|
||||||||
|
« Hillary supporters to demonstrate at DNC meeting |
Blog Home Page
| First European Sumo Champion? »
May 22, 2008 How much have the Democrats cost you at the pump?Senator Chuck Schumer claims that coercing Saudi Arabia to increase oil production by 1 million barrels a day would drop the per barrel price by $25, saving Americans 62 cent per gallon at the gas pump. Yet, somehow, that same amount of oil coming from Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would only ease oil prices by a penny. In a Senate floor speech he gave on May 13th, the New York Democrat insisted that:
Schumer repeated these words almost verbatim when grilling oil company executives during yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Yet Schumer's daily magic number of 1 million barrels is the exact increase experts believe we would today be pumping through the Alyeska pipeline had Bill Clinton not vetoed ANWR drilling back in 1995. And even the most rabid anti-domestic-drilling Democrats don't take issue with that figure. So then, the increase he demands of "Bush's friends," the Saudis - which he claims would reduce prices by up to 25 percent -- is the exact amount he argued earlier this month would only "reduce the price of oil by a penny" were it coming from ANWR - eco-sacred breeding ground of the Porcupine Caribou. It doesn't take a Ph.D in economics to know that both figures can't be right. Nor one in Poli-Sci to know why they're so starkly different nonetheless.
|
Recent Articles
Blog Posts
|
|
Comments
Bra-vo. Love it. Love it. Love it.
Posted by: Mark B | May 22, 2008 01:51 PM
The democrats will continue to get away with this type fraud unless and until the media hold them accountable. Wonder how long it would take if a republican did this sort of thing? Not long I am willing to bet.
Posted by: Sal Cantarella | May 22, 2008 02:12 PM
Schumer is an economic illiterate. Or else he figures he'll play to peoples' ignorance, the same as he does on guns...either way, he's a disgrace and has no business being in the Senate.
Posted by: Matthew Quigley | May 22, 2008 02:24 PM
It must be 'better oil' coming from Saudi Arabia ... has to be better than oil from ANWR since savings are do different.
Schumer is a MORON
Posted by: Mark | May 22, 2008 02:24 PM
If only this would be announced by ABC CBS NBS - or how about our President?
Posted by: Jilly | May 22, 2008 03:03 PM
There are some folks that don't believe there's a shortage to begin with:
http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/apr2008/bw2008041_945564.htm
Also, ANWR will never amount to more than a drop in the bucket of our current usage and there's far more oil in the Gulf of Mexico which makes it a better investement.
Posted by: Jeff B | May 22, 2008 03:19 PM
This just proves that 58.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Posted by: K Lewis | May 22, 2008 03:59 PM
Marc,
No one enjoys bashing Sen. Schumer more than I, but he didn't quite say what you accuse him of. The complete quote is:
"ANWR wouldn't produce a drop of oil in 10 years and it's estimated that if it drilled in ANWR in 20 years, it would reduce the price of oil by one penny."
The quote is muddled, but he did include "in 20 years." When I first heard him say this, his voice seemed to drop off when he got to "in 20 years" as if hoping no one would pick up on that condition. I also remember his saying it in such a way that the comma after "20 years," actually came after ANWR. That could be interpreted as his saying that the one penny decrease might come 20 years after the 10 years to production.
Posted by: Richard Terrell | May 22, 2008 04:03 PM
A few things to consider:
1:OIL from ANWR will go into the world oil market, thus prices would not barely blink an eye
2:Economics 101 supply and demand...
3:Republicans had all three branches of government for 6 years and did nothing... Guess thats Bill Clinton's fault also.
3:Cheap oil is gone forever
Posted by: Mike P | May 22, 2008 04:04 PM
It really is evil that the same senators and congressbozos that are in bed with the environmental movements, shovelling our tax dollars to them, are also the arrogant narcissists who think we are too clueless to notice they are now trying to play the other side of the fence and "get tough on oil companies" -yeah, right.
