The fastest way to ramp up production to deflate oil prices is to make a deal with Iran, and continue the efforts to stabilize Iraq sufficiently that it can pump up to its potential. We've already spent a trillion dollars on the Persian Gulf--might as well start getting some benefit from it.

I'm sure at least one of those good congressmen's aides has a camera phone with video capability. Hey, they could post it on Barackbook! (LMAO)

This is nice spin, but in reality Pelosi's little stunt is hurting Obama. It's raised energy to the forefront of the campaign-- nb that Quinnipiac just revealed that voters in OH PA MI MN WI and CO now rank the candidates' energy policies as more important to their vote than the candidates' policies on Iraq, and in FL, energy trails Iraq in voters' minds by only one point. Nice work, Nancy.

Secondly, while bashing Big Oil seems like an easy winner, it's also a bit odd for a newcomer, reformist pol to maintain his image as smarter and better when his preferred mode of dealing with the drilling issue is to bribe voters with cash that's supposedly taken out of the hide of US energy companies. Prevent US companies from increasing supply + reduce the income available to investment in same. Brilliant. Not exactly the stuff of far-sighted leadership on energy.

Bashing Big Oil's a logical ploy for Obama, but when our party's Washington leadership pulls little stunts like shutting down sensible bipartisan progress on drilling, ie, preventing US energy companies from investing in new production in promising areas here at home, it doesn't exactly look like enlightened leadership to also confiscate investment capital from those same energy companies. In fact, it looks like pandering and more head-in-the-sand from Washington.

I doubt this issue will help Obama; in fact it seems to be hurting him.

From Quinnipiac: voters now consider the candidates' energy policies to be more important to their vote than the candidates' policies on Iraq.

From Rasmussen today: "Forty-six percent (46%) of voters trust McCain more than Obama on energy issues while Obama is trusted more by 42%. Two months ago, Obama had a four point edge on the energy issue." Rasmussen also has McCain ahead of Obama in national polls.

They did chant USA! USA! USA! right before storming out for the weekend. Sigh. Washington seems to make people dumber more arrogant by the second.

It's time for term limits.

That won't stop the use of other recording devices.

Moreover, this is totally a winning issue for the reps. No movement opposes the working class quite like environmentalism. Everything about environmentalism involves making things more expensive, and increasing prices are most harmful to people with little money on hand.

The latte drinking SF green probably doesnt mind the few extra dollars at the pump but the hard working blue collar man doesn't have the lawyers income to spend.

The "drilling issue" is not about drilling in terms of actually drilling for more domestic oil. It's about drilling as a symbol of the idea that gas prices are high because the government is in the way. If Democrats in Congress were smart -- Nancy Pelosi's position standing as proof that they are not -- this could be a winning Democratic issue. Republicans say they want "drilling," but when they say it, they really mean a bunch of vaguely defined other stuff about Democrats being bad and whatnot. So why not a little judo and just allow drilling? We could even attach some populist demagoguery of our own to it, such as new leases expire and go up for rebidding if X amount of oil is not produced within three years or somesuch. (And don't argue that such a leasing arrangement wouldn't work; working isn't the point. It's not the point for Republicans, so it needn't be the point of our response to them.)

Environmental concerns? Assuming that there really are any, that cause can be taken up legislatively and through regulation after the election.

Then, once it's Democrats who have passed drilling, go home and hammer Republicans for their part blocking drilling for 12 years to help drive up the profits of the greedy oil companies who make more money the less oil there is. Add up how much Americans have paid in gas above the price of $2.00 and advertise it as the tax Americans have paid for Republican inaction on energy, including drilling.

Whether drilling is a winning issue or not depends on whether the voters use their heads or not. So far they have not, so it is a winner.

In the real world, of course, removing a ban on offshore drilling is going to do exactly nothing to change today's gas prices. Or this year's gas prices. Or next year's, or probably not within the 4-year term of the next President. It will have a small effect several years down the road. Conservation efforts would have a bigger and faster effect on the price, and an accelerated increase in the CAFE standards would have a bigger effect on about the same timescale as allowing offshore drilling. Even an "I saved 50 bucks by properly inflating my tires!" ad campaign would have a bigger impact on the price of gas.

The problem with the facts in this case is that the fantasy position sounds good and sounds like it should make sense. So you have to explain the other side, and explaining is usually a losing position, even when you are right.

