Why is Gas So High

[Mule]

For several decades, the Democratic Party has pursued policies designed to drive up the cost of petroleum, and therefore gas at the pump. Remarkably, the Democrats don't seem to have taken much of a political hit from the current spike in gas prices. Probably that's because most people don't realize how different the two parties' energy policies have been.

Congressman Roy Blunt put together this data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy:

ANWR Exploration House Republicans: 91% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed

SUMMARY

91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.

86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.

[Zef]

Demand goes up...price goes up.

[Mule]

Supply goes up, price goes down!

[Zef]

OPEP said no to more pumping...!

[BRPORSCHE]

The supply is there mule. The refiniries just are too old to keep this up. That's why when one plant goes down the price goes up.

Build new plants, price goes down

[Mule]

we have a refinery or 2 in this part of the country, as do you. If we started stringing up democrats from the refineries? Give it some thought.

[RoninLB]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121322599645166029.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks


$4 Gasbags

WSJ; June 12, 2008; Page A16

Anyone wondering why U.S. energy policy is so dysfunctional need only review Congress's recent antics. Members have debated ideas ranging from suing OPEC to the Senate's carbon tax-and-regulation monstrosity, to a windfall profits tax on oil companies, to new punishments for "price gouging" – everything except expanding domestic energy supplies.

Amid $135 oil, it ought to be an easy, bipartisan victory to lift the political restrictions on energy exploration and production. Record-high fuel costs are hitting consumers and business like a huge tax increase. Yet the U.S. remains one of the only countries in the world that chooses as a matter of policy to lock up its natural resources. The Chinese think we're insane and self-destructive, while the Saudis laugh all the way to the bank.


There are two separate moratoria on offshore drilling: One is a ban that Congress has attached to every budget since 1982, and the other is a 1990 executive order that President Bush has waived in only a few cases. Republicans made failing attempts to overcome both when they ran Congress, but current Democratic leaders and their green masters remain adamantly opposed. The new political opportunity amid record prices is to convince enough rank-and-file Democrats that they'll suffer at the polls if they don't break with this antiexploration ideology.

While energy "independence" is an impossible dream, there's no doubt the U.S. has vast undeveloped fossil-fuel deposits. A tiny corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge contains an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil and would be the largest producing oil field in the Northern Hemisphere. Yet the Senate blocked that development as recently as last month. The Outer Continental Shelf is estimated to contain some 86 billion barrels of oil, plus 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Yet of the shelf's 1.76 billion acres, 85% is off-limits and 97% is undeveloped.

Engineers recently perfected refining solid shale rock into diesel or gas, which may amount to the largest oil supply in the world – perhaps as much as 1.8 trillion barrels in the American West. That's enough to meet current U.S. oil demand for more than two centuries. Yet as late as 2007, Democrats attached a rider to the energy bill that prohibits leasing the federal interior lands that contain at least 80% of America's oil shale. The key vote was cast by liberal Senator Ken Salazar from Colorado, of all places.

These supply guesses are probably conservative, because the only way to know for sure is to drill exploratory wells. Yet most of Alaska and offshore are cut off even from modern seismic testing. Many areas haven't been examined since the 1960s, when exploration technology was far more primitive. This has led to the believe-it-or-not situation in which the Chinese are prepping to drill in Cuban waters less than 60 miles off the Florida coast. American companies are banned from drilling in American waters nearby.

Yes, we know, increased drilling is no energy cure-all; new projects take about a decade to come on line. Then again, more than a few experts say that new production could affect price as the market perceives a new U.S. seriousness to increase supplies. Part of today's futures speculation is based on the assumption that supplies will remain tight for years to come, even as Chinese and Indian demand surges.

Nor would merely repealing the exploration bans be enough. Between 2000 and 2007, the drilling of exploratory oil wells climbed 138%, but over the same period domestic crude oil production decreased 12.4% and fell to the lowest levels since 1947. Refineries for gasoline are stretched to the limit, but multiple regulatory barriers impede new construction or even expansions at existing facilities. Then there is the inevitable lawsuit downpour from the environmental lobby.

Democrats are going to have to grow up. The oil-rich areas they want to leave untouched are accessible with minimal environmental disturbance, thanks to modern technology. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita flattened terminals across the Gulf of Mexico but didn't cause a single oil spill. As for anticarbon theology, oil will be indispensable over the next half-century and probably longer, like it or not. Airplanes will never fly on woodchips, and you won't be able to charge your car with a windmill for some time, if ever.

Public anger over fuel prices could hardly come at a worse time for the GOP, since voters tend to blame a flagging economy on the party that occupies the White House. But the opportunity is to offer a reform alternative to Barack Obama and the high-price energy status quo he embraces. It looks like the public is increasingly ready for . . . change. In a May Gallup poll, 57% favored "allowing drilling in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas now off limits." Just 20% blamed the increase in gas prices on Big Oil, like Mr. Obama does.

Recent weeks have seen some GOP stirrings on Capitol Hill, but John McCain has so far refused to jettison his green posturings, such as his belief in carbon caps and his animus against offshore development. A good reason for a rethink would be $4 gas. At present, it is charitable to call Mr. McCain's energy ideas incoherent, and it may cost him the election.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

It's all good in the hood. They'll just print more dough to pay for it. Problem solved. Brilliant!

