obvious. Wake up, George et al.

It can't get any better than this.

Stop global warming and save more energy than curly light bulbs,TAX all computer use!

Louisiana drills and produces most of the countries natural gas for the power plants.If a state votes against drilling People of Louisiana need to cut that state off of natural gas and save it for us! This winter when they are freezing they can use liberal magic fuel!

Nancy is the poorest excuse for a speaker we have ever had. The dems had better get rid of her or they will pay at election time. She is so twisted it would be humorous except that it is costing us money every day she is speaker. Get rid of her!!!!!

She is pathetic. Can't even speak English coherenty.The Democratic Congress' Emperor is not wearing any clothes.

JT: I'm discussing facts. I'm discussing reality. This isn't politically based, this moment. You guys are making the solely political arguement. No specifics. No facts. Just platitudes and recriminations.

False. Your argument is politically motivated. What you are saying, essentially, is, "Oh, gosh, but it would be so hard to get that oil from off-shore, let's not bother." It's like pondering to go for a walk, but, gosh, it's so late out, might as well stay in at this point. But really, that is just another stalling tactic to delay drilling operations altogether.

Let the oil companies worry about the logistics and expenses. Let them worry about where to find the ships they need. That's their problem. What we don't need is the government waggling its finger and yelling, "NO!" every time we find new resources.

I don't really care if it does take five or more years for the new oil fields to produce results--and I'm not necessarily accepting that premise, either--it's a lot better than any sort of gimmicky "alternative energy" substitute which will ultimately take much longer to bear fruit.

Pelosi and Reid sure are not helping Obama in the polls by blocking a vote in the senate on drilling! Have you seen how well Nancy's new book is doing? On Amazon , I think a book called "Why Samon Spawn" is ahead of hers. No suprise!

http://www.thementalpugilist.blogspot.com/

I'm still waiting for some one to challenge with facts the statements I've made about the unavialability of exploration ships being the bottleneck, not the availability of leases. Come on, I've asked you all to get beyond political platitudes and discuss this very real limit on the growth of offshore drilling. So far no one has been able to do that. The platitudes continue to flow. The "Allow offshore drilling" position is shown to be the politically motivated humbug it is.

We need real soulutions, that work in the real world, not fantasies.

I think that she is worried that if she supports this for our country, there is her own back yard to worry about. SHe lives and is elected into office by a left fringe in California who do not support drilling. She may look bad not pleasing Americans as a whole, but to the fruit loops in her district she is QUEEN BEE!

"...How? I'm asking for a fact based discussion on a particular topic, the lack of exploration ships...."

Posted by: JT | August 4, 2008 6:20 PM

Your not asking for a fact based discussion- You are posing this lack of ships argument as a straw man-

Your assertion that their is no capacity for exploration is premature and meaningless because it is posed as a rationalization for the political "no decision" strategy that Pelosi has taken.

The only thing that is not arguable is the fact that w/o access to reserves with high probability of successful drilling their is no incentive for oil co's to invest in either new infrastructure ( including exploratory) ... there is no market driven disincentive or restriction to these sites- only political- which is where Pelosi comes in.

Pelosi is not basing her no decision on how productive or non productive OCS drilling can be- that would be reasonable- she is basing her inaction on platitudes "saving the planet" - she SHOULD be speaking for us- the house of reps is the "peoples" house. Ignoring the fact that most (70% by some surveys) people want more energy and drilling, and in the face of this, shutting off debate in the manner that she did, is as morally bankrupt of a move as I have ever seen from a Speaker..

Your argument is rationalizing this.

heartburn-

Do you even know what a "Straw man is"? Go look it up.

The lack of capacity is not my "assertion", It is a business reality acknowledged by the industry. No amount of political will or arguement makes that reality go away. You can choose to ignore it, or pretend it is unimportant, but you cannot show it to be untrue.

There is plenty of access to reserves. That's why exploration ships are in incredibly short supply. There is not a lack of investment in the exploration infrastructure, it is being produced as fast as it can. Vast amounts of money is being poured into production, but production is limited. You simply are ignoring the facts when you make statements to the contrary. These facts are independent of politics and the actions of the US government, or any other government. This is the condition of the global oil industry at this point in time, and for the next five years at least. When the length of time it takes to build these ships is considered, the action of any government, including a crash nationalized shipyard creation and ship building program, cannot address the core issue in less than five years. Again, it is the shipping issue that limits offs shore production, NOT the lack of leases.

There are no facts in your argument. You show NO evidence of lack of incentive for more investment. You show NO evidence that there is a shortage of fields to explore. None. You simply continue making a political, and factually baseless argument that proposes a solution where there is not a problem. If the you were serious about ways to increase offshore drilling, you'd be talking about ships and equipment, not leases.

I have repeatedly asked certain specific reality based questions that are at the core of the drilling off shore arguement. You have no answers to those question. You aren't interested on a real world solution to our energy needs. You don't want to talk the real issues. You just want to bash Pelosi and the Democrats. It's very clear that your position is wholly political and that it willfully ignores facts and reality.

