Oil price drop....largest in 17 years

[packinpatland]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/15/markets/oil/index.htm?postversion=2008071516


So..................when do we see the drop at the pumps??????????? :shock:

[Freak Out]

It will take some time for us to see them in the Anchorage area...longer in Rural AK but it will depend on some regional issues. Unless of course the price gets jacked up again tomorrow.

Everything that was said is old news.....the weak dollar, inflation, lower demand.

[Bossman641]

I laugh everytime I see a comment from an expert energy analyst. I'm pretty sure I could do that job. Every comment is "Oil is more expensive due to weaker dollar, growing demand, whatever international crisis is going on." Or conversely when the price falls "The price has fallen due to lower demand due to high prices." Or how about when they make their "forecasts" and then change them every month.

[retailguy]

This is the important point in the article.... if you understand math.


But in 1991, oil was trading at just $32 a barrel, so the more than $10 slide in dollar terms represented a record 33% drop. Oil fell 4.4% Tuesday, which does not even crack the top 100 price declines in percentage terms.

so, if unleaded is 4.50 a gal and prices fall 4.4%, then they'll go down over the next few days by about .19 cents....

the demand part is very true. This is a supply and demand issue. But I think Freak is right when he talks about the value of the dollar.

Many things affect the crude price, but I think this is the big one. As the dollar slides, crude will go higher, because when you devalue your currency real goods are worth more. Remember the stories of Russians and Mexicans taking a wheelbarrow load of cash for a loaf of bread?

But, truthfully, how do you prop up the dollar? You increase the cost of borrowing - raise interest rates. You constrict the supply of cash, to make it worth more. .. And what will that do to the economy? Or, better phrased, the "perception" of the economy?

Yeah. Therein lies a problem, don't you think?

[texaspackerbacker]

There was another significant drop, I think even bigger than this one, a month or two ago, and then the prices came roaring back even quicker and even more than they had dropped. So it's too early to get our hopes up.

What brought this drop on? Very likely, it was Bush's announcement of drilling on the outer continental shelf, as well as his prodding Congress to get off its ass and allow drilling in ANWAR.

[oregonpackfan]

What brought this drop on? Very likely, it was Bush's announcement of drilling on the outer continental shelf, as well as his prodding Congress to get off its ass and allow drilling in ANWAR.[/quote]

Bush's advocacy of offshore drilling as well as ANWAR most likely had little to do with the price drop. If the US started drilling both offshore and ANWAR tomorrow, the oil, refined as gasoline, would not reach American gas pumps for at least 10 years.

[retailguy]

What brought this drop on? Very likely, it was Bush's announcement of drilling on the outer continental shelf, as well as his prodding Congress to get off its ass and allow drilling in ANWAR.

Bush's advocacy of offshore drilling as well as ANWAR most likely had little to do with the price drop. If the US started drilling both offshore and ANWAR tomorrow, the oil, refined as gasoline, would not reach American gas pumps for at least 10 years.

This isn't true OPF, most likely drilling could be flowing oil off the continental shelf in a little less than 3 years.

Tex, more than likely the announcement didn't cause prices to drop because it was largely symbolic as there is still a law that prevents drilling. That's gotta go first.

it was probably a number of things. If it lasts for more than a week, then we should speculate about reasons. More than likely it'll rebound over the next few days.

Nothing I see would dictate a prolonged drop right now, and I have a lot of data available to look at, and am paid to know it and understand it. Nobody knows for sure, but I'm fairly confident. :wink:

[oregonpackfan]

What brought this drop on? Very likely, it was Bush's announcement of drilling on the outer continental shelf, as well as his prodding Congress to get off its ass and allow drilling in ANWAR.

Bush's advocacy of offshore drilling as well as ANWAR most likely had little to do with the price drop. If the US started drilling both offshore and ANWAR tomorrow, the oil, refined as gasoline, would not reach American gas pumps for at least 10 years.

This isn't true OPF, most likely drilling could be flowing oil off the continental shelf in a little less than 3 years.

:wink:

I have read several credible reports that it would take at least 10 years for the setup, drilling, discovery, transportation of the crude to the refineries, the processing, and the transportation to the gas stations.

[retailguy]

What brought this drop on? Very likely, it was Bush's announcement of drilling on the outer continental shelf, as well as his prodding Congress to get off its ass and allow drilling in ANWAR.

