How to lower gas prices.

[CCTAU 3,494]

Dims? Or republicans? See here.

LINK

[autigeremt 7,160]

Couple that with domestic oil companies paying a fee that would support alternative fuel output, and that would look AUsome.

[Tigermike 3,674]

How long can the Democrats keep selling their snake oil on gas prices? Blaming it all on Republicans and Big Oil while they appease the radical environmental lobby, preventing the exploitation of our own oil and coal resources while blocking new refineries and nuclear plants.

Doing Something Constructive About Oil Prices

Republican whip Roy Blunt (R - MO) put together this chart showing the practical effects of Democratic vs. Republican policies on the price of gasoline at the pump; click to enlarge:

Blunt's office adds this footnote:

Methodology: Retail gasoline prices are the result of literally hundreds of factors including crude oil supply, global demand, refinery capacity, regulation, taxes, weather, the value of the dollar, etc. Therefore it is impossible to say with certainty what one individual action will do to the overall price. However, based on what we know about the impact of crude oil supply and prices it is possible to develop some potential ranges of impact on gasoline prices for certain policy changes. For example, using the methodology employed by Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats that suspending shipments into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (between 40-77,000 barrels of oil a day) would reduce gas prices by at least 5 cents, bringing ANWR online (at least one million barrels of oil a day) could impact gasoline prices by between 70 cents and $1.60.

Try it if you want to.

Hey CCTAU, you only beat me by 12 hours, not sure how I missed your post. But the dims have sure stayed away haven't they?

[TitanTiger 21,162]

Just imagine how much lower it would go with conservation added to that mix? More fuel efficient vehicles, people opting for vehicles that are more in line with their actual needs, widespread use of hybrids for commuter vehicles, etc. No telling how low it could go.

[RunInRed 18,216]

You are aware that McCain is an environmentalist and is opposed to drilling in ANWR, etc.?

[RunInRed 18,216]

I'm not sure who started the thread awhile back about the Chinese drilling for oil off of Cuba but as it turns out:

GOP claim about Chinese oil drilling off Cuba is untrue

WASHINGTON — As Congress has debated energy policy over the past several days, an unusual argument keeps surfacing in support of drilling off the U.S. coastline and in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Why, ask some Republicans, should the United States be thwarted from drilling in its own territory when just 50 miles off the Florida coastline the Chinese government is drilling for oil under Cuban leases?

Yet no one can prove that the Chinese are drilling anywhere off Cuba's shoreline. The China-Cuba connection is "akin to urban legend," said Sen. Mel Martinez, a Republican from Florida who opposes drilling off the coast of his state but who backs exploration in ANWR.

"China is not drilling in Cuba's Gulf of Mexico waters, period," said Jorge Pinon, an energy fellow with the Center for Hemispheric Policy at the University of Miami and an expert in oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. Martinez cited Pinon's research when he took to the Senate floor Wednesday to set the record straight.

Even so, the Chinese-drilling-in-Cuba legend has gained momentum and has been swept up in Republican arguments to open up more U.S. territory to domestic production.

Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech Wednesday to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, picked up the refrain. Cheney quoted a column by George Will, who wrote last week that "drilling is under way 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than U.S. companies are."

In his speech, Cheney described the Chinese as being "in cooperation with the Cuban government. Even the communists have figured out that a good answer to higher prices means more supply."

"But Congress says no to drilling in ANWR, no to drilling on the East Coast, no to drilling on the West Coast," Cheney added.

The office of House Minority Leader John Boehner defended the GOP drilling claims. "A 2006 New York Times story highlights lease agreements negotiated between Cuba and China and the fact that China was planning to drill in the Florida Strait off the coast of Cuba," said spokesman Michael Steel.

The China-Cuba connection also appeared in an editorial Monday in Investor's Business Daily, which wrote that "the U.S. Congress has voted consistently to keep 85 percent of America's offshore oil and gas off-limits, while China and Cuba drill 60 miles from Key West, Fla."