Personally, I think we are going to need to drill offshore eventually (and in ANWR), but the dishonesty of the advocates for drilling causes me to dig in my heels.

This is insane.  The Republicans have had control of the White House, as they like to brag, for 12 of the past 20 years.  Last time I looked, the Secretary of Energy, of the Interior have both been Republicans for the last 7 years.  They have  one or both houses of congress from 1994 - 2004.  It was a Republican President, Bush 41, who signed the drillling moratorium.  It was a Republican Governor, a certain Jeb Bush, who has banned drilling off of Florida.  Republicans have opposed any meaningful efforts at conservation, who have (with a few Democrats) opposed any increase in CAFE standards.  It's because of George Bush's driving the value of the dollar into the ground - hey it's a good thing, because it will make imports more expensive - that contributes mightily to the price of crude.  .  So with Republicans having controlled all the levers of power for most of the past 20 years, it's suddenly Nancy Pelosi's fault?

I actually think the smart political policy would be for Obama and the Congress to call the Repuplican bluff and say "OK Republicans, we'll let you have your increased drilling wish (with strong environmental controls, of course)".  Then, when prices don't go down one red cent, they can shoulder all the responsibility for 1) Misleading the public with shameless pandering; 2) Explaining why the demagoguery didn't lower gas prices; 3) Explain why we're, once again, giving a windfall to our oil companies by allowing them to acquire cheaper, subsidized domestic oil that they turn around and sell to the highest bidder, thus further increasing profits; and 4) Answer the question...."If it was this simple to bring down gas prices, where have you guys been for the 12 years you held both houses of Congress AND the White House? .

A tactic like this might actually help get Obama elected while taking away the gas price firewall for Johnny McSame et al.

Of course it's Pelosi's fault, and down with the death tax too - another way of taking from honest Americans.

The logical vacancy in the GOP's drilling campaign is so obvious it's incredible that the hapless Dems don't just lay the facts out before the American people so they can see for themselves that more drilling is not a serious suggestion for high gas prices.  Bush even concedes that more drilling won't affect prices, but then explains it away with the stupid assertion that more drilling will "help the psychology".

Drilling: The new big lie. The oil companies are sitting on top of record profits so I am sure they are in a big hurry to increase supply to drive down prices, using up a limited resource in the process. Great business model Republicans. The oil companies have no desire to increase production significantly, nor are they able to since we don't have the refining capacity or big rig ships or people to man them. And we all know Petroleum Engineers just grow on trees. There are literally tens upon tens of billions of barrels of oil available for drilling in the gulf of Mexico right now, the fact is the oil companies want to lock up long term leases to prevent other oil companies from locking them up, and they want to exploit the long hanging fruit first to maximize profits. I agree with Rhubarbs, Dems. should just say "drill everywhere" and then go after the Republicans when prices don't go down significantly.

The only long term way to lower prices is to develop alternative supplies of energy with heavy tax subsidies. Let people write off their purchase of electric cars. The day we can produce energy below the equivalent of 4 dollar a gallon gas, then prices will decline. OPEC is not going to want to sit on oceans of oil when everyone drives around fuel cell or electric cars.

So is the oil company administration orchestrating this or simply riding the serendipity?

I crack up at the idea of anyone thinking they are going to suddenly tear up the California coastline for a year's worth of oil 25 years from now.  Ah, gotta love the geniuses in the Grand Old Party.  

This may work for now in the fetid world of Republican-land - "working" means staying in power - but even if someone was somehow able to somehow muster this through the political process (with Californians rioting in the streets even this even comes close), why does anyone think the oil companies would bother with the investment?  Hundreds of billions (to start) for almost no payoff with literally unending political headaches.  

Just because the oil companies own the Republican Party hardly does not mean they are loyal to them.  They'll let the nitwits sink in a second, as they should.  Its a dopey idea with no upside at all for them.

I was gonna go on my rant, but it looks like all the smart people hit all the major talking points. I guess I'll settle for tossing in $.02

"So is the oil company administration orchestrating this or simply riding the serendipity?"

Given that the  trading of crude was one of the targets of Bush's early efforts at "deregulation" (the same deregulation that prevents the senate from accurately determining why crude prices jumped) I'd have to say there is definintely more than a hint of orchestration.

I do think, however, that Obama needs to come up with something that speaks to Joe Sixpack....and quickly.  Before the Pepublicans can make this bogus argument farce stick, paint him as an "eletist" who's out-of-touch with the average American and cost him the election.

