Should we Drill?

[TeryT]

Can't Agree!

Prices just fell dramatically. It doesn't require that we talk about drilling domestically, it doesn't even require us to drill domestically. The only thing needed to drop prices is less demand. When gas prices surpassed $4.00 a gallon demand dropped, and the refineries could no longer unload the gas at the higher prices... in return, prices dropped.

Those advocating drilling really need to revisit macroeconomics and microeconomics that you took in college (assuming you went to college). This is really basic stuff guys.

The whole "drill now" movement was simply put forward by some Republican strategist that felt he or she would have a way to motivate voters to get to the polls and "drill baby, drill". When I see the people with bumper stickers with this slogan or even parroting it themselves it simply allows me to clearly identify the lemmings who get their news through chain emails.

There must be a comprehensive approach to this issue. No, we are "not going to drill our way" to energy independance. But this is a strawman aurgument set up by the far left, extreme environmental concerns. The answer lies in a calculated approach to more drilling, more conservation, lower energy useage, more & diverse energy sources and future (to be fully developed) sources - in other words - do it all.

We are not in a position to jump to future sources yet, so in the mean time, we are dependant on fossil fuels. To say we should just do this one thing - or that one thing, is quite short-sighted. What got us into this fine mess is doing nothing, and severily restricting the sources we either have or can get at on US soil. We can't afford the "do nothing" approach any longer.

We now have the proven technology to drill in these places with a much, much lower level of risk. Why wouldn't we do this, and move forward on all the other things as well?

 

[SonRunner]

Re: Can't Agree!

We now have the proven technology to drill in these places with a much, much lower level of risk. Why wouldn't we do this, and move forward on all the other things as well?

Ahh... Another thing to pull out of my Economics hat: opportunity costs. What's the point in investing money in places that are likely going to net such small amounts of oil they will have negligible to no effect on worldwide oil prices? The money invested in drilling in these places would be better spent investing in other technology, e.g. wind and solar. We have these technologies now. Or, invest in alternatives that don't exist yet.

Lining the pockets of oil companies already making record profits isn't going to help Americans one iota.

I grew up in LA, I remember the oil stuck all over everything at the beaches and the impossible task of removing it from your feet. That said, my argument is purely at the economic level. If we need access to more oil out in the sea, sure, go for it, but there is no need for it now. Like I said, it's simply a way to motivate voters who don't really care to look into the issue.

The bottom line: drilling in and around the United States is not going to give us any leverage on prices when there are cartels like OPEC witch much bigger sway (supply).

 

[Methodical]

except that every barrel of oil produced domestically represents dollars that stay in the US, boosting the dolllar and purchasing power over opec.

trillions of dollars sit in the ground in anwr.

 

[SonRunner]

except that every barrel of oil produced domestically represents dollars that stay in the US, boosting the dolllar and purchasing power over opec.

trillions of dollars sit in the ground in anwr.

Of course it's not really quantifiable but I would argue that energy dependence would keep an even larger percentage of money in the United States. The differences though are not insignificant. Renewable energy at home = more domestic jobs and less money given to foreign oil-rich economies. Sure, you could argue that more oil money would stay at home if drilled domestically, but again, the amount of oil is insignificant in a global perspective and any money kept here would be going to companies already bathing in cash (not going to do much for most American consumer's pocket books).

 

[alaskaman]

The internal combustion engine has been outdated outmoded and leading a vapor trail along with the housing sub prime collapse to the dissolution of Banks that withstood the great depression. The tech to bring to market consistently engineered battery, helium and other methods to move people could be accomplished in 20 years for a cleaner and profitable world. The only people who won't approve are the gas, oil and motor people who are nice and comfy in their ultra leather chairs having the twins over Ancka and Misha who just happened to be back from the Saudi Coast. This problem has a solution and it is not being developed intentionally to keep those in power IN power. Remember the Tucker or the electric car? If you think I am wrong, vote McCain and wait to see what happens next.........lets see collapse of the American economy? War with Russia to support ever falling returns? If you like what you see now, by all means be our guest, and put that old fool and the idiot princess in the White one.........Rant button off.:dammit:

 

[TeryT]

What the left advocates doesn't appear like change. It sounds like more of the same, and seems like a major part of what has us at this place. Their one-dimensional solutions (rely almost exclusively on developing future sources) sound simplistic and impractical to this voter.

