Obama Dead Wrong About Drilling

You may have missed it. Unlike when the price of oil was rising, the price of oil dropped below $100 a barrel yesterday and yet this fact was barely mentioned in the MSM.

Also barely mention was the fact that OPEC announced it would cut back oil supplies. Why? Because the price of oil fell below $100 a barrel and cutting production would keep the price of oil high.

Oil prices edged higher in electronic trading Wednesday after OPEC members said the group would cut crude-oil output by 520,000 barrels a day under a plan to roll back production to quotas set in September 2007.
The move is a bid to halt sliding prices in what OPEC described as "over-supplied" conditions on global energy markets.

One of many sources...

They did the same in 2006, and have controlling the price of oil by limiting supplies since the 70's.

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries early today announced plans to cut oil production by 1.2 million barrels a day, equal to 4.3 percent of the group's total, in an effort to stop the slide in oil prices over the past three months.

Washington Post

So if decreasing the supply makes the price of oil go up, wouldn't adding to the supply from our own resources make the price drop? Of course it would. This is fundamental economics.

But Obama continues with his mantra of "we can't drill our way out of this problem."

Sorry, Barry. OPEC's history of using supply to control oil prices proves that

"YES WE CAN!"

Better yet, we can break OPEC's monopoly on controlling the price of oil.

But Obama wants the price of oil high. He wants it high because only then will alternative energy sources be economically viable. If oil is cheap it makes no sense for investors to put money into alternative energy companies.

And of course Obama's biggest backers are in the alternative energy business. The law firm of McGuire Woods, led by partner Mark Brzezinski is deeply tied in with natural gas giant Dominion Gas. The former chairman of McGuire Woods sits on the board of Smithfield Foods, which stands to become the largest producer of biofuels in the country. George Soros is partnered with Perseus LLC, and is deeply invested in alternative energy companies.

And lets remember that winning the Iowa caucus is what launched Obama in the front-runner position in the democratic primaries. Why did Obama win Iowa? Because Iowa is one of the largest corn producing states, and Obama promised to continue subsidies to the corn farmers for ethanol production. He also promised to continue placing outrageous tariffs on imported sugar cane which is a cheaper, more productive ethanol source than corn.

OPEC is smart enough to understand the cause and effect relationship between supply and oil prices. And guess what? So is Harvard educated Barack Obama.

And OPEC and Obama have this in common. They both want the price of oil to stay high.

The question is, do you?

Obama is hardly alone in calling the argument that we can 'drill our way out of foreign dependence' flawed. Additional drilling is, at best, a stop-gap measure. Should we exploit whatever resources we have? Of course. But is it a solution? No. Where was this solution after the 70's oil crisis? Nowhere. 30+ squandered years. 5 Republican administrations. People love one-line simplistic solutions... even if they are baseless. This is yet another. It is a nearsighted, political ploy. Played, btw, by people up to their butts in oil money. What a surprise.

Of course we tariff ethanol. It isn't Obama doing this. The US does this. Why? To keep our own ethanol industry from collapsing. What we don't need is to add yet another foreign energy dependenciy. We're supposed to be ending the current one. Brazil is the largest exporter of ethanol. They produce theirs from sugar cane because their climate and agriculural infrastructure favor cane. Ours does not. Not to mention, Brazil is raping the rain forests to clear more land for cane. Not in anyone's longterm best interests.

Brazil and cane

Some people have tried to link the downturn in oil prices to the discussing about expadning drilling. How ludicrous. As usual the real reason is more complex. The slowing economy has signficantly reduced demand. The sabre rattling against Iran quieted. And the speculators were put on notice. Of course OPEC is lowering production. Why wouldn't they want higher prices if they can get them?

This argument has nothing to do with Obama. He is supporting the opinions of enery professionals that understand the importance of energy diversification and independence. The oil companies, on the other hand, could give a rat's ass about independence. They're all about profits at any cost. Keep in mind that these oil companies profit from foreign as well as domestic oil --- they do the refining and distribution. Why would they want biofuels, solar or wind to take the place of the foreign oil?

Not to mention that typical Democratic energy policies forbid that we take the most practical solution for rising energy costs in America: Nuclear power...with this we are left with the dependency on foreign oil, and costly, inefficient alternatives, not that they shouldn't be implemented and improved, but they do not have the efficiency to meet the demand.
Make America a more business-friendly place and you'll also realize that corporations will work well to create minimal impact on the environment, because they will have more funds to find better solutions. The policy makers must work together to make the U.S. more self-sufficient.

[edit on 10-9-2008 by laiguana]

If we drill more here, and increase domestic production, OPEC will just cut their production, thus keeping the price high and supplies at the same level. The real problem here is OPEC, because they artificially keep the price inflated, rather than letting the free market determine the price. Until we can supply ALL of our oil needs domestically (which we'll never be able do), OPEC has us by the balls.