Bush's advocacy of offshore drilling as well as ANWAR most likely had little to do with the price drop. If the US started drilling both offshore and ANWAR tomorrow, the oil, refined as gasoline, would not reach American gas pumps for at least 10 years.

This isn't true OPF, most likely drilling could be flowing oil off the continental shelf in a little less than 3 years.

:wink:

I have read several credible reports that it would take at least 10 years for the setup, drilling, discovery, transportation of the crude to the refineries, the processing, and the transportation to the gas stations.

It would depend on who you find "credible". You can also find plenty of other reports that claim much less time. You need to pick who you believe, and I know who I believe and 10 years is ridiculous.

I doubt seriously it would take even 10 years to drill in ANWR and that's a logistical nightmare compared to the continental shelf.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I doubt seriously it would take even 10 years to drill in ANWR and that's a logistical nightmare compared to the continental shelf.

The critical question is not when it would affect prices. The question is will it affect prices, and the answer is no.

To affect the world wide oil maket, they would have to suck out enough crude to make a significant impact on global supply. Not going to happen.

This not a strong argument against drilling in Anwar. The point is that gas prices should not be part of the decision.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I doubt seriously it would take even 10 years to drill in ANWR and that's a logistical nightmare compared to the continental shelf.

The critical question is not when it would affect prices. The question is will it affect prices, and the answer is no.

To affect the world wide oil maket, they would have to suck out enough crude to make a significant impact on global supply. Not going to happen.

This not a strong argument against drilling in Anwar. The point is that gas prices should not be part of the decision.

Newt says it will.

Bush says it won't.

Oh, lord..which conservative am i suppose to believe in. :roll:

[retailguy]

I doubt seriously it would take even 10 years to drill in ANWR and that's a logistical nightmare compared to the continental shelf.

The critical question is not when it would affect prices. The question is will it affect prices, and the answer is no.

To affect the world wide oil maket, they would have to suck out enough crude to make a significant impact on global supply. Not going to happen.

This not a strong argument against drilling in Anwar. The point is that gas prices should not be part of the decision.

Newt says it will.

Bush says it won't.

Oh, lord..which conservative am i suppose to believe in. :roll:


How about me? :)


The folks over at anwr.org seem to think they could be producing in 5 years... Maybe you should believe them?

Alternatively you could stick with your buddies at moveon.org who really really want you to ride the bus...

In the end, your choice!

[texaspackerbacker]

What brought this drop on? Very likely, it was Bush's announcement of drilling on the outer continental shelf, as well as his prodding Congress to get off its ass and allow drilling in ANWAR.

Bush's advocacy of offshore drilling as well as ANWAR most likely had little to do with the price drop. If the US started drilling both offshore and ANWAR tomorrow, the oil, refined as gasoline, would not reach American gas pumps for at least 10 years.[/quote]

Still parrotting the party line, huh, Oregon?

No way in hell it would take that long. It just isn't logical. The geological part has been done. They know where to drill. How long do you think it takes to find a pool, and then to start pumping? Days or a few weeks is about right. The only hangup would be liberals dragging their feet.

[bobblehead]

This is the important point in the article.... if you understand math.


But in 1991, oil was trading at just $32 a barrel, so the more than $10 slide in dollar terms represented a record 33% drop. Oil fell 4.4% Tuesday, which does not even crack the top 100 price declines in percentage terms.

so, if unleaded is 4.50 a gal and prices fall 4.4%, then they'll go down over the next few days by about .19 cents....

the demand part is very true. This is a supply and demand issue. But I think Freak is right when he talks about the value of the dollar.

Many things affect the crude price, but I think this is the big one. As the dollar slides, crude will go higher, because when you devalue your currency real goods are worth more. Remember the stories of Russians and Mexicans taking a wheelbarrow load of cash for a loaf of bread?

But, truthfully, how do you prop up the dollar? You increase the cost of borrowing - raise interest rates. You constrict the supply of cash, to make it worth more. .. And what will that do to the economy? Or, better phrased, the "perception" of the economy?

Yeah. Therein lies a problem, don't you think?

