HomeHumorSign Of The Times Sign Of The Times Kevin March 17, 2005 Humor 46 Comments I question the timing of this… Senate votes to approve oil drilling in Alaskan wildlife refuge [AP/San Diego Union-Tribune] Update: Depression and hopelessness set in at DU. Paul Adds: They’re mad as hell and not going to take it any more. Quote Of The Day - "Just Keep Telling Yourself That" Edition The Truth Hurts Related Posts "Catholic TV is less preachy than Avatar" CBS- Never say die If You Happened To Catch Chris Rock… About The Author Kevin Kevin founded Wizbang in 2003. He still contributes occasionally and handles all the technical and design work for the site. 46 Comments patrick March 17, 2005 When W. was running for president the first time he said “if the price of gas goes up, I’ll just make a phone call to my friends in Saudi Arabia” time for that phone call you promised now that you got your drilling in Alaska deal you’ve been working on for five years. Debra March 17, 2005 whoa!! I guess I’ll stop complaining about 1.99/per Howard_Deans_Love_Child March 17, 2005 Dude, “Performance Plus” grade fuel is over 100 octane, it is for people to put it their Chevy Impalas with two blowers coming out of the hood – it ain’t normal people gas and you shouldn’t represent it as such… arathanog March 17, 2005 Why do I get the feeling that the person who posts as “catwoman” at DU talking bout revolution, the benefits of rioting in the street against the smirkychimpybushhitler, and uses an avatar of Malcolm X, is actually a middle class white college student from the suburbs of Ann Arbor, with dreadlocks, hates her dad, and thinks Mumia is innocent? Just a guess. Jim in Texas March 17, 2005 “When W. was running for president the first time he said “if the price of gas goes up, I’ll just make a phone call to my friends in Saudi Arabia” He did? When? got a link? WOW! Those DUers are kind of scary. I hadn’t looked there before but even in that microcosm you see that the reasonable people (well, reasonable by Democrat standards) get shouted down and reviled. How do they expect to regain any credibility if the only candidates they will support will have to run through and accept their gauntlet of conspiracy theories? Dodd March 17, 2005 I wonder if I should feel guilty about the fact that I feel strangely refreshed after reading of all the dyspepsia and discontent with which the moonbats are afflicted…? Nah! Bill K March 17, 2005 Gas prices are controlled by fear not by production. We have more gas then we know what to do with. We could drill in Alaska for all of our oil and our gas prices would still fluctuate. It is a fact, and Republicans know it. The fact that they had to beat up the environment to make rich people richer when they know it won’t actually help the consumer is what is ridiculous. Just Me March 17, 2005 The DUers seem to think this is the end of the world or something. I think it is about time they started drilling there. Smoke Eater March 17, 2005 where is that sign at? Evilwhiteguy March 17, 2005 Commenter #8 nails it: “Talk like this makes us look silly” I know I’m laughing. moseby March 17, 2005 After reading further into that forum, I am now sure that “DU” means “Dipshit University”. ALL liberal crying is music to my ears. If I could only get a visual of their little tears sliding down their little useless puffy faces. dodgeman March 17, 2005 What’s funny is hearing the very people that support gun confiscation and hate all weapons are talking about revolution in the streets. What the hell are they going to fight with, spitwads? (Thanks, Zell). Another factor is gas price is not the rate at which we drill, but the rate at which we can refine. There have been zero new refineries built in North America in over a decade (?) or more, yet we now have more people than ever driving. You could drill a thousand new wells tomorrow, we still don’t have the refinery capacity to make more. Thus prices will continue to go up until someone builds new capacity. Just John March 17, 2005 “What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots…And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price.” [President Bush, 1/26/00] bsp March 17, 2005 I have a lab retriever that passes enough gas on a daily basis that he could fuel the east coast-you’re welcome to him if you want….. moseby March 17, 2005 Let em riot. As long as the police sent in to quell the disturbance employ liberal smashing BULLDOZERS, us law abiding citizens have nothing to fear… Maybe it’s time to buy some of that Caterpillar stock….hmmmm AnonymousDrivel March 17, 2005 RE: Bill K’s post (March 17, 2005 02:07 PM) Gas prices are controlled by fear not by production. We have more gas then we know what to do with. We could drill in Alaska for all of our oil and