[kang]

Originally Posted by Mule

For several decades, the Democratic Party has pursued policies designed to drive up the cost of petroleum, and therefore gas at the pump.

Yes, this is correct. Behind closed doors, democrats are designing policies to drive up the price of petroleum. “If we do X,” they say, “that will drive up the cost of petroleum.” Increasing the cost of gas to the public is one of their hidden goals. They want to hurt the little guy. They actively pursue policies with this single idea in mind.

[tabs]

Why Is The Price Of Gas So High...because Your Not Eating Beans Anymore?

[Mule]

Originally Posted by kang

Yes, this is correct. Behind closed doors, democrats are designing policies to drive up the price of petroleum. “If we do X,” they say, “that will drive up the cost of petroleum.” Increasing the cost of gas to the public is one of their hidden goals. They want to hurt the little guy. They actively pursue policies with this single idea in mind.

That's not it. They're saving the planet!

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by Mule

Your guys made it illegal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!Your guys made it illegal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!Your guys made it illegal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!Your guys made it illegal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! Get it?

Diplomatic skills to do what, get the enemies of America otherwise known as congressional democrats repeal the laws preventing us from getting our own oil?

Thought this was why.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by kang

Yes, this is correct. Behind closed doors, democrats are designing policies to drive up the price of petroleum. “If we do X,” they say, “that will drive up the cost of petroleum.” Increasing the cost of gas to the public is one of their hidden goals. They want to hurt the little guy. They actively pursue policies with this single idea in mind.

I could actually live with that if they'd be honest about it. But any career politician who's never had a real job and says they'll make the price of gas go down by taxing its suppliers more just insults my intelligence. Just come out and say they want gas to be $7. The honesty would be refreshing. Anyone who thinks taxing something makes it cheaper is too stupid to have a job outside of fast food.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by 70SATMan

Thought this was why.

Comprehension skills failing you again huh?

[ErVikingo]

No worries, OPEC and traders will get the message in time. WIth the current prices, people are driving less, airlines are cancelling flights, nuclear stations should become more accepted, ... demand in the USA will drop and prices will have to follow if they want to sell their precious crude.

Oh wait the developing countries continue demanding more and more with no regulation on emissions and subsidizing the cost..... we are screwed if we don't increase suppy (along with reduce demand).

[Mule]

Yeah, it's pretty simple if your brain's not infected with liberalism. But think of the bright side. When Our children are on bicycles & the Chinese are in Lexuses, our children can snidely look down their noses at the Chinese from the moral high ground! At that point, if we're lucky, the Chinese will come take us over & improve our standard of living.

[rcooled]

I'm just thinking out loud here but could part of this "Don't Drill Here" policy be aimed at future domination of the world's energy markets? The plan being to drink the current big oil suppliers dry then crack open the ANWR, oil shale and continental shelf supplies and emerge as the world's oil powerhouse. This scenario would also have the secondary effect of crippling the economies of those troublesome Middle East countries and effectively knock them back to the stone age. If true, this policy seems to be very risky in that it'll push this country dangerously close to economic collapse before it pays off.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by rcooled

I'm just thinking out loud here but could part of this "Don't Drill Here" policy be aimed at future domination of the world's energy markets? The plan being to drink the current big oil suppliers dry then crack open the ANWR, oil shale and continental shelf supplies and emerge as the world's oil powerhouse. This scenario would also have the secondary effect of crippling the economies of those troublesome Middle East countries and effectively knock them back to the stone age. If true, this policy seems to be very risky in that it'll push this country dangerously close to economic collapse before it pays off.

So, if we were to eventually have a monopoly on oil reserves and the rest of the world were begging us for it, how would that make the price lower? Why would any domestic producer sell it here for less than the Chicomms or Indians are willing to pay for it?

[kang]

Originally Posted by Mule

That's not it. They're saving the planet!

If they are saving the planet, then why did you say “the Democratic Party has pursued policies designed to drive up the cost of petroleum” in the opening line of your post? You deliberately made it sound like driving up the cost of petroleum is their number one goal.

Perhaps driving up the cost of petroleum is a side effect of the attempt to save the planet, but democrats are most certainly not “pursuing policies designed to drive up the cost of petroleum.” They are pursuing policies designed to save the planet. An unwelcome, but acceptable, side effect, is an increase in the cost of petroleum.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by kang

Yes, this is correct. Behind closed doors, democrats are designing policies to drive up the price of petroleum. “If we do X,” they say, “that will drive up the cost of petroleum.” Increasing the cost of gas to the public is one of their hidden goals. They want to hurt the little guy. They actively pursue policies with this single idea in mind.

No, it isn't that simple. They actually mean well, despite the fact that their well-intentioned actions are detrimental to the rest of us.
President Bush proposed an energy policy, (three times) that included limited exploratory drilling off the west coast and in Alaska. Three times that proposal was killed by the democrats. They forced his hand, and the only way he could get anything was to compromise and give them their mandatory ethanol BS.

Now you can do all the mis-directing and smoke and mirrors you want, but that isn't going to change the truth or the facts. sorry.