You can blame all the speculators that you want,  It is Nancy Pelosi that will not allow us an up or down vote!   you are saying 70% of the american people do not know what they are talking about....we want to drill, and drill now..

You have to know the facts about those lands that you talked about,   lots will not give you oil... its a tricky business.....

OR SHOULD WE JUST WAIT FOR TIMES LIKE THIS, WHERE RUSSIAN INVADES GEORGIA, AND BP SHUTS DOWN  DRILLINGS IN GEORGIA...  WE ARE TOO DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN OIL.

Plus,  yes, if the congress  lifts the ban on drilling..IT WILL HAVE AN IMMEDIATE EFFECT, AND YOU KNOW IT...

shoppe

Its not drilling.  Its not about drilling.  Drilling is not going to change the current situation.  There are acres of land approved for drilling, we aren't drilling there. 

You want to lower gas prices, use your brain and forget the drilling in Alaska or the gulf and think about two things:

1)  Stop speculation by the oil companies and the guru's of Wall Street

2) BUILD refineries.

Drilling...takes time people.  I applaud the Democrats for realizing that and wanting to get at the heart of the problem.  It is so frustrating listening to ignorance and political propaganda.  Drilling in the Gulf...OH ITS GOING TO SAVE US...says McCain (although, he even said no to this years ago) but we all jump to our political nest when this garbage starts and pick sides.

Interesting that a conservative spouting off about economics 101 would dismiss very quickly the demand side of the equation. Typical. 

Instead you see the threat of increased supply that won't happen for years (2? 4? 8?10?) as a cause for speculation.... rather than these same speculators thinking that the incredibly high gas prices may have deterred usage. [And yes....I do understand the concept of elasticity]. 

Aug. 7 (Bloomberg) - - Crude oil futures traded near $119 a barrel in New York after falling yesterday as U.S. supplies unexpectedly gained amid slowing demand, and the dollar climbed, reducing the appeal of commodities as an inflation hedge.

Did you really think there was a chance oil consumption was up in the last few months? Really?

- - - 

Dropping down to your answer to my oligarchical assertion.  As it turns out, it was a bunch of conservatives who taught me that concept. Signalling is not a radical idea.....its taught in every business school in the country.... (not exactly bastions of American liberalism).  It happens all of the time from colas, to newspapers, to airlines, etc.  Its what Marx didn't see when he saw capitalism "as it own contradiction." Monopoly is avoided, but profits are consistent which makes everyone happy.

There is a failure of "the invisible hand" once companies stop competing.  We don't get 'the best product at the best price" once this happens. My point was not so much to explain potential problems with oil.....it was meant to explain why we might not be seeing, for instance, more focus with regards to alernative energies - much of which is owned by the oil companies who are:

1. Working their butts off trying to improve the technology to get it to market quickly.

2. Working their butts off trying to improve the technology so they can pull it out when forced to.

3. Sitting on patents and paying lip service ("Do people care?....people do") to the alta energy crowd.  

- - -

Your second answer, however, is the intriging one to me.....and the only one I'm interested in discussing. Unfortunately. I don't have the time right now.

There isn't an argument waiting for you. I will preview it what I am interested in:

What if the Peak Oil people are correct? And 2020 output is similar to 1996 production (even with ANWR and Off-Shore) ? But global demand is higher.

What then?

OK, I'll try to respond to each question;

Q.  Is the price drop a result of the threat of opening new areas to drill or a result of decreased consumption?

A.  Since there are no posted statistics that clearly indicate that there has been a drop in consumption, (in fact, I found one statistic that speculated that gasoline consumption had increased in the past 60 days), the logical assumption is that the expectation of increased product caused the speculators to pull back a little. 

Economics 101 teaches that if there is an increased supply, or a promise of an increased supply of a commodity, the price of that commodity will drop in the absence of an increase in demand for that commodity. 

Q.  Why do I believe that the days of petroleum based products are numbered?

A.  Oil is a finite resource.  At some point, we will run out.  Some argue that we have already seen the peak in production.  I'm not convinced of that, but nevertheless oil's days are numbered because it is becoming increasingly more costly to produce. 

The typical Bakken well in North Dakota costs roughly $7 million to drill and bring to production.  True, technology will continue to advance, but I believe that eventually we will see a tipping point where it will be cheaper to use an alternative fuel source than it is to drill, produce, and refine oil.