To me, it has to be a comprehensive approach - all the above! Because we don't know how this will all turn out, we don't know what technologies will pan out and/or get cheaper. For instance, I love solar, and use it where I can, but it's still pricey. I'm actually holding off doing more solar, because I expect there to be things like tax breaks, and improvement in technology, and the price coming down from $4 to $2 a watt. BUT, who knows when these things will all hit to make it more practical???

Concerning our oil supply, there has been loads of tampering with the free markets. And I believe there is tons of historical evidence which shows that usually turns out to be a bad thing for us ubiquitous consumers!

(And an attack on any one's character - "old fool and the idiot princess" - is a weak position logical fallacy, which helps nothing.)

 

[alaskaman]

normally, and in most cases, regarding character, I would agree. However, in many people's veiwpoints there are exceptions to every rule. Our virtuous hockey mom filed a law suit today to prevent an inquiry of her handling of the firing of an Alaskan commissioner. Huh where there is smoke.........

I called it 3 weeks ago. The chic is dirty.

 

[SonRunner]

What the left advocates doesn't appear like change. It sounds like more of the same, and seems like a major part of what has us at this place. Their one-dimensional solutions (rely almost exclusively on developing future sources) sound simplistic and impractical to this voter.

It's a lot of things, one dimensional is not it. Try and find a similar outline for McCain, I haven't found one. As an economy geek I like to read this type of stuff. From what I've seen Obama has a much more sensible plan that I tend to agree with.

If you're planning on voting you might as well read all of their positions rather than just repeat something you heard on cable news (Fox or MSNBC):

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf

This is just short term plans:

 

[Methodical]

If you really know economics you know that there is a long term tradeoff to windfall taxes. They are a bad idea that work in the short term for a long term loss. one thing that I think would happen is the multinational company starts routing their foreign income to other foreign countries. Tens of billions of dollars makes it worth it. Then suddenly the windfall profits no longer apply, and the tax base that would have been there otherwise evaporates, while foreign governments get to collect so long as they don't collect too much. For example... Halliburton. Thats Billions of dollars in taxes that goes to dubai. Why? because they have a better tax climate. Pure and simple. The only defense against this is a competitive tax climate, or holding the company hostage, communist china or soviet russia style.

Energy speculation is a hallmark of free-market economics. Speculators drive the price of oil up when it's going up, and they drive it down when it's going down.

Wonder how oil has dropped so fast? Speculators. They are making oil cheaper right now. They serve one purpose: prediction. Removing speculation accomplishes nothing except slows down what is already going to happen.

Using the SPR is a matter of opinion. I do not have one on it. It will certainly help prices, but is only a stopgap, and a very small one at that.

The more permanent measures are obvious, increase domestic supply, and reduce domestic demand. You can do one, or the other, but doing both is the only thing guaranteed to do THE MOST.

The greatest benefit lies with moving electricity generation away from fossil fuels. This means nuclear and/or alternative sources such as solar and wind. Problem with solar is cost of panels and the obvious nighttime effect, but is appropriate for daily "peaking" power. Wind has reliability, maintenance, and cost issues, as well as environmental when implemented in very large scale. Nuclear has the obvious issue, but generates the cheapest (by FAR) power.

Nuclear power is the only option that can do the most. However it's worth mention that the price of coal has basically stayed independent of oil, and is dirt cheap. it's also dirty, but if oil stays like it is, interest in coal will continue to grow.

None of those three points in the plan you laid out is a solution that would last for more than a year. That in my book is a bad plan. It's a harder thing to present a longer term plan, so thats probably why, but don't pretend it's even a real energy plan. Its stopgap after stopgap.

 

[SonRunner]

None of those three points in the plan you laid out is a solution that would last for more than a year. [/B]

You must have missed the part where I said "These are the short-term plans." If you clicked on the PDF you would have seen the entire plan. My suggestion would be to be familiar with the other side's entire point of view before making your argument on lack of substance. I'm not going to paste Obama's entire energy plan here, but if you want to be an informed voter you owe it to yourself to read through it. Like I said I'd be more than willing to look at McCain's plan but he doesn't seem to have one at this point.

 

[TeryT]

Acid Test

My acid test for all things economic/government is: Does it tend to grow the federal government or shrink it?

