McCain Backs More Drilling

Excellent.

By calling for an end to the federal ban on offshore oil drilling, John McCain is placing a risky bet. He is wagering that skyrocketing gas prices have finally reached a tipping point, a threshold moment that has led voters to rethink their strong and long-held opinions against coastal oil exploration.

The stakes couldn’t be higher: If he is wrong, McCain will have seriously damaged his chances in two key states with thousands of miles of coastline — California and Florida — and where opposition to offshore oil drilling has been unwavering. And he will have undermined some of his closest political allies in those states and others, including potential fall battlegrounds such as Virginia and North Carolina.

[...]

Myrick and others pointed to a new Rasmussen Reports survey — conducted before McCain announced his proposal on Monday — which found that 67 percent of voters believed drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. Only 18 percent disagreed and 15 percent were undecided. According to the poll, conservative and moderate voters strongly support offshore drilling, while liberals are more evenly divided: 46 percent of liberals favor drilling; 37 percent oppose it.

National surveys, however, can fail to take into account the fierce resistance to offshore oil drilling in the states that stand to be affected.

1. Maybe he didn’t look at the polls and just realized that you can’t drop price without increasing supply…  or that we are going to drill in a much more environmentally safe way than the Chinese.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 0714 hrs




2. While I agree with drilling and creating more refineries, I think McCain flip flopping makes him a spineless asshat.

   Moooooooooom… can we get a real candidate? Plllleeeeeeeease?

   Posted by Fuzz on June 18, 2008 at 0848 hrs




3. If there was oil in Lake Michigan who would support offshore oil rigs and refineries along our lakefront? 

   I wouldn’t.

   This issue seems like a big gamble for McCain.  He might have just killed his chances of winning Florida.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 0900 hrs




4. If there was oil in Lake Michigan who would support offshore oil rigs and refineries along our lakefront? 

   I would

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 0910 hrs




5. If there was oil in Lake Michigan who would support offshore oil rigs and refineries along our lakefront? 

   Look how many wind farms Florida Light & Power has constructed in Wisconsin.  Just the other day, I was southbound on Highway 41 (southwest of Fond du Lac) and was stunned at the view of what must be at least 50 if not more wind turbines on the horizon.  I’m not sure if FLP owns those particular ones, but they have installed wind farms in several states (other than Florida), including Wisconsin.

   So, maybe we don’t have to worry about the view of oil rigs on Lake Michigan, we have to worry about the view of wind turbines in rural Wisconsin.  Not much of a difference, in my book.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 0911 hrs




6. Much more drilling as well as much more renewable fuel research.

   We can’t quit using oil in the blink of an eye, and we can’t keep relying on oil for the distant future.

   This issue seems like a big gamble for McCain.  He might have just killed his chances of winning Florida.

   Crist now supports the exploration drilling. If most golf carts ran on gas then Florida would be a lock for McCain.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 0925 hrs




7. while liberals are more evenly divided: 46 percent of liberals favor drilling; 37 percent oppose it.

   But I thought all liberals opposed more drilling?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 0933 hrs




8. This issue seems like a big gamble for McCain.  He might have just killed his chances of winning Florida.

   Well, I’ll be the LAST person on earth to try to predict what people in Florida will do.

   I can’t even predict what they are going to do when I’m driving right behind them.

   But I think this is a WINNING issue.  BIG time.  I think if the republicans play it smart, they can ride this issue all the way thru november.

   How does the saying go?  People vote with their pocketbook?

   I think people know the democrats position in this issue is crap.

   If driving less or buying a fuel efficient vehicle was the solution, those options are already available to people.  Some people can’t practically take that route though.  They need cheaper fuel. Democrats offer no hope in that regard.

   And therefore, things like Sensenbrenners push to end the ethanol subsidies and McCains call for more drilling production and refining.  Those are tangible solutions that will allow the people who can’t just buy a prius and don’t want to lose the standard of living of being able to travel around the state for leisure an option.

