June 18, 2008
Offshore Drilling (John Feehery)
Nothing clarifies the mind more than the prospect of $5-a-gallon gasoline.
John McCain’s position has evolved on offshore drilling. He was for a moratorium. Now he is for lifting the moratorium.
McCain evolved because he can. Obama doesn’t have that luxury. He is stuck with the wind-and-sun crowd, whose chief responses to the looming gas crisis are to cheer quietly, threaten a windfall profits tax and call for measures that will put all the Detroit autoworkers out of work.
That McCain’s evolution is smart politics is proven by the reaction of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R). He supports McCain. Crist is a pretty savvy politician and he knows what the people in Florida want. Right now, they want relief from staggeringly high gas prices.
Can we drill in an environmentally safe way? Of course we can. Will we? Not if the Democrats have anything to say about the matter.
About 90 percent of all Democrats vote consistently against the domestic production and exploration of our oil resources, while about 90 percent of Republicans vote for it. Those have been the rough numbers over the last decade.
It will be interesting to see if those numbers creep down on the Democratic side in the next couple of months.
It is starting to get pretty hot in the kitchen. While House Democrats have smugly concluded that they don’t have to do anything to keep the majority, especially on gas prices, the voters are getting more and more agitated. That is good news for congressional Republicans.
It is also good for John McCain, who may get some grief from the news media for changing his mind on this issue, but he shouldn’t worry about that. He should worry about what the American people want. And they want some relief from high gas prices and a plan to get more of our oil in the marketplace. Obama can’t go there. McCain can. So McCain does and Obama won’t. The people agree with McCain.
The latest polls show McCain and Obama in a dead heat. By all measures, Obama should be at least at Mike Dukakis numbers (Dukakis was up in the high double digits at this point in the election campaign). But on issues like gas prices and taxes, Obama is out of touch with what most Americans want (lower gas prices and lower taxes).
McCain has won another round when it comes to offshore drilling. It is going to be a long summer for Barack Obama.
Visit www.thefeeherytheory.com.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 31 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Don't Stop
Pandering For Tomorrow
Don't Stop
It'll soon be here…
Boy oh boy, that Straight Talk Express is looking more crooked by the day.
Hey Johnny Mac. Enjoy losing Florida much? They really want their beaches polluted with oil rigs.
Comment by PR — June 18, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
Leadership is the process of evolving, but it is also admitting when you were wrong. Obama is stuck in the muck and mire of the Democratic political templates, i.e., America is evil, we don't deserve cheap gas, we've lost the war, etc. What a bunch of losers.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — June 18, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
Yes, this is developing exactly as I said it should: the sadistic Democratic saboteurs are forced to live up to their own book of rules, for all to see, and to demonstrate that they want America to fail. They were hoping to turn the high gas prices into "Bush slept, people wept" kind of thing, well guess who will be weeping soon now.
Comment by Igor R. — June 18, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
RR and/or IR, the Ds may indeed pay a price here. The reason is that voters are angry, broke and scared. When people get that way, it's easy to exploit their emotions and rational by fooling them with the concept that the Rs are here to help. In their desperation, it's easy to sell them on false hope. That false hope is that ANWR's 1 million barrels a day will bring down the price at the pump. It won't. This is simply a snake oil sales pitch from those that benefit from oil. Big Oil already has 68 million acres to drill on which could bring in an estimated 4.8 a day. 80 percent of the oil available on the Outer Continental Shelf is in regions that are already open to leasing. ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP and Shell have publicly stated that they had no plans to build new refineries. Instead, they prefer to expand existing facilities. They all say they were unaware of any environmental regulations preventing them from building new refineries or expanding existing ones. It is they that have chosed not to invest. Internal memos from oil companies make it clear that oil companies decided that they needed to reduce refinery capacity to drive up their profits.
