Obama Issues Statement On Offshore Drilling

Hmm.

Obama Slams McCain Over Offshore Drilling Proposal

“John McCain’s support of the moratorium on offshore drilling during his first presidential campaign was certainly laudable, but his decision to completely change his position and tell a group of Houston oil executives exactly what they wanted to hear today was the same Washington politics that has prevented us from achieving energy independence for decades,” Obama said.

“Opening our coastlines to offshore drilling would take at least a decade to produce any oil at all, and the effect on gasoline prices would be negligible at best since America only has 3 percent of the world’s oil,” Obama said in a statement that did not explicitly distinguish between oil and gas drilling.

Oops, sorry ... that was, uh ... June. Um ... let's see here. How about July:

Obama defended his opposition to expanded offshore oil drilling, saying it wouldn’t provide “short-term relief or medium-term relief or, in fact, long-term relief.”

“Now, although it won’t save you dollars at the pump, I have to say that it has helped raise campaign dollars,” he added.

Geesh, I'm sorry. What am I thinking? It's August and his poll numbers aren't exactly gushing ... the way an offshore oil well might. Ah, here we go. August:

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling....

Firm leadership with the courage to make the tough decisions, stick to them, all wrapped-up in a new kind of politics ... yep, that's our man. And he'll be your man next month if you want a different position, because Obama is fast becoming a man you can trust ... for change.

Comments

[moldy]

After reading just your quotes in the post it does seem that Obama is flip flopping. However, after reading the 3 articles, it seems clear that he is still opposed to offshore drilling.

I think the confusion is between where he stands on the issue versus what he is willing to concede in order to pass law that he believes in.

The full article explains that he is opposed to offshore drilling but would support limited drilling in exchange for the repealing of tax breaks to oil companies. The monies from this would go to alternative energy research and development.

One might not agree with his position on energy. It might turn out to be the wrong position on energy. But it doesn't seem as if this position has changed.

[Ted]

"But it doesn't seem as if this position has changed."

"Opening our coastlines to offshore drilling would take at least a decade to produce any oil at all, and the effect on gasoline prices would be negligible at best."

"...Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling..."

Yep. Seems consistent to me, too.

Here. Have some more Kool-Aid.

[moldy]

Hi Ted,

If you consider only this part of the quote, then I can understand your frusteration.

"Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling ..."

However, the full sentence from the article reads as follows:

"Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources."

And when you read the entire article, it expands on this quote and explains that he would support limited drilling only to solve gridlock between Democrats and Republicans on energy issues.

His position is to be against offshore drilling, but is willing to compromise to move forward with what he feels is the more important issue - alternate energy.

[Fred Beloit]

Helllloooowww, moldy. How would you like to see some really creepy posters reminiscent of Joe Stalin, Ho, Mao, and Hitler?
http://www.coolhunting.com/archives/2008/01/shepard_fairey.php

When this man can bring race into a presidential campaign and get the other guy blamed for it, we are entering the land of the cult. Stop thinking, start adoring. Not that Obama doesn't say "we" (himself and people like you) will change the world together, but I blame his followers (like that word?) and this Fairey for such mindless posters and twisting of the truth.

[Worst President Ever]

Before we start drilling, maybe we ought to quit shipping oil / gas overseas.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"Before we start drilling, maybe we ought to quit shipping oil / gas overseas."

Now there's an idea.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"some really creepy posters"

Fred, I've got one of Che that looks just like those.

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

Um, his position hasn't changed. The only change is in his willingness to compromise on the issue if that's what it takes to move forward on what he would like to implement.

I mean, I know it takes reading the entire statement and all....

On the other hand, it's sad to see that he's buckling to yet another GOP scam to funnel money to the oil industry at the expense of the public.

[Fred Beloit]

From Worst: "Um, his position hasn't changed. The only change is in his willingness to compromise on the issue if that's what it takes to move forward on what he would like to implement."

Many of Worst's statements need to be translated into English. I love to oblige.
"His position hasn't changed. The only change is his willingness to change his position if the opposition will agree to give one of his big money donors a lollipop."

[Fred Beloit]

Try another: ""Before we start drilling, maybe we ought to quit shipping oil / gas overseas."

Translation "I will do and say anything to help delay the drilling and cover for Pelosi's stubborn and stupid resistance to recognizing the obvious need for drilling."

[Fred Beloit]

Hahaha, Wahoo, do you display Che on your wall or keep it in a secure place in hopes that the poster will increase in value when the world has audaciously changed into a place where murderers are admired, prized and respected, as promised by Uno's more rabid followers.
You must remember those two fun-loving kids unfairly arrested for having a few fire works in their car. One of them has coped a plea that could get him 15 years and a $25K fine. I remember how the resident troolls defended them and decried their false arrest.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/13/goose-creek-two-suspects-pleads-guilty/

[WAHOO WILLIE]

Fred: The poster is a keepsake from another time and place. He's rolled up in his original shipping tube, in a cool, dry place.