I always say beware of anyone who switches from hard numbers to percentages midpoint. and remember, half of all schools are below average...that disgusts me.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I doubt seriously it would take even 10 years to drill in ANWR and that's a logistical nightmare compared to the continental shelf.

The critical question is not when it would affect prices. The question is will it affect prices, and the answer is no.

To affect the world wide oil maket, they would have to suck out enough crude to make a significant impact on global supply. Not going to happen.

This not a strong argument against drilling in Anwar. The point is that gas prices should not be part of the decision.

Newt says it will.

Bush says it won't.

Oh, lord..which conservative am i suppose to believe in. :roll:


How about me? :)


The folks over at anwr.org seem to think they could be producing in 5 years... Maybe you should believe them?

Alternatively you could stick with your buddies at moveon.org who really really want you to ride the bus...

In the end, your choice!

YOu missed the point...we are talking gas prices..not production.

BTW, i have never even been to moveon. But, as opposed to you and the rest of the conservs...i watch Fox....i highly doubt you go to moveon.

That is how i can tell you o'reilly thinks oil companies are making too much, coulter was "onboard" with clinton, etc.

I watch fox all the time. It gives me hope...with all those dopes (o'reilly, coulter)it makes me feel confident that change is coming.

[HowardRoark]

coulter was "onboard" with clinton, etc.
.

I thought he liked fat brunettes.

[retailguy]

YOu missed the point...we are talking gas prices..not production.


Nah, I didn't miss the point. Prices, in my opinion, have more to do with the value of the dollar than short term production.

However, thinking increased production wouldn't lower prices is a straw man argument, really. Whether it "slows the increase" or actually reduces prices, it is illogical to claim that increased production won't affect prices. Even those who claim no change in price point to rapidly increasing demand... so with regard to oil, one side of the economic "supply & demand" model is relevant but the other side isn't? Yeah, OK.




BTW, i have never even been to moveon. But, as opposed to you and the rest of the conservs...i watch Fox....i highly doubt you go to moveon.

In my opinion, FOX is not, nor ever has been conservative. Yes, they give more time to conservative candidates & pundits, but as a network giving conservative propaganda, um... NO.

You'd be surprised where I go and what I read. Additionally, you might also like to know that there are some left leaning Law students in my neighborhood who won't engage me in political discussion any longer because they keep losing the debate. :wink:



That is how i can tell you o'reilly thinks oil companies are making too much, coulter was "onboard" with clinton, etc.


Great, maybe now you should tell me WHY they think what they think. Then, maybe, you'd "get" the other argument (I don't really care whether you believe it or not). And, implying that O'Reilly is conservative? Nah, he's just a blowhard that straddles the fence most of the time, and picks the battle based on ratings. I'm not, and never have been, impressed with O'Reilly.



I watch fox all the time. It gives me hope...with all those dopes (o'reilly, coulter)it makes me feel confident that change is coming.

Great. Head over to the Washington Post and read George Will. Look at the article he wrote about oil prices. Then, I'll be impressed. :wink:

[mraynrand]

Prices are high partly because of the futures market. People betting on what Oil will cost in a few years. Since there is no promise of significant increases in oil production - compared with the very likely increase in demand, people are gambling that the prices will remain very high on tight supply and high demand. Prices could drop back down just on the promise of increased production - if drilling is authorized off the US coast and ANWR, if the fields discovered off S. America are even bigger than estimates, if production from shale is ramped up, etc. Where would prices go? It's true the value of the dollar has dropped, so I'm just guessing without futures inflation, prices would hover around $3. But this is what worries me - the futures market has become a bubble of it's own. It has to be inflated over what it really should be. So 1) the people invested in futures would be more than likely to lobby congress NOT to allow any new drilling, because it would wipe out their earnings or potential earnings and 2) if new supplies are found - or if any real alternative becomes viable - the bubble would burst - and what sort of hit would that be on the economy...

[HowardRoark]

Oil broke through support at $136...should go lower.

[Freak Out]

Here is an FYI on ANWR: There are wells in the western portion of ANWR that could be turned to production in a season of work....but the problem is a pipeline. The distance to the eastern operating area of Prudhoe Bay is "close" in Alaska terms but unless Congress throws most the rules out the window it would take years of permitting let alone legal battles. If pipe was available and weather was perfect you could probably complete a transfer line to the main Trans Alaska line in 2-3 years. In a global oil market this does little as far as commodity prices go.....but helps quite a bit as a domestic supply especially if Americans start using their heads and learn to conserve. I won't even address the caribou issue...and it is an issue as far as the Porcupine herd goes.

