Rove Baselessly Claims EIA Agrees That Oil Drilling ‘Would Bring Down Prices’
Rove Baselessly Claims EIA Agrees That Oil Drilling ‘Would Bring Down Prices’
Last night on Fox News, former top Bush adviser Karl Rove showed up on Hannity & Colmes to discuss the political topic du jour: gas prices and energy policy.
Co-host Alan Colmes noted that conservatives like Rove just want to drill for more oil with the “hope that seven years from now we bring down the price which Bush’s Energy Department says it wouldn’t do.” Rove then became agitated, saying to Colmes: “You’re wrong on your facts”:
ROVE: First of all the EIA does say that drilling would bring down prices. You’re wrong on your facts.
COLMES: That’s what they said.
ROVE: No, no no. That’s simply wrong. The Energy Information Agency [sic] which is a respected nonpartisan branch of our government does say if we expanded supply, it would reduce the price.
Watch it:
But its actually Rove who is wrong — or misleading at best. The group Rove cites to back up his “facts” — the Energy Information Administration — says that new drilling won’t start until 2018, and won’t ever have much impact on oil prices. The EIA’s assessment of offshore drilling:
For the lower 48 OCS [Outer Continental Shelf], annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.
The EIA’s assessment of drilling in the Arctic Refuge in Alaska:
ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. […] Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount.
And if Rove is going to cite the EIA for his misleading claim that U.S. drilling will reduce oil prices, he should at least get the name right. Its the Energy Information Administration, not the Energy Information Agency.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“Rove Baselessly Claims EIA Agrees That Oil Drilling ‘Would Bring Down Prices’”
Tubby McTreason is full of hot air and beyond nauseating to hear. And said this on what? Fox News? Can’t wait for this criminal clown to get arrested by Congress. Pass the popcorn please.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:03 pmRove has never felt the burden of facts.
PEACE
August 7th, 2008 at 3:04 pmDon’t let facts and reality stand in way of yet another obtuse rant by this fat, lying, criminal, pile of rat feces.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:06 pmKKKarl used the word facts? Isn’t he the one that said “we’re an empire now, we create our own reality”?
BTW- Why hasn’t he been arrested for contempt of Congress yet?
August 7th, 2008 at 3:08 pmConyers? Pelosi? Anyone?
Alright, who let the fat pig out of his pig-pen?
August 7th, 2008 at 3:08 pmRove’s pearls of wisdom are mere fish-in-a-barrel for TP.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:08 pmLike a junkie, Karl needs his lies to stay alive. Either that, or he orgasms every time he lies.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:09 pmI wouldn’t invite Rove into a hog wallow-he’d dirty it up.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:10 pmANALYSIS- US oil firms seek drilling access, but exports soar
August 7th, 2008 at 3:10 pmBy Tom Doggett
Colmes is such a tool. If he really had a backbone, he would have really handed Rove his head. Then again, he does work for Faux Noize.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:11 pmKarl Rove is a lying jack-off.
On Faux News.
Why, oh, WHY do you give a shit about anything he says?
everybody in the country who watches Faux News could be raptured, right now, and apart from a 20-point rise in the national IQ, there would be NO consequences.
Rove is a fat lil dickweed who deserves to have all his moving parts jellied with the judicial application of baseball bats to joints, such that when he wants to write he has to tie a fuuking stick to his forehead and tap it out in Morse code.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:12 pmYou heard it here first folks, straight from the highly respected man you can trust to speak the truth, karl rove.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:15 pmHe only has your children’s best interest in mind.
Tune in after the break and we’ll discuss this issue with bill kristol.
Y’know, in an orderly world, twerps like Rove would lose credibility whenever they spewed lies on TV.
Unfortunately, in wingnut world, it seems to enhance their credibility.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:16 pmIs Rove on TV EVERY day? Only Fox would give this lyin’ sack o’ sh*t that much exposure.
Obama has to be good enough to beat not only John McCain, but Karl Rove, the entire Fox News Network, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Fox & Friends, Glenn Beck, etc. , etc. You get the picture.
