Seriously, why would Bush want the price of oil to go down? He's been in bed the saudis from the beginning (Carlyle Group). I'm not Bush hater, but why would someone want the price of some stock to go down, when they hold that stock? Two choices - drill our own oil, which we have in numerous places or go to an alternative fuel. Like Doug said, he has co-workers that use old fry oil. Also, why would the saudis care about selling to us when they can sell it to china. I wonder who's responsible for china's build up? I guess we're our own worst enemy.

Well, let's look at the current price of oil. $90.57 Still high but falling. Oil is priced by FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) Saudi Arabia is pumping about as much as they can. The threat to the U.S. energy supply is the U.S. sitting on it's collective arse and not doing anything about alternatives. Couple of my coworkers laugh all the way to the fast food stores every couple of weeks as they tank up on used fry oil. A disel engine can run on all sorts of oil, including peanut oil, which it did back at the World's Fair in 1900.

Lance, You keep saying that drilling and Anwar is not the answer. But both these items will help. again I ask you why not drill, conserve and look for all alternave fuels at the same time?

But let's get back on focus: is drilling the answer? It seems clear that we've reached a turning point, and the Saudis know it. Thanks to China and India, oil is never going to be plentiful like is was a decade ago. Whereas before, if oil got to be too steep, we could tone down our use and go outside OPEC and the Saudis would be compelled to bring up production. No more. Even if we conserve, China and India won't (or can't). So it's over. ANWAR isn't the Silver Bullet. Nothing is. Oil may be the source for cars and jets for awhile. But if we can get the rest of our energy from other sources (wind, solar, geothermal, waves, and whatever else those smart people are dreaming up), we'll be OK.

Lanny, I was not blaming Clinton. I was making a point. So what if Enron gave money to Bush and the Republicans? They gave some to Clinton and the Democrats.And as for controlling the congress unless one party has at least 60 members in the senate that all think alike a lot of legislation is doomed. As for Cheney taking defered comps again so what? Alot of people do it. As for no bids Clinton also did it in the Serbia area.And you tell me of one other company that had the resourses in personell and eqiupment that Hali has that could have done the job.

Concerned ,, No problem . You and I disagree on some yech issues but I di thank you for your comments.

And Bert, thanks for the opportunity to really discuss the issues.

Bert, our comments cross posted, so I would like to respond to what you just said below. I agree that our changed behavior regarding the environment has been good in the areas you mentioned. I don't have enough knowledge of ALL the regs to say whether they contain nonsense or not. I suspect if I were to read every environmental reg, I would find fault with at least some. I do know that these regs are our current law & breaking them is illegal. Now, I also agree that getting legislation through Congress & across the President's desk, intact, is difficult in the partisan climate we've had for pretty near that entire 38 years. And the partisanship has certainly geared up a few notches in the last 15 years or so. That still hasn't stopped either Democrats or Republicans from getting some of their priority legislation through, or even enacted by Presidential Directives. Either way, the critics pointing the 'you-are-anti-ANWAR' finger have had the means, motive & opportunity to enact change to the regulations on refineries & drilling operations. They attempted to get EVERYTHING they wanted in one fell swoop. That is why they faced such large opposition from their more environmentally minded opponents. My whole point in relation to this editorial & what I have a concern over is this constant propaganda that "our country can do nothing to increase domestic production because the liberals & tree-huggers banded together & made it sooo expensive for us to add refineries & blocked drilling in ANWR." … … … … It's a smoke screen designed to divide the electorate & win elections & the DO editors just keep repeating it ad nauseum.

Bert, You conventiently leave out the Republicans were in control of Congress and making policy while Kenny Boy and the others mentioned were shafting the public. Again it is a fact that Kenny boy was Bush's largest contributor of cash! It is a fact that Cheney was taking "deferred compensation" while handing out no bid contracts for hundreds of millions to Halliburton for the WMD fiasco for oil in Iraq! Clinton definitely messed up but he never claimed to be the the choice of God as Bush does.

