The Unbearable Arrogance of Oil
The past week has been a spectacular testament to the iron grip that Big Oil has on American politics. First, they trotted out their handmaiden, the vice-president, to speak to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Cheney proceeded to lie through his teeth -- getting caught, as has become his trademark, only for the little one. The media jumped all over Cheney for claiming that it was outrageous that U.S. oil companies could not drill for oil off Florida when the dreaded Cubans already had the even more dreaded Chinese drilling just 60 miles away.
"Oil is being drilled right now 60 miles off the coast of Florida," the vice-president said. "We're not doing it, the Chinese are, in cooperation with the Cuban government. Even the communists have figured out that a good answer to high prices is more supply." It turned out, of course, not to be true.
In a spectacular example of why this administration thinks lying is just fine, Cheney claimed as his source not a journalist, but columnist George Will, whose editors regularly explain that as a columnist he has no obligation to check his facts. Immediately the conservative email lines were hot with the Cuban/Chinese connection.
But while the media nailed this lie, they missed the whopper. As the Washington Post reported:
"Vice President Cheney yesterday called for a substantial increase in domestic drilling for oil and other natural resources, including in environmentally sensitive areas, saying that only increased production -- and not new technology -- will satisfy the nation's demand for energy."
Cheney's logic gave him away, though. He claimed that while we could, "over time" kick what his boss, the President, has called our "addiction to oil," drilling would work sooner and faster. Well, I'm sure Cheney knows the actual numbers. The auto industry can change the relative production emphasis it places on different models within six weeks. It can deliver a new model to the showroom in three years. But if Congress ever authorized leasing in the Arctic, as Cheney wants, it would be a decade before any oil flowed. So new technology (in the form of more-efficient vehicles) could be in place in six weeks to three years -- whereas oil flowing from new oil fields would take at least a decade.
And Cheney's speech was odd. Why was the Bush administration looping back to its old, and often rejected, demand for more drilling, in the Arctic and off our beaches? Was this simply lame-duck autopilot?
Who was the audience?
It turns out to have been a very small, very elite, and very attentive audience. The day after Cheney trotted out "drill everywhere," Fred Barnes wrote in the Weekly Standard that John McCain's key to redemption with his party's leadership was "drill everywhere." Headlined "There's Votes in Them Thar Hills," Barnes' article warned McCain that his well-established, "let the states decide" position on drilling off the coasts was a non-starter with the Bush wing of the party:
"A federalist on what he regards as a grave national security threat? That's an odd stance. It seems more like a dodge -- a very un-McCain-like tactic -- than a logical position.... Republicans believe "drilling" -- the one-word capsulation of the issue -- is their strongest political talking point in 2008. Indeed, it may be their only good domestic issue."
And Republicans, Barnes warned McCain, might forgive him for not joining in their cry to drill the Arctic refuge -- but only if he offered up Florida, California, North Carolina, Washington, and Oregon as a trade.
The combination to the lockbox that is John McCain's straight-shooting heart turns out to read "Cheney + Weekly Standard." Today in Houston, the nation's oil capital, Cheney capitulated and announced that he supported eliminating the moratorium on drilling off the coast. His press advisory yesterday said "I'll call for lifting federal moratorium on states for off-shore oil exploration. This is a short-term measure toward the long-term goal of reducing dependence on foreign oil and reducing greenhouse gas emissions." Let's parse that sentence -- by allowing more drilling for oil, McCain is reducing greenhouse gases?
This is a very sad moment. The oil industry has demonstrated that their reach and power enable them, with just the slightest flick of a finger, to take a presidential candidate whose reason for being was independent, and turn him into a lapdog.
Follow Carl Pope on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CarlPope
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The positive side is that gas prices will drop about 25% between now and early November as the oil companies try to keep us from voting out their lackies by making us a little happier for a short time. I planned my move across country, well in advance, for a few days after the last election in 2006. Because gas prices would be the lowest. They went up from their low of the last four years, $2.09, to $2.11 the day I left. They have been going up ever since. People would leap for joy to see $2.11 now. I predict about $3.10 or so for the election.
This hubbub about drilling is a giant diversion. It is not environmentalists, but speculation, instability in the middle-east and the declining dollar, which have caused the most damage to prices. Hmm. Who has been in charge of those things?
Mention something like the government taking over the oil industry and you will hear a roar of protest, but in fact, the oil industry has taken over the government.
These men have been lapdogs for a very long time.
