It's their oil, they can do what they want. So can we with our lifestyle, and so can the corporations who squelch new energy technologies in favor of reaping huge profits from the status quo.

If we put the money we are paying for propping up a Saudi royal government and a war in Iraq for developing hydrogen technology, we would be better off on many fronts (pollution, terror, deaths, etc.).

I haven't looked at the exact number recently, but my recollection is that oil, which is hovering around $100.00/barrel, was about $20.00/barrel when this President took office. That's only the largest increase in the price of oil in HISTORY.

Can someone please explain to me how this happened.

I mean the Bush family has been extremely involved in the oil industry throughout their history. They are extremely friendly with the King of Saudi Arabia and his family. The Saudis promised to help the US for some of the things that we have done for them.

Saudis have essentially told Bush to stick it. All of the Bush family friends who had previously shut down oil well in the US because they were unprofitable have opened them up again and are running them at full capacity. The oil industry has shut down refining in the US, restricting the market and inflating the price, and is now buying finished oil products from overseas, making us MORE dependent on other countries.

Is this the GREAT Bush/Republican plan for energy independence?

Why are the radical and extremist environmentalist not held accountable for their blocking the harvesting of our own oil.

ANWR alone would be more than 1% of the daily world usage.

Now the chinese are going to be harvesting oil off of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico yet american companies can't.

Wacky world.

Oil is not the future!

Solar electric rooftop systems and plug-in Electric cars can replace oil imports.

There is no "free market" in oil, and no competition with other sources of energy. Oil is controlled by a cartel, and Electric cars are forbidden by the auto companies who refuse to produce them.

We've come a long way from the carrier-deck strut, haven't we? Now the boy king goes begging to the real masters of the situation.
And in further news today, the Saudis purchased another heap of US debt.
The whole idea of American exceptionalism is swirling down the toilet. Welcome to the third world, courtesy of the Bush family.

Bruce, look, the guys sitting by Mark were wearing keffiyehs! How terrifying! Almost as scary as a woman wearing a hijab, right?

Doug, please explain what will power all the electric plants? I have nothing against electricity, but you need water, nuclear energy, coal, oil, something in order to provide an electrical supply.

Dogjudge, when Bush took over, oil was at $40 a barrel. In fact, the whole oil price situation began in 2000, BEFORE Bush became president. Again, in 2000, the price of gas surpassed $2 a gallon and there were energy shortages. In May of 2000, then Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson said this, "we got caught with our pants down," in regard to the spike in energy prices and shortage problems.
We have known for years (again LONG BEFORE Bush took office) that energy supplies would not keep up with demand and prices would rise.
In 1998, the U.S. Senate passed a bill to allow drilling in ANWR, with 66 votes. Clinton vetoed it. In the 2000s, many of the same Democratic senators who voted to drill in ANWR in 1998, filibustered and voted against drilling there. Sorry to bring reality to your absurd surreal distortion that is the Loony Left Reality of Lies and Nonsense.

Until Israel is subdued and out of the illegal occupation business and in full compliance with the law and U.N. Charter - and until the Palestinians and Syria get their lands back - in a "comprehensive peace treaty" as per the Saud Beirut March 2002 summit with Palestinian full rights of return, there will be no peace in the Mid East nor security for Americans and Israelis anywhere in the world.
So why should Saudi Arabia, UAR, Egypt, Bahrain fully join Bush in his plans to dominate the world.
Further, Iranians are smarter than Bush and the Zionists. They would be and are no threat to anyone unless attacked first because to attack first, they are assured of being destroyed.
But Bush cannot attack even with Israel making an actual attack backed by the USA because while Iran would be subdued, American interests would suffer defeat and Israel would cease to exist.
This is called MAD and count the numbers!
Cheers, Jolly Uncle John Jan 15, 2008 at http://jews4peace.com/JustifiableVictims'Retribution.html

give me a break,
You are about 3 years behind on your talking points. Oil companies are not that interested in ANWAR any longer because they no longer believe the estimated reserves are accurate. They believe more can be found in other areas such as Russia and western Asia. Nice try though, your hate Americans first instincts just took over I guess. Use your brain and study a subject matter first before you comment.