McCain isn’t even held accountable for his own inconsistencies and is seldom asked to support his claims. He thinks that saying something makes it so. Maybe his friend George taught him how that works.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:20 pmI’m waiting for cera (jason hendler?) to come on here spouting his “common sense theory” that by not allowing for offshore drilling, rising gas prices have forced Winnebago sales to plummet resulting in job loss across Iowa, and the country.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:23 pmColmes is doing as he’s told. He’s a punching bag for Sean Hannity and right-wing guests. Look at him he looks like a (shudder) vegetarian, all skinny and nerdy. Sean, on the other hand looks like Roger Ailes’ idea of a read-blooded, meat-eating American, a scrappy square-headed Irishman with a loud Mel Blanc cartoon voice.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:24 pm“Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount.”
This is a KEY POINT, folks, when you come up against those hardheaded conservatives who swear that “all of that oil up there in Alaska” is the answer to all of our problems. We must remember that OPEC is a cartel. Oil is not traded on the open market the same way that other commodities are. The producers control the amount of oil they release into the marketplace to artificially keep prices high. No matter what we do in the US, OPEC will do anything and everything it can to offset a drop in price.
It is long past time for us to stop buying oil that is sold in the traditional market. We need to start buying directly from the oil producing nations and cut out the middlemen, the speculators, etc. A nationalized energy company for the United States would be in a much better position to negotiate for fair prices than are the current Big Oil companies and the countless speculators who sh!t their pants every time someone in the Middle East sneezes.
Drill, drill, drill is not the solution. At best, it is “relief” that is at least a decade away. We must start doing something - NOW - to affect the inflated price of petroleum.
All the cons laughed when Obama recommended that we all keep our tires inflated properly - as if that was all that Obama had to say on the subject - but turns out it’s true! Small steps such as this, and as well as those that were recommended by President Carter back in the late 1970’s, will bring us closer to price relief. More drilling = more costs + long wait + more profit for Big Oil.
It’s time to put that profit right back into the pockets of consumers. Nationalize our energy industries now!
August 7th, 2008 at 3:24 pmRove is a psychopath.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:25 pmKarl Rove should donate his corpulent frame to help solve America’s energy crisis. The methane he produces, coupled with the large reserves of blubber could keep the Times Square Christmas tree lit up for two years straight.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:26 pmFunny> Last night I used the EIA report to refute Opie the obamagr8 troll’s contention, in another thread, that opening ANWR up would bring prices down emmediatly and the oil would be in our gastanks in a couple years.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:31 pmWHY DID THAT POST GET REMOVED?
Doesn’t it take production to bring prices down? I guess if you assume that drilling results in production 100% of the time, then yes, drilling would bring down prices. That would not be a good assumtion because it is not uncommon to drill a dry well. The biggest problem is how simplistic they try to make it. It is not simply a question of drilling or not and that drilling having a direct impact on prices. Has kr ever been right about anything? When did the politics guy suddenly become the oil expert? He didn’t, he’s just full of sht.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:34 pmWhy is an unindicted criminal giving his version of reality on tv?
August 7th, 2008 at 3:38 pmThis guy spews endless bulls*** on tv, but seems to have a problem when it comes to speaking under oath or in front of Congress.
He had to go to the grand jury 5 times to get his story straight in the Plame outing and avoids speaking under oath like the plague.
He broke into politics and caught the attention of the Bush family when the FBI investigated a little incident where he posed as a Democrat and stole their stationary to use in a dirty political trick.
And on top of everything else, he is a traitor who committed treason by revealing the name of an undercover agent who was working on nuclear proliferation containment.
Again, WHY IS HE SPEWING HIS REALITY ON TV?
I like some of the arguments I’m hearing. It’s like the teenager who comes in saying, “we need a new car and we need it now” and then totally ignores the fact that he was the one who took the old car and trashed it.
Part of the reason why the EIA’s old predictions on oil prices did not hold true was the disasterous foreign policy created by the very same administration that is now advocating new strategies to decrease the price of oil.
