Supporters applaud McCain, Obama's turn toward drilling

[WoodysGirl]

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL Associated Press

Aug. 3, 2008, 12:17PM

WASHINGTON — The different paths John McCain and Barack Obama have taken to support expanded offshore drilling for oil demonstrate how each would govern as president, their supporters said Sunday.

McCain surrogates contended on the Sunday news programs that the Arizona Republican's turn toward drilling, which he had once opposed, showed how McCain would respond decisively to a crisis. Obama's supporters argued that his willingness to consider a bipartisan proposal including more drilling showed how the Illinois Democrat would pursue compromise to achieve results.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent and ex-Democrat backing McCain, was skeptical of Obama's support of 10 senators, half of them Republicans and half Democrats, promoting compromise legislation including drilling and other energy-related initiatives.

"John McCain sees the crisis," said Lieberman, who also once opposed more offshore drilling.

"Barack Obama says this weekend, 'maybe,' 'eh,' 'and,' 'if,' 'but.' He did not endorse, he did not come out with a strong decision," Lieberman said on Meet the Press on NBC. "I predict to you he'll find reasons not to be for it if this comes to a vote in the Senate."

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., appearing with Lieberman, said Obama remains opposed to drilling but is prepared to "break America's gridlock by honoring a bipartisan effort, if that is the only way to move us towards alternative and renewable fuels and an energy policy that's comprehensive."

Both Obama and McCain opposed expanding oil exploration on American coastlines when they were seeking their parties' nominations for president. As oil prices shot upward and gasoline edged toward $4 a gallon, McCain — with the Republican nomination sewn up — announced that he would support drilling because of spiraling energy costs.

Obama said last week that he remained opposed to additional offshore drilling but would consider it as part of a plan promoting fuel-efficient cars and developing alternate energy sources.

McCain has long touted his reputation as a Republican maverick who crosses party lines to seek compromise even if it annoys fellow party members. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., contrasted McCain's change of heart on drilling with Obama's on public financing for his presidential campaign, which Obama at first favored and then rejected.

"It's OK to change your mind in politics if it benefits your country," said Graham, another former drilling opponent, appearing on Fox News Sunday. "Now, it's not OK to break your word."

Obama's supporters repeated their argument that new offshore oil exploration would take nearly a decade to produce any oil, thus not affecting gasoline prices today. They also said oil companies should first start drilling in the millions of acres for which they already hold leases.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she would not support a vote on a stand-alone bill for allowing increased offshore drilling, calling it an effort to "to mislead the American people as to thinking it's going to reduce the price at the pump."

"What Sen. Obama said is what we want a president to say," Pelosi said on This Week on ABC. "Let's look at all of the options. Let's compare them. And let's see what really does increase our supply, protect our environment, save our economy, protect the consumer, instead of a single-shot thing that does none of the above."

Pelosi suggested that she might be open to a vote on a broader energy bill that includes some offshore drilling in areas now off limits. As far as a vote being scheduled, she said: "Well, maybe it will, as it's part of a larger energy package."

[AbeBeta]

Originally Posted by WoodysGirl

...the Illinois Democrat would pursue compromise to achieve results.

..."break America's gridlock by honoring a bipartisan effort, if that is the only way to move us towards alternative and renewable fuels and an energy policy that's comprehensive."

...Obama said last week that he remained opposed to additional offshore drilling but would consider it as part of a plan promoting fuel-efficient cars and developing alternate energy sources.

These are really the key pieces -- there is some recently developed legislation that compromises and pretty much says "ok we are going to do a bunch of stuff" -- the left says "fine, you wanna drill, ok, you got it - but you have to give us stricter standards for efficiency and more $$ for development of alternative energy sources." the right says "oh boy, drilling! you stupid hippies can have your other crap so long as we can screw up the ocean!"

Practically that sort of compromise is the only way to get something done -- few are happy about every part of it.

[yeahyeah]

1) Supply is not a concern. Not the sole reason for the oil hikes to current levels.

2) It will be YEARS till this oil reaches the global market and affects supply.

3) There is NOT enough oil on the shelf to really put enough supply into the market and drive prices down.

4) The oil companies already have areas on the shelf where they CAN drill but choose not to.


This is a kneejerk decision...once again..appearance is everything.


I dont know why Obama and the Dems would feel compelled to let it happen simply for the reason of passing higher standards?
The market price of gas will take care of that. People will be forced to buy smaller more efficient cars. the demand will increase for them and companies will respond.

[sacase]

Originally Posted by yeahyeah

1) Supply is not a concern. Not the sole reason for the oil hikes to current levels.

2) It will be YEARS till this oil reaches the global market and affects supply.

3) There is NOT enough oil on the shelf to really put enough supply into the market and drive prices down.

4) The oil companies already have areas on the shelf where they CAN drill but choose not to.


This is a kneejerk decision...once again..appearance is everything.


I dont know why Obama and the Dems would feel compelled to let it happen simply for the reason of passing higher standards?
The market price of gas will take care of that. People will be forced to buy smaller more efficient cars. the demand will increase for them and companies will respond.

Supply is a concern, you do understand that when you by oil it is oil futures? There is a lot of domestic oil. Some of the easier stuff can be on the market in 2 years. Why are dems compelled to let it happen? They are getting their butts kicked about it by their inaction. Most Americans want to drill, liberals are the only ones who don't. They are looking really bad right now.

[yeahyeah]

Originally Posted by sacase

1) Supply is a concern, 2)you do understand that when you by oil it is oil futures? 3) There is a lot of domestic oil. 4)Some of the easier stuff can be on the market in 2 years. 5)Why are dems compelled to let it happen? 6) They are getting their butts kicked about it by their inaction. 7) Most Americans want to drill, liberals are the only ones who don't. They are looking really bad right now.