[Fred Beloit]

Don't get mad at me, Wahoo, I was only teasing.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

Au contraire mon ami

[Worst President Ever]

Thanks Willie - glad you support me

"A record 1.6 million barrels a day in U.S. refined petroleum products were exported during the first four months of this year, up 33 percent from 1.2 million barrels a day over the same period in 2007. Shipments this February topped 1.8 million barrels a day for the first time during any month, according to final numbers from the Energy Department.

The surge in exports appears to contradict the pleas from the U.S. oil industry and the Bush administration for Congress to open more offshore waters and Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling"

http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/07/03/2008-07-03T184028Z_01_N02435397_RTRIDST_0_USA-OIL-EXPORTS-ANALYSIS.html

[PA]

"Before we start drilling, maybe we ought to quit shipping oil / gas overseas."

Its cheaper to send Alaskan oil to Japan than it is to send it to Omaha. We export it because it makes economic sense to. Chavez can send a barrel of oil to Omaha less expensively than Alaska.

[Worst President Ever]

The article is about refined petroleum not Alaskan crude.

[Spartan112]

Yup leave it to conservatives to point at a guy changing his position while he really hasn't in defense of a guy that actually has changed his position...

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"Its cheaper to send Alaskan oil to Japan than it is to send it to Omaha."

Using that logic negates the need to drill in anwar.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"Yup leave it to conservatives to point at a guy changing his position while he really hasn't in defense of a guy that actually has changed his position..."

I guess it depends upon what the definition of 'is' is........

[seekeronos]

"--- Before we start drilling, maybe we ought to quit shipping oil / gas overseas. ---"

And that is about the most true thing I have ever read WPE write here.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

Seeker: WPE did make some sense until I read his link and decided some questions need to be answered. Does not mean I now disagree, just means I want more info. A sample? The article states that some of the diesel cannot meet US air quality standards....So does this mean we can't merely refine it further....or is it that we cant refine it enough? Is the oil that chavez sends us to refine part of these export numbers, or is it soley our own?

Did you check your tires today?

[PA]

"Using that logic negates the need to drill in anwar."

How so? ANWR oil puts more on the global market. More on the global market affects world supply. The "price of oil" is driven by the price of the last barrel necessary to meet demand.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"How so?"

PA dont get me wrong here, I'm for poking holes just about anywhere. Your post implied that the oil in and of itself was useless to lower 48 refineries and by extension to American consumers. You were not clear that exporting it "fuels" global markets, the old supply and demand thing. I still say that the more we keep of our own, the better off we are. Look at the exporters who sell their own stuff at home for penneys.....But then I think it's wrong to hire Hadji in Land o' Stan to do a job that Phyllis from Philly can do.

[Worst President Ever]

To put the 1.6 million barrels exported per day in perspective, we pump somewhere around 700,000 barrels of crude a day out of Alaska. So it's over twice the production we get out of Alaska per day. Plus, it's refined rather than crude.

I'm sure some of it doesn't meet US standards, so can't be used. But there's got to be a big chunk of it that does meet US standards. Also, there's been a huge jump - 33% - in barrels exported over the last year.

I'm curious whether keeping that refined product here rather than exporting it would drive down prices. And whether the oil companies are trying to game the system ala Enron or not. It's also a bit curious that when we've been told ad nauseum that we need new refineries, but apparently have enough to process enough oil that we can literally expert millions of barrels a day.

Yeah, I don't trust Big Oil.

[templar knight]

I know it's difficult for liberals to understand economics, but let's give it a try. We get PAID for the oil products we export, and can use that money to PAY for oil products we import. See how that works. If we did not have that production to export, then we would get nothing, but would still have to pay for our imports, which would put us in a deficit. The fact that we can ship oil products to some places more efficiently should make liberals happy, since we are using less resources for transportation. For instance, it saves energy to sell Alaskan oil products to Japan rather than having to transport it to the Gulf Coast. And I know all liberals want to save resources, right?

The simple fact of the matter is that liberals are just against oil production in any form, and use voodoo economic theories to try to fool people. Don't fall for liberal tricks. Every barrel of crude we produce is a barrel we either receive money for, or don't have to import. The net effect is exactly the same as if we used the oil domestically.

[Scrapiron]

Hussein O doesn't like to make any decisions, much less tough decisions. His world record of voting 'here' to avoid simple decisions shows his lack of decision making skills.

[Thomas Jackson]

The more I hear of Obama the more creepy the man becomes. If we elect this communist. then the American people deserve what they get.

What is worse than the two idiot candidates is our media. Rather than examining their positions and forcing the candidates to make clear statements we get the usual fluff. Anyone voting for Obama needs help because his positions are the stuff of cotton candy. McCain is just as bad because he flip flops, not as much as the Dalibama, but enough so you can't trust him on many issues.

I'll not vote for either of these two clowns.