Is it just a coincidence that Islamo-fascism is a right wing ideology? I'd have problems sleeping at night if I knew my ideology helped spawn 21st Century murderers.

"...Can someone please explain to me how this happened..."

Posted by: dogjudge | January 15, 2008 10:24 AM

Nice try with the political agenda biased twist on this- but basic economics, Supply and Demand... "happened" -

We are now competing for access to mideast oil-

China's economy is exploding at a double digit rate- India's economy is also growing ( not as much, but much faster than any western country) these two countries are buying as much oil as they can get their hands on...AND this is still not meeting their demand.

So we are essentially in a bidding war ( oil futures)against two countries that are willing to pay +$100.00/barrel.

You also refer to
"...The oil industry has shut down refining in the US, restricting the market and inflating the price, and is now buying finished oil products from overseas, making us MORE dependent on other countries...."

The US oil industry is being severly handicapped by environmental rules restricting domestic drilling and refining- do you really think that US oil companies don't want a piece of this economic BOOM ( record crude prices)? Remember- the money is NOT in the crude oil refining or retail delivery of gasoline, it is in the production of the raw crude..

the US is contradicting itself when it asks the Saudis to manipulate oil prices in the US' favor instead of allowing market forces to dictate the price.

I dont think the Saudis can pressure wall street to raise or lower the value of a single stock, let alone oil futures.

On one hand the US stands for a free market economy and on the other it wants the Saudis to manipulate prices.

What message does this send the world? is'nt this a basic supply and demand issue?

Americans have in fact been spoilt with unnaturally low oil prices for the past 2 decades. Europeans, Asians (sans oil producers) and Africans have been paying almost $3-$5 a gallon for years. Why should Americans be driving huge V8 Suburban SUVs with a single mom or a dad with 7 empty seats?

Get used to it, no one is forcing you to buy a gas guzzler, buy a Prius or better, get a bike, its good for your heart and wil fight off the macdonalds disease.

I haven't looked at the exact number recently, but my recollection is that oil, which is hovering around $100.00/barrel, was about $20.00/barrel when this President took office. That's only the largest increase in the price of oil in HISTORY.

Can someone please explain to me how this happened.

Posted by: dogjudge | January 15, 2008 10:24 AM

The result of the most explosive economic expansion in world history has driven the chinese and indian populations to record shattering consumption.

This combined with the declining value of the dollar and you got most of your answer.

Your inference that it is Bushes fault is intellectually juvenile and divisive. Grow up, study more.

Ya right John, how convenient and wrong.

First- I don't have talking points, I have history.

Second- the reason that there is not drilling in ANWR is because it is illegal. Otherwise we would be on our way to a million barrels a day. That's the facts, typical change history tactic, no one buys it.

I believe the US is paying the same price for oil as they paid many years ago. Taking into account the US dollar fell by 30% and the price of a barrel increased -on the world market-30%, what's the problem?

Heartburn,
How many applications for permits for new refineries have been submitted to the Department of the Interior?

I'd just tell em to turn on the "spigot".

Special Event
George W. Bush Blames Clinton-Gore Administration for Rising Gas Prices
Aired June 23, 2000 - 2:40 p.m. ET

GOV. GEORGE W.BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There seems to be an effort out of Washington to blame me for rising energy prices. And the American people don't buy that. It's the -- Clinton-Gore administration's been there for seven years, we're more dependent now than ever before on energy from foreign sources. And I am amazed that they're trying to shift the blame away from the people that are holding the office. And I resent that kind of politics, and so will the American people.

Gas prices at the time were around $1.70 per gallon.

Seven years later,are you better off?

give me a break,
The reason there is no pressure by industry officials to open ANWAR up to exploration is because they are no longer hounding elected officials with lobbyists trying to ease restrictions. Why did they stop? Because they don't think the oil is there. The estimates are inflated, by....drumroll please....the Bush Admin. Thanks for playing. Buy a newer history book, my friend.