And on Tuesday, Rep. George Radanovich, R-Calif., wrote in the Modesto Bee that "China, thanks to a lease issued by Cuba, is drilling for oil just 50 miles off Florida's coast."

A spokesman for Radanovich said Wednesday that the congressman had read about a Cuban lease to Chinese interests in the 2006 Times article.

China's Sinopec oil company does have an agreement with the Cuban government, but it's to develop onshore resources west of Havana, Pinon said. The Chinese have done some seismic testing, he said, but no drilling, and nothing offshore.

Western diplomats in Havana tell McClatchy that to the best of their knowledge, there is no Chinese drilling in or around Cuba.

"I've never heard anything about this," said one diplomat from a country in the hemisphere.

The Western diplomats, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media about energy issues, said they believed there is no new drilling occurring off the coast of Cuba, just exploration.

Cuba's state oil company, Cupet, has issued exploration contracts to companies from India, Canada, Spain, Malaysia and Norway, according to diplomats.

But many oil companies from those countries have expressed reservations about how to turn potential crude oil into product. Cuba doesn't have the refinery capacity, and the Cuban embargo prohibits the oil from coming to U.S. refineries, Pinon said.

The most recent high-profile contract with Cuba went to Brazil's state oil company, Petrobras. Cuba inked a contract with Petrobras in January, allowing the Brazilian energy giant to search for oil in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico that are within Cuba's sovereign territory. Brazil's foreign minister, Celso Amorim, traveled to Cuba last month and talked up the oil business, along with a joint venture between Cuba and Petrobras to produce lubricants.

Most of Cuba's oil comes from Venezuela, with whom it shares an ideological bent and geographical proximity. Brazil's growing role in Cuba's energy sector is significant because Petrobras has been involved in some of the world's few discoveries of new and large oilfields.

link

[RunInRed 18,216]

I heard this guy knows a little about oil...

PK: What about discovering new oil or drilling in Alaska or in the oil sands?

Boone Pickens: I don't think the ANWR is going to be released to be developed, but you're familiar with the transportation of crude oil off of the North Slope in the pipeline area. Do you know what the capacity of that is? Some people have the idea that ANWR could solve a problem for the United States, which is ridiculous.

ANWR, they try to compare to Prudhoe Bay, an oil field where the ultimate recovery out of it is 14 billion barrels. It's depleted substantially. At one time that field could fill that Alyeska line, which is 2 million barrels a day. Keep that in mind, that's all it is: 2 million. That has now declined to about 700,000 barrels a day and they put in satellite production from Endicott and other fields around Prudhoe Bay. But they've pretty well gutted everything that's available to go into that line.

It's unlikely that ANWR will be as productive as Prudhoe Bay. Probably a third as much. But let's just say it's as productive. All that oil coming off of ANWR does is fill up that line. You go back to 2 million barrels a day. We're importing today 14 million barrels of crude and products in the United States, using 21 million barrels of crude and products. So, the 2 million barrel Alyeska line would be 10 percent of what we use every day. It has no hope of solving many problems for us.

When you go to the oil sands, you should focus on a recent announcement to build a line from the oil sands to the west coast of Canada. That is a 528,000-barrel-a-day line. The plan is to move that oil into the Asian market. We haven't even moved ahead in the United States to make sure we capture everything coming out of the oil sands.

The cost of the oil sands is incredibly high but necessary. So all those projects in oil sands run up costs several times what they were originally estimated to be. So, you can't just go in and develop the oil sands. The oil sands is a manufacturing/mining operation. It has a huge amount of manpower necessary, equipment, everything else and I think the oil sands now are producing somewhere around 1.3 million barrels a day.

You don't have the option of just turning it on or anything like that. It takes years. And ANWR could not go on production for instance if Congress passed something that would allow entry into ANWR in the next session, it would take ten years to go into production.

PK: The New York Times reported that you are going to build a new 150,000-acre wind farm for $10 billion. Why are you so bullish on wind power?