our gas prices would still fluctuate… Um, what? Certain futures may fluctuate based on perceived expectations of events unknown (world instability being one), but your statement is either misleading or downright wrong. Gas prices are determined by many things, not the least of which are market economies. We do not have more oil (gas?) than we know what to do with. Yes, oil prices will still fluctuate if/when Alaska is tapped, but that is part of normal competition, production fluctuation based on normal industry infrastructure, worldly political/social strife, competing technologies or the expectation of such, and zillions of other factors. The fluctuations are not wholly a function of some scare tactic to artificially inflate/deflate prices according to whim. Real economics happen. You seem to be winnowing this all down to Alaskan oil as the GOP’s proclaimed arbiter of domestic fuel pricing when it neither is nor ever will be such. It would be my understanding that should Alaskan oil be as productive as expected, it would serve as a strategic hedge to be used to acquire foreign fuel at a lower price. I’d prefer that we not tap the oil right now to burn but do tap it to determine, at least more accurately, how much is there. sortapundit March 17, 2005 You guys don’t know how good you have it. Here in the UK petrol costs 4 times what you pay. To fill the tank of my little 1.1 litre Punto costs about £40 ($75). That’s enough to take me 400 miles. The same money in the US would take me 1600. We suck. Hoodlumman March 17, 2005 Sortapundit, You don’t suck, but your taxes do. Mike March 17, 2005 While I wholeheartedly agree that we should explore ANWR and as many domestic reservoirs of oil as possible, additional drilling within the borders of the US probably won’t have much of an affect on gasoline prices in the future. As other commenters have pointed out, gasoline prices are primarily affected by the cost of refining. There is also the cost of transportation for the refined fuel and additional cost added when laws (such as in California) require that special blends of gasoline be refined. Oil companies have to time a lot of factors just right in order to make gasoline refining profitable. These factors include crude oil prices and fluctuations in demand for their products. Aas we saw in the 1970’s, the absolute sure-fire way to guarantee high prices and limited supply is for the government to try and regulate oil production. Probably the best way to decrease the crude oil price is for oil-producing nations to increase its availability. Of course, lowering the crude oil price will also make drilling for oil less profitable than buying it outright, so there is risk in that strategy, too. Henry March 17, 2005 Hoodlumman, you’re wrong, its not their taxes that causes their prices to be so high, its our bargaining power. We DO have our own supplies of oil, so other countries are willing to sell us oil cheaper, ’cause they know we can tap our own oil and not bother to import. That’s just ONE of the bargaining chips we have on the table. Raina March 17, 2005 Hehe…I particularly liked this exchange. 8. Talk like this makes us look silly The GOP constantly makes hay will fringe talk like this. Rioting is for deadenders. I lived through the 60s and the riots did nothing productive.Theres no need to be so down. Look, in the last year, we have built an infrastructure for a political comeback. We finally have a good man running the DNC. We have developed an awesome new fundraising capability – a clean one. And we FINALLY have a radio network to counteract the lies from the right. Sure, there is a lot of work to do. But remember, there is increasing friction in the GOP. 2006 might not be a barnburner, but it might hold a pleasant surprise. 81. It’s people like you that make us look like spineless cowards. Rioting is for people who feel hopeless and are tired of the same old bullshit they get fed on a daily basis. Democrats like you that try to hide the uglier side of society agree 100% with the RW religious freaks that want to censor anything bad. Reality is tough shit sometimes, rioting is a part of that reality and won’t be leaving anytime soon. If reality sucks so bad for you then join in with the blind Republicans. I believe Catwoman is 100% correct in her views and that you couldn’t be any wronger. Yes, exactly, not wanting to riot=agreeing 100% with RW religious freaks. That #81 is real sharp. patrick March 17, 2005 I retract my first comment. I am sure he said it but will have to check more deeply. I thought it was in his debate with Gore in 2000 but I don’t see it there. But I will keep checking. julie March 17, 2005 Jim in Texas: WOW! Those DUers are kind of scary. Kind of? You should have seen them post election. It was a