Any ideas need to focus on those who drive for a living or who need to drive long distances to make a living.  Like long-haul truckers or cab drivers or contractors in rural areas, etc.  Cash incentives to conserve and/or convert.

The challenge here is exactly what it has been over the entire life of the Shrub administration - and the way the War has been conducted.  This is the "no sacrifice is too much sacrifice" administration.  And this is is a country that has been drunk with its own ability to do everything and to have everything without paying for it.  War on two fronts? Sure.  Conscription  NFW.  Lower taxes?  Why not?  Deficit? Bring it on. Unparalleled debt spending on the part of consumers?  Yeah, why not.  Lenders lending on inflated and misleading credit ratings, and then being bailed out - "stay the course."  And so on.

The fact is no energy policy worth its name is relevant without working on the demand side.  Obama's speech today laid it out and, I think, did it well.  But the question is, whether the American people are ready to actually make the sacrificed necessary to wean themselves off Middle Eastern oil.  RP's post - and he is generally very astute - tells me not.

Here's the problem.  Pretty much nobody on the Democratic side has actually presented a compelling case *against* offshore drilling.  All I've heard thus far is that it wouldn't help much or that it wouldn't help for a long time.  But being not-all-that-good is different from being bad,  Remember that we're talking about a ban here.  Having limited positive impact is not a good reason to outlaw something.  As I see it, Democrats have two options.  Option A is to make the case that we should ban offshore drilling because it would be harmful in some important weigh (i.e. that the costs outweigh the benefits).  Option B is to just allow the drilling.  If they can't do one or the other, they will continue to get slammed on this, and rightfully so.  Either they have a lousy position or they have a good position but won't make the case for it.  Either way, they're dropping the ball.

stupid typo: some important *way*

AlanSP, have you looked up what parts are banned? For better or worse people in Florida don't want huge oil rigs dotting the horizon. Hell, Democrats can just run an ad of people arriving at a beach, oil slicks for waves, with a huge rig blotting out the sunset.

"All I've heard thus far is that it wouldn't help much or that it wouldn't help for a long time.  But being not-all-that-good is different from being bad,  Remember that we're talking about a ban here.  Having limited positive impact is not a good reason to outlaw something.  "

From what I gather, the moratorium is on new leases, not new drilling. The problem is that the Oil companies are attempting to monopolize the resource so that they can control the market price. They are leasing untold acres of federal land and making 0 efforts to produce oil. Off-shore drilling also has a lot of environmental risks not being acknowledged; Rita and Katrina apparently combined for something like 150 oil and gasoline spills costing the government upwards of $1 bln. This is an impossible talking point because coming to the conclusion involves traipsing through a lot of finer points regarding economics, and other stuff that Joe Six-Pack doesn't want to hear.

Also, I'll bring it up again, a recent bill (HR 1350) went down in flames in the House which would have allowed for new leases but required oil companies to begin production on land currently being leased before beign offered any new leases and also mandated that America not sell the oil it produces on the open market. Anyone care to guess which side of the House voted unanimously against this atrocious display of socialism?

blackton,

A couple points.  First, it's not at all clear that Floridians don't want that.  See www.rasmussenreports.com/.../election_2008_florida_presidential_election

key section:

"Florida is included in a list of several locations being considered for drilling in offshore oil wells. Among voters in the state 57% are in favor of offshore drilling, while 32% do not think it should be allowed. Those numbers remain relatively unchanged over the past month. Over half of voters in Florida (51%) think it is more important to reduce gas prices than protecting the environment. Thirty-six percent (36%) take the opposite view."

Second, I'm not talking about aesthetics or imagery here.  "It would make the shoreline less scenic" strikes me as something of a weak argument.  My point isn't really about the existence of a good case against offshore drilling.  My point is that Democratic leaders aren't making that case.  If there are costs, environmental or otherwise, that make drilling not worthwhile, they need to talk about them.

Alan, you're asking people whose objection is faith-based to make a reality-based argument, one informed by a good understanding of the state of oil extraction technologies. Remember, in Obama-Pelosi era, we Democrats worship an awesome God in the blue states. Technology and microeconomics aren't our thing.

"Technology and microeconomics aren't our thing."

