Damn those democrats! If only the President had thought to propose drilling back when the Republicans were in control of Congress, we'd be swimming in oil today. He was too busy fighting the terrorists, though.

if by that he means the democrats who voted to allow him to go to war in Iraq, then he's partially right.

[OBVIOUS], Trollmitter?
How about [UNLIKELY]?

Who specifically would get the oil if we opened up drilling? Would it be a bidding system, auctioning off land to the oil companies? Or would it just be a no-bid fire sale where the president's buddies get the best bits?

Either way, if drilling started tomorrow, exactly how long would it take for oil to start flowing to affect the price of gas at all?

Moreover, wouldn't farking up our own wilderness be unnecessary if it wasn't for the years of disastrous foreign policy which has resulted in the main oil-providing region becoming even more unstable and opposed to us?

Hooray, more oil wank!

George, your act is getting old. You take full credit for the few things that aren't total farkups, and blame "Democrats in Congress" for everything else. The same Democrats who have rolled over and given you basically everything you wanted since they took the majority.

Fark you, George.

Well, this is kinda sorta true, a little bit in a way. Democratic initiatives have led to an overall decrease in domestic production, very little exploration, which coupled with an increase in the price of crude due to growing markets in India and China (the domestic price of gas rose almost $2.00 a gallon in four years with the Democratic Congress, as opposed to 70 cents a gallon the previous four years with a Republican Congress); however, this isn't the entire problem. The only solution the government has really taken since the energy crisis of the 70's, whether Republican or Democratic, was to talk about how neat an alternative fuel supply would be and that was pretty much all talk, there were also two major ethanol pushes, which fail because they are disastrous, simultaneously increasing the cost of food crops while lowering the efficiency of your engine which leads you to having to pay more for your food and to purchase more gas to cove up for the inefficient burning of ethanol within your engine.

During the early days of the Bush Administration the Republicans did make pushes in increasing domestic production including opening up new areas for exploration and allowing drilling companies to places two wells per lease site rather than one, but even if the amount of oil was increased tenfold the United States simply does have the refining capacity to process the oil, we can pretty much handle the processing of exactly what we need and very little more. The problem is more than just simply domestic supply.

Although it is fun to just point at Democrats and blame everything on them.

/neither Democrat nor Republican nor Libertarian nor whatever.

I knew all along that everything that didn't work out for Bush was the fault of the Democrats, what other possible explanation could there be ?

If Nancy Pelosi says finding oil in places like ANWR is a hoax, then it's a hoax.

jesus farking christ on a goddamned stick. this is the biggest line of bull farking shiat EVAR.

i'm so sick of these scumbag farking traitorous america-hating republicans blaming high oil prices (and everything else) on democrats. the only democrats to blame are the craven ones who authorized the war that has helped (1) cause the instability that is roiling the oil markets and (2) exacerbated our deficits that are helping to drag down the dollar.

fark you, mr. bush, you lying, simpering piece of shiat.

He's not even trying anymore, is he?

and drilling in ANWR, when it comes online in TEN YEARS, might drop the price of oil, what... $5/bbl? by that time, and at the rate we're going, oil will be $300/bbl. so instead of that we get $295/bbl? yaaay!!!11!!

and you're deluded if you think the oil companies won't "absorb" that little decrease in cost. they know we'll pay what we'll pay. there's no farking way in hell they'll pass that little savings on to us.

no, mr. bush, we need to get off fossil fuels, period. we need to figure out a way to use renewable fuels in our existing vehicles while we transition to new methods of locomotion. and i'm guessing the next president, be it obama or mccain, will actually call upon our country to do that. unlike you, you farking traitor.

Bloody William:Who specifically would get the oil if we opened up drilling? Would it be a bidding system, auctioning off land to the oil companies? Or would it just be a no-bid fire sale where the president's buddies get the best bits?

Most likely it would be like it is now, the land would be leased to the investing companies, usually for ten to twenty years.

Either way, if drilling started tomorrow, exactly how long would it take for oil to start flowing to affect the price of gas at all?