We are witnessing what General "Ike" Eisenhower foresaw and predicted. That man wore five (count 'em five) stars on his lapel ... a rank that was basically created just for him. And he wore those stars long before becoming Commander-in-Chief.
If you don't want The United States of America ... if you don't prize what it used to be, above all other things, and want it back, above all other objectives ... then the country no longer deserves to exist and it will not. History tells us that quite clearly.
Don't write laws if they don't mean anything. Don't create a document that calls itself "the Supreme Law of the Land" and put it in an atom-bomb-proof building and tell schoolchildren about it in hushed tones, if you refuse to enforce it. If the Speaker of the House of Representatives can simply say, "we know that high crimes are being committed but we refuse to do anything about it because we're all criminals here," then tear up that august piece of paper and use it to line your birdcage.
I have no problem inpugning the Administration for misleading and lying to Americans (think used car salesmen and TV lawyers) We should not be surprised that the Administration lies, and doesn't lie that well. It's a Republican-WASP-Christian thing. Others are better prevaricators and quibblers than Republicans.
The Police sing a famous line from "De Do Do Do De Da Da Da": "Poets, priests and politicians, have words to thank for their positions, words that scream for your submission, and no-one's jamming their transmission" . . .
I salute the role of the progressive media in maintaining an ever vigilant role in qustioning the Administration although it's almost 6 years too late, when the Aministration is an odious lame duck on the proverbial ropes, getting a good beat down, waiting for the bell to save them.
But, here's the rub: The US is nearly a 14 trillion, yes with a "T", economy based on nominal GDP. Only the EU is ahead with 16 trillion and that's 20+ countries. Japan and China at are a distant 1/3 and 1/4 of the US economy respectively. WE NEED OIL. A 14 trillion economy does not run on love but on petroleum. Geopolitics at their worst, realpolitique at its best.
I'd rather see the US as a petroleum-junkie, a proto superpower, an econo-hegemon in the throes of a "quick fix"; than say, a paper-tiger, Chinese style democracy or a Mid-East facist theocracy cotrol our destiny.
Chinese style democracy sounds a whole lot better these days for us Americans! They have a
future - we don't!
Some Chinese have a future. Not the ones that criticize their government and are thrown into political prisons for a life, or are shot in the head, their families charged for the cost of the bullet.
Amnesty recently put out an article detailing a 13 year old girl thrown in jail for a web blog critizing China's treatment of Tibet, and this is NOT a rare occurance over there.
500 Falun Gong members were recently arrested and sent to reeducation political camps for nothing more than being a member of a religion not approved by the Chinese government. A few escaped to South Korea, where they reported being starved and tortured.
Last year alone, China arrested over 800,000 of its own citizens for political crimes.
You call that "democracy" ??!!!
Get a clue.
KO blew the whistle on the Enron loophole on this evening's show.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#25252591
and I don't see anyone jumping on the ENRON LOOPHOLE trying to correct it, they rather go on lying about off-shore drilling, etc. when we in TX and OK can only pump 500 gal per month and get paid for the rest like the farmers do for not producing.
BushCo had 7 years to authorize more drilling, they didn't. Oil companies have over 40 Million Acres of oil lease land they are not drilling.
It's a distraction.
Close
McCain's Enron Loophole
and the price of oil and gas will drop 25-50% overnight.
It would drop some but not anywhere NEAR that much.
25-50% is the expert consensus figure.
Oil, Alcohol, water. If you can control one of these three, you control the world.
"Oil is being drilled right now 60 miles off the coast of Florida," the vice-president said. "We're not doing it, the Chinese are, in cooperation with the Cuban government. Even the communists have figured out that a good answer to high prices is more supply."
60 miles off the coast of Florida is CUBAN WATERS! They want to do business with the Chinese and they have every right. Not to mention, there is a U.S. embargo on doing business in Cuba. Hello? This guy's a piece of work. Every statement out of his mouth is a freakin lie. But well, that's true for most business people.
But more important is the fact that IT ISN'T HAPPENING. It was a lie, and that's all there is to it.
To everyone reading this: there is currently a massive public relations and advertising campaign being conducted in the media. There will be much talk about off-shore drilling, and drilling in AK and all other sorts of campaigns to direct more money to the big oil companies. The media is complicite in this, as they benefit greatly from big oils advertising dollars. Some of the posts here on this site are done by oil executives.
The problem is not supply, it is speculators, in bed with big oil in the U.S. who are driving the price of oil up. Get rid of speculators and you can cut the price of oil in half. All this stuff about legislation to open these other resources are one big lie. Don't fall for it.
