Print
E-mail
Share
iPod
del.icio.us
digg
Newsvine
FacebookTo the left or right? Gas prices swaying tottering voters
In Washington, political fortunes at stake as the parties jockey for energy supremacy
Tue, Jul 22, 2008 (2 a.m.)
Chris Morris
Reader poll
Sun Archives
- Bush wants more oil drillng, but sites not clear (7-11-2008)
- Letter: Proponents of oil drilling ignore reality (7-8-2008)
- Survey: Gas prices deter Southern Californians (7-8-2008)
- Mayor says Vegas hurt more than other cities by gas prices (7-7-2008)
- Lots of answers, all of them wrong (6-29-2008)
Washington — Congress continues to wrestle with $4-a-gallon gas this week as the two parties attempt to gain the upper hand on a top voter issue before heading home to campaign during the August recess.
Already candidates are using pain at the pump to try to move voters in their direction. Democratic state Sen. Dina Titus kicked off her challenge to Republican Rep. Jon Porter at a gas station, where she tried to link the three-term incumbent to the energy policies of the Bush administration.
Porter asked residents in his Henderson-area district to send him their gas receipts so he could show House Speaker Nancy Pelosi the hardship gas prices are causing under Democratic control of Congress.
It is uncertain whether any of the proposals in Congress would have substantial immediate effects at the pump, but still lawmakers press on in hopes of making a dent in both gas prices and public opinion.
Today, the Senate will hold a pivotal vote on a bill to rein in oil market speculation, which Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, believes is responsible for up to 50 percent of the increased pump price.
Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that Democrats’ strategy may not be enough to win the hearts and minds of voters.
Polls show an inverse relationship has formed this summer between Americans’ pain at the pump and their objection to drilling. Most Americans now support more drilling.
Republicans are hammering home the message that gas prices are high because Democrats won’t drill. For anyone who just paid triple digits to fill up, such talking points could resonate.
Last week, House Democrats went on the defensive, cleverly naming their Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands Act of 2008 the “DRILL Act.” It created a use-it-or-lose-it proposition for oil companies that are sitting on federal leases in the National Petroleum Reserve near the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
Porter was among 26 Republicans who crossed party lines last week to vote for the DRILL Act, but it failed to get the two-thirds needed to pass. Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley voted for the bill. Republican Rep. Dean Heller voted against it.
Heller joined a group of primarily freshmen Republicans tapped to join House leaders last weekend on a visit to a renewable energy lab in Colorado and the oil fields of Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The trips were part of the Republican’s energy strategy, dubbed “all of the above.”
Heller is expected to discuss the trip today at a briefing with fellow Republicans as they push for more Alaskan drilling as well as renewable energy development.
In an op-ed about the trip, the Republican leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, said the renewable energy lab was a symbol of the country’s energy future, but “we’re not there just yet.”
Instead, he called for development of natural oil and gas resources in Alaska in the Arctic refuge that he said have been locked away by Democratic leaders who “worship ... at the altar ... of radical environmentalism.”
But in the Senate, Republicans have mostly given up on drilling in the refuge for now, especially given the opposition of the party’s presumed presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain. They have focused legislation on oil shale development in the Western states, renewable energy and a plan to allow states to act unilaterally to lift offshore drilling bans.
But Democrats are loath to open waters along the coasts of California or Florida to drilling — a subject off-limits for many environmentalists who remember the Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969, which helped launch today’s protections.
Instead, Democrats have been pushing bills to release oil from the nation’s strategic reserve, penalize price gougers and require oil companies to develop oil fields under their existing leases.
Democratic leaders appear unwilling to allow the proposal on offshore drilling to go to a vote because they fear too many members of their own party would join Republicans and approve the plan. Also, holding a vote would force Democrats who oppose the ban to go on record opposing a popular idea just 12 weeks before the election.
(Already the Senate Republicans’ bill has 54 co-sponsors, including five Democrats. In fact, Titus, the Democratic candidate, favors the Republican approach on offshore drilling, agreeing the states should be able to decide.)
Pelosi told CNN on Sunday she had no plans to bring such a bill before the House.
Reid has said he is open to increasing domestic production, but insists the country cannot expect to drill its way out of the current crisis.
“This could be a chance for Democrats and Republicans to work together,” Reid said from the floor Monday. “But so far, we’ve seen more of the same from the Republican side: nice rhetoric, no action.”