Someone needs to pull the flush handle on the Congress and wash them all out.
An executive order to drill oil and build nuke plants would be a good start.
It is utter nonsense to not drill our own oil and build more refineries.
These anti-capitalist commie government oldsters need to be sent to the commie glue farm.
-Tom
Posted by: Tom from Trollhammer | May 22, 2008 04:05 PM
Look everyone knows the Democrat Socialists in Congress are lying to your face. Why no one seems to care is the mystery.
We should be drilling everywhere in the US, new technologies are making drilling safer than ever. Saying that 1.5 mBPD from ANWR won't make a difference, is just showing that you are severely math challenged.
The USA also has some of the best grade coal, and a gigantic pile of it as well. Why we aren't experimenting with coal to liquids technology, as are the Chinese who also have lots of coal, is just plain madness.
Florida has so much gas in the Destin dome that no one even seems to know how much. But since it's 100 miles off of Florida we can't drill it. Much better to have tankers go into Tampa instead of building a gas pipeline. How stupid is that.
Appears to me that the Democrat Socialists in Congress think burning food and eating less is the way to energy independence.
Posted by: bill-tb | May 22, 2008 04:26 PM
Jeff B,
Do you realize how huch one of those oil rigs cost? It would be much less expensive to tie into the esisting Alaskan pipeline. We need to do both and also drill off Florida.
Posted by: Charlie | May 22, 2008 04:26 PM
I've been informally polling people about drilling for oil in the U.S., and no one I've talked to about it has made an objection. It's interesting that the Democrats are protecting "our environment" as if it's made of the most fragile crystal, yet their constituents seem to have no problem using our natural resources.
Posted by: shibumi | May 22, 2008 04:35 PM
Another Democrat, another lie. We should be drilling for oil in every place we can but instead well let China drill 100 miles off our coast and stop anything here. The democrats are paramount to traitors in my book. We are all suffering because of the inept policies of these people and this party of socialist blow hards.
I guess this is the change we can believe in?
Posted by: DaveT | May 22, 2008 05:07 PM
What might be worth considering is that the cost of building the infrastructure to drill in Alaska will surely be passed on to the consumer.
To me, the real issue is not how to get oil cheaper, but how to move away from such a heavy reliance on it. There is no doubt that Bush and his 'cronies' are oil men. They will never have a problem with the obscene profits oil companies bring in. Maybe the Dems would be willing to tax them heavily and provide more breaks to the Middle class.
Posted by: Michael T | May 22, 2008 05:43 PM
To Mike P: The Republicans did not have a big enough majority in Congress to push through drilling in ANWR. Plus, guys like McCaing voted against it, too. Can't blame the Republicans for this, just some Republicans and ALL the democRATs.
Oh, and Civics 101. The three branches of government are the Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Since the judicial branch does not make law (or at least they're not supposed to do so) what three branches of govt. did the Republicans control for 6 years?
Posted by: Jarhead68 | May 22, 2008 05:48 PM
the democrats are generally wrong about everything. they have to think we are all soooo dumb.
Posted by: sandra vaillancourt | May 22, 2008 06:42 PM
Drilling in ANWR is what will keep the Alaska pipeline filled to capacity. They have plans for a spur line to connect with the main head-end at Prudhoe bay. There are also offshore sites in the Chukchi Sea which contain oil that has not been categorized yet, due to drilling restrictions.
There is also enough gas in the north slope to warrant a parallel gas pipeline.
The only problem is the Democrat Socialists in Congress won't allow it, because it ruins their plans for a socialist America.
Pay more in taxes, so the Democrat Socialist can pretend to control the weather. How cool is that? My money is on the sun putting an end to the hoax.
Posted by: bill-tb | May 22, 2008 06:58 PM
Michael T, Even if it cost $100 Million to set up the infrastructure, at 1 MBPD delivery the initial investment of the oil rigs could be paid off in a few months at a charge of $1 per barrel.