Q.  Capitalism vs. Oligarchy? 

A.  We keep hearing these stories about the huge oil companies like Exxon Mobil and BP and the monopoly they hold.  But the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the oil produced comes from small corporations all competing against one another for the prime drilling sites, the prime services, and the prime refinery prices.  Here in North Dakota, there are dozens of small corporations started by local enterpreneurs who saw a profit to be taken if they invest their money smartly and run a tight business.  The notion of a monopoly run by the Exxon and BP giants is a fallacy being propagated by the liberals and their lapdog media flunkies.

I hope this answers your questions, but if not, I am happy to keep providing lessons to all of you brainwashed victims of liberal propaganda. 

Lastly. What goes wrong when democratic capitalism (many competitors in an industry) turns into oligarchical capitalism (a few competitors) .

What are the implications for the market?

There was a movie that came out called A Beautiful Mind a few years ago. What was the significance of the Nash Equilibrium and Game Theory to the business world? As you may or may not remember, he won the Nobel Prize for Economics even though he was a mathematician.

What does "win-win" mean amongst "competitors" in 2008 capitalism?

I don't know if you are old enough to remember the coke/pepsi wars in which they had the "Pepsi Challenge."  Pepsi killed Coke in blind taste tests and ran this add stressing it.  It was hugely successful.

And then Pepsi pulled it. Why?

See..... now here is an intersting statement:

Nobody can deny that the days of petroleum based energy are numbered. 

I think Blmccar would disagree with you since he believes in abiotic oil creation.

My question to you is why would you think petroleum's days are numbered? What assumptions are you making? 

just the President's threat of opening the coastal regions caused a $25 drop in the price of oil. 

Are you sure there weren't more tangible reasons why the price dropped? Say..... due to people cutting back on oil consumption due to various economic reasons, the supply increased and sent the price down.

Or was it all the president's rhetoric that did it?

Detractors say that drilling will not show any benefits for at least 10 years.  That's a flat out lie

Then the administration lies....they are the ones that put out that information.

When I say drill now, I mean starting immediately.  Open up the coastal bans off California and Florida.  Allow drilling in ANWR, open the front range of the Rockies for exploration of the shale oil deposits. 

Detractors say that drilling will not show any benefits for at least 10 years.  That's a flat out lie, just the President's threat of opening the coastal regions caused a $25 drop in the price of oil.  That is what I call  IMMEDIATE RELIEF.  

Long term means exactly what it sounds like.  It means as long as it takes for PRIVATE INDUSTRY AND ENTERPRENEURS DRIVEN BY MARKET FORCES  to invest in alternative technologies and make them economically viable.  Nobody can deny that the days of petroleum based energy are numbered.  Good old capitalism and market economics will drive the development of alternative energy sources.   

In the meantime, we need to drill on our own land, reduce our dependency on foreign oil, (which by the way is mostly supplied by Canada, not the Middle Eastern producing nations). 

And finally, our Congressional delegation, Larry Dorgan, Moe Conrad & Curly Pomeroy need to stop nursing on Nancy Peolsi's teet and stand up for North Dakotans by voting for domestic drilling wherever there are suspected oil deposits.  North Dakota is the nation's sixth largest oil producing state.  A vote against drilling is a vote against their own constituency. 

By the way, if you have not contacted our corrupt girly men in congress yet, shoot them an e-mail. If you have not done this in 24 hours, it is time to do it again.....

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

The corrupt Dorkan and Comrade anways vote 'no' on drilling and are damn proud of it. Below is one such example.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50649,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollcall_041802.htm

OK:

"drill now" means to drill now, today,  August, 2008.... sign papers to stop the ban TODAY..... DRILL NOW.. :)

"short term"  Now... Drill now... and start weening ourselves off GENTLY... just like a nursing mom... GENTLY... HEE HEE

"long term"   As long as it takes,  DRILL NOW... TODAY... AUGUST 2008...:)

P.S.   I think Hillary is still in the race, don't you ?    wonder how she feels about drilling.....

Every Republican I have heard says that we need to drill now for the short term effect.  This will allow us over the long term to develop and refine alternative sources of energy.