   And to all the self-annointed keyboard economists and instant geological engineers (you know, the ones that seem to think being a liberal and calling yourself “green” makes you capable of predicting the amount of oil in a particular geological area or how the effect of the new supply on prices… ) All those that are ready to conject that “there isn’t that much oil out there anyway” or “that won’t affect prices for 10 years” or whatever other non-logic USWAG they can spout from their mouth.  Poo-poo every idea that doesn’t involve govenment mandates and standard of living infringing results.

   Its not just supply and demand (which most fail to understand) but with the futures market, commodities traders KNOW that these options are good investments because they know that nothing is going to change.  But if we start drilling and have a REAL concerted willingness to look at all our energy options you’ll see the speculators and traders who have driving up the prices of fuel and petroleum based products on the commodities markets begin to worry.

   Before a drop of new oil from new sources hits the open market the artificially stimulated over inflated commodities market for will burst.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 0934 hrs




9. , and we can’t keep relying on oil for the distant future.

   Why?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 0938 hrs




10. But I think this is a WINNING issue.  BIG time.  I think if the republicans play it smart, they can ride this issue all the way thru november.

    And I think the voters could turn this into a “shit or get off the pot issue”. 

    Imagine a Boots & Sabers type of list where politicians have to take a stand - an “up or down” vote to make real and visible progress on this.  They did it with the “Economic Stimulous” tax rebates, the same thing could be done here.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 0958 hrs




11. the self-annointed keyboard economist says:

    Before a drop of new oil from new sources hits the open market the artificially stimulated over inflated commodities market for will burst.

    It is an issue of supply and demand.  Our domestic supply along the coasts is a literal drop in the bucket of global demand and won’t have any appreciable effect on price.  You don’t have to be an economist to understand that.  Look at yearly global demand and compare that to the amount of oil that our coasts can yield, then explain to me how offshore drilling is going to have an effect on price.  It is not the liberals that are having a tough time understanding the market fundamentals. 

    If this is a BIG WINNING issue for the Republicans it is proof that people vote with their pocket books and not their brains.  It worked for Bush in 2000, it might work for McCain.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 0958 hrs




12. I happen to agree with McCain on this issue.  If states want to drill off their shores I don’t see why the Feds should be preventing them.

    I just take issue with the notion that offshore drilling is some sort of solution to our petroleum problem.  That is simply untrue.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1006 hrs




13. Our domestic supply along the coasts is a literal drop in the bucket of global demand and won’t have any appreciable effect on price.

    Sorry 3rd way.  Assumes facts not in evidence.  If you want to make up a story thats fine.

    But if you want to make a point you really need to provide data.

    Look at yearly global demand and compare that to the amount of oil that our coasts can yield, then explain to me how offshore drilling is going to have an effect on price.

    I’m not saying we have a lifetime of oil off the coasts.  I’m saying how could we POSSIBLY know?

    Other countries with the same geography that we have are sitting on a shitload of oil.

    Considering drilling has been banned for the past several decades, why would anyone explore?  Why would anyone invest in exploration where drilling is banned?

    This is my point and the one that you would dismiss with NO evidence to the contrary.

    I’ll be honest and admit that I don’t know how much oil we have domestically?

    Why can’t you be honest and admit that you don’t either?

    But I’ll say that based upon our geography compared to the geography of other oil producing countries I think its REALLY REALLY likely and certainly worth the effort.  If companies are ready to invest in it, I’m confident they DO have the experts and geological engineers to form the most educated opinions.

    Lastly:

    the self-annointed keyboard economist says:

    Before a drop of new oil from new sources hits the open market the artificially stimulated over inflated commodities market for will burst.

    I do have an economics degree 3rd way. 

    One of the worlds biggest hedge fund traders thinks oil is a bubble waiting to burst also and that commodities traders are the ones driving up the price of oil.

    http://www.safehaven.com/article-10368.htm

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1025 hrs




14. Our oil reserves have been study extensively, much more than your average country.  I am not claiming to know about geology nor am not speculating that current estimates are grossly inaccurate as you are.

