Oil Industry Cheers McCain's Energy Policies

The oil industry generally approved Tuesday as Republican presidential candidate John McCain charted his policies on energy with a speech in Houston that jabbed the Bush administration, Democratic foe Barack Obama, Wall Street and oil-rich foreign regimes.

McCain said the federal government should ease regulations on offshore oil drilling and refinery construction and expand the use of nuclear energy, but press for eventual reliance on alternate energy sources such as wind and sunlight.

The Arizona senator also was here for a campaign fundraising event that was said to net about $2 million at the chateau-style home of restaurant executive Tilman Fertitta in River Oaks. There, after the energy talk, portable chillers on the lawn blew cold air as some supporters sweltered in the heat for 30 minutes to have their photo taken with the candidate. A dinner to raise more money for McCain was held at a home owned by Houston investor Fayez Sarofim.

Read full story here.

Watch McCain's speech in Houston.

Comments

[Birdman]

Oil Industry Cheers McCain's Energy Policies

Of course they do, see it is like this, the cost to get oil out of the ground is about 30 dollars a barrel the more they can pump the more profit the oil company can make that is until the price comes down which it won' t because of other factors. Makes you wonder though who is McCain working for? Us or the oil barons.

[kellygrrrl]

gee! I wonder why Fox and Rush aren't telling their viewers about this.

is it possible that even the ReThug voters might be a little "turned off" by this news?

[kellygrrrl]

safe to assume the Oil Giants are not going down without a fight

this is going to be very nasty

[gladys46]

No Sh$t!!?

[KillTheMessenger]

There is an interesting piece of news this morning. China is raising fuel and electricity prices. Which makes me conclude that China gets it. It's demand, stupid. The oil market followed by falling a couple of dollars. It will be interesting to see what will happen over the next few years. I have a strong feeling China will follow up on this and keep increasing prices until a healthy energy market develops which has a sustainable efficiency. If only the US would be this smart...

[WIpatriot]

Notice the lack of "free market economics" in China? Nope, the US is not so smart.

[ajax2]

Oil Industry Writes McCain's Energy Policies

[WIpatriot]

...and they have a hand up his backside moving his mouth. He's a puppet, just like W.

[LexLuthier]

For more than thirty years now I have watched as we, as a people, have refused to accept reality with respect to our dependence on oil. Every day we continue our denial we make the inevitable pain that we are going to experience even worse. For this reason, I think finding our way out of addiction to fossil fuels is the most important issue facing us right now. We need honest information and we need it badly. This is a particularly good thread and I hope people will read it all the way through. KillTheMessenger, I especially thank you for what you bring to the conversation.

The days of artificially cheap oil have gone forever. To those of you who would desperately start drilling everywhere imaginable, hoping to return to the days of a-dollar-something gasoline I say stop falling for the manipulation of oil companies and the politicians they pay for.

[Jezdukowski]

Yep, very well said - we as a Nation NEED a way forward. Peak Oil is here, like it or not (or just deny it). God forgive me, but I absolutely hate republicans and what they've been allowed to do this great nation.

[Phil123]

As a patriotoic American who has to buy gasoline to get to work and back, and who has a pension fund that contains a significant fraction of oil stocks, I also applaud McCain's take on our energy policies. It's Obama's take that strikes me as startlingly naive.

[Birdman]

Actually a patriotic american would look for alternatives to oil, to sit there and say give the OIL companies everything they want because I want cheap gas is not reality, talk about naive.

[KillTheMessenger]

If by patriotic you mean addicted, you are on to something. I am sorry, Phil, that you can't see the long term consequences of your actions. Especially since they will come to nip you in the butt. Hard.

[Phil123]

I'll assume you've stopped driving to work. Maybe you don't have to. I do. That's reality; not a delusion. Addiction? To a paycheck, maybe. I can see the long-term consequences if I stop working - and they happen pretty fast.

[LexLuthier]

Would you mind pointing out to me just exactly how? I am trying to educate myself as well as I can in this area and I will listen to anyone with an informed opinion, so go ahead, point me to where you see the naivete.

[Phil123]

The legislation that the Democrats just tried to pass was to impose punitive taxes on the oil companies, to allow us to sue OPEC countries under anti-trust laws, and to further prevent American attempts to increase our own oil supply.

Where do you think the money would come from if you taxed oil companies even more? I'll assume that this is obvious. What would OPEC do if the US tried to bring lawsuits against them (assuming that this is even possible)? Right - stop accepting US currency.

In the US we have had no new refining capability in 37 years, and have done no drilling in 26 years. We have also banned construction of nuclear power plants, and are trying to close coal mines. Given the simple relationship between supply and demand, why are we putting a stranglehold on supply?

While working on reducing the "demand" part of the equation is great (and is still a ways off), this is not sufficient. We also need to increase the "supply" in order to get costs under control. It is that simple.

[KillTheMessenger]

I think he is either joking, a troll or he is really naive himself, if he believes in magic like "patriotism" to change facts. In any case, his oil stock will pull him through. Or get the better of him, if he does not sell it early enough. One day investors will realize that from now on oil is a short term business model. That is the day they will start punishing the oil companies for no good reason. Investors are fear driven creatures. Which makes them so ultimately American.

[incontempt]

Want to know why oil is out of whack....listen

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#25252591

[leduck]

don't worry...,
ruleo flaw is going to outlaw Peak Oil

[Rule Of Law]

Oh no Monsieur Canard--peak oil is a reality: Just not today!

[nanotubz]

According to PBS's Newshour, there are currently something like 6800 leased sites on which no exploration has been done. So much for the need to immediately open the coasts to more leasing.