The President's current homecoming tour to Saudi Arabia clearly cements in my mind the notion that GWB is really an Operative of OPEC who has illegally attained the Presidency of our Country in order to manipulate oil prices. As a previous poster said, the price of oil since the ascension to the thrown of GWB has quadrupled thanks to the first attack of the U.S. on our soil since Pearl Harbor that was carried out by who? Oh Yeah, a bunch of Saudi Nationals. That act followed by GWB's ill-advised occupation of Iraq, and his constant fear mongering regarding Iran is the only reason that oil is 91.50/barrel as I type this.

No wonder they declared his arrival "Home" a national holiday. He is the best thing to ever happen to the Saudi Monarchy.

John, there are billions of barrels of oil in ANWR. The oil industry would love to get to it. U.S. law orohibits it drilling in ANWR was filibustered by Dem Senators. We could have begun drilling in ANWR years ago if Clinton signed off on it when it passed in the Senate with 66 votes in 1998.
And, John, the main reason no new refineries is because of local opposition and regulations. Sheesh, didn't BP just take it up the butt when they wanted to expand their oil refinery in Indiana???

So much for 'grateful allies.' When Saddam invaded Kuwait, the Saudis assumed they'd be his next target, and the U.S. military was their welcomed savior.

Now Saddam is gone, and apparently so is the Saudi memory of that whole experience.

It won't happen in my lifetime, but I hope my children's generation will have the chance to tell Saudi Arabia to 'go to Hell' the next time there's a Middle East crisis.

Mark S,
I see your wardrobe choices remain at a very high standard!

I am reminded of Letterman's 'network time killers' segment;

DL.
What are ya wearing today, Hal?

Hal,
Golf shirt, chinos, hushpuppies.

************

No increase in oil for America?
I guess that's what $20 billion in weapons gets you today.

The US only imports 9% of its oil from Saudi Arabia. Most comes from Canada. The reason for high oil prices is that China is importing much of it. I remember about 30 years ago reading an article about China...the author wrote "Beware of the sleeping giant".

That's ok, because around 2015, half of Americans will be driving electric, and we can write the Middle East off like it's Africa. Let the Saudi's drown in their overabbundance then. Price/Gallon in 2020? 50 Cents. Americans adapt quickly, even if our government doesn't. Believe That! Other countries will be sure to follow. I'll be buying a Tesla (teslamotors.com) as soon as production ramps up.

The answer is not increasing supply. The answer is reducing demand.

RCK,

You may be right re. the electrics, etc.

But disagree on leading the way. UK and Europe are way ahead on fuel efficient driving habits and machines.

Also, their diesel engines are quiet and done smoke like a burning toxic dump.

I hope you are correct on US getting smart quick.

GET RID OF GWB AND YOU GET RID OF THIS OUT OF CONTROL OIL MONOPOLY. WHY ARE WE PAYING FOR IRAG OIL WHEN GWB IS DRAINING OUR POCKETS WITH BILLIONS TO IRAG? HE IS LAUGHING WHEN BE COUNTS HIS MONEY FROM HIS OIL PROFITS.

ANWAR is a dead issue. If there is plenty of oil there it is not in our best interest to use it up now. The Middle eastern sweet crude oil reserves are being depleted. In some of the oil fields they need to pump water into the well so that the oil will rise closer to the surface because the levels are so low. It is in our best interest to use up the other countries oil and keep ours untouched until it is absolutely necessary. Instead of the government trying spend money helping the oil companies, the government should give the subsidies to companies that want to develop new, clean energy and alternative fuels that will lower our dependence on fossil fuels from any country.

"Dogjudge, when Bush took over, oil was at $40 a barrel"

If only I could reach through this screen and shake you hard, Dyslin. This is a bold-faced, easily verifiable LIE. Yes, lie. It has been WIDELY reported in the MSM that a barrel of oil was around $20 when Bush took office. There are far too many links to include here, but here's just one passage:

"Until the March 28, 2000 adoption of the $22-$28 price band for the OPEC basket of crude, oil prices only exceeded $24.00 per barrel in response to war or conflict in the Middle East."
http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

So, no, the price for a barrel of oil was not $40 as you ignorantly stated.