This isn't a matter of drilling ourselves out of this hole. This is a matter of Big Oil wanting all the lower hanging fruit right now. Drilling does nothing to ease our independence. The fear mongering we're seeing on drilling is akin to the fear mongering we saw on the War On Fear. It's not about the well being of the people. It's about political gain and profiteering. The sad thing is, it will most likely work.
Comment by andy42302 — June 18, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
RR and Igor;
Obviously you two have never been to the panhandle of Florida and the beaches there. The beach sand is a crystal white and the water blue-green clear. Folks make billions of dollars from tourism and a oil spill would destroy that forever. You two have got to be dumber than Doug Feith whom Tommy Franks called the f**king stupidiest man on the planet.
Comment by Mike Coleman — June 18, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
Andy, all I want for the Democrats to do is to be honest: we are against drilling because (a) any spill is unacceptable, and even though a number of hurricanes have not resulted in any spills for decade, we are not willing to take that risk (b) if all the drilling is allowed this is how much we think the price of gas will drop. Chuck Schumer's comments that an equivalent amounts will change the price of oil by either a penny or $25 depending on whether it's from ANWR or Saudi Arabia are explained by…fill in the blanks (c) we believe that the path to sustainable energy situation is through …fill in the blanks… alternative fuel development that will take…fill…year and will cost…fill…to develop and will cost…fill…to consumers and…fill…to the government in subsidies once in production.
I've heard dramatically different statistics on the percentages of the available continental shelf areas just this morning, but I'm not in the position to dig into it at the moment. I can fully understand the refinery situation, since the margins have turned extremely low, and at the moment the refinery capacity is not a big problem, especially since the demand for gasoline is down in the US. What's driving the price of gas is the oil price alone, at the moment. I can also understand the oil companies wanting to drill where there is likely to be lots of oil. To me, the situation in Brazil where they are finding multi-billion barrel fields of shore and in general going gangbusters on drilling presents a stark contrast to the US. How can we pressure Saudi Arabia to produce more when we won't lift a finger?
I also like this situation because I prefer ANY situation that pits the environment vs. economic pain/progress to be evaluated rationally, will all considerations on the table. Notice how the Democrats only started mentioning the environment when the pressure got a lot stronger than it was initially. At first it was always "this won't do any good" and now they feel they have to justify their lack of action. This is not an entirely rational debate yet, but it's more so than in the beginning. Don't get me wrong, when McCain compares ANWR with Grand Canyon I'm just as hard on him.
Comment by Igor R. — June 18, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
Mike, I haven't been there but I've been to the Tampa beaches and I imagine it's the same. I don't accept "we will take no risks because we might harm the environment" position because with that we will have NO energy. To have a fully pristine environment you must get rid of all the people. People are bad for the environment. Even wind and solar harm the environment. Geothermal isn't too bad, but still. Nuclear harms the environment. At some point you have to decide what's important and to what degree. If you want to protect the folks who depend on not having any spills, force the drillers to buy more insurance.
Comment by Igor R. — June 18, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
Obama would rather see people by $4 or $5 a gallon for gas than to drill for our own oil. He'd rather watch China and Cuba and Mexico drill for oil 50 miles off our shores than to drill there ourselves. Typical liberal thinking from the most liberal member of congress.
Comment by John Simmons — June 18, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
informed discussions with facts would be so great. rather than jumping to conclusions just because our chosen leaders say to, and jumping on each other just because we always have, how about we first ask questions? like
1) are there any existing leases that are not being drilled, and why
2) are oil companies refining to capacity, and/or are they seeking to create additional refining capacity
3) is the sinking dollar to euro ratio having anything to do with it?
4) is the enron speculation loophole in this industry having the same effect that it did with electricity in california in the 90's?
as americans all of us, regardless of our choice of political party, suffer as americans. if we take time to actually talk, perhaps we can, as americans, suffer less, and be taken more seriously by each other and the political parties that supposedly represent us.
Comment by greg johnson — June 18, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
Igor, all you want is for Ds to be honest? Should this not apply to both parties? Since we're in the "if wishes were horses" mode, let's shoot for every day being a holiday, Sunday coming twice a week, and a Walgreens on every corner.