I think its time we took the keys away.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:42 pmobamagr8 Says: @21
August 7th, 2008 at 3:44 pmSo? This only skews the amount of money it would take in investments to drill and pump. Not refine.
As well, it does nothing to refute the simple fact that it will do nothing immediatly as your chimpy king and you claim.
Under this administration, there is NO “nonpartisan branch of the government.”
That’s what the “permanent Rethuglican majority was about, right, piggy?
How’s that working out for you?
August 7th, 2008 at 3:46 pmHow many giveaways to Big Oil is enough?
McSame/Exxon 2008!
August 7th, 2008 at 3:48 pmobamagr8
For now, suffice it to say that Time’s attempt to rehabilitate Obama’s tire-inflation gaffe is a failure.
I noticed you threw this in and didn’t really explain it. Do you disagree that proper tire inflation and regular car maintenance enhances gas mileage?
August 7th, 2008 at 3:52 pmHe is starting to drink his own kool-aid.
He needs relevance and it’s becoming harder and harder to come by. If he doesn’t get it soon, he will be biting the heads off chickens in no time (or did he already start that routine?)…
Americans cannot be trusted — especially this one.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:52 pmFunny, alot of economists told us that it would only be around $80 per Barrel this year. Which is why the EIA used those numbers.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:53 pmGuess we can’t trust those damn economist to get it right either, just like the current mis-administration.
obamagr8 Says:
And dozens of economists will tell you that a perceived future increase in supply will reduce prices now.
Since additional oil drawn by these big companies will go onto the world market, how can you be certain that the reduction in price will be of any major significance when balanced against the toll it will take on the environment?
August 7th, 2008 at 3:53 pmto be fair, the report assumes that the land won’t be opened up for drilling until 2018, which could change. the bigger point, though, that it would take at least twelve years before the oil came into the market, and that it would even then have a minimal — if any — impact on prices at the pump.
i posted a link to this on redstate.com the other day and got banned. and then posthumously mocked by the moderator. i’ve been so broken up about getting banned (twice) i can’t sleep at night.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:54 pm35 cont.
Specifically when it comes to domestic gas prices.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:54 pmWhy hasn’t someone waved a hotdog under his nose then throw it into on-coming traffic?
August 7th, 2008 at 3:55 pmTrolls quoting powerline on TP. Jesus H. Christ.
Powerline was financed by TCF, a Twin Cities bank, to perpetuate, propose & pull for The Bushstapo. They’ve been rewarded handsomely for their perverted facts & fetishes.
NOT ONCE does the Troll or powerline note that much, if not most of the oil from Alaska’s North Slope goes to Japan. NOT ONCE.
1.8 Billion barrels a year going to anywhere but the USA right now is unacceptable. Do we want to increase this travesty?
Really?
August 7th, 2008 at 3:56 pmattempt to rehabilitate Obama’s tire-inflation gaffe is a failure.
Your “gash” is leaking.
Put a tampon in it please.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:57 pm1.8 Billion barrels a year going to anywhere but the USA right now is unacceptable. Do we want to increase this travesty?
Since the GOP enjoys sucking big oil’s little dick, I’d say the prevailing answer would be “yes”?
August 7th, 2008 at 3:58 pmI see the RNC is designing their trolls with considerably more stamina than sense these days.
That’s a sound policy for them. Stamina is a whole lot cheaper to implement than sense. Plus when someone with sense encounters the kind of talking points the GOP is left with these days, they tend to rebel.
August 7th, 2008 at 4:02 pmDoesn’t seem likely since “they’re talking” about billions of barrels of oil…….and given that not every car on the road has low tires or bad plugs.
I’m not sure of the pr
August 7th, 2008 at 4:03 pmI notice the troll highlighted this statement:
There is little direct knowledge regarding the petroleum geology of the ANWR region.
The troll obviously doesn’t recognize that this statement means that here could be far less oil under the ground than even the Department of Energy estimates.
