American Elephants

Hey America! How much more convincing do you need? by Emerald City Elephant

Democrats WON’T ALLOW more drilling

…because they DON’T WANT you to be able to afford gas!!!

If you want affordable transportation any time this decade, or next — if you want electricity to remain affordable — you damn well better vote Republican this fall. They are the only party that is in favor of increasing all our domestic energy supplies.

10 Comments so far
Leave a comment

I am asking this question in all seriousness, and would love your insight into this matter. How, exactly, does allowing more drilling, which won’t increase production for at least a couple years, cause gas prices to decline? It would not increase the supply, nor would it decrease demand, which are the only things that should cause substantive shifts in current fuel prices. Thanks.


Comment by gaj

It may not effect prices much for several years, but then again, Republicans have been trying to increase energy supplies, and have been vetoed and filibustered at every turn, since at least the 1990s. And now we are in very serious economic trouble because of it. And that economic trouble is only going to worsen.

The sooner we increase the supply, the better.

There is some evidence however, that simply clearing the way to drilling may help bring the price down some. When President Bush rescinded the executive order banning offshore drilling, the price of oil dropped $10 a barrel initially the next day, ending up I think at $6.44 less. Part of that was due to just showing oil speculators that we are serious about increasing supply, even though congress had not yet repealed it’s ban.

But even if it doesn’t have that immediate effect, the sooner we increase the supply, the better.

And contrary to Democrats unrealistic pipe dreams, we are not going to replace oil with another energy source any time soon. Especially if they continue blocking Nuclear energy, which is the next most viable alternative.

Not only are none of the other energy sources capable of replacing gasoline at a price Americans are willing to pay, or a price less than gasoline any time in the foreseeable future, but taking gasoline off the table, as Democrats want to do, will simply have the effect of making all other energy sources more expensive. That is, removing a large chunk of the over-all energy supply will force demand for the other energies up and increase prices with them.

As I said, Democrats have forced us into this situation, and it’s a very bad one indeed. But the sooner we increase the supply, the better. I just fear for what is going to happen to our economy in the mean time.

Of course, there is your silver lining. The more it harms the economy, the more prices will go down. But try explaining that to the people who lose their jobs.


Comment by American Elephant

[…] any time this decade, or next — if you want electricity to remain affordable … read more | digg […]


Pingback by Dodgeblogium » Hey America! How much more convincing do you need?

Thanks for the response…although I’m not a Democrat, I do think we need to be a little more pro-active about getting off the big oil train. That said, I like to understand both sides of the issue. I think there needs to be more dialogue on this situation and fewer blanket assertions by both sides in the halls of power (although there also needs to be some action). There was an interesting reference in the Washington Post from Sunday that included the following quote regarding opening coastal areas for exploration/drilling: ‘But developing those resources would take time. A report last year by the Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration said that “access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017.” It added, “Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.”‘ I offer that in the spirit of discussion, not arguement. Thanks again for your response!


Comment by gaj

Youve been very pleasant and I appreciate it. I would be very interested in seeing a link to that article so I can check it and the report out for myself. I have learned through experience that the WaPo can be very manipulative with facts.

But I agree with you that something needs to be done. But what history has taught me is that the same free-market that brought us oil, coal, natural gas, hydrothermal, geothermal, wind, solar, nuclear and every other energy source ever used by mankind will be the best, most efficient and cheapest way to usher in the next energy source.

And history has also taught me that entrusting this decision to the same government that subsidized biofuel causing a worldwide food shortage, price hikes, riots and hunger, is the worst possible way to decide what our energy future will be.

Which is why I believe the best thing we can do is to get congress to stop blocking the free market from working.


Comment by American Elephant

Until common sense is a requirement for holding office, I’m not seeing any fast solutions to this problem.

Trying to relocate the original source of that quote (which for some reason I didn’t bookmark), and will forward it along when I do find it. The EIA site, at, is a great reference on energy facts; if only all government web sites were this helpful.


Comment by gaj

Gaj, in addition to the examples cited above, the prospect of an increased future supply will curtail some of the speculation that may be driving oil higher. If there is a belief that the future supply of oil will be greater, speculators will not be willing to buy oil at such a high price, bringing oil down now.

Also note that production off of California’s coast would likely come online much quicker than the 7-10 years that Sen. Obama quotes. These areas were explored and have drilling platforms in place from before the moratorium…thus, they are just sitting and waiting.

Regardless, we will not be oil-free in 7-10 years, so it makes sense to pursue strategies that protect our future energy interests as well as our current, in my opinion.


Comment by The Gentle Cricket

Gaj wrote about “blanket assertons.” I understand his point, but sometimes “blanket assertions” are true.

For example, if my son keeps running into a low-hanging beam, I can blanketly say, “If you duck, you won’t hit your head anymore.”

I can assert with much confidence that the more of a product there is on the market, the lower the price will be. Of course, I would have even more confidence of that assertion if we had free markets in the United States.

Yes, even though it is a blanket statement, it is nevertheless true that more oil will probably result in lower prices. Even Nancy Pelosi realizes it, for she recently asked the President to release some of our national emergency petroleum reserves.

The mantra that it will take years before new drilling will lower prices doesn’t make any sense as an excuse not to do it. Saying that a solution will take time to work, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t implement it. In fact, it means you should implement it as soon as possible. (In fact, we would have domestic oil on the market right now, if the Republicans had had their way.)


Comment by renaissanceguy

Finally found the link to the Energy Information Administration report regarding offshore drilling and gas/oil prices…if anyone still cares, here it is:


Comment by gaj

The prospect of being allowed to drill for our own oil alone is enough to drop prices. If fully cleared through congress, it opens up the idea of competition instead of an OPEC based supply system. Competition will increase affordability while in the process of gaining the actual supply side of things. We have done things of this nature before. A few decades back we started a serious search for alternative energy sources. When it appeared that America was on track to actually reduce dependency on OPEC’s oil by a serious percentage, OPEC negotiated their prices back below $40/barrel..the competing price barrier at that time. Unfortunately, oncce oil was once again affordable, we abandoned our initiatives toward alternative energy. With oil at such a high price again, we should get more serious about finding these solutions again, and this time stick with them. In the meantime, we work to produce our own natural resources as energy for America.


Comment by Mike Lovell

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: