Thread: Congress on oil, the facts.

AN interesting little article sent to me:



The Imperative Of Developing Natural Resources
By Paul M. Weyrich
June 18, 2008
The year was 1967. I was on a private aircraft belonging to an oil company with my boss, the late Senator Gordon L. Allott (R-CO). We were flying to Oklahoma City, where Allott was to address the state GOP Convention. An oil company executive asked me if ever I had seen oil shale. I said I had not. Whereupon he picked up a piece, took out his cigarette lighter, and lit the piece. It burned like high grade coal. The oil company man proceeded to tell me that if oil ever reached $30 a barrel it would be profitable to develop oil shale. Even with inflation oil has exceeded that price so why ar en't w e developing the trillions of barrels of oil-shale reserves. There is a one word answer to that question: Congress.
I receive mail from folks who tell me they don't vote because there is no difference between the political parties. In some ways they are correct but not when it comes to energy. Representative Roy Blunt (R-MO), House minority whip, has presented his colleagues with data which clearly makes the case that in terms of developing oil and natural gas there is a profound difference between the parties, at least in the House of Representatives.
Blunt's figures show that for the past 14 years 91% of House Republicans voted to develop oil at ANWR while 86% of Democrats opposed drilling there. In the conversion of coal to liquid category 97% of House Republicans supported the concept while 78% of Democrats opposed it. Regarding the development of oil shale in Colorado and Utah the level of support among House Republicans was 90% while the level of opposition to the devel opment of oil shale among Democrats was 86%.
When it comes to oil exploration for the Outer Continental Shelf 81% of Republican House Members said yes while 83% of Democrats said no. And look at this figure: 97% of House Republicans want to increase refinery capacity while 96% of Democrats said, no way. Historically, Blunt said, 91% of Republicans have favored development of oil and gas reserves while 86% of Democrats historically have been against oil and gas exploration and development.
Blunt's staff also compared the plans of each of the parties to deal with the skyrocketing price of gasoline. The Democratic plan includes seven investigations of price-gouging, four investigations of speculators, suing OPEC, $20 billion in new taxes against the oil companies. None of these would reduce the cost of gasoline. The only item in their plan which would do so is to stop the oil going to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That would lower the cost of a gallon of gasoline by 5 c ents T he Republican plan would develop oil in the Continental Shelf and develop it deep in the sea. It would develop oil shale, and it would abolish earmarks to pay for the Federal gas tax holiday. Republicans and Democrats agree on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Taken together these items would reduce the cost of a gallon of gasoline by at least $1.95 and maybe a lot more depending on the productivity of each of the development projects.
What many of us wonder is this: When will the people of the United States say enough is enough and demand of their elected representatives that we develop our own resources? If we did we would not need to import one drop of oil from these ruthless dictators who would like to see us defeated or dead. I love the pristine beauty of nature, too. But we have made so many strides in new technology that we do not have to ruin the environment to explore and develop oil and gas. $4 a gallon doesn't yet seem high enough for a public revolt. What will d o it? $5 a gallon? How about $8 to $11, which is what some Europeans are paying already. I hope and pray the revolt comes before it is too late.

Thanks Tim!! Rather enlightening, but, if I say what is enlightening I am sure to offend someone! It seems plain enough for anyone to understand the meaning of the article!...I hope!?

If it's that profitable it sounds to me that the Oil industry just has two options: (1) wait until the republicans take over the congress or (2) reverse its distribution of their donations between the two parties.
Either approach should work and they appear to have lacked some foresight last time the republicans had a majority - the price was just around $30/barrel adjusted for inflation. Since they preferred to play it absolutely safe and wait till it was clear that the prices are up there to stay they will now have to work a bit harder to get it to come.

It's never too late - the american shale ain't going anywhere. The only risk is that some other source of energy can become cheaper and more desirable in the meanwhile, so if the Oil industry doesn't have X years in which they can explore shale w/o much competition from other energy sources they won't bother building the infrastructure to start with.

Originally Posted by gugi

If it's that profitable it sounds to me that the Oil industry just has two options: (1) wait until the republicans take over the congress or (2) reverse its distribution of their donations between the two parties.

Or, they could just continue to rake in record profits by leaving things as is.

Hope springs eternal Tim!


Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never Is, but always To be blest:
The soul, uneasy and confin'd from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.

-Alexander Pope,
An Essay on Man, Epistle I, 1733

FWIW things are remaining As-Is because of government regulation, not because of a lack of interest on the part of oil companies, IMHO. They cannot develop the other resources until they are allowed to. Meanwhile, these other technologies out there are proceeding far too slowly, IMHO. They need to pick up the pace. The US oil companies aren't doing near so well enough (many of the familiar names aren't even US owned anymore) to spend their hard earned profits on failed or competing technologies. Those other technologies and their proponents need to do their own work and earn their own pay. When that happens I think we'll have plenty of options, at least so long as the politics stay out of it.

John P.

Just about a month ago we stopped adding to the SPR. If I recall we aren't going to add until at least october.

What was not mentioned here is that the republicans have time and again voted for these projects because in the end they will further enrich the profits of the oil companies and all of these energy sources in one way or another are devastating to the environment. Ever see an oil shale operation? It makes strip mining coal look like digging a small duck pond in your back yard. Converting coal to oil? A very dirty operation. That's why the democrats have opposed these things.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

What was not mentioned here is that the republicans have time and again voted for these projects because in the end they will further enrich the profits of the oil companies and all of these energy sources in one way or another are devastating to the environment. Ever see an oil shale operation? It makes strip mining coal look like digging a small duck pond in your back yard. Converting coal to oil? A very dirty operation. That's why the democrats have opposed these things.

Actually, I've not seen an oil shale operation. Got a link to an American one?

Personally, whether you blame Republicans or Democrats or others, we're all in this together. Question is do we accept slavery to those who we buy our oil from currently, or do we begin producing our own again. I don't know about others here, but I don't want MY grandmother to freeze to death this winter, whether or not a mine is an eyesore to somebody. Of course I may have this wrong to a point, but much of the stuff people are saying (it will take 10 years, etc) hasn't been shown to be true so much as a mantra repeated time and again. I would blame those same people in 10 years for choosing to do nothing, today.
Just my thoughts. Looking forwards to those pics Bill

John P.

Here is more info than a person could want about shale ans oil sands

also, they would seem to know their stuff

Econbrowser: Oil shale retort