Anyone who recites the GOP talking points that ANWR will solve our energy crisis as if it were gospel is not even building a foundation. They’re building an argument on sand.
August 7th, 2008 at 4:06 pmombamagr8
Doesn’t seem likely since “they’re talking” about billions of barrels of oil…….and given that not every car on the road has low tires or bad plugs.
Sorry about the last hiccup!
Anyway, I’m not sure about the process, but maybe proper inflation and maintenance will save the amount of oil this new drilling would open to over the 12 years it would take to get fully operational and viable.
August 7th, 2008 at 4:11 pm#21 mindless obamagr8 C+V troll:
“That’s right: the EIA, writing in early 2007, assumed that oil prices would decline from their 2006 peak; that in 2008, the price of crude oil would be around $60 a barrel; that it would continue to decline until around 2013 to a low of about $50 a barrel; and that the price would then gradually increase to a little under $60 a barrel by 2030. Those were the assumptions on which EIA concluded that it would not be economically profitable to get most OCS oil out of the ground.”
From the EIA source:
( http://www.eia.doe.gov/ oiaf/ archive/ aeo07/ issues.html )
“In the reference case, increased non-OPEC and OPEC supplies are expected to cause a price decline from 2006 levels to under $50 per barrel (2005 dollars) in 2014. After that, a gradual rise in oil prices, averaging 1.1 percent per year in constant dollar terms or about 3.0 percent in nominal terms, is expected through 2030. The AEO2007 reference case world oil price in 2030 is $59 per barrel in 2005 dollars, or about $95 per barrel in nominal terms.”
OPEC and non-OPEC oil production has not increased, invalidating this projection.
“The high and low oil price cases in AEO2007 are based on different assumptions about world oil supply. The AEO2007 reference case uses the mean estimates of oil and natural gas resources published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) [60]. The high price case assumes that the worldwide crude oil resource is 15 percent smaller and is more costly to produce than assumed in the reference case. The low price case assumes that the worldwide resource is 15 percent larger and is cheaper to produce than assumed in the reference case.
Neither of these these estimates assume market speculation or disruption to delivery of oil, only USGS-estimated crude resources ( i.e. unrefined oil, in the ground, available for refinement).
“The AEO2007 reference case represents EIA’s current best judgment regarding the expected behavior of key members of OPEC. In the reference case, OPEC members increase production at a rate that keeps world oil prices in the range of $50 to $60 per barrel (2005 dollars) over the projection period, reflecting a view that allowing oil prices to remain above that level for an extended period could lower their long-run profits by encouraging more investment in non-OPEC conventional and unconventional supplies and discouraging consumption of liquids worldwide.
OPEC has not increased porduction to control oil prices and long term profits, they have maintained production to maximize SHORT TERM PROFITS—which coincidentally they can invest and and have invested in buying up American real-estate (the Chrysler building for example) and in maintaining influence in US politics at bargain prices.
“When we read wildly inaccurate reporting in the mainstream media, it’s often hard to tell whether the reporter is incompetent, or is deliberately trying to deceive. You can make your own guess. “…says PowerLine, a site that is no stranger to incompetence and deception in its own ranks ( which it lauds as brilliance in the knowledge that it’s subscribers are easily baffled by bullshit) and from which Obamagr8 unthinkingly and reactively cut-and-pastes without a thought.
August 7th, 2008 at 4:16 pmAnd scheduled to appear tomorrow at the Capital to help Republicans turn darkness to light, Coach Sanders and Uncle Al.
http://stateofthedivision.blogspot.com/ 2008/ 08/ darkness-to-light-in-capital.html
August 7th, 2008 at 4:16 pm5ht estate…Zing!
I don’t talk to Trolls. (Sometimes I forget.)
Thanks for taking time to cram facts down it’s craw.
When they start dragging f’n powerline in here, it’s time to push back.
Google Gull Island Alaska & Oil sometime…
August 7th, 2008 at 4:25 pmHow about we find out what’s under the 68 million acres already under lease first?
And let’s make sure we collect all the royalties due the American people this time, hm?