[texaspackerbacker]

From Freakout's post on page 1:

Here is an FYI on ANWR: There are wells in the western portion of ANWR that could be turned to production in a season of work....but the problem is a pipeline. The distance to the eastern operating area of Prudhoe Bay is "close" in Alaska terms but unless Congress throws most the rules out the window it would take years of permitting let alone legal battles. If pipe was available and weather was perfect you could probably complete a transfer line to the main Trans Alaska line in 2-3 years. In a global oil market this does little as far as commodity prices go.....but helps quite a bit as a domestic supply especially if Americans start using their heads and learn to conserve. I won't even address the caribou issue...and it is an issue as far as the Porcupine herd goes.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So build a damn road or railroad and haul it!

Oh wait, the environmentalist wackos wouldn't stand for that, would they?

Even that small extension of the pipeline shouldn't take more than a few months, not 2-3 years.

And the off shore extended drilling should get into production even quicker.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

coulter was "onboard" with clinton, etc.
.

I thought he liked fat brunettes.

Well, she is kinda horse faced, but calling ann coulter a guy...well, that is just a cheap shot.

But, i guess that is expected from a republican. :roll:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

YOu missed the point...we are talking gas prices..not production.


Nah, I didn't miss the point. Prices, in my opinion, have more to do with the value of the dollar than short term production.

However, thinking increased production wouldn't lower prices is a straw man argument, really. Whether it "slows the increase" or actually reduces prices, it is illogical to claim that increased production won't affect prices. Even those who claim no change in price point to rapidly increasing demand... so with regard to oil, one side of the economic "supply & demand" model is relevant but the other side isn't? Yeah, OK.




BTW, i have never even been to moveon. But, as opposed to you and the rest of the conservs...i watch Fox....i highly doubt you go to moveon.

In my opinion, FOX is not, nor ever has been conservative. Yes, they give more time to conservative candidates & pundits, but as a network giving conservative propaganda, um... NO.

You'd be surprised where I go and what I read. Additionally, you might also like to know that there are some left leaning Law students in my neighborhood who won't engage me in political discussion any longer because they keep losing the debate. :wink:



That is how i can tell you o'reilly thinks oil companies are making too much, coulter was "onboard" with clinton, etc.


Great, maybe now you should tell me WHY they think what they think. Then, maybe, you'd "get" the other argument (I don't really care whether you believe it or not). And, implying that O'Reilly is conservative? Nah, he's just a blowhard that straddles the fence most of the time, and picks the battle based on ratings. I'm not, and never have been, impressed with O'Reilly.



I watch fox all the time. It gives me hope...with all those dopes (o'reilly, coulter)it makes me feel confident that change is coming.

Great. Head over to the Washington Post and read George Will. Look at the article he wrote about oil prices. Then, I'll be impressed. :wink:

1. Prices. Again, our gov't says it won't affect prices. Newt says it will. Which conservative should i believe? Or, just you...an anonymous poster. LOL

2. Fox isn't conservative. LOL

3. Lawyes losing. If that is what you think, good for you. It would be hard to imagine them ever winning or drawing...when you can't even see the fundamental truths like Fox being conservative.

4. I get the other side of the argument. Who said i didnt'? The point is i highly doubt you are reading moveon's site or emails. But, i love how you "subtlely" imply that those of us who don't buy your shit haven't figured it out...or are just too stupid. :roll:

5. Will. And, again, who said i haven't (the usual rhetoric..gov't, media, taxes, no new drilling, blame clinton for no new anwr drilling, . Wow, i should be impressed with another conservative columnist? Remind me again about his economic credentials? Right, he doesn't have any. He is PhD in politics.

Would you care to discuss Will's journalistic integrity. As will even stated.."inappropriate" in regards to carter vs. reagan.

Or Fairness and Accuracy criticizing his role in the 96 election..oops, his wife was on Dole's staff. Yet, he didn't disclose it.



Or, his inaccurate and widely quoted..cuba/china drilling story?