I only see the federal government as legitimately involved in a few things, and lean towards a Libertarian view. Government and the economy is much like a doctor with dirty hands trying to save a patient. Short term they save the patient, but long term the resulting infection kills them.

Many times the "patient" is ill because of something the "doctor" has done previously!

 

[SonRunner]

Re: Acid Test

My acid test for all things economic/government is: Does it tend to grow the federal government or shrink it?

I only see the federal government as legitimately involved in a few things, and lean towards a Libertarian view. Government and the economy is much like a doctor with dirty hands trying to save a patient. Short term they save the patient, but long term the resulting infection kills them.

Many times the "patient" is ill because of something the "doctor" has done previously!

Exactly. I find it unfortunate the government has actually grown under Republican control. AZ's own Barry Goldwater warned of the real conservative party being hijacked by special interests (religious, big business, etc), and the time has come. Either vote for Bob Barr or Barack Obama. I'm voting for Obama because the economy is pretty scary right now and I think he'll best able to right the ship. McCain basically has Phil Gramm as his chief economic advisor, the guy who pushed forward the deregulation that got us into this mess.

Wiki"Gramm spearheaded efforts to pass banking reform laws, including the landmark Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, which served to reduce government regulations in existence since the Great Depression separating banking, insurance and brokerage activities."

 

[TeryT]

Re: Re: Acid Test

Exactly. I find it unfortunate the government has actually grown under Republican control. AZ's own Barry Goldwater warned of the real conservative party being hijacked by special interests (religious, big business, etc), and the time has come. Either vote for Bob Barr or Barack Obama. I'm voting for Obama because the economy is pretty scary right now and I think he'll best able to right the ship. McCain basically has Phil Gramm as his chief economic advisor, the guy who pushed forward the deregulation that got us into this mess.

Wiki"Gramm spearheaded efforts to pass banking reform laws, including the landmark Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, which served to reduce government regulations in existence since the Great Depression separating banking, insurance and brokerage activities."

Yes, as McCain said, "The Republicans lost their way." While spending in certain areas is at least somewhat legit to me (e.g., defense), the expansion of big society hand-outs also went up (e.g., elderly drug welfare).

My problem with Obama is that he would certainly grow an already monstrously bloated government (as a % of GDP). McCain, at least, says he will reign it in.

Let's face it, stereotypically, Dems are about growing government, and Pubs are about growing business (which means trying to reign in excessive regulations). >>While perhaps reducing some regulations can cause problems, I much rather err on the smaller government side.<< Hopefully, if and when McCain gets back in, he will be successful in expanding things like earmark control to the rest of the union, as he's done with AZ.

Basically, Keynes was wrong - Hayek was right!

 

[SonRunner]

McCain has voted with Bush 90% of the time and was on the commerce committee, basically allowing the deregulation mess we're in now. Add to that Phil Gramm, as his chief economic adviser (who recently said the economy was fine, Americans are just "whiners", his word). Not a snow ball's chance in hell I'd vote for him with the economy the way it is. Way too risky, Palin is just icing on an already pretty crappy cake.

I understand if you're a Republican and you're voting on some other issue (Abortion, Gay Marriage, staying in Iraq, etc), but on the economy I just don't think one can argue McCain is better and that's what I'm voting on this time. Can't enjoy my free country without the money to pay for an HDTV subscription of course!

 

[TeryT]

McCain has voted with Bush 90% of the time and was on the commerce committee, basically allowing the deregulation mess we're in now. Add to that Phil Gramm, as his chief economic adviser (who recently said the economy was fine, Americans are just "whiners", his word). Not a snow ball's chance in hell I'd vote for him with the economy the way it is. Way too risky, Palin is just icing on an already pretty crappy cake.

I understand if you're a Republican and you're voting on some other issue (Abortion, Gay Marriage, staying in Iraq, etc), but on the economy I just don't think one can argue McCain is better and that's what I'm voting on this time. Can't enjoy my free country without the money to pay for an HDTV subscription of course!

Nope! For me:

1. Defense
2. Smaller government - less interference - less taxes
3. Energy
4. Geo-political relations
5. Economy (government primarily to empower the private sector, and secondarily to maintain foundational laws)
6. Supreme court that doesn't legislate & is strict constructionist

McCain is light years ahead on 1, 2 & 4. I think McCain has a more comprehensive approach to energy.