Well, Bert, I don't believe I made a complaint about the cost of energy in any of my previous posts here. That would be a seperate discussion from the one we are now having. This discussion has to do with who's at fault for the lack of increased production, as this editorial notes "A second point, one this page has made a number of times, is the wrong-headed opposition by some in this country to increasing domestic oil and gas production." We've all heard this tripe many times before. It is a deliberate poke at the 'left-wing' liberals & environmental activists & I think it misleads the readers. I think it's misleading for the reasons I've stated below.

Concerned , I went back and read your comments again and I find I am the one mistaken in my response. Now for a response to your comments. Are regulations standing in the way of new refineries for example. The answer is yes. Should a lot of these regulations be on the books? Again the answer is yes. Are all the regs cpommon sense? The answer to that is no. I worked in drilling for about 45 years and I have seen how a lot of damage was done years ago. But the industry has changed as has a lot of things. When I was a kid we threw trash out the windows on the highways for example. We do a lot less of that to day. We would drain the oil out of our cars and lawnmowers and leave it right on the ground. Again that has changed.And all these chanbges are for the better. Now about your comments on who ran the country when. Your facts are apparently true. I did not check them but I have no problem with them. The one thing that must be noted is that it is not really Democrats and Republicans as much sas it is conservative and liberal. As I stated earlier it takes 60 votes to get anything thru the senate. So even a party with a majority has trouble passing some bills. And there are Northeastern Republicans that are more liberal than southern Democrats. For example. Bush wanted to allow drilling in Anwar in Alaska. It did not pass the senate becausse they could not get 60 votes toi allow it to come up for an up or down vote. And some voting against it were from the north, Collins and Snow for example. I was one that thought we should be drilling in Anwar to help our country as it can be done with no damage to the area.
Sorry about misreading your post

Concerned, Are or are you not complaining about the price of energy? If you are not then I mADE A MISTAKE

Bert, I feel my posts are clear enough for others to understand the issues I brought up. Looks to me like you're pulling the same strategy that you criticise other for. That is, when you can't debate the point you level baseless accusations or nonsense remarks back at the poster. Quote from Bert: "Concerned, Whast are you doing? Already making excuses..."

Lanny, All you have posted is your opinion and you are entitled to your opinion However you are not posting facts. Bush was friends with Ken Lay as well as the prosecuter that prosecuted the 2 border agents. He sure needs to find a better class of friends. But it was under Clinton that Enron, World Com, Global Crossing and others with the help of Arthur Anderson kept false books showing false profits as they stole from employees and share holders. And it was under Bush that the leaders of these companies were charged , arrested and convicted and sentenced. And it was under Clinton that Ken Lay slept in the White House at Clintons invitation.And you have not presented one iota of proof that either Bush or Cheney is making extra money due toi the cost of energy. I do not feel that energy is over priced but that is for another discussion

Concerned, Whast are you doing? Already making excuses on why the Democrats with boith the congress and oresident seat will not bring down oil prices?

Bert, I did not make this assertion in my post. Quoted from Bert's post: "And according to you and concerned they (meaning Dems) will surely change these laws and regulations and bring down the price of energy". I do NOT think a Democrat in the White House with a Democrat controlled Congress will sacrifice the environment to reduce the price of oil. I do think they will push to create more jobs in research & new technology to bring our country closer to energy independence. In fact they’ll probably try to give tax incentives to do so, even to the oil companies. The point of MY first post was that many conservatives blame the Democrats & environmental activism for our current "high cost of doing business" because of their stance that all environmental restrictions were enacted by Democrats & "tree-huggers" and the Republicans can't change anything about it. I'm just saying that I feel that isn't the case. .. … … Had the Republicans wished to influence this arena, they had plenty of opportunity. They either weren't really interested (just liked using it as a wedge issue to win elections) or they liked the capital gains from the status quo. I personally feel that in general Democrats do care more about our environment based on the legislation they write & sponsor. My personal feelings about the oil companies' attitudes that they can't afford to build new refineries is, it's a load of malarkey. They have posted record profits in the Billions during GW Bush's administration with a Republican controlled Congress, they had as much influence in Washington as any other & they had opportunity to change it. Nope, their excuses for keeping capacity at 1970's levels just doesn't wash.