It would seem this tendency knows no political boundaries. I can't believe I am surprised, but I am surprised by recent Republitard efforts to discredit Obama (and Schwartzenneger, and vp hopeful Crist and Joe Sixpack's NASCAR) recommmendations for car maintenance that can save 3.3% on mileage a year, which would reduce our usage by billions of barrels per year.

The hypocracy will never end...

Nobody is against conservation. Tuneups are great. CAFE standards are great. But to use these arguments to buoy up an anti drilling position defies common sense. That is what the Republicans are saying and it is apperently resonating. We have been drilling in the Gulf of Mexico for as long as I can remember. And what about the North Sea? Environmentalists and welfare state advocates enjoy a high standard of living all over Nortern Europe because of the oil extracted from it.

As a Floridian, count me for drilling, as long as it's over the horizon, which it will be.  The Dems are misplaying this big-time, as noted above.

Of course prices won't go down next week, but it may help in x amount of time keep gas prices down a little, and in any case domestic sources of oil mean that more $$ won't be shovelled at regimes that mean us ill.

As AlanSP has noted, there has not been advanced a coherent argument against drilling from the Dems.  I really don't understand why not, unless they don't have one.

The "there'll be a spill" argument won't work, as the North Sea and Gulf of Mexico demonstrate, and as long as the rigs are at least 30 miles from the coast, there's no aesthetic argument.  Even my Dem friends are for it hereabouts.

Here is an examply of what I'm getting at:

There, McCain focused on energy policy, telling reporters he has outlined an "all-of-the-above" strategy and mocking Obama's suggestion last week for improving automobile mileage, saying: "We're not going to achieve energy independence by inflating our tires." news.yahoo.com/.../mccain_5

NO SHIT! Nobody said we would, least of all Obama. The fact that McCain would even try to insinuate as much is simply beyond insulting.

And for people to actually believe that is actually Obama's position is simply retarded.

Here is another article that touches on what I'm talking about, from last november:  www.nytimes.com/.../28energy.html

The part that stands out to me is: "Obama also is open to government support for nuclear power ..." - McCain has been deriding Obama for being completely against Nuclear power for months, which amounts to outright lying in my book.

"CAFE standards are great" - I think so too, here's another article: "Among Democrats, Sen. Joseph Biden wants to raise vehicle fuel efficiency standards to 40 miles per gallon by 2017, "which [he says] will save approximately the amount of oil we import from Saudi Arabia." " www.csmonitor.com/.../p02s02-uspo.htm

My question is, how much drilling would it take to equal the amount of oil we import from Saudi Arabia? How long would it take to get production that high? The answers I see are "A Lot", and "A lot longer than it would take for automobile manufacturers to meet new CAFE standards".

So my follow up question is, why is drilling so damn important that McCain, Sean, and Rush can get away with deriding Obama for promoting conservation measures first which will do more in the near term to improve our overall energy/oil position and reduce dependency on foreign oil?

We import 1.4 million barrels a day from Saudi Arabia and a total of 5.9 million from OPEC. By 2017, we could be producing a couple of million barrels per day of domestic oil. With 35 MPG CAFE standards, we could be saving about another 4 million, so we could totally free of OPEC oil and only be importing from Canada and Mexico. The impact on balance of payments would be huge and would likely raise the value of the dollar, which would reduce the price of oil in dollar terms. Drilling would also create a great number of high paid jobs in the US. I thought Democtrats were in favor of high paying domestic  jobs for American workers.

Furthermore, if Biden were the nominee I, and many others now inclined to McCain, would vote for him.

"By 2017"

But what about by 2010? 2011? 2012? And what about the problem of oil as a non-renewable resource?

My problem is that McCain is villifying Obama for being weak on new drilling. To make things worse, everyone is buying into it while "the other real issue" of oil as a non-renewable resource gets no respect.

Obama's plan has always addressed both issues with Near Term and Long Term objectives. He's always aimed for a comprehensive plan that acknowledges all of the issues and proposes solutions to each one.

McCain's plan is a hodge-podge of gimmicks (gas-tax) and bullshit (Obama says "No Nuclear") with "more drilling" at its core. I don't buy his Gas Tax gimmick because it basically requires that the federal government regulate the price at which oil companies can sell gas. He has lied (by omission) regarding Obama's nuclear stance because Obama simply stipulates mandates for best practices to minimize risks and accountability for wrong-doers. His newest BS to tack towards "comprehensive" by dubbing his energy policy "all-of-the-above". I would be able to accept this if McCain, and Republitards in general, had spent less time expounding on how critically important it is to America's future that we drill our own oil; perhaps spending more time talking about how screwed we are if we run out of oil before we're weaned off of it would add even more credence to McCain.