We're not in an "honest" environment and to even bring that into the debate suggests a naive or ignorant perception of Washington today. Capitalism has trumped everything. It has trumped our safety, our jobs, the environment, our military, and every aspect of government. In the last 7.5 years, K Street, The War on Terror Inc, Big Pharma, and Big Oil has sucked the country dry. It's not that the "drill, drill, drill" theory stinks because it's not advantageous for the country yet profitable for big oil. It stinks because it's a continuation of everything that's gone wrong during this disastrous Bush era. The "what's good for the wealthy is good for the peasants" and the "trust us" crap needs to die an expedient death. For the sake of working America that's been so brutally raped by the Bush regime, I hope the voters can see through this smoke screened fear mongering.
Comment by andy42302 — June 18, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
The animals have been provoked and they are trying to bite:
House Democrats call for nationalization of refineries
http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/index.html#a54ef44,2008-06-18
Comment by Igor R. — June 18, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
greg, there is a great amount of disagreement even among people with seemingly long experience in the industry about what the "enron loophole" is doing to the price of oil. I am a great fan of dramatically increasing the the amount a speculator has to put down to buy oil futures. It's hard for me to understand why the margin requirements for equities are so different from commodities. Besides making the system much more prone to bubbles, in one of which we seem to be now, such low margin requirement make it possible and in fact easy for malicious producers to increase the prices they are being paid by "investing" 1-2% of sales in futures contracts.
I don't think refining capacity has anything to do with the current situation. Regulations have indeed been hard on this industry, but that's not the problem of the moment. Certainly nationalizing refineries (or for that matter building many others) will not dramatically change the price of gas even if whoever runs them does and outstanding job, while remaining profitable.
Instead of asking why the existing leases are not being drilled, why not allow drilling where the oil company hope to make some money?
I've addressed the dollar issue, it's probably about 15% of the problem. Oil rose a lot faster than the dollar fell.
Comment by Igor R. — June 18, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
Most Americans can't afford to go to those Florida beaches. You see, the gas is too high. One thing all liberals have in common is their philosophy is "you can't get there from here." When the election comes there won't be any mercy. The Democrats who stop the drilling are going down.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — June 18, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
Over the last decade, there have been significant improvements in safe, more efficient drilling techniques as well as spill containment measures. If a spill occurs, we'll deal with it. I can argue that Exxon Valdez type of spill near Florida coast is a lesser evil than sending billions of dollars and supporting economies of Venezuela, Iran, Libya, Russia that desire US downfall.
Comment by Misha — June 19, 2008 @ 2:00 am
To Democrats an oil spill is like the end of the world. Does anyone know how many people have actually died as a result of an oil spills since 1950? Each year tens of thousands die on our freeways, hundreds die due to hurricanes and floods, but it's the oil spills that cause them to go ballistic. Can anyone tell me why?
Comment by Misha — June 19, 2008 @ 2:06 am
igor r
thank you for addressing my questions as a conversation rather than tirade. discussing actual history, actual facts and differing opinions about root causes and/or solutions is what is cool about democracy. even though we are on polar opposites in our overall world view, we can still have decent conversations about things that affect us. we might disagree with any and all of the affects of history, and the correct approach, but it is still worth a look. for instance since it is his father's executive order of 1990 that pres. bush is calling to be rescinded, since both he and clinton agreed with the ban, and since both the current and previous governors of florida were strongly against drilling as recently as last week, why the sudden emphatic call as if the bully democratic congress (that has only been in majority for 2 years) has been impeding the fair pursuit of profit by the oil industry.
additionally since industry profits are increasing right along with the cost of crude, it seems they already are insulated against any negative market or mfg. forces including increased mfg. costs of drilling some of their existing leases.
another issue is comparing the value of coastal tourist industries (today i heard $60B annually) and jobs that might be at risk.
even without considering any alternative energy sources as part of this discussion, it just does not seem to me that this is a leap of faith we should be taking.