I don't understand why people think it has to be one or the other.
Either we drill OR we move on to other resources?
We should be doing BOTH.
We can't change from an oil based society overnight.
We still need to drill.
At the same time, we HAVE TO go to solar and wind.
Nuclear as well.

We should be doing it all.
Why does it seem the politicians are trying to make us pick only one??

Originally posted by jtma508
Obama is hardly alone in calling the argument that we can 'drill our way out of foreign dependence' flawed. Additional drilling is, at best, a stop-gap measure.

On what facts do you base this opinion? It sounds like this is just another Democratic talking point being copied and pasted.

I showed you with hard facts how supply of oil directly impacts price. This is why OPEC is cutting supply. If we increase supply price will drop.

And further, while drilling our own oil won't end our dependency, NOT drilling our own oil won't end our dependency either.

Of course we tariff ethanol. It isn't Obama doing this.

First, we're talking about sugar cane, not ethanol. And second, yes, Obama stated that he is all for keeping high tariffs on imported sugar. The reason is to protect the corn farmers, not the ethanol producers. The ethanol producers WANT cheaper more efficient sources for ethanol, e.g., sugar cane.

Some people have tried to link the downturn in oil prices to the discussing about expadning drilling. How ludicrous. As usual the real reason is more complex. The slowing economy has signficantly reduced demand. The sabre rattling against Iran quieted. And the speculators were put on notice. Of course OPEC is lowering production. Why wouldn't they want higher prices if they can get them?

Thanks for helping make my point. Oil price is based on supply and demand. More drilling here would increase supply and lower prices. Better still, WE would be in control, not OPEC.

This argument has nothing to do with Obama. He is supporting the opinions of enery professionals that understand the importance of energy diversification and independence. The oil companies, on the other hand, could give a rat's ass about independence. They're all about profits at any cost. Keep in mind that these oil companies profit from foreign as well as domestic oil --- they do the refining and distribution. Why would they want biofuels, solar or wind to take the place of the foreign oil?

It has everything to do with Obama since this is the cornerstone of his energy plan. And we're not talking about alternative energy taking the place of foreign oil. We're talking about U.S. oil taking the place of foreign oil. Obama and the Democratic leadership is vehemently against U.S. oil taking the place of foreign oil.

reply to post by jamie83


Jamie, there is a flaw in your logic. You incorrectly assume that more oil = more gasoline = lower prices. Just because your factory has 1000 heels, it doesn't mean that you have 500 pairs of shoes! You have to make the shoes! The oil must be refined.

Take a look at what industry people think about offshore drilling and it's immediate impact on oil prices:

Charlie Hall: How much oil and gas will increased drilling provide? Geology's Answer: Not Much.

reply to post by jamie83


I have tried to avoid these political bashings but the 'misleading' title made me feel obligated.

You are spinning his words. He isn't 'against' drilling for our own oil. He has said over and over that we need to do MORE than simply opening up our own resources. Because eventually they will be gone and we will need the new technology in place to help when that day does come.

You see the difference don't you? Either you are a republican who is simply spewing forth the same lie that the reps are throwing out there or you have misunderstood what his real statement on this has been.

I'm not for Obama, I'm just against lying about either candidate. The OP is filled with spins and, in essence, lies.

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by jtma508
Obama is hardly alone in calling the argument that we can 'drill our way out of foreign dependence' flawed. Additional drilling is, at best, a stop-gap measure.

On what facts do you base this opinion? It sounds like this is just another Democratic talking point being copied and pasted.

Which, it seems, is exactly what you are doing from the 'Republican talking point' of view. Forget it. I knew I should have avoided this post like the plague that this political debate has become. I am just sick of people twisting other people's words. I will jump to the defense of Palin or McCain just as fast if I see it done against them.

We need to get rid of this 'party line' political LIES BS fast or this country truly will walk off into the sunset never to be seen again.

This isn't a democrat or republican problem. It is an American problem.

Both parties have failed and both deserve the blame. Likewise, Americans also deserve to be blamed because we don't do our part to help out on this energy crisis.

We don't conserve energy, we like to drive gas guzzlers, we hate public transportation for the most part, yet we complain because the price of oil is so high. If we did our fair share, I doubt the price would be as high as it is.

Obama is wrong about drilling. And as of late he has change his stance to drilling but the democrats are placing a lot of stipulations on it. We need a comprehensive plan. That plan should include a little bit of everything, including drilling offshore.

One thing is for sure, we can't continue to let Opec dictate our economy.

Originally posted by joe70353
Jamie, there is a flaw in your logic. You incorrectly assume that more oil = more gasoline = lower prices.

This isn't a hypothetical debate.

A few weeks ago oil was at $150 a barrel and gas prices at the pump where well over $4 a gallon.

Now oil is $100 a barrel, and gas prices here at least are under $3.50 a gallon.

If you can't see the cause and effect relationship between oil prices and gas prices I'm not sure how else to make it any clearer.

Originally posted by dariousg

Originally posted by jamie83

We need to get rid of this 'party line' political LIES BS fast or this country truly will walk off into the sunset never to be seen again.