A long time.

First, a substantial amount of oil would need to be drilled at once, not just a well here or there.

Second, more refineries would need to be built or old ones reopened (on my way to work everyday I pass three closed down refineries that are just sitting there) to cover for the new sources of oil.

Third, oil is a global commodity, so the prices of oversees crude affect domestic prices, especially here in America where we produce only enough oil in a twelve month span to supply California for six months (basically we have two of the largest oil consumers in the world housed in one country, California and the rest of the USA); we would have to produce huge volumes of oil and then process it into gasoline to offset what we import.

Fourth, we would see an additional increase in price before we see the benefit, although $2.00 a gallon gas is far more profitable for the oil companies, the government (taxes are collected on the gallon rather than the dollar, and people buy more with lower prices leading to more gallons sold leading to more taxes paid) and gas stations than $4.00 a gallon gas, there would initially be tremendous expenses to cover setting up news wells, pipelines and refineries. The cost would most likely rise at first and then slowly decline, and not just decline right away.

Moreover, wouldn't farking up our own wilderness be unnecessary if it wasn't for the years of disastrous foreign policy which has resulted in the main oil-providing region becoming even more unstable and opposed to us?

The oil providing regions have always been hostile to us and even embargoed us in the 70's; but eventually they realized that the potential revenue was worth a little irritation, the OPEC nations are projected to make 1.3 trillion dollars in 2008 alone off oil revenue. They also realize that we cannot conceivably produce enough oil to meet our own demand, because we don't really actually push for any developments in alternative energy, so we'll be dependent on them for quite awhile. They also realize, correctly, that Americans are very attached to where people can and cannot drill, further limiting how much we can produce and that we'll do this while also making no real effort to curtail our consumption, by doing so we are actually aiding to profitability of Middle Eastern oil.

Capt. Happy Hour:If Nancy Pelosi says finding oil in places like ANWR is a hoax, then it's a hoax.

Man, remember when people said intelligent things on Fark.

/Maybe not intelligent, but you didn't necessarily want to facepalm once every 3 posts.

Bush called on Congress to increase access to offshore exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf. He said U.S. oil production could be expanded by exploiting oil shale, but he said Democrats are blocking oil shale leasing on federal lands.

The president repeated his call for Congress to drop its opposition to oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- which he did not specifically name, but referred to only as "northern Alaska."

The oil companies have thousands of leases on millions of acres of land. Let's start with those before we start handing out more contracts, mmmkay, Bush? How about some more refineries, mmmkay, oil companies?

Seriously, who thought it was a good idea to have a bunch of oil men running the Executive branch?

"Well, I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation. That's why I've fought successfully in the Senate to increase our investment in renewable fuels. That's why I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise our fuel standards... And I didn't just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses - we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil."

- Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, October 14, 2007



/Obligatory Obama plug.

Lionel Mandrake:Seriously, who thought it was a good idea to have a bunch of oil men running the Executive branch?

The oil men.

Unright:Man, remember when people said intelligent things on Fark.

Prove ANWR drilling would make a noticeable difference to oil prices or reduce reliance on foreign oil. Oh right, you can't because it won't.

Obviously, we need to outlaw Democrats and then this country will get back on the right track!

GAT_00:Prove ANWR drilling would make a noticeable difference to oil prices or reduce reliance on foreign oil. Oh right, you can't because it won't.

Okay. Where is there a better place to drill, then?

Al Franken has an ad out claiming "big oil lobbyists" are to blame for $4.00 gas.

Golly gee whiz, I just don't know who to believe! It almost seems like no politician from either side will admit to the real problem. Gosh, someone please herd tell me!

FlashHarry:and drilling in ANWR, when it comes online in TEN YEARS, might drop the price of oil, what... $5/bbl? by that time, and at the rate we're going, oil will be $300/bbl. so instead of that we get $295/bbl? yaaay!!!11!!

and you're deluded if you think the oil companies won't "absorb" that little decrease in cost. they know we'll pay what we'll pay. there's no farking way in hell they'll pass that little savings on to us.

no, mr. bush, we need to get off fossil fuels, period. we need to figure out a way to use renewable fuels in our existing vehicles while we transition to new methods of locomotion. and i'm guessing the next president, be it obama or mccain, will actually call upon our country to do that. unlike you, you farking traitor.