Comment by greg johnson — June 19, 2008 @ 2:57 am
Igor;
It was written in today's post that we have more oil in reserve and in the SPR than before. Concumption is down 5.8% wordwide, the refineries are running at 85% instead of 95%. What this means is that we have lower our use, the oil companies are not ramping up production but they are still raising prices. This is not a matter of supply and demand, this is a rip off pure and simple. The speculators are reaping the benefit of high oil prices. Remember OPEC recently stated that factors beyond them are causing this ant that is why they would not increase production.
Comment by Mike Coleman — June 19, 2008 @ 9:21 am
John,
I enjoy reading many of your essay's. You are a very good communicator and you know politics. But I do need some clarification.
In this essay you mention that McCain has "evolved" rather than (as some would say) "flip-flopped". In your mind is there a difference between these terms?
Another issue that I would like clarified is your contention that McCain: "should worry about what the American people want. And they want some relief from high gas prices and a plan to get more of our oil in the marketplace." I like the concept of politicians listening to the needs and wants of the people. I'm pretty sure that an overwhelming majority of Americans want us out of Iraq.
So it is ok for McCain to "evolve" about our nations energy policy because " He should worry about what the American people want." (your words)?
Then using your logic, you should "advise" McCain to "evolve" his position on Iraq.
In your learned and expert opinion please exlain when it is acceptable for a politician to "evolve" and when it is wrong for a politician "flip-flop"?
Comment by Scott K. — June 19, 2008 @ 10:41 am
Misha #15;
For many people, an oil spill is the end of their world. The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred on March 24, 1989 killing millions of fish, sea otters and other wildlife. The pristine bay has not recovered yet and the fishermen and others that made their living from the bay are out of business. If the same thing were to happen to the Gulf Coast of Florida, all those hotels and condos on the beach would be worthless. The millions of jobs that are associated with tourism would be lost and the money lost would be more than what any oil company would be to pay back. There are somethings more important than money and walking on a beautiful beach ranks up there.
Comment by Mike Coleman — June 19, 2008 @ 11:26 am
McCain and the price of Gas: Enron loophole examined
http://www.thevaneljournal.com/2008/06/mccain-and-high-gas-prices.html
Comment by Theard — June 19, 2008 @ 11:40 am
Once again John MCinsane has changed his mind. Don't worry though, tomorrow he will have forgotten that he said it. Oh and by the way, I'm from Florida, and there's no way MCinsane will win it. Everyone here is against Charlie Crist, and well, you know the rest.
Comment by yvonne — June 19, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
Drilling for domestic oil WOULD NOT solve our high gas prices! Here are some facts:
-Extracting oil from ANWR (where most pro-drilling efforts are focused)would take a minimum of 10 years
-At peak capacity, which is estimated to take up to 20 years, it would supply only around 3% of our oil consumption level
-According to the U.S. Geological Survey, there are 3.2 billion barrels of recoverable oil in ANWR; this would affect world oil supply and prices by less than seven-tenths of one percent
-Small supply from drilling domestic oil would not bring down oil prices; according to a report released in 2005 by the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, OPEC could counter any effect that the supply COULD have
-A better way to achieve energy independence is through energy efficiency, NOT INCREASED CONSUMPTION
-An increase of only 3 mpg in fuel efficiency of ALL cars would reduce oil consumption by >1 million barrels/day
-Upgrading tires of all cars to standard would save >7 million barrels/day, same as most generous predictions of ANWR production
-According to many studies, investment in renewable energy sources provides more than double the amount of jobs to be created by drilling
-Not all the oil in ANWR is economically beneficial: costs of shipping to locations of refineries means most would be sold to Asia to make a profit -Location of much of the oil will require much higher costs in technology, making the oil more expensive
-Proponents overlook or minimize the many negative environmental impacts of drilling in ANWR (miles of pipelines, airstrips, housing, pumping stations, power plants, power lines, sewage treatment, waste disposal, impact on species' habitat, etc.)
