57% blame Congress for the high price of oil

What a surprise.....It's all the fault of the Democrats. The Republicans, whose policy is 'drill more and subsidize the oil companies' , why- they were just innocent bystanders. They've only had all the power for years- what could they do?
And the poor oil companies are only sitting on 62 million acres that they haven't drilled yet. The poor things- they need more, don't you see? Why, those mean Democrats are just tying their hands, and they are having to get by with only the greatest profits in the history of the world.

WAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!

The Democrats have tried to pass bills doing many of the very same things that Michele says they should do. And the Repubs FILIBUSTERED THEM.

This is quintessential modern Republicanism. Block something from getting done, then blame others for not doing it.

The oil will only last a couple of years at best. If we HAD drilled 10-15 years ago, it would be GONE already.

We certainly would still be in this situation. A few billion barrels in a world where the US, alone, uses over 20 million barrels a day, is not going to be a solution to anything.

And as long as I hear something like that, and that every time gas prices drop a dime, people start buying SUV's again, the idea that we are going to actually use the oil, and the time it buys us, to actually work on anything else seems highly unlikely.

My position is a little different from many here. (And I'm basing the length of time on what the oil companies themselves say about the amount of oil there. If they err, I'm betting it is not by underestimating amounts).

If, knowing the US public (myself included) I honestly thought four things, I'd support it.

A. That the oil retrieved would be used and sold in the US alone.

B. That the money received from it would go, and solely go to exploration of alternatives.

C. That the average consumer wouldn't think that drilling is some kind of (as stated above) 'solution', and up their usage just as they have every other single time that there seems to be a drop more oil, or a penny drop in price... and eat up the increased oil production by doing so.. And..

D. That the oil companies would use the oil leases they ALREADY HAVE, and build more refineries, rather than sit on them, and keep production low to keep prices up..

Then I might support it.

Unfortunately, both history, and legislative attempts say that I'd better not hold my breath.

We, even with what we have, have, very likely, those 15-20 years. Without drilling. Not even proponents are claiming we're running out NOW. (Indeed, that is the last thing they want to state. Might actually get people thinking that those loonies were right.) It is about reducing prices of the oil we buy.

Chances are, though, knowing we generally coast on a combination of apathy, denial, and greed, we will leave everything until the last possible minute, even if we have to literally squeeze the planet to get the last few drops of oil out, because change is hard, expensive, risky, and there might not even be money to be made by doing it.

Karen,

No we are not running out - but the production capacity is not keeping up with demand from around the world. As demand outstrips supply, prices go up. So without adding new supply to the market, we will continue to see the price of everything - gas, food, electricity, clothing, etc. - go through the roof. That is what I am talking about when I refer to a smooth transition. If things continue as they are, we are looking at extreme economic dislocation as prices climb. The ones that will be hurt the most are the people at the bottom of the economic ladder - those who have to make the choice between paying for food or heating their homes, who lose their jobs because their employer is losing money due to higher costs, who cannot even afford to commute to work anymore. Inflation and unemployment will make people look fondly on the oil crisis of the 70's.

As far as building more refineries, you have to blame the enviro-nazis and their Democratic legislative allies. The combination of environmental lawsuits and restrictive laws has ensured that no new refineries or significant upgrades have occurred in the US for the past 30 years.

Karen,

You said, "Then we don't need more oil sources. We need more OIL PRODUCTION." I would agree in part and disagree in part. What we need is more sources of DOMESTIC production. Right now, we are way to dependent on oil from foreign sources that are unreliable and often from regimes that are unfriendly to us. While that is the case, our economic health is at the mercy of those countries.

Refinery capacity is also a bottleneck, and I agree we need to build new refineries and upgrade existing ones, but that alone is not the solution either.