Boone Pickens: What are my other choices? There's only one source of energy that's going to make a substantial difference for this country, and it's wind. It's renewable, it's green, there's no question it will work, and it's being developed very aggressively now in Texas, western Oklahoma, Kansas, and up in the Great Plains. For the next ten years, America will need about a 15 percent increase over the amount of energy that our country uses now. Where is it going to come from? It could come from wind. The government would have to give access, right of way, to move that, but you'll be able to put that huge wind area in the central part of the United States to work. It would rejuvenate the Great Plains. Go look at what has happened in Sweetwater the last three or four years. That could be replicated all the way from Sweetwater to the Canadian border. At the same time there is a wind and solar corridor that would extend west of Sweetwater, Texas, to the California corridor.

PK: What are some of the more promising alternatives that are out there to power automobiles?

BP: The obvious one is natural gas, and natural gas is a domestic fuel. So, anything you can replace with natural gas as far as diesel gasoline is concerned, you cut down on the imports, and natural gas is a cleaner, cheaper fuel that's available. That infrastructure should be developed. It doesn't need much in the way of help from the government.

You've got to try to develop everything. You don't push anything off the table now. You just have to go balls-out to get it done, and get off of this crude oil. I just can't believe, I keep saying this. It's just a huge outflow of wealth from this country.

PK: What should the government's role be in all of this?

BP: I'd say in going to renewables, they'd need to have a production credit in place for a number of years, not renewing it every two years. That doesn't get the interest into it that you need to have, because people are frightened that they're investing in something that they can't get help on. So you need the production tax credit on wind. And you need to free up the right of way.

PK: In Congress, "alternative energy" often translates into ethanol subsidies, or other pork barrel spending projects. How much of the move toward alternative energy is going to have to be aided, at least in the short term, by government subsidies? Why won't companies see it in their interests to invest in alternative energies without government help?

BP: There's no question you're going to have to have the production tax credit. That's a must, because it can't stand alone without it. You're better off to create jobs at home, and recycle the money. I was against ethanol originally, but hell, I'd rather have ethanol than I would Saudi oil. They're the number two provider after Canada. They're selling about 1.8 million, 2 million barrels a day to us. Ethanol is not going to solve it. Nothing is going to solve the problem for us, because we've got such a huge appetite. We're now importing 62 percent of our crude oil. Out of the 85 million barrels a day the world produces, we're using 25 percent of it, with less than 5 percent of the population.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13223

[Tigermike 3,674]

I'm not sure who started the thread awhile back about the Chinese drilling for oil off of Cuba but as it turns out:

I'm not sure either about the thread on these forums. But the headline

GOP claim about Chinese oil drilling off Cuba is untrue

seems to be politics as usual and even more untrue.

Here is an article from CNN check out the date.

China, Cuba reported in Gulf oil partnership

U.S. firms stand by, prohibited from bidding on contracts; lawmakers propose opening up U.S. coast for drilling.

May 9, 2006: 10:12 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - Plans for foreign oil companies, some from India and China, to drill off the cost of Cuba are prompting calls from lawmakers to ease environmental restrictions that prohibit coastal drilling in most of the U.S., according to a report Tuesday.

At a time of rising soaring gasoline prices caused partly by a lack of supply, legislators are fuming that Cuba is opening up its continental shelf for oil and gas exploration while most of the U.S. continental shelf outside the Gulf of Mexico, which extends 200 miles from shore, has been off limits for drilling since the early 1980s, the New York Times reported. (I don't care where you come from, the NYTIMES has never been a shill for Republicans. But then this wouldn't be the first story they have screwed up would it?)

Adding insult to injury, the Times said U.S. firms were invited to bid on the Cuban contracts, but were barred by the U.S. government due to the country's longstanding economic embargo of communist Cuba.

"Red China should not be left to drill for oil within spitting distance of our shores without competition from U.S. industries," Sen. Larry Craig, Republican of Idaho, told the Times. (Surely this story wasn't put out there by the dims in the times to set up Republicans was it?)