[Freak Out]

From Freakout's post on page 1:

Here is an FYI on ANWR: There are wells in the western portion of ANWR that could be turned to production in a season of work....but the problem is a pipeline. The distance to the eastern operating area of Prudhoe Bay is "close" in Alaska terms but unless Congress throws most the rules out the window it would take years of permitting let alone legal battles. If pipe was available and weather was perfect you could probably complete a transfer line to the main Trans Alaska line in 2-3 years. In a global oil market this does little as far as commodity prices go.....but helps quite a bit as a domestic supply especially if Americans start using their heads and learn to conserve. I won't even address the caribou issue...and it is an issue as far as the Porcupine herd goes.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So build a damn road or railroad and haul it!

Oh wait, the environmentalist wackos wouldn't stand for that, would they?

Even that small extension of the pipeline shouldn't take more than a few months, not 2-3 years.

And the off shore extended drilling should get into production even quicker.

Its all about logistics Texas....you can rant all day long but you are ignorant about what it takes to do those kind of things in the arctic.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

From Freakout's post on page 1:

Here is an FYI on ANWR: There are wells in the western portion of ANWR that could be turned to production in a season of work....but the problem is a pipeline. The distance to the eastern operating area of Prudhoe Bay is "close" in Alaska terms but unless Congress throws most the rules out the window it would take years of permitting let alone legal battles. If pipe was available and weather was perfect you could probably complete a transfer line to the main Trans Alaska line in 2-3 years. In a global oil market this does little as far as commodity prices go.....but helps quite a bit as a domestic supply especially if Americans start using their heads and learn to conserve. I won't even address the caribou issue...and it is an issue as far as the Porcupine herd goes.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So build a damn road or railroad and haul it!

Oh wait, the environmentalist wackos wouldn't stand for that, would they?

Even that small extension of the pipeline shouldn't take more than a few months, not 2-3 years.

And the off shore extended drilling should get into production even quicker.

Its all about logistics Texas....you can rant all day long but you are ignorant about what it takes to do those kind of things in the arctic.

ICE ROAD TRUCKERS BABY!!!!!!!!!

P.S. RR or trucking...yep, let's just go back in time. By the way, i hate that pesky assembly line...craft guildsman all the way!!!!

[texaspackerbacker]

Freakout, I'd be glad to yield to your expertize if you presented any evidence or credentials. Heaven knows, I've never been up there.

I do know this, though. The thing the wackos are so bent on preserving is the TUNDRA. Apparently, the climate in that area doesn't allow for a helluva lot of snow and ice. So if we can get by the politics of environmentalist wackoism, the technicalities of digging a pipeline or building a road or railroad shouldn't be as bad as dealing with glacier ice or something like that.

Now if there are some specifics I'm ignoring, please let me know, as I admit to winging it here--just going by what seems logical and sensible.

[retailguy]

Freakout, I'd be glad to yield to your expertize if you presented any evidence or credentials. Heaven knows, I've never been up there.

I do know this, though. The thing the wackos are so bent on preserving is the TUNDRA. Apparently, the climate in that area doesn't allow for a helluva lot of snow and ice. So if we can get by the politics of environmentalist wackoism, the technicalities of digging a pipeline or building a road or railroad shouldn't be as bad as dealing with glacier ice or something like that.

Now if there are some specifics I'm ignoring, please let me know, as I admit to winging it here--just going by what seems logical and sensible.

Tex,

There are logistical issues in AK, that's for sure, but there are options, some better than Ice road truckers, I'd think.

BP has been using a flexible pipeline in Alaska at Prudhoe Bay on a limited basis since 1997. That's one example.

I'm no expert on pipelines but I'm sure there are others. Currently, I do know that there is capacity in the Alaska pipeline as the field production is steadily declining. You don't need a new pipeline, you just need to attach the new line to the existing one.

Seems to me that even if you didn't want to use the flexible technology long term, you could use it in the short term while you constructed the permanent line...

There are options, IF you want to look at them. Unfortunately, most people aren't willing to look at options, they just believe what they're told.

[retailguy]

1. Prices. Again, our gov't says it won't affect prices. Newt says it will. Which conservative should i believe? Or, just you...an anonymous poster. LOL

Ok, you're so hung up on prices, it makes me laugh. As if the ONLY reason to drill is that prices go down. Frankly I don't care whether you believe Bush or Newt or me. Just tell me why half the economic equation works and the other half doesn't. You know - the part of my answer you SKIPPED. (The fundamental truth part...)