It seems all it takes is a rumor of instability to drive up prices immediately. Why wouldn't the thought that more oil on the market not bring down oil prices quickly?

/really wants to know

John McCain's opposed to drilling in ANWR too, you know

The Dems shouldn't have even bothered winning the House in '06. They didn't have the resolve to accomplish anything major and it just lets Bush deflect some of the blame. Would have been better to let an entirely R-controlled federal government stew in it's own shiat for 2 more years.

Oakenshield:Al Franken has an ad out claiming "big oil lobbyists" are to blame for $4.00 gas.

Golly gee whiz, I just don't know who to believe! It almost seems like no politician from either side will admit to the real problem. Gosh, someone please herd tell me!

Ever increasing demand in China and India coupled and a wildly speculative commodities market are two of the principals. Email me you contact info and I'll let you know how to send me a {ahem} campaign contribution.

Lenny_da_Hog:Okay. Where is there a better place to drill, then?

Nowhere. The answer isn't in drilling more holes in the ground but in reducing demand and improving the fraction of our energy that comes from alternate sources.

Bush's comment is all kinds of wrong.

First, the real purpose of opening up land to drilling is to allow oil companies to buy up the land. The stated purpose - providing more oil to lower prices - really makes no sense, as the oil from the land in question would be a drop in the bucket now. Plus there's the fact that the absolute soonest these wells would peak is a decade from now. What oil companies really want is to own what reserves there still are when oil gets really scarce.

Second, Republicans are the ones who cut federal funding of alternative energy research, and they're also the ones who created a tax code that gives significant benefits to oil and coal companies. They have prevented government funding of alternative energy, and ensured that the market remains fluid enough that private investors don't want to invest in alternative energy.

In conclusion, Bush is prioritizing politics over reality, as usual.

Lenny_da_Hog:Okay. Where is there a better place to drill, then?

The point is that drilling anywhere won't substantially increase the world's oil supply and won't bring down gasoline prices. We need to develop alternative energy sources. Period.

Well, he's been right about everything else.

Satan's Superfluous Nipple:It seems all it takes is a rumor of instability to drive up prices immediately. Why wouldn't the thought that more oil on the market not bring down oil prices quickly?

/really wants to know

I think you'll find the answer in the record profits being posted by oil companies and massive speculation in energy markets.

Lenny_da_Hog:GAT_00:Prove ANWR drilling would make a noticeable difference to oil prices or reduce reliance on foreign oil. Oh right, you can't because it won't.

Okay. Where is there a better place to drill, then?

There isn't. We need to get hydrogen fuels going. The fields we have can easily tide us over to then, there isn't any reason to destroy the environment more.

Lenny_da_Hog:GAT_00:Prove ANWR drilling would make a noticeable difference to oil prices or reduce reliance on foreign oil. Oh right, you can't because it won't.

Okay. Where is there a better place to drill, then?

The point is that drilling isn't the solution. This is like Bush going to UC Berkeley and saying, "Okay. You don't like the war in Iraq. What's a better place to bomb, then?"

The price of fuel only trippled when republicans controled congress.

Bloody William:Either way, if drilling started tomorrow, exactly how long would it take for oil to start flowing to affect the price of gas at all?

Moreover, wouldn't farking up our own wilderness be unnecessary if it wasn't for the years of disastrous foreign policy which has resulted in the main oil-providing region becoming even more unstable and opposed to us?

One final question: how much would daily production increase? It has been estimated that maximum daily production from ANWR would be less than a million barrels per day. That would be less than a 1.125% increase. So how much of an increase would we get if we opened up the coastal regions and ANWR at the same time? 3%? 5%? Does that sound like this solution is going to save us significant amounts of money at the pump?

