Print
E-mail
Share
iPod
del.icio.us
digg
Newsvine
FacebookLetter to the editor:
Pin blame on Pelosi for high oil prices
Thu, Aug 7, 2008 (2:02 a.m.)
It was shameful that Speaker Nancy Pelosi adjourned the Democratic-controlled “Do Nothing” House for a five-week vacation without doing one thing to address our nation’s energy problem.
Pelosi could be the most ineffective speaker of the House in history. It is puzzling how she can continue in office. I’m sure it might have a little something to do with the ultraliberal district she represents in California.
She has stated she will not authorize an “up or down” vote on drilling because it will have no effect on the price of gas, and that she wants to “save the planet.” Mrs. Pelosi should take a course on the commodities futures trading market. If Congress would authorize drilling of any kind off our coasts and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the price of oil would drop immediately, before one drop comes out of the ground, and that’s a fact!
To go back in time a bit, if President Clinton had authorized drilling 10 years ago the price of oil would also be much less than it is today. We cannot keep putting off increased oil drilling in the United States. It’s the only way we can get to the long-term objective of eliminating fossil fuels and utilizing alternative sources of renewable energy.
Perhaps we will get lucky and Nancy Pelosi will continue to ignore the will of the American majority and finally be voted out of office. That would really save our planet!
Discussion: 19 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Woman fatally stabbed at Bally’s
- Man arrested for attempted sexual assault
- Judge Halverson’s husband jailed after frying pan attack
- Motorcyclist who died in crash off I-15 overpass identified
- All the theatrics, and a ‘killer speech,’ too
- Palin energizes skeptical base
- Buyout keeps Cosmopolitan in play
- Why attack on city bus met inaction
- Fire at Land Rover dealership under investigation
- Officers fatally shoot man wanted in Clark County burglaries
Blogs
Winning The West
McCain energizes Republicans (5 Comments)
Protesters interrupt McCain (15 Comments)
Culture Blog
Welcome back to (a cooler) First Friday
Now and Then
Las Vegas team to be named later could outdraw its parent club -- if it's the Marlins
Culture Blog
Tributes to Four Seasons, Supremes and Sophie Tucker in Summerlin
Politics: Ralston's Flash
Clark County School District v. Shirley A. Breeden (1 Comment)
Sports: UNLV
UNLV-Louisville hoops on New Year's Eve Day to air on ESPN 2
Bloggity, Bloggity, Bloggity
Carl Edwards caption contest (3 Comments)
Calendar
- Harvest Festival at the Cashman Center (10 a.m. to 6 p.m.)
- "The New Generation" boxing match at Star of the Desert Arena (5:30 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.)
- Jeff McBride Magic at the Edge at Palace Station (7:30 p.m.)
- Alice Cooper's Psycho-Drama Tour at the Orleans Showroom (8 p.m. to 11 p.m.)
-
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
So, Bush Sr. gives a Presidential order forbidding such drilling, but he has nothing to do with it? This is NOT a partisan-blame issue. Stop treating it like one. Bush Jr. and a Republican Congress also had years to fix this. And Clinton had a Republican Congress that did NOT authorize such drilling. BOTH parties are to blame. Move on.
Bush 41 placed the Presidential moratorium in place TO SUPPORT THE CONGRESSIONAL ONE - so the Congressional one - renewable ANNUALLY, wouldn't unexpectedly or mistakenly lapse. The Presidential one doesn't lapse, but must be rescinded by a POTUS.
The next Congressional renewal date is in late September. We'll see how many liberals line up against 70+% of the American people?
The bottom line is that Reid and Pelosi are against new offshore drilling.
Ms. Taxus and Obama are against it, but for it a little, but are really against personally.
There is a majority in both the house and senate in favor of new offshore drilling.
Every national poll says at least 60% of Americans are in favor of new offshore drilling.
Let democracy work!!!!!!!
At least have a straight up and down on the issue.
Well, NVMakz, that sure sounds like an apologist argument to me. Are you saying Bush Sr. lacked the intestinal fortitude to stand up to Congress? And, are we not confusing the authority of these two branches of government? Executive orders are not used to confirm congressional intentions or desires. Presidents sign laws to do that. Are you saying that our current Bush's Presidential order would have no meaning. The knee-jerk response to this utterly ridiculous letter to the editor evinces a complete lack of credibility. Not the stuff that 'gravitas' is made of.
This letter to the editor is sheer nonsense. Does the author really think that a lease issued today for off-shore drilling will begin producing oil in a week? A month? A year? Does he know how many drilling rigs are available to drill now? What's the turn-around time between contracting and delivering a drilling rig? The author, like McCain, can't or won't answer those questions. Better he treat the public, YOU, like the children so fondly imitated in this letter to the editor and give them simplistic answers to difficult and complex questions.
