Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Yannis, Jun 19, 2008.

  1. Yannis

    Yannis

    This Is Really Something

    "Dear ,

    I have some exciting news to share with you. Because of your hard work and support we reached one million signatures on the "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" petition.

    Your voice and the voice of one million Americans is truly making a difference in shaping the national debate.

    Just this week, President George Bush, Senator John McCain, and Florida Governor Charlie Crist all called for lifting the federal ban on offshore drilling. And U.S. Representative Lynn Westmoreland has started a pledge in the U.S. House in support of American oil production that has been signed by 126 members of Congress.

    Now, we need your help to reach our next goal: 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican national conventions this fall. I hope you'll forward this message to 5 friends and encourage them to sign the petition at www.AmericanSolutions.com/DrillNow.

    Thank you for supporting this movement of one million Americans demanding real solutions to our energy challenges.

    Your friend,

    Newt Gingrich
    General Chairman
    American Solutions"
     
  2. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    I signed the petition.

    Anyone know where the petition for congressional term limits is?
     
  3. you expect offshore drilling to lower gas prices?

    ROFLMAO !!!

    wake up usa!

    global oil consumption is the same now since 2006.

    but what has the oil price done since then?

    (a hint - check the volume increase in crude futures trading since 2006...)

    if your government REALLY wanted to do somtething against oil price rallye they should use PPT to hunt down those speculating bastards.
     
  4. Might take it more seriously if the site wasn't soliciting for $$$
     
  5. Yannis

    Yannis

    I mostly agree with you:

    a. Yes, speculation increases the price of oil - some say by a lot - and Congress (the Republicans for the most part) is considering action as we speak.

    b. Producing more American oil *responsibly* creates wealth closer to home and stops many a $$$ from funding questionable enterprises abroad, like extremist madrasas.

    c. The ultimate goal should always be to develop and deploy cleaner forms of energy - so an important balance has to be maintained.
     
  6. Yannis

    Yannis

    As Don Barzini said many years ago: "...After all, we are not Communists!" :)
     
  7. that's true no doubt.

    but this oil nonsense is a dead end street.

    any further investments there is wasted money on the long run.
     
  8. Yannis

    Yannis

    I don't really mind gas at $4/gallon... What scares me is gas at $12/gallon and $25/gallon and $100/gallon. These guys know how to do it and are busy doing it, their chance to dominate the world. And, remember, Europe is already scared of them because they have very little oil - as prices skyrocket they'll really sell out to them and allow 300 million Muslim immigrants in. And then the world will REALLY change. Somebody has to stand up and change the rules of the game. More American oil in 3-5 years gives us a chance to get to alternative forms of energy, if we don't blow it, in 10-20 years.
     
  9. You're not the only one who can cut & paste:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/o...?em&ex=1214107200&en=d3e1ddf46c503944&ei=5087

    Driller Instinct

    By PAUL KRUGMAN
    Published: June 20, 2008
    Blaming environmentalists for high energy prices, never mind the evidence, has been a hallmark of the Bush administration.

    Thus, in 2001 Dick Cheney attributed the California electricity crisis to environmental regulations that, he claimed, were blocking power-plant construction. He completely missed the real story, which was that energy companies — probably some of the same companies that participated in his secret task force, which was supposed to be drawing up a national energy strategy — were driving up prices by deliberately withholding electricity from the market.

    And the administration has spent the last eight years trying to convince Congress that the key to America’s energy security is opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling — even though estimates from the Energy Information Administration suggest that drilling in the refuge would make very little difference to the energy outlook, and the oil companies themselves aren’t especially interested in punching holes in the tundra.

    But it still comes as a surprise and a disappointment to see John McCain joining that unfortunate tradition.

    I’ve never taken Mr. McCain’s media reputation as a maverick seriously, because on most issues, he’s a thoroughly conventional conservative. On energy policy, however, he has in the past seemed to show some independence. Most notably, he voted against the really terrible, special-interest-driven 2005 energy bill, which was backed by the Bush administration — and by Barack Obama.

    But that was then.

    In his Monday speech on energy, Mr. McCain tried to touch all the bases. He talked about conservation. He denounced the evils of speculation: “While a few reckless speculators are counting their paper profits, most Americans are coming up on the short end.” A weird aspect of the current energy debate, incidentally, is the fact that many of the same market-worshipping conservatives who first denied that there was a dot-com bubble, then denied that there was a housing bubble, are utterly convinced that nasty speculators are responsible for high oil prices.

    The item that made news, however, was Mr. McCain’s call for more offshore drilling. On Tuesday, he made this more explicit, calling for exploration and development of the currently protected outer continental shelf. This was a reversal of his previous position, and it went a long way toward aligning his energy policy with that of the Bush administration.

    That’s not a good thing.

    As many reports have noted, the McCain/Bush policy on offshore drilling doesn’t make sense as a response to $4-a-gallon gas: the White House’s own Energy Information Administration says that exploiting the outer shelf wouldn’t yield noticeable amounts of oil until the 2020s, and even at peak production its impact on oil prices would be “insignificant.”

    But what I haven’t seen emphasized is the broader picture: Mr. McCain has now aligned himself with an administration that, even aside from its blame-the-environmental-movement tendencies, has established an extensive track record as the gang that couldn’t think straight about energy policy.

    Remember, they didn’t just insist that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators; on the eve of the Iraq war, administration officials were also adamant that regime change in Iraq would add millions of barrels a day to the world oil supply, driving oil prices way down. (In fact, Iraq’s oil output took five years just to recover to preinvasion levels.)

    So why would Mr. McCain associate himself with these characters? The answer, presumably, is that it’s a cynical political calculation.

    I’m reasonably sure that Mr. McCain’s advisers realize that offshore drilling would do nothing for current gas prices. But they may believe that the public can be conned. A Rasmussen poll taken before Mr. McCain’s announcement suggests that the public favors expanded offshore drilling, and believes (wrongly) that this would lower gasoline prices.

    And Mr. McCain may also hope to shore up his still fragile relations with the Republican base. As anyone who has read what’s in his inbox after publishing an article on oil prices can testify, there are many people on the right who believe that all our energy problems have been caused by sanctimonious tree-huggers. Mr. McCain has just thrown that constituency some red meat.

    But I very much doubt that Mr. McCain’s gambit will work. In fact, it’s almost certainly self-destructive.

    To have a chance in November, Mr. McCain has to convince voters that he isn’t just Bush, continued. Energy policy is one of the areas where he could best have made that case.

    Instead, he has ceded the high ground on energy to Mr. Obama, and linked himself firmly to the most unpopular president on record.
     

  10. Krugman eh? So the Enron advisor is against drilling. Says it won't help today's gas price. Who said it would?

    Will taxing the oil companies and throwing the money at alt energy research bring down gas prices today? then why would we want to do such a stupid thing.

    Is this guy supposed to be an economist? All we get out of these lefty spinners is so-called analysis that says that tapping into the huge amount of oil reserves, both proved and probable in offshore, shale, anwr, etc will not do anything to help our energy needs, and out of the other side of their mouth tell us that investing in alt energy will save the day. What alt energy? Where's the beef?

    They want the american public to buy into this and meanwhile not emphasize that something or some things will have to be INVENTED for it to happen? Then accuse republicans of trying to keep a secrets?

    The bottom line is we have huge oil reserves that are off limits now and the democrats don't want us to tap into them to meet our needs. No, instead, they want to throw a bunch of money to who knows where and HOPE SOMETHING WILL BE INVENTED.

    If the public buys into what krugman sells, they deserve ten doll gal gas in five years.
     
    #10     Jun 20, 2008