I heard that about speculators before, and in fact they are the reason oil prices are so high. I'm going to do some research. Thanks for the info.
Here is a good place to start:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#25252591
While everything green is getting more and more popular, republiCONS think promoting more drilling will save them.
I think President Obama should keep Cheney as an advisor. As long as Obama does the exact opposite of whatever Cheney tells him to do, America will be in better shape.
Since belief in global warming is diminishing and the idea is drilling for our own oil instead of funding the Saudis is growning . . . I think the Dems are on the wrong side on this one.
The belief in global warming is growing. In fact McCain himself has spoken about global warming. The need for alternate evergy sources is becoming more important, so that would make the reps on the wrong side.
Democrats are on the right side of this one, too. One can't help it that the public is uninformed AND misinformed by propagandists with "unbiased" views.
I don't understand how the republicans don't see green energy technology as a win/win/win/win?
1.) New green energy technology developed and sold by US companies puts America in the lead for an economic category that's not going away any time soon. (Hope we're not too late behind the Europeans and Japanese.)
2.) Green energy technology and manufacturing means more jobs for Americans.
3.) Green energy technology helps the environment for you and me and our grandkids.
4.) Green energy technology weans us off foreign oil.
Of course, I may not understand because I don't have stock or connections in the oil industry.
You are typical of the small-minded thinking plaguing this country. Gas prices high? Me drill more! Me want more oil!
Do you think to look into conservation efforts, which could drastically reduce our demand for oil? Noooo.
Do you think to look to alternative sources of energy, which could reduce our demand for oil? Noooo.
"Me want oil! Me drill more!"
The Cheney energy policy is working exactly as planned. Remember his closed door meetings with energy companies to make policy? They're making all the oil guys rich, all the people Bush/Cheney care about are benefitting. What's the fuss? It's working.
Yep, it's the American Way. If you want to know what the fuss is, read a damn history book.
Keith Olberman, finally, tonight discussed why fuel prices are up...ENRON and the loophole put into law with McCains assistance and with phil grahams direction... close this and oil/gas will drop by 25-50% OVERNIGHT....i want someone in jail....and McCain is directly linked to this corruption at the whole worlds expense...airlines failing....farmers quitting..the whole works.
The hammer is falling and the truth will be exposed....finally
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#25252591
That is only one factor in the high price of oil. It only accounts for a small percentage of the cost, not nearly as much as what you are claiming. Please stop spreading this lie.
Oil production worldwide has peaked. (Google "Hubbert's Peak Theory.")
As stated in the documentary, "A Crude Awakening," we now live in the second half of the Age of Oil -- the half in which supply will never again meet demand. Our current profligate use of this finite resource is over.
As the first consequence of peaking oil, we will experience the death of the automobile culture. In the near future, few will need or want a car. Cars will only be used to supplement vastly expanded public transit systems. Long distance travel will be by high speed train. Expect President Obama to create the Intersate Train System. Most streets and roads will be removed, providing bikeways and walking paths through park-like areas in our subdivisions. Air quality will improve, and so will our health. Without car payments (and the cost of fuel, repairs and insurance), every person's expendable income will rise substantially. The day will come when we will wonder how we ever became addicted. And hopefully we will invest in research to find the next form of cheap energy -- fusion, solar, or, who knows, the next Einstein may discover the secrets of dark matter and dark energy. We must escape the Age of Oil if we are to evolve into something better than we have become.
And, of course, in that next age, the words Cheney and Bush will only survive as the nastiest of epithets.
I think your post is a hopeful possibility. But probably not with President Obama. He's way too conservative for such a far reaching idea. But his election would be the first step in that direction.
Obama . . . conservative . . . two words that should never be in the same sentence.
I don't even think it has to do with whether or not Obama would be for it but whether the people would. Face it most of the nation will have to undergo a fairly serious and massive crisis before they would really give up on their vehicles. I doubt this would even happen within the next 20 years based on the invasiveness of the the oil industries infrastructure in our society. Untangling ourselves from personal oil based transportation will be like a cancer. We see the signs of it now, maybe were toying with ideas to cure it but it will get worse and eventually we will hit a wall where drastic immediate change will need to occur and it will not be an easy one. To be honest I doubt it will even be a possibility. More likely they will grudgingly adopt a technological solution that will simply maintain status quo because even with the best intentions oil is nearly the basis for everything with do in our daily lives.
"In the near future, few will need or want a car."
Explain near future.
With the price of car ownership skyrocketing and with wages stagnant or declining, near future could be as little as 5-10 years.