Then tell me why it's better to give billions of dollars to Middle East dictators rather than Alaskans. Last time I checked they weren't dictators but AMERICANS.



2. Fox isn't conservative. LOL

3. Lawyes losing. If that is what you think, good for you. It would be hard to imagine them ever winning or drawing...when you can't even see the fundamental truths like Fox being conservative.

You can't be serious. A fundamental truth? Hell, I thought economics or physics were fundamental truths. Now, FOX is a fundamental truth? Please. This is a strawman argument if I've ever heard of one. You believe Fox is conservative therefore it's a fundamental truth. And I'm "just some guy on the internet", but YOU define fundamental truths. And you're not a hypocrite or "some guy on the internet"? Jeez. There's a double standard...

Let's see. The conservative says FOX is not conservative. The Liberal says they are. In your mind the liberal is correct and it's a fundamental truth. In my mind that make fox fair I guess.

Anyone with a brain ought to see your bias, hypocrisy and intolerance of other views.

As to the law students, not lawyers, they're young and idealistic. No clue how the real world works. No capacity to see the big picture. I see them similar to you. Love to argue but have little more than rhetoric.



4. I get the other side of the argument. Who said i didnt'? The point is i highly doubt you are reading moveon's site or emails. But, i love how you "subtlely" imply that those of us who don't buy your shit haven't figured it out...or are just too stupid. :roll:

I do read moveon's site. i sure don't subscribe to their emails. I do educate myself to the opposing point of view, and I DON'T refer to my perspective as a "fundamental truth"...

And you don't get the other side of the argument. You won't even read it. So lets be clear, I said you don't get it. And I guess that's a fundamental truth too. :roll:



5. Will. And, again, who said i haven't (the usual rhetoric..gov't, media, taxes, no new drilling, blame clinton for no new anwr drilling, . Wow, i should be impressed with another conservative columnist? Remind me again about his economic credentials? Right, he doesn't have any. He is PhD in politics.

Would you care to discuss Will's journalistic integrity. As will even stated.."inappropriate" in regards to carter vs. reagan.

Or Fairness and Accuracy criticizing his role in the 96 election..oops, his wife was on Dole's staff. Yet, he didn't disclose it.



Or, his inaccurate and widely quoted..cuba/china drilling story?

I asked you WHAT HE SAID, not who he was. I don't give a shit if you think he's credible or not. Quite frankly, your ilk has been telling me for years that personal ethics don't matter, whether it's in your bedroom, or in your bed beneath your desk in the oval office. IT DOESN'T MATTER.

So, ignore the messenger, read the message. I directed you to a point of view about OIL AND GAS. I could care less what his wife did for a living or whether or not he disclosed it. If this doesn't prove your "closemindedness" I just don't know what will.

You know, I'm no Tex or Bobblehead, but I thought I'd get a better response than your "C" game. This feeble attempt sure wasn't your "A" game. But whatever straw man. You believe whatever you choose to believe. See, if you can't conceive it, it can't be real. It just can't.

Enjoy the bus ride.... I'm done responding to your close minded ranting.

[Freak Out]

Freakout, I'd be glad to yield to your expertize if you presented any evidence or credentials. Heaven knows, I've never been up there.

I do know this, though. The thing the wackos are so bent on preserving is the TUNDRA. Apparently, the climate in that area doesn't allow for a helluva lot of snow and ice. So if we can get by the politics of environmentalist wackoism, the technicalities of digging a pipeline or building a road or railroad shouldn't be as bad as dealing with glacier ice or something like that.

Now if there are some specifics I'm ignoring, please let me know, as I admit to winging it here--just going by what seems logical and sensible.

The pipe is above ground on transit lines due to permafrost....but my point is that Congress can set down rules to speed this up considerably...we can do a safe, efficient, clean job of this given the opportunity. Enviro laws don't have to be thrown out the door but stop the legal dog piles and we can get this thing going. I'm talking about onshore development here in the larger petro reserves and the extreme west of ANWR not offshore north slope oil.

What bothers me the most is that Congress will vote to fund a war or invade at the drop of a hat but not to sensibly develop some mineral reserves.

