Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
05.14.2008 10:55 am

At what prices do the Democrats open the oil fields?

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

We are in the middle of a economic crises because of the price of oil and gas. However, U.S. energy policies are outdated and have stopped the American economy cold. These outdated leftist policies have succeeded in making energy cost more than we can afford. Americans don’t need more regulations from Washington. America needs more oil supply and more refinery capacity. The only place that we can’t get oil is from all our domestic sources. If you feel that gas is too high, please thank the Democratic environmental energy policies that have overwhelmed the American economy.

We as a nation are at a crossroads. Should we continue to pay higher and higher prices at the pump? Will we import oil from terrorist countries and watch the American economy go into a deep recession. Or should we make a decision to open domestic oil fields and build more refineries? That would provide Americans with more oil in the market, lower prices and add high paying, long term employment. The Democrats answer is their recent legislation to ban oil drilling in Alaska permanently. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6236367.stm It would seem the Democrats have decided the American voters want higher energy prices with no chance for higher quality employment, especially in Alaska. With world wide consumption levels higher than production levels by approximately 5 million barrels a day.* http://www.saudinf.com/main/z001.htm Americans can expect the oil price to continue to rise. When the Democrats won the election in 2006, the price for a barrel of oil was at the $58 mark. The left’s stranglehold on the domestic oil supply is troubling indeed. The Democrats are forcing America to buy oil from terrorist states.

The Democrats have refused to open domestic oil fields to support the voters and the American economy. When the left took over in the fall of 2006 the price for a barrel of oil was $58. At this time a barrel of crude oil is $124. The Democrats will wait for $130, $150,$180 or even $200 per barrel. Something to consider with each of these marks is, will the economy crumble further at $150 to $200 per barrel. I don’t need to guess the answer. Just like every reader knows, the economy will be in ruins. Americans that haven’t got financial problems now will have them in the future with energy prices rising more by the day.

Something else to consider, is when we open domestic oil fields off shore, in Alaska and every place available, many high paying, long term jobs will help the America family and every business. I believe that these new jobs will have a stabilizing effect on the economy and starve off further economic problems. Most importantly, this a great opportunity to rebuild and develop all of America’s infrastructure. The infrastructure of America needs to be upgraded and expanded as it is. These new jobs would move this country into the 21st century and include oil field workers, refinery workers, and construction workers of all kinds. Iron workers, carpenters, pipe fitters, electricians, millwrights, laborers, painters, all the technical workers, office workers and engineers will be needed for America’s growth. This opportunity will offer high paying long term jobs to a generation of the American working men and women.

Again I ask, at what price do the Democrats open the oil fields?

Mike Moseley

Staunton

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (3 votes, average: 3.67 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...
68 comments

Comments are closed.

Mike-Right on. Watch out for the crazies.

— JD
11:08 am May 14th, 2008

What I want to know is, with ALL the technology out there why can’t we be oil and gas free already?

We can land on the moon, transplant hearts but can’t make a car that just runs on batteries?

We need to forget about growing corn for fuel and concentrate on being completely gas free!

— Lee
11:24 am May 14th, 2008

“At what prices do the Democrats open the oil fields?”
Mike Moseley
Staunton

the question that should be asked…
at what porfit margin do the oil companies build refineries?

— llbean
11:28 am May 14th, 2008

You’re gonna have to try harder than that to convince me the Save the Spectacled Eider Society has more power than the oil companies do.

— slamfist
11:38 am May 14th, 2008

The oil/energy companies are extremely satisfied with the status quo, as are their shareholders. The largest corporate profits in the history of the world should be all the assistance oil companies need to run their businesses. No suplemental tax breaks or sweet low royalty deals are necessary. The oil companies have had free reign of the White House for 8 years. For now, there is actually no shortage in oil supply worldwide. High prices are due to submaximal production by OPEC countries, rampant speculation, and conscious decisions by some oil companies to limit readily available reserves (resulting in price spikes & surges when transportation, pipeline, or refinery issues arise). What we desperately need is a long term plan to reduce consumption. All of our recoverable reserves, including Mr. Mosely’s back yard & favorite fishing hole (do you want oil rigs there?) will only supply us for a few years. For many reasons, we simply need to use less.

p.s. Wait until you see natural gas prices next winter!!

