Does Offshore Drilling Impact Gas Prices as Claimed by McCain?

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is one that jumped off the page for me.

From a McCain commercial:

SCRIPT “Gas prices. $4, $5, no end in sight. Because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America. No to independence from foreign oil. Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump? (chant) Obama, Obama. One man knows we must now drill more in America and rescue our family budgets. Don’t hope for more energy, vote for it. McCain.”[continued]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/us/politics/22adbox.html

Generally, McCain has been trying to blame Obama for the price of oil because he does not support offshore drilling. However,

Candida Scott, an oil industry researcher at Cambridge Research Associates, said oil needs to be priced at $60 a barrel or more to justify deep-shelf drilling. [continued]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/14/bush.offshore/

Considering that until 2005, the price of crude hasn't been above $60 a barrel since 1985,
http://zfacts.com/p/196.html

It is clear that bans on ocean drilling have had no effect at all on the price of oil. Until a supply is price justified, it will not be tapped, regardless of access. So even if there were no bans on ocean drilling, only now would the oil companies be interested drilling. And even if they had begun drilling as soon as the price was 60$ in mid 2005, since it takes between five and ten years for new sites to fully come online, we would still be three to eight years away from seeing significant production levels.

 

[Herodotus]

I wouldn't think supply development is that important right now. There are 98 countries that produce oil. 60 are in terminal decline in production and 64 are thought to have surpassed their production peak (geologically imposed one). Any new supplies probably couldn't be extracted quickly enough to offset prices that much anyways. Most analysts do not contest the fact that oil production will peak in the near future if it hasn't already.
Developing supplies wouldn't be useful unless we can increase efficiency too. That way, we can develop the infrastructure to transition to when the world runs out of cheap oil. It's not how much oil, it's how much cheap oil.

 

[russ_watters]

The title says it's a deception, but you did not claim, much less attempt to prove, that what McCain says is different than what he believes. All you really did was tell us why you think McCain's position is wrong.

What's more, though, is that there is a flaw in your logic:

And even if they had begun drilling as soon as the price was 60$ in mid 2005, since it takes between five and ten years for new sites to fully come online, we would still be three to eight years away from seeing significant production levels.

You are assuming that the oil has to hit the street before it can affect the market price. Why?

 

[Herodotus]

Ok...what person wouldn't believe anything that McCain said had an aspect of fallacy in it? McCain supports offshore drilling and among his campaign promises is to develop domestic natural gas resources and promote oil exploration. Yeah, he's probably going to go through with that, but all of his energy reforms are probably not going to manifest themselves as he promised, considering the lies he's given during his campaign.

 

[turbo]

There are already many millions of acres of continental shelf under lease to the oil companies, that go undeveloped. The call for more leases is aimed at transferring more public property to the oil companies. If the oil producers want more leases, they should make an honest effort to develop the ones that they hold already. Quite frankly, it's not in their best interests to do so. They are making record profits with the status quo. McCain surely knows this. Until a month ago, he opposed any expansion in offshore drilling - with this latest flip-flop he has shown that oil money is more important to him than the public interest.

 

[seycyrus]

...McCain supports offshore drilling and among his campaign promises is to develop domestic natural gas resources and promote oil exploration. Yeah, he's probably going to go through with that,

That's great! Glad you agree.

but all of his energy reforms are probably not going to manifest themselves as he promised, considering the lies he's given during his campaign.

I thought we were talking about McCain, not Obama??!

**And yet another, illogical, pro-obama spin thread is created**

 

[seycyrus]

... McCain surely knows this. Until a month ago, he opposed any expansion in offshore drilling - with this latest flip-flop he has shown that oil money is more important to him than the public interest.

Or perhaps he considers it a legitimate idea for the same reasons that all the other countries that do offshore drilling do...

 

[WarPhalange]

I thought we were talking about McCain, not Obama??!

Are you saying McCain has not flat-out lied during this campaign?

 

[seycyrus]

Are you saying McCain has not flat-out lied during this campaign?

Certainly not demonstrated in this thread.

Perhaps another thread didicated to bashing McCain is in order? Maybe we could start it another deceptive title?

 

[drankin]

Someone help me out here, where's this McCain deception. I feel like I finished my box of cracker-jacks and didn't ge my prize.

 

[WarPhalange]

Here you go:

 

[turbo]

Someone help me out here, where's this McCain deception. I feel like I finished my box of cracker-jacks and didn't ge my prize.

McCain's ad blames Obama for high oil prices, though it's difficult to see how a junior Senator from Illinois has had time to manipulate the oil market. That's lie#1 #2 is that if McCain wants to blame anyone for high oil prices based on a ban on off-shore drilling, he only needs to look at himself in the mirror. A powerful senior Senator from Arizona who supported that ban for many years, only to reverse himself last month.

People may believe the McCain ads if they lack the knowledge of McCain's own positions and/or lack the logical capacity to see that McCain is trying to load up on Obama for holding a position that he held for years, and with his seniority in the Senate, he had a LOT more influence than Obama ever did.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The title says it's a deception, but you did not claim, much less attempt to prove, that what McCain says is different than what he believes. All you really did was tell us why you think McCain's position is wrong.

That's true, he could just be confused again, so I modified the title.

What's more, though, is that there is a flaw in your logic: You are assuming that the oil has to hit the street before it can affect the market price. Why?

True, there wouldn't be enough oil to make a significant difference in price.

 

[lisab]

Whether it's confusion or deception I don't know, but does it matter? I wouldn't say that it's preferable to have a confused president over a decitful one, or vice-versa.