P.S. As I've shown to you before, your assertion that ALL Americans received tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 is also verifiably false. Nonetheless, why argue with someone incapable of learning even when facts are laid out conveniently for his consumption?

heartburn,

There is no doubt that supply and demand play a role in the run-up, and that the precipitous collapse of the dollar has played a large role in the recent spike.

But do remember, the "market" for oil is not a free market. It is controlled by non-democratic cartels who can and DO turn off the supply when they feel like it.

Then there's the issue of futures markets, which appear to be reaking havoc as INVESTORS drive up the price of oil higher and higher. Here are some discussions along those lines:

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/06/oil_futures_and.html

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/3/2/234845/7384

On the demand side, is it your supposition that the consumption of oil by China and India has increased FIVE FOLD in the last SEVEN years? If so, I would be interested in seeing some data to back that up.

Remember, a significant portion of the price of oil does not respect supply or demand but rather, risk. Every time Bush talks up a new crusade in the Middle East, oil prices spike.

I think its a perfectly fair question to ask, as dogjudge does, whether this indeed was the plan all along. Much of this was entirely predictable: invading Iraq decreases supply and increases risk, gutting the federal Treasury and borrowing endlessly increases debt and therefore inflation, which, as oil is priced in dollars, increases the price of oil, further saber-rattling spooks the markets and drives oil past $100/ barrel for the first time ever...

The American people, and much of the world, suffers as a result of these policies, but the aristocrats and patriarchs who are The Bush Base make off like robber barons.

So, the big question is, is Bush an abominable failure for what he has done for the country, or an unmitigated success in executing a strategy that would benefit almost exclusively his cabal of oilmen and defense contractors while still maintaining the tacit support of Joe and Jane Sixpack on Main Street?

OPEC and Russia use their monopoly to tax US as much as possible, keeping us at the brink of recession and even periodically dinking us into it. It is time to turn the tables. My proposal: replace federal income tax with oil tax. Just about $100 dollars per barrel of all imported and domestic oil is enough to replace all personal income tax, corporate tax can be replaced with similar tax on natural gas. It will naturally stimulate oil saving on all fronts, from more efficent gasoline production to ride sharing, from more efficent heating systems to better infrastructure, from better plastic production to recycling etc etc etc. Congress should not decide whether to use ethanol or hybrids or whatever - market should, as it much more smart. Each one measure gives only modest savings, but taken together, they will make momentum to decrease oil consumption in the future, and thus crash oil prices to the reasonable profit margin of 10% instead of current margins of 1000-2000%. Gasoline prices for US consumers will stabilize on about $3.50/gal, and we will have no income tax, and new economic boom based on zero income tax regime and all the investment in the energy-saving technology! All we need is political will catering not to oil interests, but to American voters, as it should.

In 1973 we had the first oil crisis. We COULD have changed our habits then. We COULD have invested in alternative energy then. In fact we started to do so, in the late 1970's...and solar panels were even installed on the White House...but then we stopped, and those panels were taken down, and the research dried up to a trickle. Also we built our cities further and further out, becoming more and more dependent on cars.

Remember also that Henry Ford's Model T got about 20 miles per gallon and could run on gasoline or ethanol. The progress we've made is pathetic, when you consider how much technology has moved forward in every other manner. OPEC rules the world - and they just basically just let Bush know it. That will be the case so long as oil is the energy source. Realize, they don't actually PRODUCE anything except oil. When did you last buy anything made in Saudi Arabia? Never, I'd bet. Also keep in mind...most of the hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, too.

So, here we are today, with prices rising fast in many areas because of energy costs - and China and the Saudis owning big chunks of our $9 TRILLION (and rising) debt. The sooner we get off of oil, the better. It is long, long overdue - we likely could have been there 10 years ago, if we'd just stuck with the research that began in the 1970's. With $100 per barrel, it's time to make the research priority A-1 again. If we can fly to the moon, if we can build flat screen TVs, if we can build ipods, surely we have the brainpower to solve the energy riddle.

We'll be right behind, C. Morris. I can't wait to see what happens in the Middle East when they realize their peddling a dead resource. They're cutting off their noses to spite their face. I know there will be a time where the US uses so little oil, our own supplies will meet what little demand their will be. We also need to go Nuclear like France.