Posted by: Ytown Rick | May 22, 2008 07:18 PM
I would hate to be a Democrat in Congress when this filters it's way around the MSM. Do they still make tar and feathers? We'll find out when gas hits, what, $7/gallon.
DKK
Posted by: LifeTrek | May 22, 2008 08:29 PM
Schumer's comments and some of the others are appalling, the comments are either ignorant or arrogant or both I'm not sure which. Re: ANWR total recoverable oil reserves are estimated by the USGS to be in the 5.7 to 16.0 billion barrel range. The smaller area 1002 in the 3.4 - 10.2 billion barrel range, the range being defined at 95% certain at the low end and 5% certainty ant the high end. mean values (50% certainty) are 10.4 and 6.4 billion barrels. Based on a reserve to production ratio of 10, i.e., reseres will last 10 years at peak rate, daily expected rate is in the 1-2.8 million barrels per day range, using the at a 50% certainty values. 1 million barrels at the margin today would mean $40-50/bbl price range - world market price. This value is based on a per Jan 1 dollar. The current price of +/-$130/bbl has a dollar devaluation of about 50% built in, i.e., without the devaluation oil would be in the +/-$80/bbl range. Also, think what this would do for the US balance of payments and the domestic economic. Regarding the time to bring the volumes to the market - the 10 year estimate is based upon the current legal and environmental framework. Were Congress to declare an emergency oil could flow in 18-36 months, safely and in an evironmentally sound manner, from the time an emergency were declared. Will it happen? No, the Democrats care more for power rather than economics!
Posted by: Stan from Sugar Land | May 22, 2008 09:35 PM
This makes me so angry I can't stand it. Why aren't the American people revolting and demanding that we drill in ANWR? If they would just pay attention and turn off the entertainment TV shows we might have a better country. If the American people scream loud enough, which they rarely do,you will see action. The last thing any senator/congressperson wants is to be voted out. Also, McCain says we can't drill in ANWR because it is "pristine". Give me a break! It's better that we suffer I guess. I will have to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils this November. Which ever party wins the presidential election the American people are the losers.
Posted by: Tammie | May 22, 2008 09:58 PM
Yes, we will pay the cost of the infrastructure but it will be amortized over the millions of barrels. Nobody really knows how much is there because they won't let them drill. In addition, I bet it would be online in less than 2 years, not ten. All sorts of things can happen when industry goes for it.
Posted by: DaveT | May 22, 2008 10:19 PM
I always love the "obscene" profit nonsense; there is that much profit becuse many gallons of gasoline are sold, the actual retun on investment is quite small in comparison to other industries; and keep in mind the oil companies are owned by investors; over 50% are teachers and union investment funds. How about cutting the obscene pay and benefits of all congressmen.
Posted by: pjstreet | May 22, 2008 11:30 PM
go get the oil from wherever we can get it, on OUR turf! And build refineries, nuke power plants, etc. etc. The Dems do not even know what Basic Economics 101 is. Get these morons out!
Posted by: eagle275 | May 23, 2008 12:47 AM
Somebody needs to propose taking all of the money paid for the actual oil itself (65% of cost), and show that if we were drilling in the US the money would be going into our treasury not Saudi's. I think you could make an excellent debating point by saying that all proceeds to the treasury should go to shore up Social Security. It pushes an easy "fix" for social security, and makes the left argue against helping make social security solvent without cutting benefits (a whole different argument for a different day). Get drilling for the sake of old people!
Posted by: TexasBoilermaker | May 23, 2008 03:14 AM
The only reason they continue to lie to our faces is the simple fact that we allow ourselves to be lied to. Do not forget we are the ones that elect them to office and then we turn off our sense of what is right for what is convient and when things start to get rough all that happens is a bunch of belly aching.
What happened to the fact that we are the ones that put them there and they all know that once they are they we forget about them and they can do what they want.