[TxAggie]

Nano-read carefully. On average 1 in 8 or so wells drilled is successful- the others are dry holes. Vast amounts of acreage are leased by oil companies paying "lease bonus" for the right to explore. Exploring involves acquiring seismic data a lenghty and expensive process. The sesimic is acquired over large areas to get "full coverage" to allow a higher quality product, oil companies generally acquire large acreage position trying to zero in on promising gelogic structures. When the data is processed and maps, many times the data "condemns" the acreage meaning no geologic structures are evident, by this time oil companies have expended large sums of money and will maintain the leases by the payment of rental during the primary term. They will do so in hopes of another play or idea developing while they hold the lease. As for the leases they drill, the odds are the exploratory well will not be successful. The number of leases held or acreage undrilled is irrelevent, what is important is where mother nature has hidden the oil and gas- that secret is hard to crack- that is why oil and gas is expensive- it is scarce and difficult and expensive to find. Anyone that qoutes meaningless statistics like the no. of non-producing leases held simply doesn't understand the business- it is all about geology- not politics. Please do some research and don't be fooled by the politicians like Rham Emmanual- they responsible for the mess we are in.

[Rule Of Law]

Add into that the numbers of refineries that have been shut down to embellish the notion of "peak," and you have the perfect way of playing both ends against (us) the middle!

[KillTheMessenger]

Why are we running our refineries on 85% if we don't have enough? And how comes there is not one gas station that's out of gas in the US? Can somebody explain that to me LOGICALLY?

[johnfoirdfw]

Reform, prosperity and peace? Like Bush and McCain have brought us in the last seven years? Why would anyone vote for this imposter?

[TroubleNYC]

Oil Industry Cheers McCain's Energy Policies

Shocking news...

[Rule Of Law]

I see ktm is still here spewing the same nonsense about peak oil, so i renew my challenge:

Ok, Mr. Phd I drive a Prius, I'll bite this once:

Back it all up! Show us! Give us 3rd party, NON-industry or govt. data that can and has been corroborated by disinterested parties. Show us the numbers, not just another intellectual circle jerk of rehashed so called "facts," provided by the same criminals foisting this on an unsuspecting public.

As for the benefit of suggesting that the peak has hit, someone should use their head for more than just a convenient place to put a hat. Just as DeBeers has controlled the volume of diamonds--and thereby, the Price for decades--so too can the peak conspirators control the price, especially now with an oil man in the white house who is an honorary member of the Saud family.

Give us the goods, because without them your Phd is about as worthwhile as mine in this arena. Prove it, once and for all! Do it. Not predictions from oil men in the 1950's, not second hand reports that are derived from more oil industry numbers that can't be validated, not government statistics in studies paid for with tax payer money and provided by the Oil Company!

Real, modern, verifiable independent data--am I being clear enough? Or have the good graces to get off the boards with your unsupportable, and highly suspect opinion.

[Durango]

Peak Oil is a theory that cannot be proved or disproved.

The data that is needed is held in secret by the oil companies and the oil producing countries.

You could see that as part of a conspiracy (which in a way, no matter what, it is) or simply good business.

At any rate, it seems to me to be way too convenient a theory at this point in time.

If I were a high powered Public Relations firm hired by Big Oil ,Peak Oil would be exactly the type of story I would be putting out at this time to deflect attention from their price gouging.

A rip off of global proportions. What would you do to protect that?

And it is a FACT that the oil industry has been a CONSPIRACY to keep prices high almost from its beginnings.

Rockerfeller had to have Standard Oil Monopoly because over production ruined his profit margin. Similarly the Texas Railroad Commission controlled production. And OPEC is doing the exact same thing. Limiting production to keep the price high.

No doubt we will run out of oil at some point. I just don't think this is the time.

And I won't buy into a theory that is impossible to prove or disprove.

[KillTheMessenger]

By the way, Rule, your DeBeers example is absolutely correct. I like to use the diamond market as an excellent example that cost and price are independent. What people will pay for something is rarely proportional to its real value (which is something like 70 dollars/carat for an industrial diamond on average). And a flawless white diamond will not cut any better or worse than a pitch black synthetic one as far as I know. So why do our women spend thousands on a tiny piece of this rather ordinary material that can be made synthetically for a fraction of the price?

Vanity.

And why are Americans driving oversized transportation machines that add no value for the amount of fuel they are consuming?

Vanity.

There is nothing wrong with paying a high price for your vanity, people. It just shows that you are serious about wanting to be something special.

[leduck]

YOU'RE LOGIC IS DEEPLY FLAWED "RULEOFLAW."
AS A LAWYER YOU SHOULD BE MORE LOGICAL THEN YOUR FREQUENT POSTS.

WHAT IF YOU'RE WRONG AND THE PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTS ARE RIGHT?
THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE TO PREPARING EARLY FOR A PEAK THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITHIN 10-20 YEARS ANYWAY
I NOTICED IN A PREVIOUS POST YOU DO NOT DENY PEAK, ONLY IT'S TIMING.

IFYOU'RE WRONG AND PEAK IS NOW, AND WE LISTEN TO YOU RATHER THEN EXPERT GEOLOGISTS, THEN WE'RE IN BIGGER TROUBLE AREN'T WE BECAUSE YOU WANT US TO CONTINUE AS THOUGH THERE IS NO PROBLEM.

SEEMS LIKE IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO ASSUME A SOONER PEAK REGARDLESS OF THE EIA OR IEA NUMBERS.

[KillTheMessenger]

EIA and IEA production numbers are squarely pointing to peak oil. Their projections aren't. But their "projections" are based on something like 3-4% average economic growth which they "translate" into a commensurate oil demand curve pointing upward with a constant slope. It was completely lost on these people that Europe had decades of economic growth with enormous efficiency increases that are not at all proportional to their economic expansion. Garbage in, garbage out. That's all the EIA and IEA projections are.