— mombo
12:13 pm May 14th, 2008

What letter writers like this one seem to keep forgetting is that the US does not a have a state-owned oil company. You are essentially opening valuable government (read: the people’s) land to private corporations.

ExxonMobile has no obligation to sell that oil to you. They’ll sell it to whomever offers the most money on the open energy market. Right now, that’s China. Why take fewer, less valuable US dollars when they can profit elsewhere? So all you “Open ANWR” nutcases need to think about how the market’s gonna operate before you just give that land over to private holding companies.

I won’t even get started on the fact that our own DOE and USGS estimate, at best, only a six-month supply of oil from ANWR…

— mike (not moseley)
12:21 pm May 14th, 2008

How pathetically funny Mr. Moseley….And I foolishly assumed America’s current [Bush] economy was due to a $3 trillion dollar war in Iraq (and counting)… or the cascade of thousands of mortgage defaults promulgated by Republican open free-markets and Federal Researve banking procedures totally devoid of regulations and oversight…or a national debt that has grown 70% in the last 4 years….or a record $850 billion dollar trade deficit….or that 30% of our tax revenues go to pay off the interest on Bush’s annual budget deficits….or a tax code hideously biased in favor of the rich….or that real wages have remained stagnate under Bush while prices have soared along with corporate profits.

Remeber the presidential debates in 2000 between Al Gore and George Bush, and how the two men were going to spend America’s (Clinton’s) $2.2 trillion budget surplus? Gore promised to invest in renewable energies and key domestic programs….Bush promised a tax-cut that allowed the bottom 20% to receive $45 while those making over $1 million got $162,000…

The rest of Clinton’s surplus Bush decided to give away in tax-subsidies to oil companies and no-bid defense contracts to Halliburton and Co……

Now, Mr. Moseley wants us to believe the Bush economy is due to the Democrats not wanting to drill in Alaska….Funny stuff. Nice try.

PS…The Republicans in Congress and Bush controlled Washington for 6 years. Maybe they should have done something about the looming oil crises when they were in power…Naaaaa. Heckuva Job!

— Garrison
12:56 pm May 14th, 2008

Garrison

You are still and idiot. The truth must be killing you.

— TB
1:15 pm May 14th, 2008

The writer seems to assume that the domestic oil reserves will last forever so the refinery workers will stay employed,unlike many of our domestic autoworkers. Most of the estimates I’ve seen are to the contrary.Many of the other new jobs he mentions would also apply to the development of sustainable renewable energy technologies.To keep endorsing domestic drilling as a cure-all for America’s energy woes without major investments in alternative energy is incredibly short-sighted.From a purely economic standpoint,never mind the environmental concerns,it doesn’t make sense.

I am also curious if anyone here has ever heard of Smedley Butler.He was a Major General in the early 1900’s who delivered a speech in 1933 that basically said war is a racket conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.He said the only things we should fight for is the defense of our homes and the Bill of Rights.He alleged that even then the government used the military to protect big business interests abroad.I found it quite interesting.Some things never change,especially politics.

— going green in caseyville
1:35 pm May 14th, 2008

There is no silver bullet to solve the energy situation. Increased domestic production is not a permanent solution, but it is a start. Conservation is not a permanent solution, but it is a start. Nuclear, wind, solar, and renewable sources are not permanent solutions, but they are a start. All can be done in moderation without destroying the environment, crippling the economy, or creating worse problems. Ethanol can be produced from switchgrass nine times as efficiently as from corn. But, the agri-lobby wants to promote corn for self serving reasons. The demagogues on all sides are preventing progress in an effort to validate their own ideologies.

— Bb
2:54 pm May 14th, 2008

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Show All