Oil Hypocrites on Capitol Hill

Also I work in the Upstream(which is the oil supply side), I do know that we often add a lot of capacity to existing refineries, but don't keep up at all on ones we abandon.

I'm going with SF if we're talking about fittest poster, biking 10miles each way. Freak you are the man!!!

I said within 10 miles... for me it happens to be 7. By the way... 10 miles on a bike is nothing. The way traffic is, most times I can bike it just about as fast as I could drive it. Normal rush hour traffic... 20 minutes. Biking it...25 minutes. (unless I hit the lights... then it can be 22)
 
I'll stick with the kudo's on 14 miles back and forth to work, I bet you do other intense training. So I'll stick with my call on you being the fittest, not skinnest. Joe dirt Cypress has to own that title.
I'm 8.5 miles but its interstate and busy hwy no bike lanes all the way otherwise I would have not excuse.
 
I live about 60 miles from work. But I take my motorcycle as often as possible and drive the hybrid otherwise. (They both get the same gas mileage.)
 
I'll stick with the kudo's on 14 miles back and forth to work, I bet you do other intense training. So I'll stick with my call on you being the fittest, not skinnest. Joe dirt Cypress has to own that title.
I'm 8.5 miles but its interstate and busy hwy no bike lanes all the way otherwise I would have not excuse.

I imagine there are others that stay in shape as well.

That is one thing I love about CO... bike paths damn near everywhere you want to go.
 
I live about 60 miles from work. But I take my motorcycle as often as possible and drive the hybrid otherwise. (They both get the same gas mileage.)

I'm just 6 miles from work and ride my bike when I have to stay late. I am also in a unique situation of working where my wife works and where my kid goes to school. Driving the Tahoe is in order most of the time. Oh, and the $60 worth of gas I put in my truck yesterday was the first gas put in in 53 days. Yes, I keep track of stupid stuff like that. :)
 
Tennis keeps me in shape but cycling everyday would be a decent bit better I imagine.
Damo has to be taking on the most danger, cycling 60 miles with all the fools on the road. Good luck brudda.
 
Ever the loyal partisan, President Bush couldn’t pass up an opportunity to take a shot at Democrats in Congress even as the failure of his mission to Riyadh to seek additional Saudi oil production reinforced the realization that he is increasingly a lame duck. Ironically, looking beyond the political rhetoric, he has a point.

In Godfather-like fashion, assuring the President their decision was business and not personal and that world markets were well supplied, the Saudis politely, but firmly rejected his request for additional production. This marked the second time in four months Bush has traveled to the desert kingdom, and the world’s largest oil producer, only to be rebuffed as oil and gas prices continue their meteoric rise.

Well aware how the Saudi decision would play at home, Bush preemptively struck at Democrats in Congress. All but openly calling them hypocrites, Bush said, “"One of the interesting things about American politics these days is those who are screaming the loudest for increased production from Saudi Arabia are the very same people who are fighting the fiercest against domestic exploration……..and against expanding refining capacity.”

Hear, hear!!!

Kudos to the President for stating the obvious, however late in the game it may be. Only the Democrats in Congress would have the temerity to badger and berate someone else for not doing what they themselves refuse to do.

The Saudis have made their decision based on what is in their economic and strategic interests. You may not like it, but at least they’re honest about it. Remember, this is business, not personal.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have pandered to environmentalists and the NIMBY (not in my back yard) crowd of state and local officials while nationally we pay the price for their decision. They then turn around and blame everyone from the President to Big Oil to OPEC to Chinese and Indian drivers to Detroit to market speculators; everyone but themselves. While the Saudis and well-healed market traders and oil company CEOs are easy political targets, they are only part of a complex equation that the Democrats themselves are a part of as well. As Queen Gertrude so aptly observed, “The lady doth protest too much, me-thinks.”

Had Congress and Bill Clinton had the intestinal fortitude to open up ANWAR and the continental shelves to responsible exploration and development back in the 1990s, there would be anywhere from two to five million additional barrels of domestically produced crude on the market today.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi was a member of Congress during that time. Clearly, like so many of her Democratic colleagues, she placed the environmentally sensitive beliefs of her constituents ahead of the pocketbook interests of the rest of the country.

Lest my liberal friends begin howling about the Republican Congress of the 90s and the Bush administration of the last seven years, rest assured I hold them equally responsible and similarly guilty of a damnable lack of political will. This is after all business and not personal.

Nonetheless, let’s take a look at the two-fold impact an additional two to five million barrels of domestically produced oil would have on the markets.

First, the additional crude would lower prices and provide an additional cushion between global production and demand. Psychology is a driving force in energy markets. Fear of tightening supplies and diminished spare capacity is a very real concern. So much so that analysts believe the market has priced in a “fear premium” of somewhere between $10 and $25 a barrel. Added domestic production would reduce both the market price and the fear premium substantially.

Second, the dollars spent purchasing that oil would go into the coffers of domestic oil companies, not foreign national oil companies. That money would not be added to the trade deficit. Nor would it provide added weight to a sinking dollar. In fact, it would do the exact opposite and would reinforce the strength and value of the dollar.

Additionally, while Big Oil is an easy political target, it provides jobs in the United States; good paying jobs, at that. It also creates stock value which supports retirement security and pays for the college education of millions of Americans. Additional Saudi production will generate profits for Saudi Aramco, not Exxon Mobil or Chevron. Accordingly, not one retiree’s nest egg will be lined nor one student sent to college in America no matter how much the Saudis open their spigots. This will occur by reaping the economic benefits of allowing domestic oil companies do what they are designed to do best; produce oil.