Firms from Canada and Spain will also drill off the Cuban coast, the article said

Craig is introducing a bill to exempt U.S. oil firms from the embargo, much as food and drug firms are, according to the article.

There are also several bills moving through Congress aimed at opening up areas more areas of the U.S. to oil and gas exploration, including coastal waters and Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Supporters of the bills, including the oil industry, say it would help bring down oil and gas prices and decrease the country's reliance on oil imports from the volatile Middle East.

Gasoline prices have soared 33 percent over the last year, while the price of crude oil has tripled since 2002.

But critics of more drilling say the energy obtained, which they say would be minimal and wouldn't bring down prices that much, isn't worth the environmental risks. They also say more drilling for a finite resource does nothing to promote long term conservation solutions.

Most coastal states also oppose offshore drilling, fearing unsightly rigs and oil spills will hurt their tourism industries.

The United States Geological Survey estimates the Cuban deal involves 4.6 billion barrels of oil and 9.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to the Times. The paper said that's enough oil and gas to power the U.S. for a few months.

The paper also cited an Interior Department study that said the U.S. continental shelf contained 115 billion barrels of oil and 633 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That would be enough oil to satisfy U.S. demand, at current consumption levels, for 16 years and enough natural gas for 25 years, according to the Times.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/econo..._cuba/index.htm

Here is the link to the NY Times article: link

[RunInRed 18,216]

Yes, the article you posted was from 2006, and put forth the false "facts" we have seen floating around for awhile. As this new article states, the Chinese are not drilling off of Cuba.

[AURaptor 1,137]

You are aware that McCain is an environmentalist and is opposed to drilling in ANWR, etc.?

Shows what a RINO McCain is then. Drilling in ANWR is the right thing to do, no matter which party one claims to be from. It would introduce more oil into the system, creating more competition and would only moderatly drop the price, making drilling still profitable. It's not the cure, but a simple act such as drilling in ANWR would send a signal to the Futures prospectors that the U.S. is no longer going to take this oil crunch sitting down.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Yes, the article you posted was from 2006, and put forth the false "facts" we have seen floating around for awhile. As this new article states, the Chinese are not drilling off of Cuba.

This site has a map which shows active gas, oil and thermal.

Enjoy -http://gis.bakerhughesdirect.com/RigCounts/default2.aspx

http://investor.shareholder.com/bhi/rig_counts/rc_index.cfm

[DKW 86 7,883]

Yes, the article you posted was from 2006, and put forth the false "facts" we have seen floating around for awhile. As this new article states, the Chinese are not drilling off of Cuba.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hwl7MBs...X7O8vAD919066O3

"It is our understanding that, although Cuba has leased out exploration blocks 60 miles off the coast of southern Florida, which is closer than American firms are allowed to operate in that area, no Chinese firm is drilling there," according to the statement.

Cuba clearly is interested in developing its deep-water oil resources, estimated at more than 5 billion barrel, including areas within 60 miles of Key West, Fla., energy experts said.

Jorge Pinon, a senior energy fellow at the University of Miami specializing in Latin America, said Cuba has awarded offshore oil leases, or concessionary blocs, in its offshore waters to six oil companies — none of them Chinese — and soon may announce an agreement with Brazil's state oil company, Petrobras.

"But no one is currently drilling in any of those concessions," said Pinon in a telephone interview. Pinon, who supports drilling in the eastern Gulf and believes it can be done without hurting the environment, said China is being raised as an unnecessary "boogeyman" by drilling proponents.

"There is no actual drilling yet. ... There is exploration," said Johanna Mendelson-Forman, a senior fellow on energy and Latin America at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Wow, so your point is that CHINESE arent drilling off our coasts, but you are totally fine that Cuba is releasing rights to other countries? Thats okay with the Left in our country, as long as it isnt the Chinese we are fine?