blood bath in their. They’re at there best entertainment -wise when they turn on each other. Al March 17, 2005 http://www.mcgladrey-family.us/kayne/archives/2003/02/27/gas_prices_arm_or_leg Only sold in Blue States. McCain March 17, 2005 Drill baby. Of all the places in the world to find oil, who could imagine a better place than one nobody has ever heard of and nobody will ever visit. It is the least disruptive location to the environment that matters to humans. Start talking about drilling in Yosemite or the San Francisco Bay, and I’ll be more sympathetic to the outcry. jack rudd March 17, 2005 Henry, it it you who are wrong. Both in Britain and in continental Europe, the price at the pump is dominated by outrageously high taxes. Oil producers can’t enforce different prices for different regions, because the transporters would nullify the differences in order to maximize their own profits. Red March 17, 2005 According to DU: “I think rioting is the last desperate act of powerlessness.” I thought its what happens after a Sports team wins a championship. Who knew winning made them feel powerless. Rick DeMent March 17, 2005 Sure, let’s Drain America First sounds like a good idea, let’s make sure that we use all our domestic sources as soon as we can. The level of misinformation about energy on this post alone is staggering. AnonymousDrivel March 17, 2005 RE: jack rudd’s post (March 17, 2005 08:36 PM) Both in Britain and in continental Europe, the price at the pump is dominated by outrageously high taxes. Great. You had to throw a wrench in the equation. Actually, this is a nice example of an artificial, unrelated fee being imposed to alter true market forces. I don’t think the tax is being used to modify user behavior exclusively though it is possible. Normal supply and demand curves are not being balanced due to strictly relevant pricing pressures but are being artificially modified by a socialist system using a universally desirable product as a source of public funding. If all of the taxes were being applied to the country’s energy producing infrastructure, then the tax could fairly be called a part of the pricing structure of energy. Somehow I doubt all of those very high taxes have anything to do with energy production – rather, it’s a source of alternate funding for social services. In this instance, the relative increase in pricing attributable to oil producers may seem trivial compared to the significantly apportioned taxes though the increases are real and do matter. Considering the usefulness of the resource and the hidden costs that we do not pay at the pump, U.S. fuel is a steal regardless of its price relative to Europe’s. Les Nessman March 17, 2005 “”What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots…”” Well, didn’t OPEC recently announce that they are indeed increasing production sharply? AnonymousDrivel March 17, 2005 RE: Rick DeMent’s post (March 17, 2005 08:59 PM) Aside from your concern for the environment 😉 I’d just as soon get the entire ANWR field tapped and drained and here’s why. I am concerned about the environment but believe a balance can be made with the size of human footprint and our stepping on caribou toes. Other environmental concerns post burn are actually more pertinent in my mind. I have considered the reserve to be a strategic one for future use but it is oil that will be burned rather than processed for plastics/industry/medicine. To that end, and in a bit of twisted logic, I’d just as soon get rid of it ASAP so that it will force us to look at alternative energy resources and technology – the things that will carry us into the next millenium – sooner. Too often real advance is only accomplished when we are in crisis. Energy policy is one such endeavor. Some of my comment was a bit facetious but my concern for real change in energy policy was not. I just don’t understand how administration after administration can continue to ignore this problem. Clean energy is the future and with it all other problems can be solved. Sorry to say that oil isn’t it though it remains a vitally important chemical that can be used for inummerable, non-kinetic applications. -S- March 17, 2005 I’ve experienced all possible perspectives where oil exploration and extraction in/from the A.N.W.R. are concerned and eventually arrived at the acceptance perspective that hopes that the industrial efforts will be handled as sensibly and efficiently as possible, with the greatest amount of environmental discretions. The only thing still yet to be established to my perspective is that the amount of usable petroleum in the A.N.W.R. is (supposedly, as per what’s been written about this) a small amount, not adequate supply to fuel our American needs nor change much as to our dependence upon foreign