[PA]

"It's also a bit curious that when we've been told ad nauseum that we need new refineries, but apparently have enough to process enough oil that we can literally expert millions of barrels a day."

Keep it here and you tighten world supply and drive up world market prices. There simply is no fungible difference between keeping it here and sending it elsewhere when a barrel going out of the west coast is replaced by one coming in on the east coast. All you have done is reduce worldwide shipping costs by supplying locales with product that is physically closer.

Are you a moron by any chance?

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"I know it's difficult for liberals to understand economics...."

TK I'm hardly a liberal but I'm somewhat confused myself. How is it better to pay BP for Saudi oil which just because of logistics HAS to be more expensive than paying Texaco for Louisiana oil? I mean for me when I pull up to the pump......hell why is it better to send the Saudis 129.00 rather than giving Texicans 129.00. Now I've liked most Texicans I ever met (jury is now out on DaLLama) and never met a Saudi. SO help me understand how this works.

[Fred Beloit]

In another thread Moe wrote:

"Does the guy in El Paso support off-shore drilling? Sure. Does the guy in Kansas? Why not. How about the guy with a patio overlooking prime drilling ocean water in flip-state Florida? I somehow doubt it."

But as usual Moe and his fav Lefty magazine Newsweek seem to have it wrong again. The majority of Floridians want drilling:

Does the guy in El Paso support off-shore drilling? Sure. Does the guy in Kansas? Why not. How about the guy with a patio overlooking prime drilling ocean water in flip-state Florida? I somehow doubt it.

"

[Fred Beloit]

"Poll finds most Florida voters
are in favor of offshore drilling
"Sun-Sentinel [Fort Lauderdale, FL], by Anthony Man
Original Article
Posted By:FLgator, 8/3/2008 9:43:48 AM

Democrats vilified Republican presidential candidate John McCain when he came out in support of offshore drilling in June. And when Gov. Charlie Crist backed away from his long-standing opposition, critics accused him of sacrificing Florida's interests to curry favor with McCain. A new poll shows most Florida voters think McCain and Crist are right on the issue.

[templar knight]

Willie, to use your example, the Texican gets paid for his oil when the oil is produced, and the company(Texaco) then owns the oil. They may have it refined locally, or they may need to ship it elsewhere, but the Texican has been paid. When you buy gasoline, I doubt there is any way to know who produced the oil that went into the refined product, other than buying at Citgo, which is owned by the nation of Venezuela.

As an aside, I believe that petroleum product exports to Mexico and Canada went up due to the fact that thousands of Americans are crossing the borders with Mexico and Canada to buy their gasoline, which has put refiners in those two countries facing a shortfall in products. The US was left with a surplus, which was exported to these two countries. I really don't know this, just an educated guess.

[seekeronos]

"--- For instance, it saves energy to sell Alaskan oil products to Japan rather than having to transport it to the Gulf Coast. ---"

There are a few good points to this:

First, Japan is one of our strategic allies: it is better that they source the oil we sell them than for them to look elsewhere for it, such as Iran.

Second, the distances involved can be a bit deceiving. From the Port of Valdez in Alaska to Yokohama in Japan (arbitrarily selected with no other reason than it is a known port handling oil) is 4,060mi. (3,535 naut. mi. or 6550km).

The distance from the Port of Valdez, AK to Port Fourchon, LA by transiting through the Panama Canal is approximately 7,945mi. (6900 naut. mi. or 12,790km).

Now the distance from Port Valdez to any particular port in California is probably shorter by sea, but then you have to account for schlepping the crude by rail or by truck (which decreases the fuel efficiency factor quite a bit - a 700,000 tonne tanker can move oil much more cheaply per mile than 70 train trips bearing 10,000 tonnes of oil cars, or 70,000 oil tanker trucks bearing 10 tonnes each of crude zipping down the I-10 to the refineries in the Gulf Coast).

It is the same sort of a thought exercise as to why an SUV packed with eight people going to the Ron Paul "Rally for the Republic" convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul is actually cheaper than four Priuses (Prii?) making the same trip from the same point of origin (arbitrarily, some point 1,500mi. away).

The SUV will gobble up 15mpg (or use about 100gal.) and the Priuses will average around 50mpg each (30gal. each, for a total of 120gal) but per person, when it comes time to pay at the pump ($4.20/gal) the folks in the SUV are splitting $420 eight ways ($52.50 each) versus the environmentally nicer Priuses, with two occupants in all four cars splitting their $504 bill at $63 each.

It may only be a $10 lunch saved per person in the SUV, but you get the idea -- and it certainly scales up, which is why most people will fly from NY to LA instead of shelling out even more hellacious amounts of time, money, and frustration driving that same distance (even if they must put up with power-tripping TSA employees with all of the graces of the *Vogons*, or perhaps the *Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts of Traal* if particularly irate).

*gratuitous Douglas Adams references :P