THE point is that Cuba is getting ready to drill for oil and we are sitting on our rearends doing nothing. This is our energy policy, to do nothing. We will buy from Cuba if they sell if only from a third party too.

It is amazing to me that some of our environmental policy turns out to be nothing more than subtle racism. We want the oil. We will buy the oil. But we do not want any of the pollution problems from said drilling.

Let the brown skinned people in the second and third worlds put up with the environmentally unfriendly development in their backyards while we stay clean here in the US. No, we dont want our oil coming from our own drilling. That would be too clean and make too much sense. Lets just buy it from companies and countries with little to no environmental policy and keep our pollution heaped upon those brown skinned poor folks in other countries. Let the brown skinned folks babies and adults live in the unregulated pollution. its their health going down the drain not ours and that is a fine thing according to some leftist environmentalists in the US. Yeah, That's the ticket!

Yeah, I am sssooo proud of our environmental policies right now. This country is just too stupid sometimes.

[RunInRed 18,216]

I never said I was fine with what Cuba is doing. I simply stated the fact that the GOP's claim that has been circulating for over a year is false. The Chinese aren't drilling off of Cuba. Period.

[AUTiger1 0]

We need to drill, build refineries, build more nuclear power plants. No one says that we can't drill, introduce more oil into the market, while at the same time be investing and researching alternative fuel sources. Also why has no one mentioned the abundance of natural gas that could be used to heat homes that we aren't even allowed to access?

[Auburn85 436]

ok, turns out China isn't drilling off the coast of Cuba, but with the NEW articles that's been presented, they are all but given the green light to drill.

RIR, where would you be ok for us to drill?

I still say we need a combo energy plan.

Develop sugar cane based ethanol, more nuclear energy, and so forth. Then, at the same time, drill for oil.

[RunInRed 18,216]

ok, turns out China isn't drilling off the coast of Cuba, but with the NEW articles that's been presented, they are all but given the green light to drill.

RIR, where would you be ok for us to drill?

I still say we need a combo energy plan.

Develop sugar cane based ethanol, more nuclear energy, and so forth. Then, at the same time, drill for oil.

I'm not necessarily anti-drilling, I just don't think drilling for a finite resource is the answer. I would rather see the investment in alternative energy sources.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I'm not necessarily anti-drilling, I just don't think drilling for a finite resource is the answer. I would rather see the investment in alternative energy sources.

Why can't we do both?

[RunInRed 18,216]

I'm not necessarily anti-drilling, I just don't think drilling for a finite resource is the answer. I would rather see the investment in alternative energy sources.

Why can't we do both?

Depends how drilling is financed. Investment in one probably means less attention ($$) to the other. I am still not convinced (especially when it comes to ANWR) that there is that much oil there. Boone Pickens and others seem to think it would be a 10 year investment of time and money just to get very little output. Not too mention, the Alaskan pipeline is currently at capacity (are we going to build another pipeline?). I just think we'd be better off taking all this time and resources (both private dollars, big oil and investment, and Government subsidies) and pursuing other green alternatives right here in the U.S.

[tiger88 934]

Where do you get your info on the Alaska pipeline? Last thing I heard alskan exports were at around 25 percent of what they were at their peak more than several years ago.

We must drill more and soon. Efforts can be ramped up to get the oil out quicker as necessary. Of course we need to explore alternative sources amap as well. If we don't start on the oil p[art now and ramp it up very soon we will all be screwed in the near future. No one even knows if an alternative source can be developed that can avert the impending crisis due the lack of oil from traditional sources.

[AUTiger1 0]

ok, turns out China isn't drilling off the coast of Cuba, but with the NEW articles that's been presented, they are all but given the green light to drill.

RIR, where would you be ok for us to drill?

I still say we need a combo energy plan.

Develop sugar cane based ethanol, more nuclear energy, and so forth. Then, at the same time, drill for oil.

I'm not necessarily anti-drilling, I just don't think drilling for a finite resource is the answer. I would rather see the investment in alternative energy sources.