August 7th, 2008 at 4:27 pma reminder:
Win Points for McCain!
Rewards Program for Online Commenters
By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 7, 2008; Page C01
Spread John McCain’s official talking points around the Web — and you could win valuable prizes!
[…]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2008/ 08/ 06/ AR2008080603589.html
this is no time for the playground.
PUSH BACK ONLY. JUST THE FACTS.
.
aka - John McCain’s “Frequent Lyer” Program
August 7th, 2008 at 4:28 pmh/t stateofthedivision
Rove lies like this ad nauseum. If we HAD a journalism profession in this country, someone would dog this bastard every step, calling his BS and get in his face 24X7.
Ruck Fove!
August 7th, 2008 at 4:28 pmObamagr8…
The arguments for more drilling are that profits by foreign oil producers weaken the US economy and subject it to economic blackmail, some of those profits help finance terrorist organizations, and that high US gas prices due to demand and a falling dollar domestic US economic engine of consumption.
As all this has transpired under Republican policies over the last 7-1′2 years and that Obama’s/Democrat policies are the opposite of the GOP ones, doesn;t it follow that the former policies are crap and dangerous and the latter the smart choice?
BTW I’m asking a rhetorical question–I’m not interested in your answer at this time.
August 7th, 2008 at 4:31 pmThis troll read that extended, well-sourced and referenced post from 5th and this is what it got out of it?
Pathetic.
Obie, you seem to be saying that you’re a logic-challenged nincompoop who deliberately misreads others’ posts to what you perceive is your advantage.
I will not challenge that.
August 7th, 2008 at 4:33 pmLet’s leave that up to the people who hold the leases, huh?
I presume they know where their holdings lie, right?
August 7th, 2008 at 4:49 pmRalphie, you understand that and I understand that, but clearly OBgr8 doesn’t…
August 7th, 2008 at 5:03 pmobamagr8 Says:
I’m sure they do which is why the whole “drill the acres you already have” argument is such a sham.
There are already laws on the books requiring oil companies to give back leases they aren’t working.
A sham?
There is also a link there to the staff report. You might want to read there before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:04 pmobamagr8 Says:
Nice plagiarism, as usual, not an original thought in that tiny head of yours.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:05 pmSpread John McCain’s official talking points around the Web — and you could win valuable prizes!
Only inbred chickenhawks (who must be half-breeds with the Ostrich) feed on McBush’s talking points.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:06 pmThen why are they still holding them?
August 7th, 2008 at 5:11 pmNicely done, gummitch.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:12 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Then why are they still holding them?
See above. The troll is wrong, imagine that! No such laws exist.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:12 pmobamagr8:
August 7th, 2008 at 5:25 pmDid you figure out where those acres are yet?
obamagr8 Says:
Then why are they still holding them?
A. They are legally entitled to.
You just claimed that there were laws the prevented them from holding land they weren’t working. Now you say they’re “legally entitled” to hold that land.
Which is it?
August 7th, 2008 at 5:43 pmObamagr8: From your source:
“OPEC is unlikely to change oil output in September to reverse the recent price fall unless the slide continues to below $80 a barrel, an OPEC source said on Tuesday.”
Now that’s some interesting reporting, because increasing oil production (which you argue OPEC has done) wouldn’t reverse “the slide” in oil prices but accelerate it ( supply and demand), so THAT doesn’t make any sense at allm but I guess you didn;t read that part, right at the beginning.
Anywhoo to continue with the source you provided:
“At the moment, and at this price level, there is no movement within OPEC to do anything,” the OPEC source told Reuters. “I don’t think ministers will change output. I think at less than $80 for OPEC oil, maybe they would do something.”
In other words OPEC has no intention of increasing production and if oil prices drop below $80 a barrel, the implication is that they will REDUCE production, to reverse “the slide.”
As that appears to be their stratagey–to do nothing for the present and lokely increase production if the price drops to $80, why would OPEC increas production now and thus reduce the cost of oil as you have claimed?