As it stands, all we hear from McCain is "Obama says no drilling, no nuclear, vote for the American President".

" Drilling would also create a great number of high paid jobs in the US."

Not for Joe Sixpack; those high-paying jobs are for the Engineers and other highly skilled laborers. On the other hand, Joe Sixpack could make better money than he made back in '98, 'fore the plant moved to China, working the assembly at the windmill turbine plant.

Tep, you have never answered just where the hell all of that oil will be refined, we don't have the capacity. Mexico only has 6 refineries and exports a lot of their crude to the US to be refined now. Good lord can you at least do some research. At Chincotepec and Jack2 alone in the gulf are about 30 billion barrels of oil. Vast areas of Siberia haven't even been explored much less tapped. We don't need radical change. The reason why oil has spiked is because Bush drove the dollar to the toilet, and couple that with speculators we have sky high prices. Bush is happy for this because his oilmen cronies have struck it rich, but if Obama is elected I guarantee oil will soon fall below $100 a barrel (and if the dollar maintained parity from when Clinton was in office that would be about 65 a barrel). The Saudis are scared shitless of the US developing alternative sources because they will then be stuck sitting on vast reserves of crude.

Pemex enjoys one advantage over most competitors: low operating costs. Its current lift cost -- the per-barrel cost of extraction -- is about $4.20, among the lowest in the world. The director of Pemex, Morales estimated his deep-water extraction cost at around $17 per barrel and $10 a barrel for complicated onshore oil fields such as Chincotepec.

Both compare favorably to the $75 cost for an average new marginal barrel of oil elsewhere in the world.

The oil companies are not going to increase supply to drive down prices significantly. OPEC isn't and Mexico isn't. Get over the delusion everyone.

Drill, drill, drill, how about refine, refine, refine? Start building new refineries and then we can get serious.

To restate my problem more succinctly:

Increased drilling provides no short term benefits, and plays right into the issue of oil as a non-renewable source of energy. This actually makes the idea "not-good".

It is not a "bad idea", per se, because it address the issue of dependence on foreign oil during the time between implementing short term solutions and weaning ourselves off of non-renewable energy sources. The confounding factor here is that there is a lot of on-shore territory being leased by oil companies who aren't attempting to drill a single drop from it. Thus, the moratorium schtick is BS in my book because there's plenty of realestate waiting to be drilled.

However, McCain has successfully played up the notion that increased drilling (moratorium and all) is critical to America's energy problems, and is successfully villifying Obama for not being "pro drilling".

GSpinks www.eia.doe.gov/.../Oil.html

I love how tep ignores that we presently don't even have enough Petroleum engineers to fill demand, but he thinks by saying Drill they will magically appear.

The University I teach at doesn't allow Professors to take classes otherwise I would be damned tempted to try to get my degree in it. My University is the University in Oaxaca for Petroleum engineering (different state colleges have different specialties)

Gspinks, I agree with you about non-renewables, and how environmentally it is far better to go with renewables, and the deep fields in the Gulf won't be cheap, but there is still a tremendous amount of reserves in the world. At Chincotepec there is about 6 to 7 billion barrels of recoverable oil to be extracted at $10 a barrel, leaving a profit of $120.00 a barrel. This is at one field alone, and it is a shitload of money.

I am so fed up with this Republican lie about drilling. Why the hell would oil companies increase supply to drive down cost? That is an idiotic way of doing business, hence McCain must be an idiot.

1..I used 2017 as an example for when benefits of CAFE standards will fully kick in.

2. There will be ten times as many jobs for "Joe Sixpack" as for engineers.

3. The arguments against drilling posted here are incoherent to put it mildly.

blackton, thanks for the linky. I think the part about proven reserves dwindling counteracts my thoughts that drilling /might/ help because it appears there won't be anything left to drill sooner than anticipated.

"Why the hell would oil companies increase supply to drive down cost?"

Precisely! They wouldn't, it is bad capitalism, and I won't believe for one second that a Republican would force such a bad business decision on any corporation. This is also one of the reasons I'm not overly concerned about the moratorium on new leases. The corporations are trying to obtain a monopoly on the natural resource in a large-scale effort to control the market price; this is a (puke) good capitalism practice and therefore I find it highly probable that this is the actual Republican goal.