The argument about the unused leases is another Democratic canard. Most of those unused leases are unused for the simple fact that they have not found any economically viable deposits on them. Just because a lease is issued does not mean oil is present. A lease must be issued before the company can even start doing the exploration to see if there any deposits. Some of the leases are held to prevent other companies from slant-drilling into existing fields. People are always talking about how greedy the oil companies are. Do you really think oil companies would not be drilling on leases they knew held large reserves of oil? Especially at today's prices? Either the oil companies are not a greedy as people claim, or there is not enough oil on those leases to be profitable.

As far as "using this oil solely for the US", the fact is that oil is fungible and is traded on an international market. Everyone competes for the same pool of oil, and the greater the demand for a given amount, the higher the price. Lower the demand, lower the price. Raise the supply, lower the price.

The claim that the price would not be affected for 10 years is bunk. All you have to do is look at the past few weeks. President Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore oil drilling and the price of oil dropped $10/bbl almost overnight. The polls started showing a clear majority favoring increasing supply through drilling, and a majority of Congress favoring increasing supply, and the price dropped another $10-15/bbl. And that is without any actual drilling or increase in supply. Why? Because oil prices, like any other commodity, are based on what people expect to be the availability of the item at some point in the future. If it looks like supplies will increase, people will pay less for futures contracts because they believe the price will be lower in the future than it is now. If the Congress actually passed a law authorizing more drilling in conjunction with greater use of LNG, nuclear, wind and solar, the price of oil would drop dramatically, probably in half, in a matter of days, not years.

You still have not responded to my question above. Would you support adding nuclear plants, more drilling for gas and developing shale oil reserves as part of the solution to energy independence?

"Or there's more profit in scarcity, in which they get to drive the prices up with less work involved. There's always the option C"

Now that argument makes no sense. If the goal of the oil companies to to maintain a manufactured scarcity, then the last thing they would want is for the government to open up additional oil leases. They would be at the forefront of the fight to keep ANWR and the OCS closed to drilling.

"Here's the thing. The recent lowering of prices proves, if nothing else, that the prices are NOT related to supply and demand."

This is also a flawed argument, because you are not taking into account the impact of the commodities markets. As I said before, when you are dealing with futures contracts, the price is determined by the EXPECTATION of what supply and demand will be in the future. When the expectation is that supply will be down and demand up, people expect that prices will be going up, and they try to lock in contracts at the lowest price available. The bidding then sends the prices higher and higher. But if the expectations is that demand will be lower and supplies higher, then the people who own the contracts want to sell before the price goes down, and the buyers want to wait for the lowest price. which drives the price lower.

"It was based on perception and pure speculation. What most of this is being driven by."

Not pure speculation, but speculation is certainly a part of it, and a major reason why any law to increase domestic energy production would result in an immediate reduction of the prie of oil futures.

"And your answer to MY question?

Is there plenty of oil, we're only wanting to open ANWR to reduce the price, or do we need ANWR and the continental shelf in order to keep us going, in which case we had better use all that time to find something else? "

I did answer your question. For the moment, world production is barely keeping up with demand, but there are enough reserves to meet current demand if production can be increased. However, the issue is the source of that supply. We need to increase domestic production, not only because it will help stabilize and lower prices, but because it will help improve our national security by reducing our reliance on countries that are unfriendly to us. That means developing ANWR and the OCS as well as developing alternative energy sources.

I'm just curious - Wind, solar and nuclear will only provide electric energy, and only 2% of our oil is used to generate electricity. So, even if we were able to go to all wind and solar, that would only reduce our dependence on oil by 2%. How would you go about handling the other 98% without disrupting our economy?

I think you're not getting my point that I think that we have some time, still.

But that it won't last forever.

And this is the time we should use to figure out what to do. Not that we already know. I also don't think the limit of human ingenuity and technology arrived with petroleum fuel. We just never really put a lot of effort into anything else once that was discovered.