Discussion: 35 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Woman arrested in fatal stabbing at Bally’s
- Halverson’s condition improving after husband’s attack
- Man arrested for attempted sexual assault
- Buyout keeps Cosmopolitan in play
- Why attack on city bus met inaction
- Palin energizes skeptical base
- Fire at Land Rover dealership under investigation
- Officers fatally shoot man wanted in Clark County burglaries
- Las Vegas trio guilty of drug trafficking in Hawaii
- DMV employee arrested in Las Vegas on federal bribery charges
Blogs
Sports: UNLV
Athlon ranks UNLV basketball at No. 24
Culture Blog
Las Vegas Philharmonic will back Placido Domingo
Sports: UNLV
UNLV hires Manarino to coach softball
Bloggity, Bloggity, Bloggity
NASCAR drivers included on list of 50 most hated sports figures (2 Comments)
Winning The West
McCain energizes Republicans (9 Comments)
Protesters interrupt McCain (18 Comments)
Culture Blog
Welcome back to (a cooler) First Friday
Now and Then
Las Vegas team to be named later could outdraw its parent club -- if it's the Marlins
Calendar
- "The New Generation" boxing match at Star of the Desert Arena (5:30 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.)
- Alice Cooper's Psycho-Drama Tour at the Orleans Showroom (8 p.m. to 11 p.m.)
- Farr Beyond Driven at the Cheyenne Saloon (10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.)
- Brian Culbertson at Santa Fe Station (8 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.)
-
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Last year my wife and I attended a UNLV lecture given by an oil geologist from Alaska regarding ANWR. The surprising conclusion, given his background, was that, given USGS's figures on economically and technically recoverable oil, ANWR's value to species diversity, and scenic beauty, he was completely against drilling there. Since I know conservatives have no use for beauty as a value I invite these myopic types to contemplate this:
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Arch...
When we fuel our vehicles and pay $4.00 or more for a gallon of gas remember who is responsible. It's Democrat Senator Reid from Nevada who has for years prevented drilling for oil anywhere it exists and former President Clinton who vetoed a drilling bill in the late 1990s. Thank you Harry and Bill.
Unfortunately there is no price on the scenic beauty of the area since the government owns it and it does nothing of value.
We should have all federal land sold and then we'll see what its highest valued use is toward American society.
Once again the country's energy house is on fire, and the Republicans are blaming the Democrats that the firemen don't have enough water. "Drill for more water!" they scream. The Democrats, pointing out that the fire is in the desert screams back, you can't drill your way deep enough or fast enough to save the house!!"
Option 1: Refuse to leave the house and burn to death. Or,
Option 2: Vacate the house, move into the one across the street and go on living.
Option 2 is electric and fuel-assisted LONG RANGE (200-300 miles) electric cars and trucks that ARE AVAILABLE TODAY. TOOOODAAAAY! These Republican clowns are fighting over who is going to stuff the last fist of straw down the throat of a dying horse.
Gawd almighty, those idiots are lost inside the partisan Washington bubble! Heller travels the country blindfolded, oblivious to the energy reality around him, except when his "handlers" remove it in Wyoming or Alaska. Beyond pitiful. Dangerous!, but pitiful.
ANWAR may be difficult to put a dollar value on, but it is unbelievably simplistic to suggest the sale of government property to determine its best use. The wildlife and their representatives have not been getting government giveaways in the billions of dollars for the past umpteen years like the oil and gas companies, and are hardly in a fair position to get in a bidding war with them. Such an action would result in our grandkids (maybe our kids, too) being denied the opportunity to see ANWAR, Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, and other important and beautiful areas without the ugly clutter of commercial development. Most of us do not bow before the idol of the almighty dollar, but have other values that can trump it.
Simplistic sound-bite solutions are always an easy sell to voters who don't do any in-depth study of the issues and facts. The reality is that if we were to give our full blessing to drilling in every spot in the country thought to have petroleum reserves, it would still be ten to fifteen years before they began to produce anything, and the difference they would make in terms of pump prices is only about a dime per gallon.
The real solutions are far more complex and numerous. They include better and more accessible public transportation, more use of bicycles, scooters and small motorcycles in urban settings, reducing commuting distances for workers, development of a variety of alternative energy sources for each region as appropriate, changes in our driving habits, a huge move away from large personal vehicles for the majority of us who don't really need a 4WD SUV or large pickup truck, and a variety of economic incentives to encourage these changes.
Anyone who thinks that everything would be fine if we could just get our hands on more petroleum needs to start thinking long-term and look beyond the local gas pump. The Earth does not have a core made of petroleum, and the question isn't "if" we're eventually going to run out of readily-available petroleum, but "when".
