PDA

View Full Version : Remember back when....



sack316
04-18-2012, 10:49 PM
Remember back when democrats united to prevent drilling for our own oil in ANWR, with one major reason cited being because no oil would reach our markets for ten years... so it wouldn't matter anyway?

That was April 17, 2002.

Sack

Gayle in MD
04-19-2012, 06:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Remember back when democrats united to prevent drilling for our own oil in ANWR, with one major reason cited being because no oil would reach our markets for ten years... so it wouldn't matter anyway?

That was April 17, 2002.

Sack </div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000">And so what? Are you actually saying that more drilling back then, and/or now, would prevent the current spike in the price of oil? Surely not! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

IIRC, the estimates of any cost reduction benefit for drilling there, were minimal, and the pipes in the ground in Alaska are in bad shape, leaking, and causing some very bad environmental issues, as it is.

G.</span>

sack316
04-19-2012, 07:23 AM
Yay Gayle! I'm not around much any more but very good to see you are still here! PM me your email, I lost all my contacts... there is much to update you on!

To the topic... no it wouldn't prevent the spike in prices. I don't know what the impact would have been, but I know what the prices are like now and how every little bit helps!

Sack

Gayle in MD
04-19-2012, 07:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yay Gayle! I'm not around much any more but very good to see you are still here! PM me your email, I lost all my contacts... there is much to update you on!

To the topic... no it wouldn't prevent the spike in prices. I don't know what the impact would have been, but I know what the prices are like now and how every little bit helps!

Sack </div></div>

Hi there friend, and congrats on the coming Big Event!

A boy! Better get those baseball bats out of storage! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Very happy for you my friend.

I will try to send you a pm...let me know if you do't get it.
G.

sack316
04-19-2012, 07:35 AM
No PM as of yet. I don't have my old email, for now I am using my old school one which you may feel free to write me at. I'll send you a PM and see if you get it

Gayle in MD
04-19-2012, 07:39 AM
Hey, as usual, the mod hasn't fixed my PM function. It never did work right since the last time I complained about it.

I just this minute sent you a pm from an old pm thread we shared. Those old ones are the only ones that work.

I have tried sending you e-mails over these last months, but they came back, undeliverable, so I don't think I have any for you now.

Cherck your pm's again.

G.

sack316
04-19-2012, 07:40 AM
I got it now and have replied /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r
04-19-2012, 07:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And so what?</div></div>LOL, what a quick comeback. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif We knew the truth is something you wanted to bury.

eg8r

LWW
04-19-2012, 08:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And so what?</div></div>LOL, what a quick comeback. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif We knew the truth is something you wanted to bury.

eg8r </div></div>

Only an O-cultist could believe that terror states such as Saudi Arabia pumping more oil would lower prices, but the US pumping more wouldn't.

Soflasnapper
04-19-2012, 02:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Remember back when democrats united to prevent drilling for our own oil in ANWR, with one major reason cited being because no oil would reach our markets for ten years... so it wouldn't matter anyway?

That was April 17, 2002.

Sack </div></div>

It wasn't only that it would take 10 years. It's that its supposed price effect would be vanishingly small as well.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But there's a flaw in that logic: even if tomorrow we opened up every square mile of the outer continental shelf to offshore rigs, even if we drilled the entire state of Alaska and pulled new refineries out of thin air, the impact on gas prices would be minimal and delayed at best. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>A 2004 study by the government's Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that drilling in ANWR would trim the price of gas by 3.5 cents a gallon by 2027. </span>(If oil prices continue to skyrocket, the savings would be greater, but not by much.) Opening up offshore areas to oil exploration ó currently all coastal areas save a section of the Gulf of Mexico are off-limits, thanks to a congressional ban enacted in 1982 and supplemented by an executive order from the first President Bush ó might cut the price of gas by 3 to 4 cents a gallon at most, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. And the relief at the pump, such as it is, wouldn't be immediate ó it would take several years, at least, for the oil to begin to flow, which is time enough for increased demand from China, India and the rest of the world to outpace those relatively meager savings. "Right now the price of oil is set on the global market," says Kevin Lindemer, executive managing director of the energy markets group for the research firm Global Insight. President Bush's move "would not have an impact."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1815884,00.html#ixzz1sWJItAaB
</div></div>

Do credible experts disagree? Not that I know of, and Sarah Palin doesn't count.