John D,
On you second point, NO. BP did not want to expand their facility. They wanted to process a different type of crude. No increase in output of refined fuel, just a change in the type of crude that was processed. On your first point, FLAT OUT FALSE. How many times do I have to say it? There are few lobbyists asking as the oil companies have given up trying to get access to ANWAR because with advances in exploratory technology they are not convinced there is as much as what was originally estimated in ANWAR. Don't believe me? Do a google search. While your at it look at how much money the oil industry spent on lobbying FOR ANWAR EXLORATION in 1998 versus the last 5 years. See any changes?

We need to reduce demand in a big way and we have to start now. We should have started 30 years ago and some might say we did, we just aren't moving fast enough. We need leadership, one willing to shape the market place. Tax breaked and grants for manufactures to move, tax breaks for people going high mileage and taxes on buyers that are not. Rebuild railways, light rail and bus services for today economy. This is not an "us against them" issue or a "red vs. blue" this is about the future of America.

judyE,
Saudi Arabia accounts for right about 16% of U.S. crude oil imports, according to government data released today. They are number two behind Canada.

and not a single comment on the additional cost of hedge funds. Estimates are that hedge funds ad $0/barrel to the cost that we are paying for oil. Supply and demand do contribute to costs, but why is everyone ignoring greed?

Hey Mark, where's your head-scarf??

For all Bush bashers and hate America first lefty loons; The reason for inflated sweet crude oil prices is because of basic micro (oil industry) and macro (China, India, and US economies) economic principles. As demand in the world oil industry goes up coupled with harsher restrictions and a declining dollar, oil prices are skyrocketing. During the oil crisis in the late seventies, early eighties oil prices were over $100 a barrel after you adjust inflation. So stop blaming Bush for every little thing that makes your life inconvenient. Grow up, learn the facts and stop pushing progressive agenda into this country.

john,

John D and other cons. want to ruin ANWR for ideological reasons; They want to throw an elbow in the faces of liberal enviros.

It's cutting off their own noses to spite someone else's face.

Our "good friends" the Saudi's are getting more independent now that the oil market is booming with Russia and China. Give it a few more years and they'll make our lives miserable because they won't be dependent on us buying the majority of their oil. Don't forget that the country that is our "friend" is also the one that provided most of the terrorists for the attack on 9-11.

John Boy, your little chart shows the prices in 2006 dollars. Before you go flap your gums, get a clue.
Let's use this link, which gives a detailed month-by-month occurrence of energy and oil prices in 2000 and also I will cut and past some key points for you and your buddy Loons on the Left:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chrn2000.html

February 16 President Clinton announces the release of $125 million in additional federal government assistance for low income households hit by high heating oil prices. On the same day, Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson addresses the New England Heating Oil Summit in Boston. The moves come after a dramatic spike in heating oil prices in the Northeastern United States. The price for number two heating oil at New York Harbor peaked at February 4th at $1.77 per gallon. (WP, WSJ, DJ)

March 7 New York Mercantile Exchange front-month West Texas Intermediate crude oil futures contract closes at $34.13 per barrel, the highest level in nine years. (WSJ)

(Commentary: Hmmm, John, $34 a barrel in March 2000 -- far cry from the $20 you keep flapping about!)

May 29 According to the Energy Information Administration, retail gasoline prices in the United States reach their highest level ever, with an average price of $1.538 per gallon. The previous peak was $1.529 per gallon, on March 20, 2000. These figures are not adjusted for inflation. (DJ)

June 19 The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports a one-week rise of five cents in the average price of regular gasoline, to $1.681. This is the seventh straight week of increasing prices. Gasoline prices in the Midwest are the nation's highest, at $1.874. (DJ)

September 20 Oil prices close at $37.20 on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), after trading as high as $37.80 during the day's trading session. The price spike comes amid an increase in tensions between Iraq and Kuwait. This level sets a new ten-year high for NYMEX crude oil. (DJ)

(Commentary: Hey John, $38 a barrel is closer to $40 than it is to $20!!).