Bush is full of shiat. McCain is full of shiat. The entire GOP is full of shiat.

pnjunction:The Dems shouldn't have even bothered winning the House in '06. They didn't have the resolve to accomplish anything major and it just lets Bush deflect some of the blame. Would have been better to let an entirely R-controlled federal government stew in it's own shiat for 2 more years.

The Dem's have been totally focused on gaining the WH, and refuse to push any serious policy initiatives. On the other hand, the Dem's do NOT control the Senate. For better or worse, Senate control requires a super majority of 60 due the the threat of filibuster. It used to be that someone would actually have to physically get up and filibuster; now just the threat will stop most legislation. Plus, the president will just veto any Demo supported legislation where there is not bipartisan support which can override any veto threat.

Consequently, the best political strategy is not to push legislation that can't be passed, and ruin their chances in November for a huge policy mandate.

Nancy Pelosi is a douche, and needs to be replaced. She does not provide strong, charismatic, or intelligent leadership.

Doesn't this asswipe know any other tunes?

Because fuel prices had been plummeting up until 2006 . . .

Damn LIBS

LIIIIBBSSS

People still listen to the radio addresses? If it were me, my very first radio address, I'd play Rose of Sharon instead and see what happened.

Lando Lincoln:Does that sound like this solution is going to save us significant amounts of money at the pump?

Certainly not, especially when you think that it's quite possible that with lower gas prices, demand for gas will go back up. Thereby raising the prices again.

Look, I feel bad for people who are really having a difficult time making ends meet because of gas prices and lack of other options. I don't feel bad for people who are simply inconvenienced or who are needing to sell their SUVs/make other lifestyle changes because of it. Demand has got to go down, and we've got to start being serious about alternatives.

Gosling:People still listen to the radio addresses? If it were me, my very first radio address, I'd play Rose of Sharon instead and see what happened.

I suppose many of the 25%ers still do, lotion and Kleenex in hand.

equilibrium:Satan's Superfluous Nipple:It seems all it takes is a rumor of instability to drive up prices immediately. Why wouldn't the thought that more oil on the market not bring down oil prices quickly?

/really wants to know

I think you'll find the answer in the record profits being posted by oil companies and massive speculation in energy markets.

Makes me wish I had bought stock.

If it's the fault of the Democrats in Congress, then it still ends up being Bush's fault, since his absolutely horrid presidency is what led to the 2006 landslide for the Democrats.

George, if you wanted to keep a Republican majority in Congress to rubber stamp all your shiat, you shouldn't have run the country with the level of skill one would expect of a three year old retarded boy.

equilibrium:Lenny_da_Hog:Okay. Where is there a better place to drill, then?

Nowhere. The answer isn't in drilling more holes in the ground but in reducing demand and improving the fraction of our energy that comes from alternate sources.

Unrealistic. Naive.

We will not have the capacity to go oil-free for a long, long time.

Misspelled it. Rose of Sharyn is the title.

"And now, a message from the President of the United States."
"HWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA..." (new window, probably bad words)

He forgot to blame unions and environmentalists, who seem to be the only 2 sources of America's problems, as I've learned on Fark.

Lenny_da_Hog:equilibrium:Lenny_da_Hog:Okay. Where is there a better place to drill, then?

Nowhere. The answer isn't in drilling more holes in the ground but in reducing demand and improving the fraction of our energy that comes from alternate sources.

Unrealistic. Naive.

We will not have the capacity to go oil-free for a long, long time.

FTFC: but in reducing demand and improving the fraction of our energy that comes from alternate sources.

Besides, ignoring the problem isn't going to make it go away.

There's no phoning it in like neocon phoning it in.

There is not a damn thing that spews from the mouths of Bush, Cheney, or Rove that I would believe anymore.

I assume the opposite is true.

/just the way it is

KeatingFive:He forgot to blame unions and environmentalists, who seem to be the only 2 sources of America's problems, as I've learned on Fark.

The eco-nuts on Fark are excited about the high gas prices. That's probably not a good example.

Damn. If only the Republicans had been in control of every branch of government for six of the last eight years.

If only...