1) Currently supply is meeting demand.

2) Really? So THATS what the "futures" market is? Hmmm...thought it was for time machines....oh well learn something new everyday...sarcasm off....

3) We would get an extra 800,000 barrels/per day...not enough to make a dent in the overall price of oil. Remember Saudi Arabia increased its production by about 500K per day about 6 weeks ago.

4) Thus "Years" in my statement.

5) I DONT KNOW WHY...Thus my question.

6) How are they getting their butts kicked?

7) Most Americans wouldnt understand basic economics if they had to eat the text. Liberals are Really looking bad...because most of them dont know their butt from a bunghole either. Its the liars leading the uneducated.
Key to success in Washington..never admit you are lost and you ALWAYS have a solution. Even if you have NO control over it. eg. The price of oil.

[Cajuncowboy]

Ya'll do realize that oil is down another 4 dollars a barrel today? You know why? Not only have we cut back somewhat on our consumption but the main reason is that even the most ardent hardliners against new drilling and refining have begun to swing in favor of it.

If simply the talk of it has an impact, imagine what actually following through on it would do.

[yeahyeah]

Originally Posted by Cajuncowboy

Ya'll do realize that oil is down another 4 dollars a barrel today? You know why? Not only have we cut back somewhat on our consumption but the main reason is that even the most ardent hardliners against new drilling and refining have begun to swing in favor of it.

If simply the talk of it has an impact, imagine what actually following through on it would do.

This may help some folks understand why oil is so high.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=87991822

[Cajuncowboy]

Originally Posted by yeahyeah

This may help some folks understand why oil is so high.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=87991822

The reason oil is high is because of the regulations placed on the oil companies by the government. I don't need NPR to tell me why it's high. Trust me, I know exactly why it's high.

[yeahyeah]

Originally Posted by Cajuncowboy

The reason oil is high is because of the regulations placed on the oil companies by the government. I don't need NPR to tell me why it's high. Trust me, I know exactly why it's high.

Enlighten me..what regulations by the U.S. government have caused the global price of oil to rise? PLEASE dont say its because of restriction to drilling in the CONUS because supply is currently meeting demand globally.

[Cajuncowboy]

Originally Posted by yeahyeah

Enlighten me..what regulations by the U.S. government have caused the global price of oil to rise? PLEASE dont say its because of restriction to drilling in the CONUS because supply is currently meeting demand globally.

Refineries, multiple fuel mixtures to appease environmentalists, Over taxation, take your pick.

[yeahyeah]

Originally Posted by Cajuncowboy

Refineries, multiple fuel mixtures to appease environmentalists, Over taxation, take your pick.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse.

Refineries....Refine...meaning that the raw material has already been purchased (Oil). How would a refineries' ability to convert nationally, affect global prices of crude?

Mixtures...refer to refinery..mixtures are a cost passed on to the consumer AFTER the raw material has been purchased. This has No affect on the global market price.

Over-taxation does not affect market crude prices..how would taxation of a finished product affect the price of the raw material (oil)? It only affects the finished product (gas) in that country.

So by your logic if they raise the taxes on gas in Japan or China the global price of crude rises too? This would allow price fixing by national blocks through taxation of their people.

[bbgun]

McCain would be insane (hey, that rhymes!) to let Obama maneuver ahead of him on drilling.

[Cajuncowboy]

Originally Posted by yeahyeah

I think you are putting the cart before the horse.

Refineries....Refine...meaning that the raw material has already been purchased (Oil). How would a refineries' ability to convert nationally, affect global prices of crude?

Mixtures...refer to refinery..mixtures are a cost passed on to the consumer AFTER the raw material has been purchased. This has No affect on the global market price.

Over-taxation does not affect market crude prices..how would taxation of a finished product affect the price of the raw material (oil)? It only affects the finished product (gas) in that country.

So by your logic if they raise the taxes on gas in Japan or China the global price of crude rises too? This would allow price fixing by national blocks through taxation of their people.

So you think that what America does solely doesn't impact global markets? You may not understand economics if you don't think that all of this combined effects global speculation. It's not just the end result at the pump.

[yeahyeah]

Originally Posted by Cajuncowboy

So you think that what America does solely doesn't impact global markets? You may not understand economics if you don't think that all of this combined effects global speculation. It's not just the end result at the pump.

We consume 25% of it (demand). We will continue to consume ever increasing amounts of it (future demand) Our corporations drill alot of it (supply) and HOPEFULLY will continue to find deposits (future supply)
Also, as eluded to in the piece... hedge and investment funds pump Billions of dollars into the futures markets every year. The more futures you sell the higher the price of oil..as with everything.
This is the crux my friend, the politicians want you to think that they can just put another hole in the ground or give an extra 1000 bucks or release the reserves and this problem will go away. This is a Global market issue.

[Cajuncowboy]

Originally Posted by yeahyeah

We consume 25% of it (demand). We will continue to consume ever increasing amounts of it (future demand) Our corporations drill alot of it (supply) and HOPEFULLY will continue to find deposits (future supply)
Also, as eluded to in the piece... hedge and investment funds pump Billions of dollars into the futures markets every year. The more futures you sell the higher the price of oil..as with everything.
This is the crux my friend, the politicians want you to think that they can just put another hole in the ground or give an extra 1000 bucks or release the reserves and this problem will go away. This is a Global market issue.

IT's not putting another "hole in the ground." That's a simplistic view. It would take many holes but it's doable. And evidenced by the recent drop in the price of oil one can draw the conclusion that the speculators, which drive the costs are seeing the possibility of more oil hitting the market.