[swede]

The pipe is above ground on transit lines due to permafrost....but my point is that Congress can set down rules to speed this up considerably...we can do a safe, efficient, clean job of this given the opportunity. Enviro laws don't have to be thrown out the door but stop the legal dog piles and we can get this thing going. I'm talking about onshore development here in the larger petro reserves and the extreme west of ANWR not offshore north slope oil.

What bothers me the most is that Congress will vote to fund a war or invade at the drop of a hat but not to sensibly develop some mineral reserves.


QFT






I won't even address the caribou issue...and it is an issue as far as the Porcupine herd goes.

I say we relocate the porcupines to higher ground. The caribou can take care of themselves.

[retailguy]

=
What bothers me the most is that Congress will vote to fund a war or invade at the drop of a hat but not to sensibly develop some mineral reserves.

I agree with the second part of your point, and I concede that it is BOTH sides of the aisle who won't develop our reserves and that's really sad.

And, FWIW we didn't invade at the "drop of a hat".... there was some significant provocation and the violation of dozens of UN resolutions and some probably deception too. So we can disagree on that point, and agree on the other, right? :P

[Tyrone Bigguns]

1. Prices. Again, our gov't says it won't affect prices. Newt says it will. Which conservative should i believe? Or, just you...an anonymous poster. LOL

Ok, you're so hung up on prices, it makes me laugh. As if the ONLY reason to drill is that prices go down. Frankly I don't care whether you believe Bush or Newt or me. Just tell me why half the economic equation works and the other half doesn't. You know - the part of my answer you SKIPPED. (The fundamental truth part...)

Then tell me why it's better to give billions of dollars to Middle East dictators rather than Alaskans. Last time I checked they weren't dictators but AMERICANS.



2. Fox isn't conservative. LOL

3. Lawyes losing. If that is what you think, good for you. It would be hard to imagine them ever winning or drawing...when you can't even see the fundamental truths like Fox being conservative.

You can't be serious. A fundamental truth? Hell, I thought economics or physics were fundamental truths. Now, FOX is a fundamental truth? Please. This is a strawman argument if I've ever heard of one. You believe Fox is conservative therefore it's a fundamental truth. And I'm "just some guy on the internet", but YOU define fundamental truths. And you're not a hypocrite or "some guy on the internet"? Jeez. There's a double standard...

Let's see. The conservative says FOX is not conservative. The Liberal says they are. In your mind the liberal is correct and it's a fundamental truth. In my mind that make fox fair I guess.

Anyone with a brain ought to see your bias, hypocrisy and intolerance of other views.

As to the law students, not lawyers, they're young and idealistic. No clue how the real world works. No capacity to see the big picture. I see them similar to you. Love to argue but have little more than rhetoric.



4. I get the other side of the argument. Who said i didnt'? The point is i highly doubt you are reading moveon's site or emails. But, i love how you "subtlely" imply that those of us who don't buy your shit haven't figured it out...or are just too stupid. :roll:

I do read moveon's site. i sure don't subscribe to their emails. I do educate myself to the opposing point of view, and I DON'T refer to my perspective as a "fundamental truth"...

And you don't get the other side of the argument. You won't even read it. So lets be clear, I said you don't get it. And I guess that's a fundamental truth too. :roll:



5. Will. And, again, who said i haven't (the usual rhetoric..gov't, media, taxes, no new drilling, blame clinton for no new anwr drilling, . Wow, i should be impressed with another conservative columnist? Remind me again about his economic credentials? Right, he doesn't have any. He is PhD in politics.

Would you care to discuss Will's journalistic integrity. As will even stated.."inappropriate" in regards to carter vs. reagan.

Or Fairness and Accuracy criticizing his role in the 96 election..oops, his wife was on Dole's staff. Yet, he didn't disclose it.



Or, his inaccurate and widely quoted..cuba/china drilling story?

I asked you WHAT HE SAID, not who he was. I don't give a shit if you think he's credible or not. Quite frankly, your ilk has been telling me for years that personal ethics don't matter, whether it's in your bedroom, or in your bed beneath your desk in the oval office. IT DOESN'T MATTER.