Bert, I am sure George Bush had his friend he nicknamed "Kenny Boy" arrested ! The earlier point was that Bush pretty much disavowed knowing him after using the Enron jet as his campaign chariot. Great character, throwing your buddy under the bus when the heat is on! Bush/Cheney never profited from the price of oil! Maybe just a teeny-bit indirectly ? They are Texas oilmen!Also, compare the amount of contributions going to them. Ken Lay was Bush's biggest contributor.History has already pretty well figured these 2 out.

Mickey, One thing you failed to mention. In the senate it takes 60 votes to even get a vote on legislation. But if what you and concerned say we should have it a lot easier starting in 2009. The Democrats will control both houses of congress along with having a Democratic president in office. And according to you and concerned they will surely change these laws and regulations and bring down the price of energy. WQe will wait to see how fast that happens after the new pres takes office in about 1 year from now

Lanny, Did the Republkicans take contributions from oil? Sure they did. As did the Democrats. You want to bring up Ken Lay. Okay let us talk about him. There is no doubt that I can see that Lay weas a friend of Bush. But the actions of Enron happened while Clinton was in office. He slept in the white house whil;e Clinton was in office. He was arrested tried and convicted after Bush took office. And a lot of people get deferred payment when they leave a large company. But none of this shows that Bush or Cheney or even Clinton profited personally from the price of oil. There is an oil reserve in Alaska that could put about a million bbls a day in the market. And Bush wanted it to be opened up for drilling but the Democrats in the senate along with several liberal Republicans from northeastern states stopped that from happening. And these people in those same states whine about the cost of fuel. And you can be sure that if siesmics showed there were possible large oil reserves in those states the states would not allow drilling there.But they want the fuel

I think Concerned wins the argument with: "Of the 26 years that the Republicans occupied the White House, Republicans were in control of one or both houses for 14 years. During 7 years of Regan’s administration the Congress was split, with Republicans controlling the Senate. During 7 years of the GW Bush administration, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. .. .. .. .. If the conservative politicians & petro-lobbyists are SO sure big oil can’t do business because of environmental restrictions, they had at least 14 years to change the laws more to their liking, all while the agency was run by a Republican appointed leader. Not only that, these Presidents could have vetoed Democrats’ legislation in all those other years. Still for many more years they could have taken a bipartisan approach, if they were TRULY concerned about balancing regulations & cost to industry, but they didn’t do that either. So now, just whose fault is it again?"

Bob, The USA is a has a very depleted oil reserve system. It is just not there. Drilling is done but the fields are smaller. Oil is not a renewable energy sourse. Actually the whole world is running low on reserves.

Bert,
Look at the contributions from oil to Bush/Cheney, you can Google that !Do you remember Bush replying he just knew Ken Lay was a "supporter" ? He had flown around campaigning on the Enron plane with his bud, "Kenny Boy". Also, Cheney was still drawing "deferred compensation in the hundreds of thousands of dollars from Halliburton the last I knew.Cheney went to court to block the public from knowing who attended his secret energy meetings. Bush took Harken Energy down the tubes while serving on the financial audit committee of that company. He dumped his stock before other investors knew about the financial woes . His daddy's influential buddies have always covered him up. Google the Carlyle group, etc. and the Bush family for Saudi connections. They did business with the Bin Laden family, Google that.

Bert, okay, from what you say, I see that I could somehow be wrong about government regulations causing oil companies to stop drilling. But if there's still as much drilling as there ever was, then why has the U.S. become so dependent on Middle Eastern petroleum?

Now here’s the interesting thing about all the blame for our industrial “overregulation” being placed on environmental activism & 'left-wing' liberals… The US EPA who attempts to enforce our nation’s environmental LAWS, including requirements for petro refineries was created in 1970 by then President Richard Nixon, a Republican. Since that time Republicans have held the White House 26 of the subsequent 38 years (68%). The leadership on environmental issues during that time was either negligent (unimportant to the Pres) or aimed at reducing the EPA’s enforcement authority. They were partially successful since the EPA is mostly a very large agency (~18,000 employees) with very little funding for regulatory enforcement. Many of you may counter that the Republican presidents couldn’t get anything through Congress due to Democrat opposition. That isn’t entirely valid, although it may be true for a few of those years. During the 38 years since the inception of the EPA, Democrats controlled the Senate for 21 years & the House of Reps for 26 years. Aha! You might say. Well think of it this way. Of the 26 years that the Republicans occupied the White House, Republicans were in control of one or both houses for 14 years. During 7 years of Regan’s administration the Congress was split, with Republicans controlling the Senate. During 7 years of the GW Bush administration, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. .. .. .. .. If the conservative politicians & petro-lobbyists are SO sure big oil can’t do business because of environmental restrictions, they had at least 14 years to change the laws more to their liking, all while the agency was run by a Republican appointed leader. Not only that, these Presidents could have vetoed Democrats’ legislation in all those other years. Still for many more years they could have taken a bipartisan approach, if they were TRULY concerned about balancing regulations & cost to industry, but they didn’t do that either. So now, just whose fault is it again? That whole can't-afford-it argument smacks of finger-pointing all the while saying under your breath, “We’ll make a mint, with all these road-blocks to increased production!” … … … … … You know, the planet is home to all of us, we should all be interested in caring for it properly, but I understand some have a higher priority on money-makin’ than others.

I disagree with the Oklahoman's position here. The solution isn't tapping more wells. The US simply doesn't have the supply to keep up with even 4% of US demand! It's a short-term fix at best, and a short-sided one at that. Better is to focus on conservation, and putting R&D money into finding clean alternatives to oil.

Lanny, Prove to me in facts where Cheney or Bush are making money from the energy problem we have.

Bob, I cannot answer about the iol depletion allowance dedudction as I do not know. However I do know that rigs are runninmg all over including the Gulf waters. The only place I am aware of that there is known domestic oil or gas deposits that are not being drilled is in Anwar in Alaska and the gov will not allow drilling there. It is expencive to drill in some areas but I am not aware of that fact stopping any oil company from drilling in those areas. And I cannot see how the oil depletion allowance being allowed or not allowed as a deducttion would effect any drilling.

Bert -- aha, someone who may know something about drilling. Well, what I heard from friends who were supposed to know something about oil and gas production was that many years ago the government eliminated the "oil depletion allowance" (or something like that) and no longer allowed the oil drillers to take the cost of "empty holes" off their income tax, and thus -- I was led to believe -- it became cheaper to buy petroleum elsewhere. And that's why we're dependent on others for our energy supply, here in the U.S. Am I wrong about the government restriction part? About being dependent on others for the supply? Set me straight. I'm always glad to learn.

Bush looked silly wearing that Saudi garb yesterday ! His family have always been close to the Saudi royalty, follow the money on that one. As for the complex scenario of 9-11's Saudi hijackers, Saudi oil, old family business connections, and Bush's current pleading for more oil with a straight face, go figure! No-bid Dick Cheney and his buddies who wrote our (their) National plan for increasing oil prices are grinning all the way to the bank.

bob. where is the oil and gas industry not drilling because of the high cost involved?

In international affairs, George Bush and Dick Cheney have acted like jailhouse punks, siding with whoever has the most cigarettes. The U.S. government's political alliance with Saudi Arabia and others in the Middle East against Iran defies logic, and can be explained only as having punk motivations, i.e. easy access to more oil than the Iranians could supply. That said, I wonder why Oklahoma oil and gas interests would rather spend money on lobbyists in Washington -- who can apparently accomplish nothing, in terms of getting the Senate to rescind the financial restrictions on new drilling -- instead of paying the high cost of drilling, then passing the cost along to the consumer. The cost, for the consumer, would still be less than it is now with the Arabian-supply situation. Or am I missing something? I'm always glad to be corrected in matters of fact.

Perhaps just asking the Saudis to play nice didn't provide sufficient incentive for them to do so. Reaping $100/barrel of oil is no doubt a economic coup that will take more than a "Mother, may I?" approach to achieve desired results.

Our children's children will wake-up one morning and discover there ain't no mo' oil!