    The Interior Department offered a wide range of estimates of how much oil might be within reach of U.S. offshore drilling in a 2006 report. It estimated that the Outer Continental Shelf could hold 115.4 billion barrels. However, it also estimated that recoverable reserves off U.S. coasts in areas now banned from production probably hold only about 19 billion barrels.

    The world consumed right around 30 billion barrels per year in 2006 (the earliest this oil will come to market is around 2015).  It is unknowable what effect this will have on gas prices, but if you look strictly at supply and demand this miniscule additional supply is a drop in the proverbial bucket of demand.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1128 hrs




15. Estimates of how much oil there may be are always changing.

    Technologies of how much oil is recoverable is also changing which changes the estimates also.

    So you take the OCS, AND you take ANWR and you take the potential and growing potential for recoverable oil domestically.

    Put them all together you it could be very significant.

    But I’ll pose the same question again?

    Why not let them drill 3rd Way?  You claim it wouldn’t help, it wouldn’t matter.  Then whats it off your back to end the ban on drilling?

    I don’t think overall people come out ahead buying a hybrid, but if they want to, whats it to me?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1155 hrs




16. Why not let them drill 3rd Way?  You claim it wouldn’t help, it wouldn’t matter.  Then whats it off your back to end the ban on drilling?

    See comment #12

    My problem is the claims made by people that the Democratic opposition to drilling is causing high gas prices, or that if we just drill all will be fine.  Claims like that have no basis in reality.

    If the states want to drill let ‘em (but also hold them accountable for any environmental degradation that might occur). 

    All this bluster over drilling is just a distraction and a political ploy by a candidate that is watching his chances slip away.  I don’t see how a flip-flop on this issue helps his cause.  Especially since this issue is political poison in critical states like VA and FL.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1214 hrs




17. Wow, I agree with xxpilot on something.  The futures market is playing a large roll in the skyrocket, larger than most Americans understand.  I’ve seen figures with production costs as much as $55 per barrel less than current trading.  The quesiton though is, are those investors right on the supply side, and would drilling provide short term, long term or any relief?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1318 hrs




18. The futures market is playing a large roll in the skyrocket, larger than most Americans understand.  I’ve seen figures with production costs as much as $55 per barrel less than current trading.

    Who is Inflating the Bubble in the Global Oil market? The Federal Reserve is the chief culprit, by slashing the fed funds rate 325-basis points to a negative -2%, after adjusting for inflation, and expanding the US-M3 money supply by 16.5% from a year ago, in a desperate effort to stop the slide in the sinking US banking sector. By slashing interest rates deep into negative territory, the Fed encourages speculation in commodities by pushing down the dollar, which in turn, is pushing up the price of dollar-denominated commodities, such as crude oil and gold.

    In the past, a sharp slowdown in the US economy, the world’s biggest oil guzzler, usually pushed the price of crude oil and other commodities lower. But the Fed was caught by complete surprise, after crude oil prices doubled, even as America’s economy slipped into a recession in the first quarter. “The current oil price has no relation to market fundamentals,” explained Saudi oil chief Ali al-Naimi on March 5th. “It is linked to tremendous speculation in crude oil futures. There are even those who buy futures and speculate that oil prices will reach $200 in 2013,” he said.

    On April 28th, OPEC chief Chakib Khelil observed that crude oil prices were climbing, “even though supply is adequate, because the market is driven by the dollar’s slide. Each time the dollar falls 1%, the price of the barrel rises by $4, and of course vice versa. If for instance, the US dollar would strengthen by 10%, it is probable that oil prices will fall by 40%,” he figured.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1351 hrs




19. oops, that should all be in quotes

    My problem is the claims made by people that the Democratic opposition to drilling is causing high gas prices, or that if we just drill all will be fine.  Claims like that have no basis in reality.

    Noone is claiming that democratic opposition to drilling is the only cause of high gas prices NOR that if we drill “all will be fine”

    But if we begin to explore all options instead of this rigid unwillingness to take the hand-cuffs off of ourselves, we’ll begin to change the market dynamics.

    If I was a commodities trader I’d take comfort knowing the US government policy was going to make sure new supply remained tight.