ANWR is not Yellowstone. ANWR got 1200 visitors last year. The the size of the drilling 'footprint' is minusculer compared to amount of energy recoverable. Downright tiny compared to land areas of wind and solar necessary to produce same amount. We need ALL sources to achieve energy independance. We can do it in environmentally friendly way.
Reid, Obama and all Democrats:
1) No to new oil and natural gas drilling
2) No to coal
3) No to nuclear
4) yes to higher energy prices
5) No to Las Vegas citizens who are losing their jobs because of high prices.
Obama has even said he likes high gas prices.
You know, back in the 1970s, Carter tried to make us aware of the need for energy independence and the exploration of alternative energy sources. Whether you like him or not, the fact remains that we did know about the problems of energy dependence and the need to explore alternatives. But no, nobody wanted to pursue that route. One can as readily argue that if we had explored alternatives to gas way back then, we might not be in the bind we're in today. So, why blame it all on the "no drilling" argument? That was not our only option.
If we had not wasted the billions of dollars for the past three decades or so paying corporate welfare to the oil, coal and nuclear industries, we would have had ample funds to invest in alternative resources and we would not be dependent on foreign oil today. But the energy barons wanted a bigger and bigger cut, always fighting against any environmental restrictions on how they produced energy. So don't blame present oil prices on the democrats.
We've heard all of the phony representations from the fossil fuel industries about their being "environmentally friendly" and they don't ring true. Each has caused substantial environmental harm in the recent past.
Trying to drill our way out of this crisis is a false solution whose benefits, if any, will be long delayed and minimal when and if it does arrive. If you look more than 5 minutes into the future (a real challenge for neocons), the actions that will place us in the best position are those described by lrooff, above. It may cut into the profits of Bush and Cheney and their buddies, but the nation will profit instead.
Sure, open Alaska and augment the already record breaking profits of the oil companies.
Don't worry, Bush has your best interests in mind.
The gas in Alaska will only last slightly longer than the gas I got from eating at the "Pink Taco."
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Arch...
This article was written in 2002 when the price of oil was at $24 a barrel.
The article says the price of oil has a big impact on estimating the number of recoverable barrels of oil.
So if one wants to be myopic then they will use 2002-$24 oil prices to rely on estimates on the amount of oil reserves in ANWR. Even more myopic, would be to ignore the article one sited and ignore the graph in the article that clearly states if oil is at $40 a barrel then the number of recoverable barrels is over 10 billion barrels.
Most likely the estimate of ANWR recoverable oil is probably over 20 billion barrels for the current price of oil is over $120 barrels of oil.
And the Repugnacants had nothing whatsoever to do with the mess we find ourselves in right? Ya, thought so. When will people get it that ALL politicians, be they Dem or Rep. are only in politics for one reason - to LINE THEIR OWN POCKETS - how else can one explain spending MILLIONS to get elected to a job that pays a fraction of what was spent obtaining the job. ALL politicians are CROOKS so I see NO WAY out of this mess in the foreseeable future - our so-called Democracy is questionable at best - just try to NOT rent your house to someone with 6 kids who you just KNOW will destroy it (and not pay the rent on time, if ever) see how fast you will discover all the 'freedoms' you DON'T have.
Imagine that! jfnance32 pulls 20 billion barrels of oil out of it's anus while the actual article has a nice graph that comes nowhere near that figure.
Please do all of us a favor, jfnance32, and return to the talk radio circuit where you can feel smart.
Yes, Nance pulls figures out of somewhere...
He's given nine or ten different estimates for Obama's energy timeline, anywhere from 20 to 60 years. In one day, he cited four different timelines. He's clearly lost his mind.
But he also forgets that on 7/06/08, he claimed ANWR had 16 billion barrels of oil. In 17 days, the amount of oil in ANWR has increased by 20%!
Man, Nance is an oil genius!
How much recoverable barrels of oil do you think ANWR has?
How long do you think pretty boy Obama's plan will work?
All you guys do is huff and puff all day long.
You have these extreme absolutist positions that have no zero room for compromise.
It seems that you are myopic in your viewpoint.
jfnance,
The article linked to is clear and references USGS. I can't help that you have literacy problems.
Hey, you're the one pulling numbers out of thin air, Nance. You just make it up as you go along, and you say *I* "huff and puff all day long?"
What an absolute joke.
You have NO CLUE as to what you're talking about. Your "facts" never have sources, and constantly change... even sometimes three or four times PER DAY! And when faced with your own words, which directly contradict each other, you can't even admit you were wrong.