-Oil spills have already occurred in the area adjacent to ANWR
DON'T FALL FOR SLOGANS AND QUICK FIXES!! THERE IS ONLY A LIMITED SUPPLY OF OIL, PERIOD; IT ONLY MAKES SENSE THAT PRICES WILL CONTINUE TO RISE!
-OBAMA HAS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR MOVING OUR ECONOMY PAST OIL!!
Comment by the professor — June 19, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
greg, I'm sure some of Bush's actions can be attributed to politics, but then the reality on the ground has changed: gas has become expensive. It's easy to be for purity on the environment when gas is cheap and nobody cares about another 10% increase. Since this is still a democracy, as a whole the politicians have to responds to people's concerns about energy cost and the environment in a way that relates to the relative importance of these to the voters.
There are many that believe that if you make a few corrections to the oil speculation rules and fix the supply a little bit, oil could go to as little as $60 a barrel, and of course there are some that believe it's going to $200 real soon. The oil companies will only invest billions into producing oil that will cost less than $60. You can't cite $140 and expect them to produce oil at $135, since it just got lower than that in a matter of hours. In the end, it's up to the people to decide if they want to see oil derricks in the ocean, and for the politicians to interpret what the people want and what the politicians can get away with for their parties' interests.
Comment by Igor R. — June 19, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
Mike, the oil companies don't control the price of oil, it's just that simply. The vast majority of supply is government owned, so how can the oil companies set the price? To blame them for that is wrong. And when push came to shove the Saudis just decided to raise their production by 800K barrels per day, one decision by probably one or two guys is all it took.
Comment by Igor R. — June 19, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
Igor;
Yes they do. The oil comapnies and speculators have enjoyed what is called the Enron Loop hole and here is information that will show you how they have gouged us. Don't read if you don't want to be educated.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Enron+loop+hole&btnG=Google+Search
Comment by Mike Coleman — June 19, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
Mike, I'm all for closing the loophole. I have no idea how the oil companies are responsible for what the speculators do. Believe it or not, you're are using the same logic as O'Reily: he never liked the oil companies and always blamed them, recently he learned about the loophole and the speculators, so he now mentions them as both being the culprits as if they are one and the same.
Comment by Igor R. — June 19, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
They can close all the Enron loopholes they want. When the public finds out this is just another farce, they will react accordingly.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — June 19, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
Misha, RR and thos you said that there was oil spill after Katrina, here is the satelite photo showing how big it was;
http://skytruth.mediatools.org/node/19981
Comment by Mike Coleman — June 20, 2008 @ 7:54 am
RR;
If they close the loophole and prices go down, what will you say then?
Comment by Mike Coleman — June 20, 2008 @ 7:56 am
If the prices go down, that alleged loophole is a drop in the ocean. It plays on the fear of uneducated paranoid people who believe there is a big conspiracy somewhere. The fact is, while Enron was in business gas prices did not go up. Enron was not in the gas business. The so called loophole is ridiculous because it can not affect investment activities in other western markets. Gas prices are high because of 25 years of stupid policies that caved into environmentalists. We don't have enough refineries, and now, we have to refine and blend biofuels/synfuels. It's a shortage, not only of resources, but real leadership.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — June 20, 2008 @ 9:03 am
RR;
Again you spout nonsense. Didn't you hear George Bush brag that invading Iraq would give us $20 a barrel oil. But something happened along the way, like say, an insurgency. The US invaded Iraq to take their oil and people fought back. The conflict was a speculators wet dream. Now with uncertainty they could raise prices on the fear on little or no oil and that is what they did. OPEC know that there is no shortage and that is why they are unwilling to pump more. If you think that oil is not part of teh Enron loophole, read this;
http://www.jimhightower.com/node/6514
Comment by Mike Coleman — June 20, 2008 @ 11:24 am