Please amplify what you mean by this.

• Where do you intend to "drill now"?


• What do you mean by "short term effect?"


• What does "the long term" mean to you? Approximately?

Every Republican I have heard says that we need to drill now for the short term effect.  This will allow us over the long term to develop and refine alternative sources of energy.

Wind power is still in need of further development, and cannot be fully developed until a much, much larger distribution infrastructure is in place.  Right now, just the energy created at our coal fired plants is difficult to export because of limited distributuion systems. 

Ethanol/Bio fuels are still in need of further development.  It takes 300 million gallons of water to produce 100 million gallons of ethanol.  To make sure we don't create a water shortage problem, we have to allow time to further refine the process of producing ethanol.  Perhaps another 20 years may be necessary. 

Of course we have huge coal reserves, but coal is a heavy producer of carbon emissions and more work is needed to refine the process of carbon sequestration.  Even though great strides have been taken, much more work needs to be done.  Years worth of work.

The bottom line is that Republicans understand the fact that we need a viable, proven short term alternative combined with long term investments to produce alternative fuels.  Republicans also understand that market forces and private industry are the best drivers of innovation, NOT MORE GOVERNMENT.  So they do not believe that levying more taxes and creating subsidies will lead to desirable results.

Now, what have the Democrats offered?  Well Barack told us that we can eliminate the oil crisis by checking the air in our tires and tuning up our cars.  (Never mind the fact that most cars today are controlled by complex electronic systems and rarely need a "tuneup").  Nancy Pelosi has told us that she wants ALL oil and coal based fuels to be history.   She has also said that she does not believe in nuclear power. 

What does that leave?  Bio fuels.  But the biofuels industry has issues.  Like I mentioned, there is the water issue.  Will we create massive water shortages by massively expanding the ethanol industry?  There is also the matter of funding.  To expand the biofuels industry at the pace she would like, will require billions of dollars.  More than private investors can ever provide, so that means higher taxes and bigger government. 

The bottom line is that they offer no short term alternatives.  Only higher taxes, more government, more mandates to force us to drive less, drive smaller vehicles, mandate higher fuel economy ratings on cars, (thereby increasing the cost of vehicles to prohibitive levels), pay more for food because of increased demand for fuel production, and the list goes on and on. 

All while they drive around Washington in their chauffeur driven limos and jet back to their home states in fuel guzzling private jets, and live in their ocean front vacation homes paid for by our tax dollars.    This is the party of the people?   Give me a break.

This from the news today on kxnet about gas prices:   "But Senator Byron Dorgan says this is still too high and he blames speculators."

Does anyone out there despise this lying dog as much as I do?  Here's a leftist liberal that the people of ND keep electing, that blocks any new drilling of oil, choking down the supply, and because of the short supply, speculators are bidding up the price.  IT IS DORGAN THAT IS CAUSING THE HIGH PRICES.  Now that people are cutting back on travel, and there is a threat that offshore drilling will be opened, these same "Big Speculators" are driving the price of oil down.  C'mon, Dorgan, get on board with the people of ND and get ALL drilling opened up!!!  But like usual, it's easier for a liberal to pass the blame to others.  Own up, Dorgan!!!!

Well I didn't like it when McCain backslid......and I don't like this either.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/01/obama-shifts-on-oil-drilling/

This from the Minot paper letter to editor from Dorgan July 30: 

 "I do support additional drilling for oil and natural gas. I also support aggressive conservation measures, substantial new efficiency standards, and especially a major national push for renewable energy including wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and more. I am pushing aggressively for action on all of these fronts."

Dorgan's a flippin' liar....he has NO intention of expanding drilling.  He'll just stick by the old liberal mantra of "the oil companies have millions and millions of acres under lease on federal lands".  That is where he wants them to drill, regardless if there is no oil or very little.  Has he introduced ANY legislation that would help us with these high prices, something like opening drilling in ANWR or off the coasts?     I don't think so, he is more indebted to the environmental facists than to those who put him in office.

He IS not lying when he wants a "major national push", which is a massive wealth distribution which we all will pay for.  We have had a massive "push" in the increase in ethanol production, which we all pay for in grants and credits, and also in higher food prices.  But has it brought down the price of gas in the years since it went into production?  I think you all can figure that one out........