Democrats didn't unite, nor did the Republicans.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The two Alaska senators, both Republicans, offered the ANWR drilling amendment to the energy bill. Eight Republicans joined most Democrats in opposing the drilling measure. Five Democrats supported the drilling amendment.</div></div>

Here (http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/anwr/)

And to really remember back when, how and when this started:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the presidential executive order issued by President George H. W. Bush in 1990, which banned coastal oil exploration and oil and gas leasing on most of the outer continental shelf. In conjunction with the presidential order, the Congressional moratorium banning drilling was first enacted in 1982 and has been renewed annually.[23] </div></div> (Wiki's page on ANWR)

Since there was an extended period of complete GOP control of the House and Senate, they also failed to think this was a great idea during their majority rule. (I haven't found any reference to their passing it in Clinton's last 6 years, or that he vetoed such a plan from Congress at that time.)

DiabloViejo
04-19-2012, 04:50 PM
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/apr/19/american-energy-alliance/did-obama-policies-alaska-solyndra-and-keystone-co/)

Gas prices have doubled because "Obama opposed exploring for energy in Alaska. He gave millions of tax dollars to Solyndra, which then went bankrupt. And he blocked the Keystone pipeline. So we will all pay more at the pump."
American Energy Alliance on Tuesday, March 27th, 2012 in a television ad

Did Obama policies on Alaska, Solyndra and Keystone contribute to today's high gas prices?

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Ftom-false.gif

Gas prices are fueling a drag race of political ads on Florida television. In one lane, itís spiking gas prices under President Barack Obama. In the other, itís "Big Oilís" support for Mitt Romney.

Weíve fact-checked several claims from these ads. But for this fact-check, weíre returning to an ad put out by the American Energy Alliance, an advocacy arm of the Institute for Energy Research, which is connected to the oil industry.

"Since Obama became president, gas prices have nearly doubled," the ad says. "Obama opposed exploring for energy in Alaska. He gave millions of tax dollars to Solyndra, which then went bankrupt. And he blocked the Keystone pipeline. So we will all pay more at the pump.

"Obama's energy secretary said we need to, quote, 'boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.í That's $9 a gallon. Ö Tell Obama, we canít afford his failing energy policies."

Weíve fact-checked whether Obama opposed exploring for energy in Alaska (Half True -- he opposed it in some parts), whether he gave millions of dollars to Solyndra (a federal program for alternative energy did), and whether Energy Secretary Steven Chu said gas prices should be at European levels (yes, but it was before he joined the administration).

The ad is right that gas prices have doubled (more than doubled, in fact) since Obama took office in 2009. The average price for gasoline was $1.90 in January 2009; now it's $3.98, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Here, we wanted to explore the adís larger point, that Obamaís policies on Alaska, Solyndra and Keystone are contributing to those higher gas prices.

Energy exploration in Alaska

The adís first claim is that Obama "opposed exploring for energy in Alaska." We found in a previous fact-check that while Obama opposes exploration in some parts of Alaska, his administration has approved drilling in other parts.

Specifically, Obama has opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a large nature preserve (roughly the size of South Carolina) managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The refuge is a protected area for wildlife including caribou, polar bears and gray wolves.

But the Obama administration recently approved a plan for Shell Oil to drill in the Chukchi Sea, off the northwest coast of Alaska, giving the green light to Shellís contingency plans for cleaning up any spills. The company called that a "major milestone" and said it hopes to drill up to three wells there this summer.

The company also has plans for two wells in the Beaufort Sea, off Alaskaís northern coast. The administration approved Shellís disaster response plan for that area in March.

But if Obama had given a green light to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, would gas prices be lower today? Not according to the evidence we reviewed.

A 2008 study done by the independent Energy Information Administration for the late U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, found that it would take 10 years to actually produce oil from the area. And thatís only if there were no protracted legal battles, environmental challenge or delays in getting government permits.

So even if Obama had approved drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on the day he was inaugurated, thereís no way oil in the ground there would have made it to gas pumps in 2012.

Solyndra

Heard of Solyndra? It was a solar panel manufacturer that won government loan guarantees but then went belly up. We looked into Solyndra when we fact-checked an earlier political ad that said Obama showered special favors on his political friends. The particular charge of cronyism got a Mostly False from the Truth-O-Meter. Solyndra's loan application predated the Obama administration, and career Energy Department officials handled the deal.

We did find that the administration tried to hurry the process, but the evidence pointed to the Obama team wanting to brag about green jobs efforts, not to enrich political cronies. Many private investors also lost money on the Solyndra deal.

Solyndra, based in Silicon Valley, formed in 2005 to build and sell a unique type of solar cell, cylinders that were cheaper and worked better than traditional flat panels. Designed for rooftops, the panels were intended to generate electricity to power buildings like warehouses and retail stores. (Read more details about Solyndraís rise and fall here.)