I totally understand that a man in his 70s would be expected to have changed his position on some issues over the course of a lifetime. But many, many of these shifts have happened in the last few years (the Bush years).

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops"

 

[seycyrus]

Enough of the idiocy.

McCain voted against a certain VERSION of the GI bill. Do you think there has only been ONE version of the bill ever put forward?

This forum is supposed to be filled with people who have brains. I suggest we start using them. Maybe a good place to start would be to avoid offering an obviously biased site as *evidence* of anything.

 

[seycyrus]

Please provide a clip where McCain blames Obama, *personally* for high oil prices.

Nothing about policies that Obama supports, or has supported or might support. I want to see an clip of a personal accusation.

 

[seycyrus]

Meanwhile Obama is once again playing the race card.


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D928S7080&show_article=1

 

[seycyrus]

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops"

Yeah, that's quite a list there. A quick glance shows that some of the items don't even have a 1-2 statement but justthrow down a point.

Another quick glance shows that some of the links the site gives in an attempt to bolster credibility are actually just links to a site that restate the exact thing from another blogger. Ooh, that's hard hitting!

Why are people acting like depraved hungry animals, ready to gobble down and regurgitate *anything* that attacks McCain?

 

[WarPhalange]

Please provide a clip where McCain blames Obama, *personally* for high oil prices.

What would that prove? After all, McCain doesn't speak for the McCain campaign.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16342.html

 

[edward]

Meanwhile Obama is once again playing the race card.


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D928S7080&show_article=1

Obama does needs to address the issue rather than be blindsided by it. In the 2000 primaries when McCain and Bush were running close in South Carolina, Karl Rove released a picture of McCain's adopted dark skinned daughter.

It was published in a monthly southern journal, The Daughters Of The Confederacy.

McCain discovered that these tactics do work

 

[WarPhalange]

Please provide a clip where McCain blames Obama, *personally* for high oil prices.

This isn't good enough for you? Seriously?

 

[edward]

Please provide a clip where McCain blames Obama, *personally* for high oil prices.

Nothing about policies that Obama supports, or has supported or might support. I want to see an clip of a personal accusation.

Who are you kidding McCain only has to say: "I approve of this message."

 

[edward]

This isn't good enough for you? Seriously?

You beat me to it.

 

[seycyrus]

What would that prove? After all, McCain doesn't speak for the McCain campaign.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16342.html

Uhm, OK. I guess the integrity level of this forum is going downhill.

We're not adult enough to realzie that the ad was discussing policies of the past, present or future that are being supported or not supported.

Ok, I'll raise the bid of stupidity...

Those were Obama supporters that were chanting Obama, Obama. Not anyone affiliated with McCai or his campaign.

I don't understand inference either if you don't.

 

[turbo]

Please provide a clip where McCain blames Obama, *personally* for high oil prices.

Here's your clip. When the narrator asks who is responsible for rising gas prices followed by chants of "Obama! Obama!" "I am John McCain and I approve of this message."

 

[seycyrus]

Obama does needs to address the issue rather than be blindsided by it. In the 2000 primaries when McCain and Bush were running close in South Carolina, Karl Rove released a picture of McCain's adopted dark skinned daughter.

Oh, so it's okay to assume someone is going to be racist?

In fact it is OK, to publicly state what "THEY" are going to do?

I hope that this behavior doesn't become the norm, and I sure hope that *I* don't get targeted for what I am *going* to say, next month.

 

[seycyrus]

Here's your clip. When the narrator asks who is responsible for rising gas prices followed by chants of "Obama! Obama!"

Who's doing the chanting?

If we want to be adult, we can infer that the ad is claiming that the policies that Obama has supported, is supporting and will continue to support are to blame. That is of course another subject of discussion.

If we want to act like 3 yr olds, and pretend that we don't understand the concept of inferrence, then hey, I can play stupid too!

 

[WarPhalange]

Uhm, OK. I guess the integrity level of this forum is going downhill.

Okay, I'll stop pointing out flaws in the candidate you support. Will that make the integrity level go up?

We're not adult enough to realzie that the ad was discussing policies of the past, present or future that are being supported or not supported.

The ad is blaming a single man for high oil prices. It's either downright stupid or downright lying.

 

[WarPhalange]

Oh, so it's okay to assume someone is going to be racist?

In fact it is OK, to publicly state what "THEY" are going to do?

I hope that this behavior doesn't become the norm, and I sure hope that *I* don't get targeted for what I am *going* to say, next month.

As long as you have things like this popping up fairly often, it's safe to say racism is still an issue.


http://www.newshounds.us/2008/07/30/fox_identifies_osama_bin_laden_as_obama_again.php


Now obviously you are right, just because they did something bad once (like 20 now actually) doesn't mean they'll do it again. But you'd have to be pretty naive to trust them and assume they won't.

EDIT: No, actually, scratch that. This is beyond racism. If the left somehow implied that McCain was a terrorist, the entire station would just be shut down and Obama would feel the burn, too, for not immediately burning down the HQ of the company.

Fox gets away with this stuff all the time. McCain isn't stupid enough to call Obama a terrorist (only a traitor apparently), but when other organizations do it, Obama has a right to defend himself.

Honestly, saying "they're going to play the race card, don't fall for it" is bad?

 

[edward]

Who's doing the chanting?

If we want to be adult, we can infer that the ad is claiming that the policies that Obama has supported, is supporting and will continue to support are to blame. That is of course another subject of discussion.

If we want to act like 3 yr olds, and pretend that we don't understand the concept of inferrence, then hey, I can play stupid too!

I've Got to admit that's the best strawman I've seen for a while. So because the recorded chanting is from an Obama rally, it is not McCain who used it in his attack add??