Your utter incompetence is only matched by your complete lack of credibility.
The graph only goes to $40 a barrel. At that point, the graph says ANWR has over $10 billion barrels. So since oil is now at $125 a barrel, ANWR must have much more than $10 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
theBS....Huff puff huff puff and I blow your house down. All hot air....by theBS.
I am so glad I am the center of both your lives.
You must be just waiting to see what I post next.
There's that manic narcissism, again. Center of my life? Hardly.
But you're right, I do enjoy feeding your words back to you and watching you devolve into a mumbling mess. Proving you don't understand your own argument is one of the many highlights of my day.
And, while it's not my argument, I'll point out that "$10 billion barrels" doesn't make sense. Ten billion dollars worth of oil, or ten billion barrels?
Who am I kidding? You probably don't even know.
More fantasy statistics from Nance.
You got me there...it is over 10 billion barrels.
How much do you say there is? Is it two barrels or just a half of a barrel?
You do not care. You just like to argue. I think you should go into the corner of your brain and argue with yourself. You could spend hours there and never leave.
Then why were you writing it with a dollar sign? Are you confusing quantity with value? Can you tell the difference? (My bet is: No) Maybe you need to return to Beers' blog and ask the failed CPA what the difference is between those two concepts.
"How much do you say there is? Is it two barrels or just a half of a barrel?"
Well, I thought I knew, but then you told me it was 20 billion barrels. And shortly thereafter you said it was 16 billion barrels. Now, it's "over 10 billion barrels." Where's your source for that?
How much is there: I don't care. I don't think drilling there is the answer. The whole point of this is so that you can say the same and stop making up these obviously PHONY STATISTICS. Were I to take a page from your book, I could exclaim wildly that there are ten billion trillion barrels of oil in ANWR (like you did when shilling for shale).
But you state these things in such exact terms and it's NOT TRUE, because you have NO IDEA. Instead you spout off these insane fantasy statistics and then get all defensive when people call you on it and prove you wrong.
If you're going to make up complete lies, at least be consistent with them... that way you won't look like such a loon.
So how, exactly, did the oil reserves in ANWR grow by 20% in 17 days? They didn't: you made it up.
"Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case."
- Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, May 2008
You're rabid over 41 cents per barrel of oil... which translates to about a penny (or less) per gallon... in 2026. That's your grand plan.
Again, you did not answer my question.
How many barrels of recoverable oil do you think ANWR has?
All you do is blah, blah, huff and puff with no answer.
Just answer that one question. I doubt if you have the guts to give a proper answer.
Again, you're functionally illiterate. I answered your question.
So why don't you answer mine: how, exactly, did the oil reserves in ANWR grow by 20% in 17 days?
ANWR has OVER 10 billion recoverable barrels. Which sounds like a lot until you realize that the U.S. uses ~7.5 billion barrels/year. Since the recovery would be spread out over 10+ years (max flow rate would not likely exceed 1.4 million barrels/day), ANWR would supply ~7% of our present usage over that time span, beginning 10+ years from now. That sounds nice except major portions of that other 93% are becoming question marks right now, i.e. modern civilization is in big trouble if even a mere 5% of that 93% goes away, as it is trending to do in just the next few years.
So it is up to every individual American which turd sandwich to munch on: the Democrats' feel-good alternative energy BS Deluxe or the Republicans' feel-good plenty-of-oil-forever BS With Cheese. Whichever one you choose to scarf down, rest assured that it will require no sacrifice on your part, because America is the greatest nation on earth and has been blessed by God, who, along with the government, will make everything OK.
The very low estimate is 10 billion barrels.
That is $1.25 trillion dollars worth of oil.
That is $1.25 trillion dollars that we would not pay some other country.
theBS, Obama, Reid and every Democrat thinks it is a waste of time to drill for that black gold. They rather see that cash exit the USA.
More Nance lies. "The very low estimate is 10 billion barrels." No source, of course, it's Nance fantasy statistics at work, again.
Since you continue to spout fantasy statistics, I'll help you out. From the same source I cited above:
"In 1998, the USGS estimated that between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil are in the coastal plain area of ANWR (also referred to as the 1002 Area), with a mean estimate of 10.4 billion barrels, of which 7.7 billion barrels falls within the Federal portion of the ANWR 1002 Area"
"The mean probability estimate refers to a 1-in-2 chance of there being oil resources at least equal to the size of that estimate; the 95-percent probability estimate refers to a 19-in-20 chance of there being oil resources at least equal to the size of that estimate; and the 5-percent probability estimate refers to a 1-in-20 chance of there being oil resources at least equal to the size of that estimate."