So, ignore the messenger, read the message. I directed you to a point of view about OIL AND GAS. I could care less what his wife did for a living or whether or not he disclosed it. If this doesn't prove your "closemindedness" I just don't know what will.

You know, I'm no Tex or Bobblehead, but I thought I'd get a better response than your "C" game. This feeble attempt sure wasn't your "A" game. But whatever straw man. You believe whatever you choose to believe. See, if you can't conceive it, it can't be real. It just can't.

Enjoy the bus ride.... I'm done responding to your close minded ranting.

1. Economic equation. Shouldn't you be asking that of either the admin or Newt? I've already posted that i don't know which to believe.

2. Other reasons. Agreed. But, i prefer other sources..and more importantly dont' think the amount of oil we will get in the timeframe presented will help as much as other approaches.

3. Fundamental truth. While it may be an overstatement..as if you are not prone to them. Most people and media critics would put Fox in as a conservative media outlet. For you to not acknowledge this is hilarious.

Fox's founder and president, Roger Ailes, was for decades one of the savviest and most pugnacious Republican political operatives in Washington, a veteran of the Nixon and Reagan campaigns.

Hmm:

Tony Snow: conservative columnist and former chief speechwriter for the first Bush administration

David Asman formerly of the right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial page and the conservative Manhattan Institute

Eric Breindel, previously the editorial-page editor of the right-wing New York Post, was senior vice president of Fox's parent company, News Corporation, until his death in 1998

John Moody, a long-time journalist known for his staunch conservative views.

Brit Hume, a veteran TV journalist and contributor to the conservative American Spectator and Weekly Standard magazines

Bill O'Reilly, a columnist for the conservative WorldNetDaily.com and a registered Republican (that is, until a week before the Washington Post published an article revealing his party registration--12/13/00).

Catherine Crier, who was perceived as one of Fox's most prestigious and credible early hires, was an elected Republican judge before starting a career in journalism.

Pundit Mara Liasson--who was touted as an on-air "liberal" by Fox executives--sits on the board of the conservative human-rights group Freedom House and assured Ailes she was a republican

Hmm...punditry...heavily right-leaning punditry. Each episode of Special Report with Brit Hume, for example, features a three-person panel of pundits who chat about the day's political news at the end of the show. The most frequent panelist is Fred Barnes, the evangelical Christian supply-sider who edits the Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard.

The next most frequent guest is Mort Kondrake, who sits in the middle of the panel. Politically, Kondrake falls at the very rightward edge of the Democratic party-- if not beyond it. A dem who is "digusted with the dem party."

Do i need to go on?

OR should i let Scott Norvell..the London Bureau chief of Fox tell you as he stated in the WSJ?

"Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.

Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it."


4. Liberal is correct? HOw so? I've never once posted that. I merely have popped some canards that others float as truths.

5. "As to the law students, not lawyers, they're young and idealistic. No clue how the real world works. No capacity to see the big picture. I see them similar to you. Love to argue but have little more than rhetoric."

Hello, if this isn't elitism then what is. You passing judgement on what they know and how the real world works. LOL

6. Bias, etc. And, anyone with a brain also sees yours. I don't pretend to not have a bias or an opinion. Are you actually pretending that you are unbiased? LOL

7. Other side. Oh, i dont' read it or get it? LOL I read it and do get it. I guess if i do that and dont' agree..that means i'm stupid. :roll:

8. Ethics. My side...hardly. If my side said anything..it was that sexual stuff is not relevant. Putting out factually wrong statements and hiding your ties to a a campaign, etc..that is much different..and the fact that he apologized should tell you something.

BTW, i read Will all the time..be it the paper or Newsweek..and i put in parenthesis what he believes. Guess that was too tough for you.

9. A game. Ah, your usual strawman. If i dont' believe what you believe then it is a failing on my part. It is because i can't conceive of it. LOL

Could it be that i disagree and have a valid viewpoint. No. Because liberals are just wrong. And, we just aren't smart enough to see how right conservatives are.

[bobblehead]

Enjoy the bus ride.... I'm done responding to your close minded ranting.

Welcome to the club..well, if 2 makes a club.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Enjoy the bus ride.... I'm done responding to your close minded ranting.

Welcome to the club..well, if 2 makes a club.

Will you two be wearing the official club garments? Please be sure to let Retail where to pickup the pointy white hat.