oil. So, thus and therefore, I’ve always wondered just why the heat was being applied to the area as it has been and — whether realistically or not — passed this off as the Murkowski’s and Alaska wanting the income that oil extraction from the A.N.W.R. is going to provide that state (nothing so much wrong with that as it might be a very indirect manipulation of information for the sake of making dollars while declining that as motivation, etc.). I do recognize our need for changing our reliance on foreign oil. In that sense, I’d rather we drill in the A.N.W.R. than all over the state of Wyoming, Colorado and other places where there are desirable and more livable human habitats and established homes and ranches and businesses that oil extraction can more negatively impact. But, I’m yet to understand from all that I’ve read about the A.N.W.R. issue, as to what it is we’ll accomplish as a NATION from that effort. I’m just asking. However, after looking at the actual acreage that is involved in the A.N.W.R., it’s obvous that the amount of affected land is so small in comparison with the huge amount of land in that stretch as to be negligible in land use, so I think it just comes down to ensuring that the process is done as well as possible, with the least amount of pollution (not leaving abandoned machinery lying around, not allowing contaminated materials to enter the ground water and later affect the ecology of the area) and that the benefits of that process be made more available. Because, so far, as I expressed earlier, I don’t see what the nation is going to gain from this, so much as I understand that the residents of Alaska are going to enjoy some fatter annual checks from their state government. -S- March 17, 2005 skybird: since Hollywood is a community based upon trends, the latest there is for various celebrities to make public appearances and personally drive hybrid vehicles. At least, that’s what they SAY, while I sure don’t see any cessation of those gas guzzling limos anywhere (they’re still used and very often by many but most of the higher-profile ‘celebrities’ now drive hybrids as personal vehicles because that’s what’s ‘in’ both among their peers and to their consciences as environmental advocates). I’ve always driven smaller vehicles…my main contention about vehicle choice has always been, and still is, that people should be more aware of their choices in application to their needs: if you have to feed a herd of cattle every year, you need a flatbed trailer and/or a large truck to accomplish that, while, if you need to get to and from the store every day with three kids to school, you don’t need a truck to do that but can easily accomplish those tasks in a Subura. People are often very wasteful with their choice of vehicle and that’s our biggest problem in our society, people making frivolous consumer choices, if not foolish ones. That and the airline industry, that needs yet another overhaul as to style, process, methods…and fuel required. Dodd March 17, 2005 The only thing still yet to be established to my perspective is that the amount of usable petroleum in the A.N.W.R. is (supposedly, as per what’s been written about this) a small amount, not adequate supply to fuel our American needs nor change much as to our dependence upon foreign oil. The ANWR reserve is estimated to be approximately equal to what we import from the Middle East in a decade. Now, that is not to say that we can tap ANWR and stop buying ME oil – the oil market doesn’t work that way (once it’s in a tanker, it’s an almost totally fungible product and may very well change hands several times in transit). Plus, even if we wanted to stop buying any ME oil, we couldn’t extract it all in the first decade after the taps open, so we couldn’t. Last time I checked, IIRC, ~10% of our oil originated in the ME. So, while ANWR does not represent a replacement for ME oil it clearly does represent a sizeable amount. And it will be domestically produced on a footprint the size of Dulles Airport in a refuge the size of the state of South Carolina. Drilling will only occur during the winter months. And Prudhoe Bay, which is quite near to hand, has been operated for years without despoiling the almost identical environment. IOW, there’s no rational reason to oppose ANWR drilling: The Left’s knee-jerk oppositon is based purely on fear-mongering; misinformation; and a deep and abiding hatred of the modern, energy-dependent economy. But if you think you’ve seen mad, don’t look at how they’re reacting to this. Look at how they react when you suggest putting a windfarm off the coast, and spil the view from their Nantucket vacation homes. Then you’ll know what mad really looks like. Raina March 18, 2005 AnonymousDrivel “Actually, this is a nice example of an