So the people just have to hold their nose and suffer through it? You have said nothing about nuclear energy.

Lets scrap No Child Left Behind and overhaul the Medicare RX Plan and the government would have the money to help out with the research into alternative energy sources. Let private dollars and big oil for the majority take care of financing the drilling, the government would have to put up very little. The money to be made would be enough to get private investing into it. You keep saying the ANWAR, what about the Rockies, off the gulf coast, in the Dakotas?

[RunInRed 18,216]

Where do you get your info on the Alaska pipeline? Last thing I heard alskan exports were at around 25 percent of what they were at their peak more than several years ago.

See article posted above quoting Boone Pickens.

[tiger88 934]

Where do you get your info on the Alaska pipeline? Last thing I heard alskan exports were at around 25 percent of what they were at their peak more than several years ago.

See article posted above quoting Boone Pickens.

I saw that and it backed what I said. The pipeline is not nearly at capacity. He said that even if it were running at capacity it wouldn't solve our problem. It would make a difference though and we could possibly find good ways to increase the output even more.

[BamaGrad03 0]

We need to drill because it will not only provide supply in the future...but will also have a huge psychological effect on the market.

It will send a message to these speculators that we are willing to find supply elsewhere.

[Tigermike 3,674]

You are aware that McCain is an environmentalist and is opposed to drilling in ANWR, etc.?

You are aware that I am an environmentalist don't you? But I am a practical environmentalist, I live it every day and have for years. But by dim standards I wouldn't measure up, the same way Dr. Condoleezza Rice is not black enough.

I'm not necessarily anti-drilling, I just don't think drilling for a finite resource is the answer. I would rather see the investment in alternative energy sources.

Why can't we do both?

Depends how drilling is financed.

Drilling is financed by oil companies. Did you know that the majority of all those "windfall profits" went back into drilling and infrastructure to produce the oil & gas?

We need to drill because it will not only provide supply in the future...but will also have a huge psychological effect on the market.

It will send a message to these speculators that we are willing to find supply elsewhere.

It will also provide a lot of jobs. Granted most of the jobs will be outside of lib stronghold blue states. And it would probably provide more than a few jobs to some of those bitter white people who cling to their religion and their guns. But that's a small price to pay for the continued well being of the middle class.

We need to do all of the above. Drill, develop alternatives, build refineries, build nuclear plants, develop coal fields.

But the elites running the DNC and pushing the radical environmental agenda, really don't care one cent for all those poor, bitter white folks do they?

[Tigermike 3,674]

I heard this guy knows a little about oil...

PK: What about discovering new oil or drilling in Alaska or in the oil sands?

Boone Pickens: I don't think the ANWR is going to be released to be developed, but you're familiar with the transportation of crude oil off of the North Slope in the pipeline area. Do you know what the capacity of that is? Some people have the idea that ANWR could solve a problem for the United States, which is ridiculous.

ANWR, they try to compare to Prudhoe Bay, an oil field where the ultimate recovery out of it is 14 billion barrels. It's depleted substantially. At one time that field could fill that Alyeska line, which is 2 million barrels a day. Keep that in mind, that's all it is: 2 million. That has now declined to about 700,000 barrels a day and they put in satellite production from Endicott and other fields around Prudhoe Bay. But they've pretty well gutted everything that's available to go into that line.

It's unlikely that ANWR will be as productive as Prudhoe Bay. Probably a third as much. But let's just say it's as productive. All that oil coming off of ANWR does is fill up that line. You go back to 2 million barrels a day. We're importing today 14 million barrels of crude and products in the United States, using 21 million barrels of crude and products. So, the 2 million barrel Alyeska line would be 10 percent of what we use every day. It has no hope of solving many problems for us.

Just a thought, but wouldn't it be in T. Boone Pickens best interest to do and say what ever in order to keep the oil and gas prices high? Don't think for a minute that Mr. Pickens is altruistic in saying what is in this piece.