Sir,
Drilling is going on offshore of Cuba, even if the Chinese are not involved. I have a low opinion of Cheney as well, but calling this a "lie" is a bit much, exaggeration or mistake as to who is involved. In any case Canadian firms have been producing oil from offshore wells in Cuban Waters since 1968.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6oxe8o
---quote
Sherritt International Corporation of Toronto, Canada has been producing heavy crude oil from fields along Cuba’s north coast since 1968. In 2005, the company reported the discovery of the Santa Cruz oil field off the north coast, 33 miles east of Havana. Pebercan Inc, of Montreal began oil production in 2002. Maurel & Prom (Paris) owns an interest in Pebercan.. Pebercan and Sherritt are co-owners of the Santa Cruz field in a 45/55 ratio. Crude oil gravity of Santa Cruz is 18º API. Cuba currently produces 39,000/bbl/day from 11 fields including 4 offshore. The Cuban offshore waters to the north of the island have been seismically surveyed by a Cuban/Venezuelan joint effort, ,
Brazil is about to drill in cuban waters also.
Montes - your quote shows 39,000 barrels/day off the coast of Havana. That's a drop in the ocean(whichever way you look at it). America consumes 20 million barrels/day and growing. The emerging economies of China and India are looking very good to match America's oil consumption in the near future.Meanwhile Saudi Arabia ( the world's largest producer of crude oil) currently has a capacity of about 10 million barrels/day. The argument is that there's not enough oil to go around any more and the earlier we focus attention on alternatives the better.
It proves oil is in those waters, and why the hell are you trying to stop them from drilling there for oil and natural gas, and not lifting a finger to stop coal which puts far more carbon into the atmosphere per unit energy, and pollutes otherwise moreper unit energy, and kills far more workers per unit energy produced?
A single 747 needs about 36,000 gallons of fuel. 39,000 barrels a day are around 30 or so intercontinental 747 flight's worth of oil a day.
The Cuban argument is one of desperation. Don't argue if you can't do better.
1 - you are not in charge.
2- it proves oil exists in that area
3 - The partners Cuba has do not have a tiny fraction of the know-how and capital of US Oil firms.
4- why exactly would those oil firms be pushing to drill their if big profits off oil in those waters were not to be had?
The Nation runs on oil, there is nothing else at the moment to replace it. Not even in 10 years will there be something that can replace it. The ecoterrorist have kept nuclear power from coming on line, they get real mad at coal fired plants to generate electricity, and the list goes on.
What is the lefts alternative? What will have an impact now or even in 5 years? Do we need alternative fuels? Yes. But killing American industry by cutting off the oil isn't the way to do it.
We have enough oil on our shores and in our ground to replace all of the oil we get from outside sources, maybe it is time to care less about some spotted owl and more about making sure that America can sustain itself. But I guess that doesn't really make sense to those of you who are reading the liberal play book though, huh?
You don't make sense, period.
From the environmentalists point of view, it's not so much about spotted owls as it is about us.
The best, fastest way to get alternative energy would in fact be to make oil more and more expensive, thus fueling investments in cheaper alternatives. You speak of "American industry" as though American taxpayers don't pay handsomely to subsidize internationaly operating oil companies that are raking in HUGE profits.
Do you actually expect that drilling off American shores wold help you, Joe Taxpayer? Hell no. You and all of us would end of paying higher state and federal taxes at the pump in order to subsidize this exploration effort, all with the hope and promise of ridding ourselves of dependence on foreign oil.
How many different ways does Bush have to lie to you before you believe he's a liar. How many scams are you going to stand up for.
Its time to invest in alternative fuels that will create jobs, both blue collar and white collar jobs and put people back to work and grow our economy.
Until those "alternative fuels" are developed what do you suggest be done.
There is but one option and that is drill for any oil you can .
Good article. Y'know that if they go ahead with a plan to drill in the arctic or offshore, NOBODY will be interested in investing in alternative energy sources. Why gamble when the sure thing will come online in ten years?
I strongly suspect, however, that the goal here is to further politicize the energy crises. Democrats will oppose any drilling in ANWR or offshore, and Republicans will point the finger and say that Dems don't care about the high cost of gas. Either way, the Dems are damned.
I wouldn't be too worried about it. IF the oil companies get to drill, no oil will enter the market, there won't be any lower gas prices and the whole thing will go up in flames. By the time this oil sees the light of day (if ever), the country will either be 100% on top of retooling to be oil free or it will look a lot like Cuba.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