artificial, unrelated fee being imposed to alter true market forces. I don’t think the tax is being used to modify user behavior exclusively though it is possible.” Yeah, I don’t think so either. See this post about California considering a per mile tax based on GPS trackers because the energy efficient cars are ruducing the state tax revenues too much since they need less gas. (Gee, I thought that was the whole idea.) -S- March 18, 2005 Dodd: thanks for that information but it’s contrary to everything and all I’ve ever read through the MM about the amount of recoverable petroleum in the A.N.W.R. Which is as if I’d written, thanks for correcting the wrongful, misleading information I’ve been reading in the MM…which pretty much has placed the amount of petroleum available in the A.N.W.R. at some paltry amount that isn’t worth the efforts involved in recovering it. At least, as to what I’ve read, meaning that’s what I used to read, haven’t read much, if anything at all, about this issue (via the MM) in the last year or so, not since the issue was first declined in the Senate. My guess is that the naysayers assumed it was a finished issue and just stopped with the hype about it. Just a guess. -S- March 18, 2005 And, also in agreement with what you’ve written (Dodd, ^^), it was very interesting to see and hear how Robert Kennedy reacted to the question of wind turbines built in the ocean off the New England coast where he and his neighbors reside…he’s among the most ardent of environmental spokespersons and yet when questioned about why he and his neighbors resisted the building of these wind turbines, he really bristled…property values, tourism, the value of the view, the area…but recognizing the value of the energy source, just not in his neighborhood… Which is where we are in just about all areas of industry that relate to energy. I know I am quite concerned about the idea of increased natural gas extraction in Colorado, just because it’s such an amazing and unique area and so imagine everyone else feels likewise about their own special, prized area(s), BUT, even so, wind turbines are not gas pumps (I’d take wind turbines anyday over oil and/or gas pumps churning away in my view)…it’s a case of developing our own energy sources, I agree, and we all have to make some concessions. julie March 18, 2005 skybird: since Hollywood is a community based upon trends, the latest there is for various celebrities to make public appearances and personally drive hybrid vehicles. At least, that’s what they SAY, while I sure don’t see any cessation of those gas guzzling limos anywhere (they’re still used and very often by many but most of the higher-profile ‘celebrities’ now drive hybrids as personal vehicles because that’s what’s ‘in’ both among their peers and to their consciences as environmental advocates). Yep. Drive that little hybrid to the private hanger and hop on the private jet to NY. Their contribution to conservation is immeasureable. patrick March 18, 2005 GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price. And if, in fact, there is collusion amongst big oil, he ought to intercede there as well. I used to be in the oil business. I was little oil, really little oil. And so I understand — I understand what can happen in the marketplace This is one of the direct Bush quotes from a televised event I found it on lou dobbs tonight march31 2004 transcripts. Where is the jawboning? McGehee March 18, 2005 Patrick, there’s a war on that involves some restructuring of societies over in that part of the world. I’d say there’s plenty of jawboning going on, but that saving you a few bucks at the pump isn’t as high a priority now as it might have seemed in 2000. There was that thing in New York City and at the Pentagon since then, y’know. Did you really go to all that effort to dig up that quote just to get reminded of 9/11? Guess so. AnonymousDrivel March 18, 2005 RE: Raina’s post (March 18, 2005 12:59 AM) See this post about California considering a per mile tax based on GPS trackers because the energy efficient cars are ruducing the state tax revenues too much since they need less gas. (Gee, I thought that was the whole idea.) Heh, the Law of Unintended Consequences has just reared its ugly head. “That’s OK”, sez los politicos. “We’ll create another Law of Unknown Consequence because our greed supercedes and we must keep it well fed.” Rick DeMent March 18, 2005 One of the things that few people realize is that the real reason to go into ANWR is for the natural gas. Bush is an oil man and he realizes that the amount of oil in ANWR, while not trivial, is not enough to make us ME independent. But natural gas in the western hemisphere is getting to be in very short supply and one o f the provisions of the energy bill is a new