On #5 I totally disqualify Obama, as he is certainly a Keynesian, and perhaps even a socialist - the most liberal voting record in congress.

However, none of it makes any difference if #1 isn't taken care of. Number one is #1, period. To Bush's credit, there has not been a successful attack on US soil in seven years. Numerous attempts, but none yet successful. Democrats have to (perhaps grudgingly) give him that.

And McCain was one of the only ones right about the surge. Democrats had already thrown in the towel and declared Iraq a loss. Regardless of what one thinks of this war, a loss would have been most devastating in the long-term.

Besides, voting 90% with Bush alone shouldn't disqualify McCain - what is the 10% difference?

Government is the country's biggest overhead. It is an expense. It is not the economic engine that drives the country, as Keynes, FDR and most modern Democrats believe. Some Republicans in the past have fallen for this notion too. (Nixon, fell into Keynesian methods with wage and price controls.)

In any organization, a growing overhead will become a big drag, and we're definitely seeing this with the US federal gov. But there is a double whammy: this overhead also heaps on many well-intentioned but often destructive regulations to the "golden goose" free enterprise system.

To be sure, Bush wandered into some erroneous territory economically by growing the government and over-spending the budget. BUT the Democrats & the rest of congress were certainly complicit in this. Democrats have rarely seen a government expense they didn't absolutely love, and Republicans certainly lost their way.

And the Democratically controlled congress has even a much lower approval rating (approaching single digits!!!) than Bush! I suspect when they ask the polling question about if the country is heading in the wrong direction, much of this has to do with the perceived job congress is doing!

It remains to be seen on certain substantive issues about Palin, but I think she's primarily being attacked because she's a conservative woman, which flies in the face of the liberal feminist notion.

The argument that she has little international experience is a total logical fallacy!! What international experience did all the other governors elected to the White House have (let alone how much international experience Obama has)!? HOWEVER, she actually has direct executive experience with the oil companies, environmentalists and other energy issues.

With that segue, let's go back to the energy question (since that is what this thread is actually about). Who really has the best plan and why? Looking at the details of each one's plan would be helpful, in context with this thread's topic.

 

[Jeff Kleb]

I suggest that any Democrat or Republican go and read the United States Consititution - particularly the Bill of Rights and Article I, Section 8.

It is there that you will find the enumerated powers - which are things that are designated as federal responsibility. How much of what Congress involves themselves with is actually mentioned in there? Probably very little!

I often fear for the future of our great republic, and know that our nation's days are indeed numbered until we get a hand on the growth of government in size, scope, power and expense.

I doubt that either McCain or Obama have any real intent on reducing Uncle Sam's involvement in our daily existence....though McCain might slow the rate of growth just a bit.
:bash:

Some of the issues of great importance to me:

1. The Bill of Rights - especially the Second Amendment. Any politician who won't trust me with a gun is not going to get me to trust them with my vote!

2. Strong national defense - but not for involving ourselves in every little conflict across the globe.

3. Lower taxes and shrinking government, especially at the federal level.

4. Reforming the tax code altogether. Cutting off some of the money and power will help to lead to success with #3 above.

5. Protecting our borders, our language and our American culture. Without any of the three, our sovereignty and security will be endangered.

6. Free-market economy policies that seek to reduce trade barriers by other nations to their markets, rather than trying to erect barriers to ours. (When goods and services cross borders, troops do not!)

7. A reasonable, comprehensive energy policy that combines exploring more domestic supplies, as well as encouraging the development of so-called "alternative" fuel sources. This should be done through market forces, however, instead of pie-in-the-sky dictatorial fiat from Congress.

8. An educational policy that devolves federal involvement and puts parents & competition into play; thus trying a different approach than simply throwing more taxpayer dollars at an inept, incompetent educational bureaucracy and corrupt teacher's unions.



http://www.self-gov.org (Take the quiz yourself!!)


==============================================

"Government is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it can be both a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -- George Washington

 

[TeryT]

Least we go down a political rat hole here . . .

I'd love to discuss politics at great length, as it is a very important thing. However, I don't know this thread or forum is the place for this, so here's what I stated before (just a suggestion):

With that segue, let's go back to the energy question (since that is what this thread is actually about). Who really has the best plan and why? Looking at the details of each one's plan would be helpful, in context with this thread's topic.