    And I’ll also throw in with anyone who wants to blame monetary policy for a part in the rise of gas prices.

    See what happens when the government tries to manipulate the free market.  The law of unintended consequences is never far behind.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1357 hrs




20. The world consumed right around 30 billion barrels per year in 2006 (the earliest this oil will come to market is around 2015).

    I don’t know where you got this from, but most sources I’ve seen indicate a range of 82 million barrels to 87 million barrels a year of current consumption with an approximate increase of ~2.5% +/- .3%

    So, if the outer shelf holds, let’s be conservative on the figure, say, 80 billion barrels; then we would see enough supply for over 100 years.

      Then during that time, we can research and improve alternate energy sources without thrusting half-assed solutions on the populace.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1402 hrs




21. Noone is claiming that democratic opposition to drilling is the only cause of high gas prices NOR that if we drill “all will be fine”

    You might not be saying that, but there are plenty of others that are.

    Geopolitical tensions, the weak dollar, speculators trying to find a home for hundreds of billions of dollars and increasing demand are the principal drivers of the price of oil.  The few additional million barrels per day we can bring to market aren’t going to change any of those things. 

    The weak dollar is likely the most important factor, but that is likely too complicated to become a campaign issue.  If Iran and Venezula got their way and started selling their oil in some other currency we would really be screwed.

    The only solution to our oil problem is using less of it.  I don’t see how drilling for more of it moves us towards the ultimate goal of not being dependent on it.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1413 hrs




22. Lookin to move - I think you are confusing daily usage with yearly.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1417 hrs




23. A conservative estimate of the additional oil that might be in the additional area McCain proposed to open up is not 80 billion barrels.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1429 hrs




24. The only solution to our oil problem is using less of it

    Well then do nothing.  People will use less.

    I’m just firmly of the belief that when I hear “use less” come out of democrats mouths it means that they are going to pass mandates that are going to put a burden on the working guy who can’t use a prius to haul plywood around etc.

    All I want to hear from a democrat is “fine, drill all you want just don’t make a mess” and an assurance that they aren’t going to pretend that passing EPA mandates is going to solve anything.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1455 hrs




25. The only solution to our oil problem is using less of it.

    If anything, we should consume as much oil as possible, because there is no way we’ll come up with a decent alternative until it starts to run out.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1538 hrs




26. So - if we drill to get more - wouldn’t that be the same as using less of it - without the damage to our economy and way of life?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1619 hrs




27. All I want to hear from a democrat is “fine, drill all you want just don’t make a mess” and an assurance that they aren’t going to pretend that passing EPA mandates is going to solve anything.

    You won’t get that from many, and certainly not from the ones who troll here.  They have superiority complexes that need to be fed and groomed.  They know better than anyone else here, and even though the oil fields in America are the cleanest and safest in the world, we still shouldn’t drill.  When presented with facts, they will “unlink” and move to the next post-de-jour relentlessly beating us with their “superior world viewpoints”.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1639 hrs




28. While offshore drilling isn’t the worst idea I’ve heard. In the long run it really isn’t helpful. If we’re trying to move to new sources of energy why start investing in offshore drilling which won’t start helping us get out of this hole we’re in now?

    The only way were gonna put a stop to rising gas prices isn’t by removing our dependence on foreign oil, but by getting creative and finding new energy sources.

    Thank god though that gas prices aren’t predicted to reach $5 by August.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1732 hrs




29. Let’s see….

    We could be self-sufficient in oil.
    We could be a net exporter of gasoline and natural gas.

    Instead, we prefer that Petrobras, Venezuela, MidEast nations get to drill we can continue to import.  Oh yeah, that makes sense.

    To above who said “Use less oil”.  Unless you walk or bike EVERYWHERE YOU GO, then your comment is just insipid.
    It’s equally insipid if you don’t support nuclear power.

    Here’s a fact…if Congress OKs offshore drilling and the construction of new refineries, we could be self-sufficient in five years…maybe less depending on the yields.  It will take less than two years to get the shallow water platforms up and running and about five for the deep water rigs. 