natural gas pipeline that will be paid for with tax payer money (so much for the free market). The recent deal with Libya was all about natural gas, the notion that Libya was influenced by our invasion of Iraq is quaint but pretty much false. The negotiations had been stalled for five years on the sticking point that Libya should pay reparations for Lockerbie before the sanctions would be lifted. The deal that was brokered was a result of the US backing off it’s demand for the reparations to be paid up front but with the provision that the reparations would be paid directly out of royalties from a contract made with Royal Dutch Shell for … you guessed it, natural gas. The most generous numbers I have heard on the reserves for ANWR are in the range of 20 billion barrels, there is also limitations on the throughput of the Alaskan Pipeline and the though out of refineries. To give you an idea of how little Alaskan oil figures into the world oil situation, a year ago December, the pipeline broke. For three days non-one knew how long it would take to get it back online. Rather then sending prices up, the world oil market actually went down slightly. This idea is bad not because of the environmental impact, but because it is a policy of Drain America First and the fact that we will be subsidizing privet industry to do the advance work of setting up the drilling and selling them the oil at below market rates, it will add some $$$ to the federal coffers which should help deficit though. -S- March 18, 2005 I agree with you, julie (^^), your comments a few boxes up. I tend toward alluding toward and suggesting rather than using a pile driver, though, so didn’t come right out, as you did, and write about all those contradictions among many as to “environmental” issues. People in entertainment (a huge area, mind you) justify all that fluff and excess (private jets, hangers, having a dozen autos under their business manager’s title so as to allow for a lot of subservients to drive around for various reasons), anyway, a lot of justification takes place because of “security” and the ever present production deadlines impending upon schedules (gotta get their fast, despite the costs/consumptions/efforts involved)… I agree with you, however, which is what I was describing as being a trend-motivated society, the entertainment industry. They’ll all show up wearing, looking, purchasing, promoting whatever it is as long as it’s the thing to do, say, buy, wear, be seen doing…you know, trends. The Prius became the trend du jour of Santa Monica, among so many other trends (there, elsewhere, too) and so people recycle cans and bottles and papers in their Prius and consider it a done deal along with joining Heal The Bay. At least they’re doing something. Cup is half-full, all that. -S- March 18, 2005 However, as to the Santa Monica Bay (healing it), very few in the L.A. area even consider the fact that sewage and sewer runoff is the culprit as to why you can catch various forms of Hepatitis by submerging in the Santa Monica Bay, as is the case also along most of the southern CA coast. It’s bad, baaad water. -S- March 18, 2005 Rick DeMent: I think what’s taken place where the entire resources relating to the A.N.W.R. issue, what’s taken place is that those with smart investment strategies in place and planned, even intended, have remained so close-lipped about the issues as to actually further the confusion about what knowledge base is known to most about it. Not necessarily a bad thing, certianly not a new thing, by any means, just that there’s so little information available to the public about the A.N.W.R. that the environmental groups have tipped the reality of the plan so completely with THEIR version of the information and issues involved, while it appears now in retrospect that others involved have remained steadfastly working toward their goal, but not sharing too much about it. When the Teamsters signed on, however, a few years ago (thereabouts, one, maybe two years ago), I knew it was a certainty. But I’ll join in on the “not in my backyard” crowd and say that I’d far prefer they extract oil and natural gas from remote areas in the A.N.W.R. than from the Colorado Rockies. I mean, you only have one Colorado, not like it’s not developed enough, already. Clive Tolson March 19, 2005 Glad I can count on seeing such denial in the Wizbang threads!! I’m Back!! Not surprised either, that I can go thru these comments and see a lack of hard facts. According to your favorite closet queen Drudge, ANWAR has a reserve of 9-11 Billion barrels of oil. As of Sept. 2004, American consumption is 20 million barrels a day. Which means about 7.3 Billion per year. Which means, if we drain ANWAR all at once, we should be energy independent for about 14 months.