Any takers?

 

[SonRunner]

Re: Least we go down a political rat hole here . . .

I'd love to discuss politics at great length, as it is a very important thing. However, I don't know this thread or forum is the place for this, so here's what I stated before (just a suggestion):



Any takers?

Best plan, don't drill. The whole idea of drilling is silly for anyone who has any understanding of economics as I pointed out previously. Find me a reputable economist saying that drilling will have any effect on our oil prices.

It pisses me off that the Democrats caved in on this issue recently when they had a good footing to stand on based on facts, yet they gave up because dumb people were too lazy to do the research and math. Hell, even BP and many huge oil executives have said it's a waste of time. I tend to believe them more than Republican sheep (or Democrate sheep for that matter) looking for votes.

The politicians bet on the stupidity of voters to eat up the "let's drill" argument. They bet correctly, despite the facts pointing otherwise.

 

[TeryT]

Re: Re: Least we go down a political rat hole here . . .

Best plan, don't drill. The whole idea of drilling is silly for anyone who has any understanding of economics as I pointed out previously. Find me a reputable economist saying that drilling will have any effect on our oil prices.

It pisses me off that the Democrats caved in on this issue recently when they had a good footing to stand on based on facts, yet they gave up because dumb people were too lazy to do the research and math. Hell, even BP and many huge oil executives have said it's a waste of time. I tend to believe them more than Republican sheep (or Democrate sheep for that matter) looking for votes.

The politicians bet on the stupidity of voters to eat up the "let's drill" argument. They bet correctly, despite the facts pointing otherwise.

Define "reputable." By your definition, I could probably only find unreputable! :bs:

John McCain gave a speech on energy policy today. It reminds us that while McCain's energy policies are much better than Barack Obama's--Obama wants the price of gasoline to remain high so that Americans can't afford to drive their cars--McCain's policies are still an ill-assorted jumble.

From Power Line.com

Go here for McCain's stated Energy Policy from his website

Expanding Domestic Oil And Natural Gas Exploration And Production

The Nation Cannot Reduce Its Dependency On Oil Unless We Change How We Power Our Transportation Sector.

John McCain will issue a Clean Car Challenge to the automakers of America, in the form of a single and substantial tax credit for the consumer.

John McCain Will Propose A $300 Million Prize To Improve Battery Technology For Full Commercial Development Of Plug-In Hybrid And Fully Electric Automobiles.

John McCain Supports Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) And Believes They Should Play A Greater Role In Our Transportation Sector.

John McCain Believes Alcohol-Based Fuels Hold Great Promise As Both An Alternative To Gasoline And As A Means of Expanding Consumers' Choices.

Today, Isolationist Tariffs And Wasteful Special Interest Subsidies Are Not Moving Us Toward An Energy Solution. We need to level the playing field and eliminate mandates, subsidies, tariffs and price supports that focus exclusively on corn-based ethanol and prevent the development of market-based solutions which would provide us with better options for our fuel needs.

John McCain Will Effectively Enforce Existing CAFE Standards.

John McCain Believes That The U.S. Must Become A Leader In A New International Green Economy.

John McCain Will Commit $2 Billion Annually To Advancing Clean Coal Technologies.

John McCain Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants.

John McCain Will Establish A Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D.

John McCain Will Encourage The Market For Alternative, Low Carbon Fuels Such As Wind, Hydro And Solar Power.

John McCain Proposes A Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions While Encouraging The Development Of Low-Cost Compliance Options.

John McCain Will Move The United States Toward Electricity Grid And Metering Improvements To Save Energy.

John McCain Believes We Must Understand The Role Speculation Is Playing In Our Soaring Energy Prices.

John McCain Does Not Support A Windfall Profits Tax. A windfall profits tax on the oil companies will ultimately result in increasing our dependence on foreign oil and hinder investment in domestic exploration. Jimmy Carter put a windfall profits tax in to place with little to no useful results.

There you have it! While I don't agree with every point here, you have to say it seems to cover a lot of bases.

 

[SonRunner]

Reputable would be an economist.

Why you would buy into any Republican's ideas on the economy at this point is beyond me.