Posted by: Scott | May 23, 2008 05:44 AM
The qustion is why are these clowns in congress so stupid. Don't they read anything. Every newspaper in the world is on the internet. All the combined knowledge of the worlds experts is on the internet.Dosen't one of them even bother to read AT.
Their lack of economic acumen and common sense is staggeringly disturbing.
We must drill now or we are commiting economic suicide and a return to the 1800's.
Posted by: Phil | May 23, 2008 06:45 AM
The dems believe the worse the economy, the better their chances are to regain the White House. The result of that thinking is no action on energy. Will they work out a deal with the environmental nuts when they achieve power? I would guess so, if they want to survive more than one term. These self centered idiots have no sense of a national interest - only a dem party interest.
Posted by: rbrandt | May 23, 2008 07:15 AM
One more thing, we will get to see what about 1 million barrel per day will mean to the price during 2008. 10 new deep water fields in the Gulf of Mexico are scheduled to come on stream, estimated production from the 10 fields is 935,000 barrels per day. This will not come on instantly at the same time but over several months. The largest will be the BP Thunderchief facility at 240,000 bpd. This facility was damaged during Katrina. This will help a lot. Of course no one will memtion the new supply, just the price decline and the dumb Dems will say "see the good our hearings did."
Posted by: Stan in Sugar Land | May 23, 2008 07:29 AM
Rep. Maxine Waters of California even threatened nationalizing the American oil industry if prices and profits don't come down. And that is the Democrat's energy solution??
Posted by: Frank | May 23, 2008 07:44 AM
The Democrats are not stupid, despite many posts in here claiming otherwise. They know they cannot win and stay in power without pandering to the uneducated masses. In addition, they have the majority of the media in bed with them carrying their water for them. When the media screams "obscene profits" that is what people see, they don't look at the profit margin, which in the industry is less then 10%. Anheuser-Busch makes nearly 11% and you don't hear the media screaming about their obscene profits. The messiah Obama 2 days started the standard scare tactic of telling Senior citizens that if McCain gets in the White House, they will lose their social security entitlements.
It is not the Democrats that are dumb and stupid, it is the average citizen of this country, educated in government schools that have no clue.
Posted by: Rory | May 23, 2008 09:32 AM
Here are a few things to think about when looking at congress and what they are doing.
. The Demacrats want to slow the American economy down. Why? I don't know. Maybe for the green house effect policy.
. Most of the bills have to go to committees which are control by the Democrats.
. Taxes, the most importent of all. If new oil comes in and the gas at the pump goes down, that would mean less taxes that the gov. would collect. The higher the gasoline the more taxes that are collected. That means that more taxes are collected at the pump and more taxes are collected as income from higher porfits that are made all along the line from the ground to the pump.
. I don't hear anything from anybody about lowering taxes charged at the pump. If 3% of $1 is charged at the pump and it cost $20 to fill up a few months ago and now it cost $40 to fill up and the taxes are still 3% on $1 of gas, look how much the gov. gained by not doing anything.
I think that the taxes at the pump should be lowered or suspended until this crisis is over.
Posted by: Al | May 23, 2008 09:47 AM
Conservatives, I know it is in your genes to oppose taxes, and 99% of the time this is right. Please read this with an open mind.
Suppose that Bush went to the Group of Eight(G-8: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the US) countries that control 65% of the worlds GNP and presented a plan for each nation to place a duty of $2.40 on each gallon of imported OPEC oil. He would bring assurances that the US would take the lead and drill in ANWAR, off the coast of Florida, and begin large scale shale oil extraction in the mid-west. Just the presenting the plan would cause chaos. This would be the equivalent of hitting them between the eyes with a 2X4.
Of course cooler head's would prevail. The $2.40 duty could be implemented at 10 cents a month over the next two years. That is less than the increases that we are now experiencing. We could use our increasing share of oil revenue to reduce income taxes pay for the war on terror.