Solyndra walked away from $529 million in federal loans, according to the most recent numbers from the U.S. Department of Energy. But Solyndra was an energy company that focused on generating electricity for buildings -- not gasoline for cars. We searched for any connection between Solyndra and gas prices or even just cars and came up empty.

The Keystone XL pipeline

The ad says Obama blocked the Keystone pipeline. Obama did block the Keystone XL, an addition to an existing pipeline so that oil sands (also known as tar sands or bituminous sands) could be moved from Canada to refineries near Houston, Texas, and the Gulf of Mexico.

Because the pipeline crosses the U.S. border, the State Department must sign off. Back in November, the State Department said it would delay a decision while environmental concerns about the pipeline were addressed. Back then, the pipeline was set to cross over drinking water sources in Nebraska, and people were asking TransCanada, the company behind the pipeline project, for an alternate route.

The company has since said it would work with officials to shift the route. But environmentalists have still said the pipeline shouldnít be built at all, because oil sands are harder to clean up when spilled and cost more to turn into gasoline.

Then Congress put new deadlines into play, passing a law that said the Obama administration had to make a decision on the pipeline by February. Obama said that wasnít enough time for a thorough environmental review and rejected the pipeline.

The ad again suggests the delay of the pipeline is somehow responsible for todayís high gas prices. Since the pipeline was only proposed in 2008 with a then-projected opening of 2013, itís hard to see how gas prices in 2012 would be lower. (PolitiFact Ohio also looked in detail the question of whether Keystone approval would cause gas prices to drop in the near term; they ruled that claim False.)

Whether Keystone will reduce gas prices in the future is a contested point that we wonít settle in this fact-check. TransCanadaís analyst said it would bring down gas prices by 3.5 to 4 cents per gallon, according to Forbes. But environmentalists have seized on arguments that the pipeline could drive gas prices up, by giving Canadian oil an outlet to world markets through the Gulf of Mexico and bypassing U.S. customers. (The Christian Science Monitor explored these issues in some detail.)

Greg Laskoski, a senior petroleum analyst with GasBuddy.com, said Keystone had the closest connection to gas prices, but even that connection was far from simple and more oriented toward future prices. Lower-priced Canadian oil could be of some benefit to refineries in the United States, but that assumes it stays in the United States and isnít sold to foreign countries.

"Itís not as simplistic as some of these sound bites make it out to be," he said.

None of the above

We contacted the American Energy Alliance to ask them about the connection between these issues and todayís gas prices. Spokesperson Benjamin Cole said that Obamaís overall policies are hostile to the domestic oil and gas industry, and that markets have reacted with increased prices. (We should note thatís a more subtle point than is made in the 30-second ad.)

Not everyone sees it that way, though. Obamaís energy policies have been "surprisingly constructive," said Michael Levi, an expert on energy with the Council for Foreign Relations, in a March op-ed for ForeignPolicy.com. In an article titled "The Driller in Chief," Levi argued that Obamaís regulations are aimed at "dumb and preventable accidents" that would "do far more to set back U.S. oil and gas development than some smart minimum standards set out at the federal level."

Getting back to todayís pump prices, the experts we spoke with were dubious about the impact of any of the above issues -- drilling in Alaska, Solyndra, the Keystone pipeline -- on todayís gas prices.

Gas prices reflect the cost of oil on world markets and tend to reflect long-term trends, expectations for economic growth and geopolitical concerns. One example: Rising tensions with Iran, a major oil exporter.

"Looking at this year, whatís affected prices are the issues with Iran," said Jessica Brady, a spokesperson for the travel organization AAA, which monitors gas prices.

What about drilling in Alaska, Solyndra and Keystone? "Really, none of those three issues have had an impact on the gas prices weíve been paying," she said.

Laskoski of GasBuddy.com said a presidentís power over gas prices comes mostly from reducing regulations for domestic exploration and refining, as well as discouraging speculation in the oil market. But even those powers are somewhat limited.

"Those are things that can be done that can bring reductions (in prices)," Laskoski said. "All of those things combined might help lower gas prices, but I donít know how you can quantify it."

Our ruling

The American Energy Alliance connects todayís higher gas prices to a grab bag of Obamaís energy policies. We canít see how the failing of Solyndra -- a solar panel company that focused on powering commercial buildings -- has any connection with todayís gas prices. On Alaska, if Obama had approved drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (which, to be clear, he opposes), actual production would still be at least six years away, and thatís a best-case scenario. The Keystone pipeline, meanwhile, is more directly related to gas prices, but even that project would have more impact on future gas prices, not todayís higher prices.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>We rate the statement False.</span>