    We should also be drilling in ANWAR.  As for wind power….yeah, like you can run a car or plane on that.  But…the private sector is working like crazy on alternitives….GM has “The Volt” and Honda came out with fuel cell cars on a commercial basis.  But we need the oil NOW.  Furthermore, things like airplanes, ships and probably trains will continue to need oil based products into the foreseeable future. 

    A side benefit is that the dollar would strengthen as well as create thousands of jobs in the U.S.

    Posted by The Asian Badger on June 18, 2008 at 1748 hrs




30. Drilling won’t hurt McCain in FL—and I say that as someone who lived there. The Blue Coast around Miami are the snowbirds (retirees with money in this case) from the NorthEast and they’d never vote for him anyway. It’s the blue collar folks around there who would probably go his way—more jobs, cheaper gas. FL doesn’t have an income tax and they don’t do much with the property tax. They fund much of the state with gas taxes and other things that hit the tourists harder than most residents. So most Floridians who are down there this time of year are hurting bad: they get paid less, and their gas is more expensive than most of the country’s.

    If we drill like mad and open the oil shale we’ll be energy independent in less than a decade. We’ll hammer the shiek’s money for terrorism and drive down the mischief in that region. And the technology has improved tremendously in the last 50 years, so the environmental impact of additional drilling will be minimal.

    Drill baby, drill!

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1826 hrs




31. We could be self-sufficient in oil.
    We can’t unless we use less.  Show me the numbers that prove otherwise.

    We could be a net exporter of gasoline and natural gas.
    We can’t unless we use less.  Show me the numbers that prove otherwise.

    As for wind power….yeah, like you can run a car or plane on that. 
    Cars and trains can and do run on electricity.  It is enevitable that we will have to build an improved electrical grid and better electricity production facilities using renewable non-carbon sources.  Someday all our transportation and heating needs will be met by electricity.  We should be working towards that eventuality instead trying to exploit every last drop of the earth’s poisonous puss.

    If the US can become energy independent we will assure ourselves of continuing to be the most powerful nation on the globe for the foreseeable future.  Continuing to base our society and economy fueled on petroleum is not going to lead us to that independence.

    If the Chinese outpace us on the path to energy independence Asia is going to dominate geopolitics for centuries.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1828 hrs




32. 3-way, thanks for proving me right in #27.  Didn’t take very long at all.

    All of what you said might or might not be true, but it doesn’t mean that we should not drill the oil that is there and available.  You have yet to make an argument that supports your obtuse denials.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1843 hrs




33. What the hell are you talking about Jason?  Obtuse denials of what exactly?  Did you read my comments above? 

    I love the irony of you claiming others have a “superiority complex” then turning around and claiming I have somehow proven you right within the context of a comment that does nothing other than try to insult me.  Keep up the good work.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2008 at 1939 hrs




34. @ #31 You are a moron.  Let me give you some job advice.  Pull the fries out of the oil when the bell rings.

    We are already the most powerful nation on the planet. If you like being #2, move somewhere else.  Like you could cut it.

    If the Chinese outpace us on the path to energy independence Asia is going to dominate geopolitics for centuries.

    Trust me, they’re already there.  The U.S. is no longer a serious country in the scheme of things.  See: McCain, Bush, Clinton,  Obama, Congress on energy.

    Posted by The Asian Badger on June 18, 2008 at 2344 hrs




35. Drill where there is oil.  I Lake Michigan(though that has been pretty much been debunked, but drill in anyway), drill on the coast, drill in Texas and Alaska and anywhere else.  Anyone who disagrees is just an elitist snob, like many in the U.S. Senate and House of Rep.  They really don’t care about the poor and middle class.  They are being paid off buy their special interest groups.  The left has been wrong on so many things and this is just another example of them being wrong.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2008 at 0408 hrs




36. You post things that are demonstrably false, I call you out on them, you insult me yet I am the moron.

    Keep up the good work guys.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2008 at 0816 hrs




37. #36 Back it up or shut up.  Yes, you are a moron.

    Posted by The Asian Badger on June 24, 2008 at 0138 hrs