Finally, as the President noted, there is the issue of refining capacity, No matter how much the Saudis open their spigots or how many additional barrels we could potentially produce domestically, we do not have sufficient domestic refining capacity to handle it.

The last week of April, we imported almost 1.5 million barrels of refined gasoline a day. Yes, we’re not only importing crude oil, we’re also importing refined gasoline. Why? Because we haven’t built a new refinery in the US since Jimmy Carter was president.

While refiners have incrementally added additional capacity in existing facilities, it has not come close to keeping up with increased demand. We are essentially trying to run a growing 21st Century economy with a 30+ year old energy infrastructure system. Government regulation and the NIMBY crowd are in large part to blame for this. While they all want the benefits of oil and gas, they don’t want to be exposed to the often dirty processes involved with extracting and refining it. In the end we must all pay for it one way or another. If you do not pay for it by allowing domestic production and refining, you will pay for it at the pump with the premium prices that a stretched market and imports demand.

Keep that in mind as you’re growling at the pumps as the numbers keeping rolling and rolling and rolling off into the stratosphere, faithful readers. Stay tuned for further updates as the hypocrisy follows the price of oil off into orbit.


To protect ones own state and home is what is called "not in my back yard".

You see we always come up with these little phrases to insult what we want to belittle.

I have one of these little back yard issues in my state too. Im not willing to allow nuclear waste to be burried in Yucca mountian. There is underground water and earthquake faults where they want to bury it. That doesnt even take into consideration the ways it will travel the country to find its little home in the second most earthquake prone state in the nation.

Heres the thing about nimby issues. Its says to the average voter "well would you be willing to give up this for that" It brings the value home to people individually. If the voters in Massaflorivada are not willing to give up Reallysweet forrest for the cheaper oil then its a gauge that keeps us from getting to caught up in just what the country is willing to scarafice for our energy needs.

If we had had the GUTS to invest in research into alternative energy starting 35 years ago when many of our people had wanted to we would probably have a much better solution at hand than you are suggesting is the only one. We would also very likely have a corner on the world market and be selling the technology to others.
 
Wherever the oil is, we need to be getting it to at least stabilize the the price if possible but we absolutely must be working on serious, viable alternatives to oil. People simply cannot afford where it is now and certainly not where it seems to be going.

The problem with that strategy is there is only a finite amount of oil left and unless we get serious about alternate sources of energy, we are still going to face this challenge no matter how many holes we drill, governments we overturn, or how many people we kill for oil.
 
black, you have no clue how much oil is left. But I would like to go on record as to thanking the liberal dems (my brothers) for significantly reducing the amount of oil we can even go after. I like 129 a lot better than 20; less than 10yrs ago.
 
The problem with that strategy is there is only a finite amount of oil left and unless we get serious about alternate sources of energy, we are still going to face this challenge no matter how many holes we drill, governments we overturn, or how many people we kill for oil.

Right. And that's the primary reason behind the Saudis' refusal to increase their oil production when Bush asked last week. I've been trying to remember what the estimate was for the number of years remaining for their supplies based on different rates of production.

We are, and should be, looking at several sources of alternative energy; why should we use only one to replace oil?

Our consumption patterns and habits also have to change. The new light bulbs are a beginning and I expect that even better products are on the horizon. When an appliance needs replacing we've purchased those with Energy Star ratings, replaced toilet tank innards with more efficient systems, and will be replacing our hot water heaters shortly (it's time) with the tankless variety. We've always been pretty conscious about consumption but are trying to find more ways to cut down on our energy usage. The two -- energy availability and consumption -- must both be addressed.
 
I go for using their oil while we develop our sources, but not use it yet. The easiest to draw on are the offshore resources all the infrastructure is in place to get it to market. Unlike in the outback of Alaska.
 
The problem with that strategy is there is only a finite amount of oil left and unless we get serious about alternate sources of energy, we are still going to face this challenge no matter how many holes we drill, governments we overturn, or how many people we kill for oil.


Its kinda like suicide. Yeah it ends the problem at the momment but you lose everything that is good about life.


Its a short sighted solution and ignores what is truely important about life and its whole purpose.
 
The problem with that strategy is there is only a finite amount of oil left and unless we get serious about alternate sources of energy, we are still going to face this challenge no matter how many holes we drill, governments we overturn, or how many people we kill for oil.

Which is why he stated that we must absolutely get serious on alt energy research and finding an alternative to oil. But the two are not mutually exclusive. We should be doing BOTH. We should drill where we know their is oil and we should build new refineries (both of which would help reduce dependency on foreign energy).

At the same time, we should push hard to get solar to replace other electric sources. We should find a way to make fuel cells more economically viable. We should increase production of cellulosic ethanol (and cease grain based ethanol production).
 
I go for using their oil while we develop our sources, but not use it yet. The easiest to draw on are the offshore resources all the infrastructure is in place to get it to market. Unlike in the outback of Alaska.


Let them drill holes all over their country at the expense of the lives and happiness of their people.

Let them be the ones to suffer when the bottom falls out on their economy because oil is now not needed.
 
Let them drill holes all over their country at the expense of the lives and happiness of their people.

Let them be the ones to suffer when the bottom falls out on their economy because oil is now not needed.

Oil will always be handy for petrochemicals and such if not for our vehicles and home heating and such.
 
Oil will always be handy for petrochemicals and such if not for our vehicles and home heating and such.

Sure, but we could probably handle that demand ourselves. In the meantime we could continue to search for renewable sources for that process as well.
 
black, you have no clue how much oil is left. But I would like to go on record as to thanking the liberal dems (my brothers) for significantly reducing the amount of oil we can even go after. I like 129 a lot better than 20; less than 10yrs ago.

SEE: Peak Oil

Not only is there less, what's left is harder to get at.
 
Back
Top