Because the duty is on foreign oil, the US oil will be now be more valuable and there would be an increased incentive to find more.
The global warming crowd could get behind this because they believe that raising duty would cause gas prices to rise.
It may have the opposite effect. To sell enough oil to keep them in the lifestyle that the Saudis have become accustomed to, as the duties reach deeper and deeper into their pockets, as they see America drilling to bring more untaxed oil into their market, they will choose to increase production.
Increasing production means supply is increased and the price goes down.
America would ascend to its rightful place as the world economic leader. And America would be able to tackle the real problem of a safe clean technology to replace oil from a position of strength. Hint: It's not ethanol.
Part of longer article at I authored at oneamericancitizen.com
Posted by: oneamericancitizen | May 23, 2008 10:32 AM
Democrats just voted again last week not to drill in ANWR. And the Democrats are running our country! Isn't it great. Ethonal is a farce!
Posted by: Bob Grens | May 23, 2008 10:56 AM
Most democrats were indoctrinated in government schools and therefore have no knowledge of reason or the value of it's practice.
Posted by: Eric | May 23, 2008 12:06 PM
Great article. Americans as a whole are too stupid to see what's coming. How else could Schumer have gotten elected.
REPUBLICAN
(because not everyone gets to be on welfare...yet)
Posted by: Kevin | May 23, 2008 12:42 PM
First France than Italy now England is on its way to get rid of their Liberal party, and elect a business oriented,and lower taxes party. Are we next HOPEFULLY.
Posted by: ariel | May 23, 2008 01:15 PM
Talk about elitist, Yeah, public schools are not the place to learn reason...LOL Multinational companies drilling in ANWR selling oil to the highest bidder is no way to solve our energy problems. Changing the basis of our fuel needs is the only way to break their hold on America. Alternative fuel!!!
Posted by: Holly Erwin | May 24, 2008 09:43 PM
chuckie is a communist, so is his roommate dickie durbin, wake up america
Posted by: mike raleigh | May 24, 2008 11:15 PM
From this site to your represenatives ear ! We all need to write, call AND e-mail our represenatives and tell them where we stand. It is easy to complain but how many posting responses here even know who represents them on state or ferderal levels?? Sadly, not many
Posted by: Renee | May 25, 2008 06:52 AM
Can they really be that stupid and believe we are so not in tune...Ego gone wild.
Posted by: john | May 25, 2008 05:15 PM
Can they really be that stupid and believe we are so not in tune...Ego gone wild.
Posted by: john | May 25, 2008 05:15 PM
Why would oil from ANWR go into the world market?
Posted by: Garrett Wood | May 26, 2008 01:16 AM
Where are the lists of who voted against domestic drilling?
Posted by: Cory Larsen | June 3, 2008 02:51 AM
I like you buddy, but your focus is off. Democrats are a pack of lying fools, but Chuck stepped up here. The point isn't how stupid democrats can be (thought they tend to tally up the points, especially recently), it's why Saudi Arabia thinks they can get away with this nonsense. After all we've done for them, from providing security to preventing that coupe, they should be doing a lot more to keep U.S. happy. This profiteering opportunist nonsense the Saudi's are pulling is fully unacceptable, and THAT is what's got me pissed off. Far better for U.S. to stand tall together and present a United front against those dirty, sandy thieves, than to pick on each other. Nonetheless, I like your overall message. Be well.
Posted by: Youramericandollar.org | June 15, 2008 11:28 PM
Too much fuzzy math...how about this: We use almost 20 million barrels of oil per day in the U.S. So, if we add a whopping 1 million more to that total you only reduce the oil price by .05 or 1/2 of 1 percent. At $4 per gallon you would save 20 cents. Big deal. We need 5-10 million more barrels a day more of our own oil and that isn't going to happen. Let's get the biodiesel going...green algae...screw the corn gas...that's a waste of time and money, plus you get less MPG.
Posted by: Tony Sabol | June 18, 2008 08:21 PM