But this letter may be correct that the grant of offshore leases may bring the price of oil down. That fact is one of the reasons why the oil speculative market is dangerously perverted and deserves closer inspection. There are three main contracts on this market: oil at the wellhead, oil in a pipeline, and oil on board a tanker. The first 2 groups of contracts are the most volatile and can generate the most profit. Speculators have discovered that they can seek to increase contract prices for wellhead and pipeline oil for virtually any reason. But there is only one way to reduce the value of those contracts: reduce demand. If less oil is used, less oil is needed and the value of the oil at the well or on its way to a refinery is reduced. When the first 'oil crisis' occurred in the mid 70's, the government's willingness to impose unpopular measures to reduce oil consumption sent a clear signal to OPEC (which controlled pricing of oil from the wellhead to the refinery then) that we could and would effect the demand side of the equation. Down came the price and, unfortunately, our blinders. Today's government can't or won't enact unpopular conservation measures and in fact, Bush and Chenney clearly signaled to the world that they would prevent such measures and thus, to the speculators, the sky was the limit. It took the American people, in response to the hardship of outrageous gas prices to make the tough conservation choices themselves. And yet John McCain mocks simple and effective ways to continue conserving oil. That's leadership for ya! Moreover, there is no market for oil in the ground except in the trading value of exploratory and production leases. Part of the Republican drilling plan is to permit a market on those leases. Thus, after the government grants a lease for bargain basement prices, the lease holder can then turn around and profit immediately, while the oil still sits in the ground. So the plan carries NO incentive to produce more oil, nor to explore, just more speculation and more profit so that more republican campaign coffers can be filled by companies at the expense of you and me. My question is why doesn't that make your Libertarian blood boil?
"Well, NVMakz, that sure sounds like an apologist argument to me. Are you saying Bush Sr. lacked the intestinal fortitude to stand up to Congress?"
You're wrong. Bush 41 was agreeing and assisting with that Congress.
xxxx
"But there is only one way to reduce the value of those contracts: reduce demand"
You're wrong. Barry, Pelosi and "pinkie" are all demanding MORE SUPPLY.
xxxxxx
"The knee-jerk response to this utterly ridiculous letter to the editor evinces a complete lack of credibility. Not the stuff that 'gravitas' is made of."
You're descending into flailing desperation status. I applaud the letter as a rush of fresh air into this dank, stanky liberal environment.
xxxxx
There is simply SO much conspiracy theory and blind-man-bluff going on in your letter that it's simply unreadable.
With what the liberals have become in this era - no great achievement would ever be accomplished; as it's too tough, hard, long, or whatever word of weakness liberals jump to as their strawman-of-the-day.
Try learning what a paragraph is?
LOL, what a fantasy.
Pelosi and Reid tried for a week to get three bills passed that would immediately work to lower prices.
The republicans blocked any vote on the bills and whined they couldn't offer amendments.
So Reid compromised and said they could offer 5 amendments, to prevent the republicans from loading the bills with pork and special-interest money.
What did the republicans do? CONTINUE TO STALL! They whined they couldn't offer 24 amendments! Given that Congress only had a week to consider the bills and amendments, Reid told them that they could offer five, because they wouldn't be able to consider everything in the short week they had remaining.
What did the republicans do? CONTINUE TO STALL! So Reid called the bluff and offered a bill that would fund more armored Hummers, better healthcare for our veterans and a raise for our troops.
What did the republicans do? CONTINUE TO STALL.
I've brought this up on every thread where the lunatic fringe continue to blame Pelosi and Reid, when they were stalled and obstructed time and time again by the republicans, and they continue to cower and duck the real issue: Republicans WANT high gas prices because that's the only issue they think they have traction on!!!
It's laughable that these radical right-wing zealots wanted to do anything OTHER than drill. Even when Reid offered them an amendment to consider off-shore drilling, THEY STALLED!
Blame Pelosi and Reid? For trying to solve the issue, yes. For stalling our energy policy? No way in hell.
Jon Porter couldn't stand up to his party and help pass legislation that is now already considered by the Gang of 10, and thus SHOULD have been passed before the recess.
But the republicans stalled and whined because Reid wouldn't let them load the bills up with pork and special interest money.
Jon Porter should be ashamed!
No, NVMakz, Pelosi, Reid and Obama are demanding more IMMEDIATE supply.
I see you've ignored nuance yet again. Promising more drilling in 10 years will not accomplish what flooding the market TODAY will accomplish.