“The drop in prices was mostly due to a lull in July in the political tension between the West and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear program, the source said.”
So according to this report which you are hanging so much on, increased production has much less to do with the oil price-drop than any increase in production.
“That could easily be reversed and problems in OPEC member Nigeria could also push prices higher, the source added.”
Again political issues seem to have a significant effect on oil prices (Well duh!)
“Militant attacks have cut about a fifth of Nigeria’s output.
Concerns that slowing economic growth in top consumer the United States could further curb demand had contributed to oil’s fall, but the slide had little to do with market fundamentals, the source said.”
Again politics, not production.
“OPEC boosted output for the third consecutive month in July as top oil exporter Saudi Arabia raised production to its highest level since 1981. ”
Now that’s the money-shot, isn’t it?
Saudi Arabia raised its production level, and as part of OPEC it follows that OPEC therefore raised its output, ergo oil production HAS increased, you are right and I am WRONG!
Except that…
“The kingdom pushed its production to 9.7 million barrels per day, up from 9.45 million bpd in June in response to rising demand and what it saw as unacceptably high prices.”
Saudi DID increase its production, in June and what happened? Oil hit $141,71 on June 27. On July 11 it hit $147. Evidnetly this “increased oil production” had no effect. And what was that increased oil production exactly? An extra 0.55 million barrels per day. US crude oil imports form OPEC in 2005 were 5,980,000 barrels a day, so the increased Saudi/OPEC production ( assuming it all went to the US) represents a 10% increase in supply. AGAIN, what happened? World prices STILL went up!.
Since then as global market oil prices have come down, so too have prices at the pump. Us Avg. Retail Gas prices for regular grade had dropped from 4.064 (7/21) to 3.880 on 8/4, according to the EIA a reduction of 18 cents per gallon or about 4.1%.
Current oil prices are hovering at $118-120 a reduction of about 18-20% compared to the $147 high.
As evidenced by the above source you provided, the global price of oil and the price pf gasoline at the pump has damn all far less to do with supply and demand of oil itself, but of it’s estimated future availability due politics and policy and the ability to make a profit in trading shares rather than the commodity itself.
The increase in oil production you cited is factually correct, but it is so minimal as to be irrelevant to the larger argument–a tiny increase in oil production doesn;t amount to a hill of beans.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:43 pmBut –but — you said there was a law that said they HAD to get rid of them…
How many cases? You wouldn’t be dishonest enough to imply that a few isolated cases represent a significant portion of these leases, would you?
No, I didn’t think you would…
August 7th, 2008 at 5:44 pmIt was a joke you clod…
August 7th, 2008 at 5:48 pmobamagr8 Says:
You just claimed that there were laws the prevented them from holding land they weren’t working. Now you say they’re “legally entitled” to hold that land.
Which is it?
The latter. What I said is there is an INJUNCTION in place preventing oil companies from exploring large offshore leases in Alaska. I didn’t say there was a law preventing it, you did.
There are already laws on the books requiring oil companies to give back leases they aren’t working.
In case you don’t recognize your own words, they’re up the thread a way.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:00 pmobamagr8 Says:
In case you don’t recognize your own words, they’re up the thread a way.
gummitch, my statements are consistent. The oil companies can’t drill offshore of Alaska due to an injunction. No law, not yet.
We’re not talking about Alaska. You made a blanket statement that laws already existed that prevented oil companies from holding undeveloped leases on public land. Then, when asked why they were still holding all that undeveloped land, you said they were “legally entitled” to do so.
Those statements are inconsistent. Either there is a law, which is enforced, or they are not required to release the land, which would mean no such law existed.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:15 pmI see… so, assuming your facts and figures are correct (and there’s no reason to assume they are, as you haven’t been very trustworthy with your handling of facts and figures so far, but let’s pretend) then your contention is that 3.66 million acres out of 68 million is “significant”.
Somehow I suspect that in another context — say as a percentage of energy supply that could be provided by wind, say — 3.6 out of 68 you would not find so significant.