When you want to have a fact based discussion, I'm willing. Untill then, see you around.

Posted by: JT | August 5, 2008 11:02 AM

So you want to limit the entire energy policy down to only the availability of exploratory ships..? Its all or nothing, until we have a 100% solution we can't do anything?

Not only is this a straw man- it is cart before the horse..

This is a straw man ( I looked it up) because you are defining the issue,the scope of the issue,and the solution based entirely on your one single premise when it is more nuanced and complex...

This allows you to rationalize, and apparently support, the DEM leaders failure to act by saying acting would have produced no incremental energy availability - this is where you are wrong.

Have you considered the fact that there has already been exploration done years ago in many of these sites- ? Do you think they just threw away all of that data when the OCS ban was put in place in the 80s?

Or even that there are already oil wells off the pacific coast in these restricted areas that were capped as a result of the ban- these could be flowing in months

You want to argue about something that is not arguable-I agree with you that we will need more of this capacity and technology to make a significant step towards energy independence. The availabilty of exploratory ships is part of the problem- it is not then entire problem.

Removing irrational political policy is the first step towards increasing production and the first steps towards increasing exploration to uncover more sources of oil..

You folks want drilling ships? We turned out a liberty ship every week during World War II, because we had none.

Our shipping building industry could be revived creating thousands of good jobs throughout the supply chain. Domestic Oil drilling will provide an enormous stimulus to this economy.

So build the infrastructure to build the ships, then build the ships.

htp://brokengovernment.wordpress.com

Can anyone tell me why it's okay to argue that speculators are artificially inflating the price of oil due to speculated shortages in supply as China and India come further online, but despite an approximate 20 dollar drop since the news that one of two bans on drilling were lifted it's "stupid" to say prices will come down as a result of opening up drilling domesticly?

Speculation goes both way folks, it's an early warning system, turning what would be long trends into immediately felt problems that can just as immediately be fixed by addressing the issue that causes the speculation.

Another point, having a lease to drill somewhere is the -first- step in prospecting, not the last, in other words, getting the lease is something you have to do before you even know wether oil is there are not in the quantaties you want.

Anyone who suggests that the 2% of the coastline open to drilling are the cream of the crop compared to the other 98% is also lying to you.

No, instead, we allow the Oil Corps to rake in 600 BILLION DOLLARS, IN PROFITS, in the last 8 years !!

Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | August 4, 2008 3:38 PM

Don, If you will, please post how much money the 'Oil Corps' have paid in taxes during the last 8 years. And as a follow-up, feel free to itemize exactly how the democrat-controlled congress has allocated spending those tax dollars toward mass-transit initiatives.

JT, you must not be in the energy business as you seem to know very little about it. Oil companies have limited resources (capital, employees, equipment) to explore an drill. They rank all of their prospects from best to worst (those meetings can get very heated). Needless to say, they go after their best prospects first and many lower quality prospects do not get drilled. No doubt, there are many high quality prospects which are currently off limits. Allowing access to these locations would have an immediate impact on oil prices.

They're now saying that Pelosi told Dems to go ahead and agree with the GOP so they will be politically OKAY, and she will play the Bad Guy. Remember, she will get re-elected no matter how bad she treats the American majority on Drilling, because she still gets voted in in her 8th district in California where they adore her support of no drilling.

"gas was $112/gallon when the republics took over congress in 1996. now it's over $4.00/gallon. it's all the republics fault.

Posted by: crud | August 4, 2008 2:19 PM "

Lookie here! I can move the goalposts too! In 1954, the average price of gas was $0.29 a gallon. That's when the Democrats took control of Congress, so it's their fault.

'Cause I said so.

Next you'll be telling me it was some English guy named Hamilton's fault.....

Porter-gas prices went up with Pelosi took over congress ha!

To those who say President Bush's bad energy policy is to blame for $4 gas, I would like to remind you that he promoted drilling in ANWR several years ago at least. It is safe, environmentally friendly, and there is no reason not to do it. But for some reason (not wanting to let Bush's policy succeed?) democrats blocked it and told outright lies about how it would destroy habitat, etc.

Bush may have other stupid economic policies (rebates, bail-outs, etc), but his drilling policy isn't one of them.

Pelosi has no replacement for oil!My utility bill has doubled,i cant aford it!Solar set up for my home would cost 20,000 thousand dollars!Insurance companys will not insure it on the gulf coast!I cant aford her bullshit!

The swamp proves liberals are true comunist!Yall filter free speech!

save more energy than curly light bulbs,Tax all computer use!

Nancy is a loon! She's not only out of touch with the American Public, she's even out of touch witht he Democratic party. Thank you Comrade Nancy! We appreciate all the voters you are sending our way.

Poor Nancy Pelosi. Haha. She's starting to feel the heat. Yesterday on Larry King Live, she said that she is open to allowing an offshore vote as long as she gets her parties plan to "free the oil in the strategic reserve"