Can you read that, Nance? There's a 50% chance that there's 10.4 billion barrels of oil. There's a 95% chance that there's only 5.7 billion barrels of oil. And only a 5% chance of your other fantasy statistic of 16 million barrels.
You've still failed to show ANY PROOF of your "over 20 billion barrels of oil" that you wrote THIS MORNING. You completely lied in saying that the "very low estimate is 10 billion barrels." It's 5.7 billion.... HALF of what you erroneously claim it to be.
Stop lying.
You cite a 10 year old 1998 study.
The key words in that study that defines “technically recoverable” are the words “using current recovery technology”.
The technology to recover oil has dramatically improved since 1998. It should be a common sense assumption that the estimates should increase over time due to improvements in recovery technology.
Too bad they have not done a new study that includes present day technology to recover oil.
Using your numbers (which I think are outdated for the reason above), here are the potential value of ANWR oil reserves.
95% chance of a value of $712 billion dollars that could stay in the USA instead of moving to other countries.
50% chance of a value of $1.3 trillion dollars that could stay in the USA instead of moving to other countries.
5% chance of a value of $2.0 trillion dollars that could stay in the USA instead of moving to other countries.
This shows that you, Reid, Obama are OK with the USA losing out on at least $712 billions of economic value to the USA.
The USA is the only country that is walking away from drilling. I doubt if you can find another country that does this stupid crap.
Oh….now you can scream and shout….”HELL NO TO DRILLING EVER EVER EVER”.
Stop with the hysteria, it just shows how immature you are. I've never said no to drilling. I've said drilling isn't the answer.
You are unable to recognize the vast difference between those two statements. That's willful ignorance on your part, Nance.
Nor are you able to reconcile the FACTS that I've presented with your wild speculation that you presented as fact. You refuse to acknowledge your lies. I cited a 2008 report which referenced the most recent data available, a 1998 study. You cited.... nothing.
The whole issue with this is that you make crap up and present it as fact. It's happened time and time again, and you're incapable of keeping your lies consistent, then run away from them when you're called on them. It seems you happily swallow the Neocon lies fed to you by Rush, Hannity and Savage without questioning them. It's pathetic.
And yet you said, referring to me: "You have these extreme absolutist positions that have no zero room for compromise."
Yes, I have principles. You should try it sometime.
You, Obama and Reid are so alike. You play these games. You have no desire whatsoever to allow any new drilling in ANWR or offshore.
Just say so and quit playing games.
Just say, "I do not want to drill in ANWR or offshore. I do not care if there are trillions of dollars of oil and natural gas to drill for. It is not important."
It is that simple.
On the other hand, McCain is saying, "Let's invest in solar and wind. Let's invest in nuclear and cleaner coal systems. These will not happen over night. So let's be wise and drill offshore to help our country. We need all the energy that we can get."
I think this is what you, Reid and Obama would really say. "No need to drill. We should only focus on wind and solar. We just need to tough it out this period of high gas prices."
When will this mytical world of solar and wind replace the oil that we need?
You have still not answered that question.
No, in fact, McCain is NOT saying that. In fact, he said, "My plan will make people FEEL BETTER about paying $4.50 a gallon." It contains no actual solutions, but a Neocon lullaby.
He debunked his own energy plan. LOL!
And no, I don't think we should drill in ANWR so that a barrel of oil is 41 cents cheaper in 2026. ANWR doesn't even contain 10% of the estimated total amount of oil found within the United States. Sorry, principles win again.
And yes, silly, I did answer that question. I linked to an entire plan. You even "argued" against it. Maybe you can't scroll your page.
Man, you've gone off the deep end.
"No, in fact, McCain is NOT saying that. In fact, he said, "My plan will make people FEEL BETTER about paying $4.50 a gallon." It contains no actual solutions, but a Neocon lullaby."
Why don't you bring back THAT quote? As usual, you emphasize the wrong point, as you WILL see!
Seven questions about YOUR plan for America's ongoing survival and PROGRESS. OOOPPPPPPPZZZZZZZZZ, there's that word again!
Does YOUR PLAN make America "FEEL BETTER"????
Grab your advil and a scotch, pal!
A very old estimate says that ANWR has over $700 billions of oil.
It is more likely to be over $1 trillion of oil.
To bad....Obama and Reid and all Democrats prefer that we give that money to foreign producers of oil.