"That is an idiotic way of doing business, hence McCain must be an idiot."

I'm not sure McCain is the idiot; I think the Republicans are playing Americans for idiots by concocting a beautiful fable about the country that drilled more oil and got rich, while skipping over the (OMG) technicalities and details that explain why their fable is BS. I do think it makes his a liar, but this is just one more in a long list of lies perpetuated by the Republicans in my book.

"I used 2017 as an example for when benefits of CAFE standards will fully kick in."

Current standards stipulate 35mpg for passenger cars by 2011 which is a significant improvement over today's standard. www.post-gazette.com/.../900147-185.stm

Many manufacturers, especially the more responsible and intelligent (Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, etc) are already have multiple "economy" models which achieve or exceed 2011 standards. 2017 is only realistic for the "high end" manufacturers who have simply opted to pay the fines instead of working to produce more economic vehicles (BMW, etc). Here is some interesting info: www.riverwired.com/.../tesla%E2%80%99s-244-mpg-cafe-rating

As for off-shore drilling as a short or near-term solution:

Indeed, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, in 2007, the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) considered the likely effects of allowing the congressional and executive moratoriums on certain off-shore drilling to expire in 2012 and estimated that access to offshore areas currently off limits "would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030." mediamatters.org/.../200807290003

Of course, as blackton pointed out and I forgot, America is almost at capacity for refining (Marathon is building a new refinery, but it won't be ready for a little while). Unless we do something to curtail growth, or simply reduce our use of oil, we're in for a whoopin' at the gas pump.

"There will be ten times as many jobs for "Joe Sixpack" as for engineers"

Didn't say there wasn't, just pointed out that those jobs won't pay what Joe Sixpack used to make, and all the really good jobs, as blackton pointed out, will go to the Engineers (not to mention a shortage in the field).

What is incoherent about the simple equation of # days until 0 oil reserves = oil reserves / drilling capacity? Its a non-renewable energy source, which means it won't come back, which means we will eventually run out, which means we need to seriously consider our other options before we throw any more eggs into our drill everywhere basket. It seems pretty coherent to me.

blackie - you're getting mighty excitable, and making yourself look silly in the process. Resource extracting companies need new supplies, period. Supplies fuel revenues. Without new supply, their long term revenues curve starts to dip downward very steeply, and with it their forecast EBITDA, ROIC and of course net present value of shareholders' equity. Aka their, um, y'know, _stock price_. Which would be a very unpleasant thing for all those millionsof workers in this countries whose retirement funds contain a good chunk of XOM etc.  

This is why XOM BP Total etc all go thorough such extraordinary lengths to abase themselves, grovel, spend massively, and put up with terrorists and/or bandits inside and outside the government etc in places like Nigeria and PutinMobutu's Russia.  As going concerns, they ALWAYS need to find and get access to new sources of supply. Otherwise, they go the way of your Cripple Creek or other tapped out gold mine.

The point, again, is whether we will force them to devote all their marginal E&P activity to places like Nigeria South and Nigeria North, or give them access to proven reserves here at home.

And please drop the stupid canard about nothing hitting the pump now. The voters know that. Just as they know that alternative fuels will take many years to show results. Our party's wrong on this issue, we've scored an own goal, and we should have the honesty and guts to admit it and start turning things around.  

inancial projections

Experts have been confidently predicting that we would run out of crude "in about thirty years" since 1862.    I'm all for alternative energy sources, but unless we want to spend the next half-century dealing with wars, revolutions, anarchy, and economic collapse, we need more production to bridge the gap.

I say make a deal with Iran and concentrate on bringing Iraq's gigantic reserves on line up to their potential. It will have a much quicker effect, and we've already sunk the costs.

"This is why XOM BP Total etc all go thorough such extraordinary lengths to abase themselves, grovel, spend massively, and put up with terrorists and/or bandits inside and outside the government etc in places like Nigeria and PutinMobutu's Russia."

You make a great point Tep. Now if only they would abase themselves sufficiently to actually drill on the "supplies" they're already leasing from the government but haven't touched yet, as well as, you know, perhaps train some Iraq vets who are in need of a second career and are smart enough to make it through engineering school so they have enough qualified workers, and perhaps, you know, build a couple more refineries to increase capacity, including one in Alaska so they don't have to ship the crude so far, and perhaps, you know, stop selling American crude on the open market, I wouldn't mind so much.