Promising more drilling, with unknown yields, will not accomplish what supplying 70 million barrels of oil will do TODAY.
And yet the republicans cower and continue to stall real price help TODAY. LOL!
And "try learning what a paragraph is?" Coming from the king of decrying people pointing out his spelling and grammar errors? Hypocritical!
There is a majority in both in the house and in the senate for new offshore drilling.
Over 60% of Americans are for it.
Reid and Pelosi should let Democracy work!!!!!
Just let one up and down vote on the offshore drilling.
Why are they so afraid?
They offered a vote on offshore, the republicans refused.
You can't hide from that.
Why won't Bush call them back into session? He has the power, why hasn't he done it?
Face the truth: the republicans want this as a campaign issue. They don't want to actually help, they think this is something they can EXPLOIT. (hence the hay-making about Obama reminding people that properly inflated tires help fuel economy)
Exploiting the pain of the American consumer, that's the republican plan!
And they wonder why they're tracking so low in Congressional elections?
OK, let's look beyond the political rhetoric into a little reality. The oil market is Global. We are not the only consumer of oil. The current crisis has been brought on by global stresses on available oil caused by increased demand in India and China. The current drop in prices can be attributed to two events. First, we in the US have begun to practice a little more conservation and second, the drivers in Beijing are being limited in driving time to clean up the air and streets for the Olympics. Once the Olympics are over Chinese demand will increase again and prices will probably rise.
As far as increased drilling in the US goes, it's just rhetoric. Currently refineries are running a capacity and couldn't process more oil. Most the oil currently being drilled in Alaska is going to Japan, since the refining capabilities on the west coast are at capacity and couldn't use the oil from there. The oil companies aren't currently drilling on leases because they can't get platforms. There is a global shortage in drilling platforms as the current platforms are becoming aged and need replacing. So, opening further areas to exploration wouldn't do much more than make for some good political soundbites and have no real impact on global oil prices.
"They offered a vote on offshore, the republicans refused."
Pelosi has not allowed any vote on offshore drilling. I think she would say "I do not care if 99.9% of Americans want offshore drilling. It will not happen...not now...not ever."
I believe this two statemens contradict each other.
"The oil market is Global. "
"As far as increased drilling in the US goes, it's just rhetoric"
Also, I guess you are saying Obama is full of it.
Obama is saying adding 500,000 daily barrels of oil to supply would reduce prices by 20%.
Reid is just as much to blame. Why is he Pelosi's puppet. Cut the strings Harry. This is Nevada, not San Fransisco. Contact Harry today. Tell him to come home from his taxpayer funded vacation in asia and put the Senate to simple votes. Drill or No. Nuclear or NO. Oil Shale or no. Let technology come but Drill here and Drill Now.
email link
http://reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm...
Las Vegas
Lloyd D. George Building
333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 8016
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Phone: 702-388-5020 / Fax: 702-388-5030
"Obama is saying adding 500,000 daily barrels of oil to supply would reduce prices by 20%."
We have seen outright lies about Obama's position before. Prove this with a quote from Obama.
I hope that you did not expect that they could dump 70 million of oil from the national oil reserve that is stored in the salt mines immediately on the market. That is so funny!!!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26010962/
"Obama's call for using the government reserve mirrors a proposal that has been pushed by congressional Democrats, but opposed by Republican leaders and the White House."
"Sen. Jeff Bingaman, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has tried to get agreement on legislation that would require the release of 70 million barrels of oil from the government stockpile over six months with the oil to be returned at a later date."
70,000,000 of barrels of oil divided by (6 months * 30 days) = 388,888 barrels a day.
Obama has said this will reduce gas prices by 20%.
I accept his figure.
Offshore we have billions of barrels ready for drilling.
If 388,000, according to Obama, can drop gas prices then drilling for billions will, too.
"Obama has said this will reduce gas prices by 20%."
Quote Obama saying this. Quote him saying that if we released 70 million barrels of oil that oil prices would fall 20%.
And congratulations on quoting Jeff Bingaman. That's a great plan by Jeff Bingaman. You said this was Obama's plan. Guess that's not the case?
LOL!
"I believe this two statemens contradict each other.
'The oil market is Global. '
'As far as increased drilling in the US goes, it's just rhetoric."
Excuse me if I write in plain English and expect you to under stand it. If the oil market is Global, then anything our politicians do will have little or no effect, hence it's just talk or rhetoric.
Blame the speculators that bought the futures contracts at 148 thinking they would go up and instead lost a fortune as it fell to 120..Every transaction has a winner and a loser. Thats the market and the house take is just the sales commission. Beats Vegas.