Rebublican Congressional Revolt Continues

Cyclo,
I don't really care how much this particular tactic reduces prices. It certainly is only one step in a long battle to wean us off our oil addiction.

The facts are that the US imports 6 Million barrels of oil a day from OPEC (plus another 4M from non-OPEC countries, the largest of which is Canada). Increasing the worlds production of 83M barrels per day by 2% represents approximately 1.5M barrels per day that we would not have to import. Thus this tactic would reduce our dependence on OPEC oil by 25%!!! Even Pelosi has said that her top priority is to reduce our dependence on oil, so why she doesn't permit this is unconsionable and unmistakeably a power ploy deserving of condemnation.

Surely reducing our dependence on OPEC oil by 25% is a worthwhile endeavor, no?

Cyclo,
I don't really care how much this particular tactic reduces prices. It certainly is only one step in a long battle to wean us off our oil addiction.

The facts are that the US imports 6 Million barrels of oil a day from OPEC (plus another 4M from non-OPEC countries, the largest of which is Canada). Increasing the worlds production of 83M barrels per day by 2% represents approximately 1.5M barrels per day that we would not have to import. Thus this tactic would reduce our dependence on OPEC oil by 25%!!! Even Pelosi has said that her top priority is to reduce our dependence on oil, so why she doesn't permit this is unconsionable and unmistakeably a power ploy deserving of condemnation.

Surely reducing our dependence on OPEC oil by 25% is a worthwhile endeavor, no?

If one supplier increases production, the effect on the market can easily be offset by another supplier decreasing production (e.g. because he wants prices to remain high).

old europe wrote:

If one supplier increases production, the effect on the market can easily be offset by another supplier decreasing production (e.g. because he wants prices to remain high).

That argument doesn't hold water with me. A free market would prevent any supplier from having the ability by himself to keep the price thru nefarious manipulation.

I will concede that demand would soon increase to absorb any additional supply that could be brought to the table and that's why drilling, in and of itself, is not sufficient. Drilling is just a stop-gap until alternative sources can be developed.

slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo,
I don't really care how much this particular tactic reduces prices. It certainly is only one step in a long battle to wean us off our oil addiction.

The facts are that the US imports 6 Million barrels of oil a day from OPEC (plus another 4M from non-OPEC countries, the largest of which is Canada). Increasing the worlds production of 83M barrels per day by 2% represents approximately 1.5M barrels per day that we would not have to import. Thus this tactic would reduce our dependence on OPEC oil by 25%!!! Even Pelosi has said that her top priority is to reduce our dependence on oil, so why she doesn't permit this is unconsionable and unmistakeably a power ploy deserving of condemnation.

Surely reducing our dependence on OPEC oil by 25% is a worthwhile endeavor, no?

I wonder where you got the idea that the 6m barrels of oil made per day would be sold here in America from; that's not how the world oil market works.

If you are looking to keep American drilling in America, and decrease foreign imports, why not require the oil that is drilled in Alaska to be sold in America - instead of Asia, where much of it ends up now?

Cycloptichorn

Interesting but incorrect spin on it Cyclopdickhead. The demonrats control the house floor - the reps have NO CHANCE to speak if they aren't given the floor.

I hope you and Pelosi and and all the rest of the demonrats rot in hell.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo,
I don't really care how much this particular tactic reduces prices. It certainly is only one step in a long battle to wean us off our oil addiction.

The facts are that the US imports 6 Million barrels of oil a day from OPEC (plus another 4M from non-OPEC countries, the largest of which is Canada). Increasing the worlds production of 83M barrels per day by 2% represents approximately 1.5M barrels per day that we would not have to import. Thus this tactic would reduce our dependence on OPEC oil by 25%!!! Even Pelosi has said that her top priority is to reduce our dependence on oil, so why she doesn't permit this is unconsionable and unmistakeably a power ploy deserving of condemnation.

Surely reducing our dependence on OPEC oil by 25% is a worthwhile endeavor, no?

I wonder where you got the idea that the 6m barrels of oil made per day would be sold here in America from; that's not how the world oil market works.

If you are looking to keep American drilling in America, and decrease foreign imports, why not require the oil that is drilled in Alaska to be sold in America - instead of Asia, where much of it ends up now?

Cycloptichorn

I'm OK with that...The US exports 1.4M barrels per day...cutting off those exports and drilling will then reduce our dependence on OPEC oil by a whopping 50%. Surely everyone could support that...but unfortunately I expect Pelosi and many other Dems in Congress would not.

old europe wrote:

If one supplier increases production, the effect on the market can easily be offset by another supplier decreasing production (e.g. because he wants prices to remain high).