It's not part line BS or lies.

Nancy Pelosi won't even permit a vote on lifting the ban on offshore drilling. The Republicans want to tap our own oil and bring that supply onto the market, which will lower prices. The Democrats want to keep oil and gas prices high so alternative energy is a competitive option.

It's no B.S. It's fact.

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by joe70353
Jamie, there is a flaw in your logic. You incorrectly assume that more oil = more gasoline = lower prices.

This isn't a hypothetical debate.

A few weeks ago oil was at $150 a barrel and gas prices at the pump where well over $4 a gallon.

Now oil is $100 a barrel, and gas prices here at least are under $3.50 a gallon.

If you can't see the cause and effect relationship between oil prices and gas prices I'm not sure how else to make it any clearer.

But what were the prices when oil was at $100 a barrel last time? Oh yeah, under $3 a barrel. See the relationship? They still take their time in lowering the cost of gas because it takes TIME to refine it into fuel but raise the price of gas the very same day it rises on the market.

Who's to blame here?

Back on topic. The 'debates' of drilling are not forcing the market down. The people trading the futures on oil are making the price of oil drop because they realize their gig is up. Period. Plus there has been a fairly steep drop in unnecessary gas useage.

reply to post by jamie83


This topic keeps coming up, but you keep refusing to listen to reason. I would like you to answer me a simple question. What are you going to do with the oil that is drilled if it drilled tomorrow?

Since you seem to KNOW that it will lower gas prices immediately, give me an answer to that very specific question.

Originally posted by jamie83
This isn't a hypothetical debate.

A few weeks ago oil was at $150 a barrel and gas prices at the pump where well over $4 a gallon.

Now oil is $100 a barrel, and gas prices here at least are under $3.50 a gallon.

If you can't see the cause and effect relationship between oil prices and gas prices I'm not sure how else to make it any clearer.

OK. Let me use your logic. Prior to Bush's Presidency no one had ever attacked the US with airliners. Shortly after he becasme President we had 9/11. If you can't see the cause and effect relationship between 9/11 and the Bush Presidency I'm not sure how else to make it any clearer.

reply to post by jamie83


You just proved my argument, sir.

I hope you are aware that when the President announced that he was lifting the ban, no one instantly plopped down new offshore rigs, causing an immediate flood of supply.

There was no increase in oil or gas supplies, yet the price of gas at the pump went down! Why? There are numerous reasons. Among those are: lower demand because people were driving less, a sharp decrease in oil speculation, and a stronger dollar (compared to early Summer). None of those reasons included offshore drilling in previously-prohibited areas!

reply to post by FlyersFan


I actually agree with you for ones flyersfan. Im not for drilling because I dont see where its going to take us, we cannot drill our way our of this oil addiction especially in the northern slope of Alaska, an area that has been previously drilled. That being said, if we going to drill in anycase, the best we can do is use a large fraction of the profits from there into government promoted alternative fuels development. The government has been slack on promoting alternative fuels, there needs to be focus put back into that side of things, better now then later.

My question is why don't they use the land they have before they start asking for more?

From This thread

More than 44 million acres of public lands are leased for oil and gas development, according to a new Wilderness Society analysis of Interior Department data. The analysis points to an explosion of drilling on federal lands, with 7,124 drilling permits (APDs) issued in 2007, a new record for the Bush Administration. Nationwide, the leasing is outstripping the oil and gas industry’s capacity to drill, as industry is drilling on only a quarter of the leases they hold.

Source

jamie83 can you specifically reply to this? Why do they need more land when they don't use what they have.

Cause it's all a DAMN GAME!!

[edit on 10-9-2008 by ATruGod]

Originally posted by jtma508
Prior to Bush's Presidency no one had ever attacked the US with airliners.

Not for lack of trying. The Bojinka Plot - READ HERE - involved radical islamics trying to blow up 12 airliners, all headed for America, over the Pacific Ocean and/or the West Coast.

This was in 1995 during the Bill Clinton administration.

6 years later the terrorists got smarter and decided not to waste airplanes by dumping them in the ocean but instead to plow them into buildings.

But the initial thoughts of using airplanes for weapons didn't come with the Bush administration.

Don't want to get into anything politico here.
Ford just came out with a new midsize sedan that will get 65 miles to the gallon.
But, it won't be sold here. Only in Europe. Because Ford doesn't believe us mericans will go with those stinky diesels. Which new tech have refined to be actually 30 percent cleaner than gas. We have oodles of natural gas. Guess what? Right here.
Drilling anywhere else is short sited. And the oil co's have sucked in enough real estate of undrilled land as it is. Greenlighting the big oil to ingest any more real estate by proxy of federal land is nothing more than that. Guess their collective palms just aren't greasy enough.
The real future and long term solution of this world is green energy.

[edit on 9/10/2008 by jpm1602]

[edit on 9/10/2008 by jpm1602]