Show me the logic of how drilling for oil is going to lower gas prices (which is what you want right?). We're certainly not going to remove our dependence on foreign oil by drilling domestically. That would require, you guessed it, abstaining from the use of oil as much as possible.

Seriously, are we crack addicts when it comes to oil?

-------------------------------------------------

Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- It's absurd to argue that ending the moratorium on drilling off parts of the U.S. coasts would quickly bring down the high price of gasoline.

This chimera is being touted by President George W. Bush and other Republican politicians, including the party's presumptive presidential nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, to deflect blame for what it's costing for a fill-up.

To get around the fact that it would be a decade or more before any oil would be likely to flow, a few partisan analysts have said that the cost of gasoline would fall right away. They argue that the prospect of additional oil supply in the future would lead oil companies to produce more oil immediately because they would expect prices for crude to be lower later on.

Well, wouldn't that depend on whether a producer had the capacity to pump more oil today, and whether it thought lifting the moratorium would add a significant amount of oil to future supply relative to future demand?

There are good reasons to question whether another 1 million or 2 million barrels of crude a day would make much difference in prices when world consumption is running at 85 million barrels a day.

About a fourth of all U.S. oil production is already coming from offshore wells, primarily in the central and western portions of the Gulf of Mexico that aren't covered by the moratorium.

In a May 2007 forecast, the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, which oversees exploration and drilling on the outer continental shelf, said that oil production in the Gulf was likely to increase from 1.3 million barrels a day last year to about 2 million barrels by 2010.

Ignored Forecast

In other words, production was expected to rise by about 700,000 barrels a day over a three-year period. That would be a gain of about 14 percent over the 5.1 million barrels produced daily last year in the U.S.

Yet somehow that sort of forecast based on industry projections and announced discoveries had no discernable impact on world crude oil prices.

Why would anyone assume that opening other coastal areas -- which may or may not harbor large quantities of oil that might or might not be economic to produce sometime in the future -- will have an immediate impact on today's oil prices?

Nevertheless, the assertions continue: lift the moratorium and gasoline prices will fall. And since McCain's Democratic opponent, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, is opposed to ending the moratorium, he therefore is responsible for high gasoline prices.

Dry Holes

Drilling proponents point to an estimate from the Minerals Management Service that there are probably about 76 billion barrels of oil waiting to be discovered offshore.

The problem is that little of that oil -- perhaps about 18 billion barrels -- lies in areas subject to the moratorium. A third of the total is off the coast of Alaska, where drilling is extraordinarily difficult and expensive, and most of the rest is in the Gulf of Mexico where drilling is permitted.

Some 3.5 billion barrels in the Minerals Management Service estimate are off the Atlantic coast in the Baltimore Canyon, an ideal geologic formation in which to find oil. It runs from east of Cape Cod all the way to North Carolina.

Beginning in the late 1970s, huge tracts were opened for exploration and oil companies jumped at the chance to drill. About 35 wells were sunk off Cape Cod, New York and New Jersey at a cost, including purchases of the leases, of almost $3 billion.

The result? Nothing. Neither oil nor gas was found.

Giving Up

Another ideal formation, the Destin Dome, in the eastern Gulf Coast area off Pensacola, Florida, was another major disappointment. Exxon Mobil Corp. spent heavily to acquire leases and found no commercial quantities of oil or gas in what became known as ``Dusty Dome.''

Years later, natural gas was found in the Dome. Yet, as a result of political pressure generated by environmental concerns, oil companies were paid to give up their leases. The gas has never been produced.

At a July 15 press conference, Bush said that he had lifted an executive order that had restricted offshore drilling since the early 1980s. Now, he said, ``the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress.''

Fooling the Public

Republicans are hoping that the public, believing their foolish claims that drilling will lower gasoline prices, will put enough pressure on Democratic opponents during the August congressional recess that begins today to pass legislation to end the moratorium this fall.

Meanwhile, both Bush and congressional Republicans have refused to take a step that really could reduce gasoline prices. That is to release a portion of the light, low-sulfur crude in the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

In an earlier column I explained why that action might bring down prices in a way opening more environmentally fragile coastal waters to more drilling can't. Obviously Bush, McCain and their allies would prefer to mislead the American people and escape blame for effects of their past lack of action on the nation's energy problems.