Even if there were plenty of oil still there, but it is getting increasingly hard to get to, hard to refine, and our needs are exceeding the capacity to refine.. Even just so we have some form of fuel that is renewable so we could entirely release ourselves from dependence on some pretty nasty areas of the world, that's a good goal to shoot for.

And I don't think there's a person out there, no matter how optimistic, who claims that even drilling everywhere on our country where we could possibly produce oil will entirely make us independent (or even make a serious dent in our dependence) on foreign oil.

So, for me, using the money, the time, and putting in some effort is a win for our country.

Of course, if my entire corporation relied on a monopoly on one single energy source, I might find it less than in my best interest to develop my own competition.

That's what I'd want.

Not only for environmental reasons. Not only for price reasons. But for something we can rely on. Something we can make for ourselves. Wouldn't it be nice to have other countries send money to US for something we made through our innovation and our sweat rather than continuing to send cash to other countries to do things for us?

Anonymous, I wouldn't take too much comfort from those numbers. Remember, just a few months ago, the majority of people opposed offshore drilling. Right now, about 70% of the people want us to increase domestic oil supply, including drilling on the OCS and ANWR. Because Nancy Pelosi shut down Congress for 5 weeks rather than allow a vote for drilling, the Republicans now have the next month or so to hammer into the public consciousness that it is the Democrats who are keeping gas prices high. I think by Labor Day, the Dems in Congress will be seriously worried about the political price they will pay for following Nancy's lead.

As far as looking foolish, who looks more foolish - McCain for agreeing that it is a good idea to have your tires properly inflated (but not agreeing that it would save as much gas as Obama claimed), or Obama for making the ludicrous claim that inflating your tires will save more oil than would be produced by drilling? Now Obama is reduced to trying to make the even more ridiculous claim that he meant it would save more oil than would be produced by drilling where McCain was standing at the time.

"Because Nancy Pelosi shut down Congress for 5 weeks rather than allow a vote for drilling,"

congress was going into recess regardless, it wasn't a "one or the other" option. democrats put a vote on the floor to allow more drilling. republicans shot it down.

"the Republicans now have the next month or so to hammer into the public consciousness that it is the Democrats who are keeping gas prices high. I think by Labor Day, the Dems in Congress will be seriously worried about the political price they will pay for following Nancy's lead."

not likely. if you paid attention, you'd notice that democrats in vulnerable (i.e. red) states and states where oil production is a big part of the local economy are supporting more drilling. most democrats support drilling on existing leases. pelosi will not suffer from her constituents - they don't support offshore drilling because they've lived with the environmental consequences. according to a recent rasmussen poll,

Some members of Congress [uh, that would be republicans] are preventing any other energy-related legislation from passing until a vote is allowed lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling. Do you agree or disagree with this position?

28% Agree

46% Disagree

26% Not sure

looks like most people are against the stonewalling of congressional republicans.

"As far as looking foolish, who looks more foolish - McCain for agreeing that it is a good idea to have your tires properly inflated (but not agreeing that it would save as much gas as Obama claimed), or Obama for making the ludicrous claim that inflating your tires will save more oil than would be produced by drilling?"

yeah, that would still be mccain (and michele, and you), because he ridiculed the entire idea, and not any amount of gasoline that it might conserve. besides:

"The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right."

"Now Obama is reduced to trying to make the even more ridiculous claim that he meant it would save more oil than would be produced by drilling where McCain was standing at the time."

it's called "political humor" and he's ridiculing the "drill everywhere" meme of the Gas and Oil Party. every time i hear one of those silly oil-drilling fundamentalists chant their little bumpersticker slogan, i imagine them frollicking through our national forests with oil wells sprouting up from their footsteps behind them. give me a break.

i can tell you from personal experience of growing up with an oil well on the back 5 acres of my property, the "drill everywhere" idea is ridiculous - it's loud 24x7, it stinks, and it's dangerous with kids around. people will not want that landscape, no matter what the cost of a barrel of oil is. so, i get the humor, sorry if it's lost on you.