Just a suspicion I hold.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:16 pmPeople want electric cars; people want hybrids; people want both relief now (some desperately), but thy want out of the trap.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:24 pmI’ve had a Prius since 2005–where are the American hybrids? Where’s the EV-1.?The solutions people want aren’t available, not because of need for technical advancement, but because the auto companies dragged their feet and worse on electric and hybrid cars.
People want cheaper gas–but they also want out of the trap. If gas goes back down to 3 bucks a gallon somehow, will people say ‘thank goodness that’s over with!” and fire up the SUV? Not the dumbest among us.
They want out. They want the ability to get their energy from other sources.
What people are saying in the short term is ‘give me some help until I can buy my electric car.” There’s not a whole lot that can be done, and Obsma’s said what there is conservation and the SPR.. John McCain an d the Mighty Wurlitzer have instead proposed a plan that will have absolutely no effect in the short term. It’s mind-bogglingly stupid.
obamagr8..,
I have to say thanks for making the effort to substantiate your arguments–I really mean that. But do yourself a favor, don’t use PowerLine or the GOP sites as your sources—I don’t think any of the TP-ers here use Democratic Party websites to make their major arguments–”comnon” sources are the norm.
The Reuters source was good direct link, though apparently you didn’t think too much about it’s content before linking to it. Going to your Powerline source provided a link to their EIA source which Powerline seriously bastardized which you used.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:27 pmIn this environment where you are outnumbered and where the regulars here have a common broad encyclopedic knowledge-base derived from often non-partisan sources, I’d suggest you take a bit more time and consider your sources and your arguments a bit more carefully before you comment here–that way everyone;s time will be better served and we all might learn something valid that we didn’t know or appreciate before.
Wrong. They hold the leases for a given amount of time, that’s correct. But then, that’s correct with all leases.
You seem to be saying that whether those leases are renewed or not depends on whether they’ve produced or not. The article gummitch provided seems to say the opposite. Can you back up your contention using sources other than GOP websites, right-wing sites or extraction industry sites?
thanks.
August 7th, 2008 at 7:04 pmObie, you’ll forgive me if I don’t put too much stock in your conclusions based on “brief research”.
As I said before, your handling of information hasn’t earned you a reputation as a trustworthy source.
But beyond that, how does oil shale have anything to do with the legalities of the leases in question?
Again, you seem to say that their renewal depends on production. gummitch offered an article that said something very different.
August 7th, 2008 at 7:18 pmSo… you’re saying that your oil shale argument had nothing to do with the question.
Thanks. That’s what i thought.
And your “bone of contention” cut-and-paste says nothing about losing a lease. It just talks about extending it. From the language you posted, the lease could be presumably be renewed, which is different from an extension. it says nothing about termination. Nothing in that paragraph supports your “use it or lose it” contention.
August 7th, 2008 at 7:43 pmWell, Obie, you have to remember, I don’t speak Troll as well as I should. So I’m bound to take a while to catch up to what passes for your reasoning.
Again, your oil shale material is a total dodge. You “took a quick look around” and you suspect that the land leased in the Rockies is for oil shale.
For some reason, this evidence does not convince me, just like the Democrats’ claim of 68 million acres doesn’t convince you. Why do you think I should be convinced by less persuasive arguments than those you have dismissed already?
You provided me with ‘extensive links” to laws that deal with termination of leases. Considering you made the claim that the leases were subject to termination if not explored, I’d think you’d be want to demonstrate its truth, rather than relying on me to hunt down the laws and explore the legal language.
In fact, I find it a little strange that you were able to cite chapter and verse and excerpt the “bone of contention” sweet spot above, yet what you pulled says nothing about termination of a lease.
My last claim said simply: “your “bone of contention” cut-and-paste says nothing about losing a lease.”
There is nothing contrary to that claim in either the paragraph you pasted, or the questionable information you have supplied since. I didn’t claim that Title 30, Subsection 226(e) of the United States Code says nothing about it. I said that the piece you chose to copy says nothing about it.