That argument doesn't hold water with me. A free market would prevent any supplier from having the ability by himself to keep the price thru nefarious manipulation.

I will concede that demand would soon increase to absorb any additional supply that could be brought to the table and that's why drilling, in and of itself, is not sufficient.

Drilling is just a stop-gap until alternative sources can be developed.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

More that she knows drilling won't actually ease the pain of the people she represents...

Cycloptichorn

Then she's an idiot about economics...even college freshmen in their first class on economics learn that more supply drives down costs. We can probably argue for days on how much price will go down and when it will go down, but there is one guarantee...the price will go down. Increasing the number of Democrats in Congress will not drive the cost down one penny.

Of course, in real life you'll mostly end up anywhere between the two extremes.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo,
I don't really care how much this particular tactic reduces prices. It certainly is only one step in a long battle to wean us off our oil addiction.

The facts are that the US imports 6 Million barrels of oil a day from OPEC (plus another 4M from non-OPEC countries, the largest of which is Canada). Increasing the worlds production of 83M barrels per day by 2% represents approximately 1.5M barrels per day that we would not have to import. Thus this tactic would reduce our dependence on OPEC oil by 25%!!! Even Pelosi has said that her top priority is to reduce our dependence on oil, so why she doesn't permit this is unconsionable and unmistakeably a power ploy deserving of condemnation.

Surely reducing our dependence on OPEC oil by 25% is a worthwhile endeavor, no?

I wonder where you got the idea that the 6m barrels of oil made per day would be sold here in America from; that's not how the world oil market works.

If you are looking to keep American drilling in America, and decrease foreign imports, why not require the oil that is drilled in Alaska to be sold in America - instead of Asia, where much of it ends up now?

Cycloptichorn

I'm OK with that...The US exports 1.4M barrels per day...cutting off those exports and drilling will then reduce our dependence on OPEC oil by a whopping 50%. Surely everyone could support that...but unfortunately I expect Pelosi and many other Dems in Congress would not.

old europe wrote:

Of course, in real life you'll mostly end up anywhere between the two extremes.

That is I. Holding the middle ground between the extremes.

thank you.

no, really it's all right. I'll be here all week. :wink:

Oh, I think they most certainly WOULD support that; the ones who would not are Republicans, for it would negatively affect the profits of the oil industry, who they are owned by. Currently the US exports oil b/c they get more money, even including shipping costs, sending it to Asia. Telling companies they can't do that is akin to telling them they can't make profits; the same thing that Republicans decry Dems for doing.

You should take a gander at your side of the isle, if you are looking for who is obstructing the energy game here in the states. Breaking the lock Oil has on our economy would open up the market to new solutions and start us working towards a cleaner and more self-sufficient future; drilling more oil and not spending any on renewables, as Republicans in the House and Senate have signaled they wish to do, doesn't do this at all.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Oh, I think they most certainly WOULD support that; the ones who would not are Republicans, for it would negatively affect the profits of the oil industry, who they are owned by. Currently the US exports oil b/c they get more money, even including shipping costs, sending it to Asia. Telling companies they can't do that is akin to telling them they can't make profits; the same thing that Republicans decry Dems for doing.

You should take a gander at your side of the isle, if you are looking for who is obstructing the energy game here in the states. Breaking the lock Oil has on our economy would open up the market to new solutions and start us working towards a cleaner and more self-sufficient future; drilling more oil and not spending any on renewables, as Republicans in the House and Senate have signaled they wish to do, doesn't do this at all.

Cycloptichorn

I'll look into the Repub position, but I disagree that Pelosi, for one, would ever support more drilling off-shore, in Alaska, etc. She's certainly ruled that out in the past.

Also please provide me names of the Repubs who argue "drilling more oil and not spending any on renewables". I'll be sure to call them out on that and would hope you're willing to call Pelosi, Durbin, Reid, etc. out on their "only renewables and no drilling" tactic.

Well, I don't think we NEED to drill any more then we currently are; maintaining current levels is good enough while we bring renewables online. Drilling more won't lower the price; as has been pointed out above, the market just doesn't work that way. There's no reason to increase drilling here in the states.

As for the Republicans who blocked renewable spending? Your Senate Republicans have done so 4 times this year alone.

Cycloptichorn