Again, what I find curious is, why did you go to the trouble to chase down that provision, copy a section of it and paste it here, but you didn’t paste the section that you say supports your contention?
Curious indeed.
August 7th, 2008 at 8:29 pmobamagr8 Says:
Speaking of forgetting, I notice that several folks made some erroneous claims and then just disappeared.
Good lord, you mean there are people who don’t sit in front of a PC all day, banging away on blogs!?
Maybe if the rest of us actually got paid for this . . .
August 7th, 2008 at 8:49 pmwhat is this based on some basic research bullshit. I noted the location of many of these lease last night when you challenged others to tell you where they are. You are just entirely full of shit and not even amusing enough to bother to tinker with…
August 7th, 2008 at 9:17 pmNot sure where you’re getting me “yelling” about anything. Obie.
I notice that, rather than search the statute and come back with the relevant section that proves your point, you’ve tried to make this about me.
Again, curious.
Personally, when I have a good point to make and someone disputes it, I really enjoy finding solid evidence and presenting it triumphantly, in context and with a link.
But that’s me…
August 7th, 2008 at 10:50 pmWhat the heck? Isn’t this guy a fugitive from justice? What’s he doing polluting the airwaves with his filthy amoral criminal presence? Why isn’t someone slapping the cuffs on him on the spot?
August 7th, 2008 at 11:16 pmI didn’t make a claim that required a link.
When I do, I link, and quote.
But this isn’t about me. I know you’d like it to be, but it isn’t. It’s about you and your willingness to copy-and=paste a portion of a statute that doesn’t say what you claim it says, and your strange unwillingness to go back to the same statute and copy-and-paste the section that would prove that the claim you made over six hours ago isn’t a crock of shit.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:20 pmAny lease … shall be subject to cancellation by the Secretary of the Interior after 30 days notice upon failure of the lessee to comply with any of the provisions of the lease….”
And those provisions are…?
Jeezus, it’s like pulling teeth with you. I finally get you to copy a section that at least mentions “cancellation”, but you still haven’t shown where a lease can be cancelled for failure to drill, which was your contention.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:53 pmStill not worth a tinker’s damn
August 8th, 2008 at 12:00 amobamagr8 Says:
I can see you’re going BIG on the McBush point system - if you’re lucky, you’ll get a lifesized inflatable McBush, complete with a rohypnol and a condom.
“It’s like a dream come true…”
August 8th, 2008 at 12:17 am… and once again, more proof that McBush supporters actually are vastly dumber than him.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:18 amNo, you’re not beginning to see the problem. You’re still trying to pass off a provision for extension of a lease as a provision for a termination of a lease.
Nowhere in any of the materials you have copied is there any mention of the specific provisions for canceling a lease.
Whenever the lessee fails to comply with any of the provisions of the law, — this can mean almost anything: fraud. Failure to pay royalties due. Some kind of sub-lease that may not be allowed by the primary lease. No provision like this is described in the language you have presented, Obie. Nothing.
Then you’re trying to get away with confusing a provision for extending a lease with a provision for canceling a lease.
It’s not working for you, son. It’s really not working for you.
In a way, I hope you are being dishonest and trying to put something over on us. At least that would mean you’re clever enough to know what’s going on. The alternative is too sad to think about. I’d hate to think of you sitting at home, getting more and more frustrated because you can understand why no one buys your story, and you can’t even understand our explanations why we don’t buy it.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:39 am‘Night all.
Good luck, Obie.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:41 amWe’ve just posted ringtone-ready audio from this interview over at Entertonement.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:32 amIt’s not worth going through the steps to find out if he is wrong. If he says something is “simply wrong”, you can always assume that he’s lying . . . a lying turd blossom. Why this man is given the time of day to express his opinion is beyond me. We used to have kind of a built in unstated method of handling these criminal retards. We basically withdrew all “social” support for these hideous people, and they usually just withered on the vine and permanantly dropped out of sight. It always seemed like a good system . . . and it usually was . . . then Fox came along.
August 8th, 2008 at 7:56 pm