October 12 Oil prices rise sharply on news of a terrorist attack on an American warship, the USS Cole, in the Yemeni port of Aden, as well as escalating violence between Palestinians and Israeli security forces. November crude oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) rises $2.81 to close at $36.06 per barrel. Prices for Henry Hub natural gas hit a record high of $5.78 per million British thermal units (BTU) before falling back slightly to close at $5.63 per million BTU. (WSJ)

December 15 Natural gas prices soar 13 percent after the National Weather Service issues a revised forecast predicting colder winter weather in the eastern United States. Henry Hub natural gas closes at $8.396 on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), up 98.3 cents. Gas prices are running at record high levels on concerns over winter supplies, especially given colder weather this season. (DJ)

And this act here makes it even more difficult to ever get oil from ANWR:

January 10 The White House announces that President Clinton will not designate the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) as a national monument prior to his departure from office. Environmentalist groups had been pressing for national monument status for the ANWR to prevent oil drilling. (DJ)

And in regard to BP, here from NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12774639

And from the link comes this: The expansion would allow BP to refine heavy Canadian crude oil, boosting gasoline production at the fourth largest refinery in the U.S. and reducing the nation's reliance on Middle Eastern oil.

So, John, it says BOOSTING GASOLINE PRODUCTION.

As usual, you ignorant fools on the Left have NO CLUE about ANYTHING!

john,

John D and other cons. want to ruin ANWR for ideological reasons; They want to throw an elbow in the faces of liberal enviros.

It's cutting off their own noses to spite someone else's face.

Posted by: C.Morris | January 15, 2008 2:15 PM

C.Morris- I will put myself in the "Con" bucket here and say you are are completely off base and reactionary...

I don't know what peoples motivations are for wanting/not wanting an increase in domestic oil production- the bottom line is this...
If you can make something cheaper than you can buy it- doesn't it make sense to make it?

Another point of logic-

IF we are so adverse to drilling and refining domestically, maybe the $100.00 or even $200.00 /barrel price is a better deal to us- in order to preserve places like ANWR , or our coastlines..

We know the cost of foreign oil- right around $100/barrel.

Isn't it possible that we could drill "cleanly" domestically? At the current cost of foreign oil, the cost of the added controls that could be built into domestic production, to eliminate or lower impacts, may actually end up being lower than the $100/barrel..?

I think your assumption that drilling = ruining ANWR is based more on ideology than economic or common sense..

C.Morris- I will put myself in the "Con" bucket here and say you are are completely off base and reactionary...

Posted by: heartburn | January 15, 2008 2:55 PM

You've always been in the "Con" bucket, you arsehat.

"It is controlled by non-democratic cartels who can and DO turn off the supply when they feel like it."

"I think its a perfectly fair question to ask, as dogjudge does, whether this indeed was the plan all along."

This IS something that I have often thought. That is why I DO think that in the confines of what the Bush Administration thinks it is doing-- for the long run-- it does take ideas and experience; and careful timing. With every thing so wrong, going so slow, and exactly as opponents said it would, should we go out crusading to Iraq, you can not but help and ask was that the plan all along? Is is possible that Iraq was an answer to those interested in the problem of our energy dependency? After all Alaska only accounts for 10% of the world's reserves. Saudi Arabia has the most, twice the amount of Iraq. (Russia and China have the most untapped due to what it would take to reach it under ice--costly) Meaning in the eyes of those who it would concern a push for Iraq would--in the long run, offer us a sizable alternative based on our needs (v Alaska) in case the relation ship to our main supplier Saudi Arabia becomes tense or proves to be too costly for us. In the mean time as we work to that goal, where Iraq can do business with us, the oil industry will benefit waiting. A win-win for them and in conservative eyes a win for business. In the long run could they have planned to stretch out Iraq into the actual election?

President Bush says we are addicted to oil and the Republo-fascists scream in unison, drill for more oil! Priceless. Rich. Are there any more adjectives to describe this scene of stereotypical addict behavior?
No wonder you lost Congress. This is the type of addictive behavior that turns true Republics like Paulo off.

Though I'm sure you did not intend to, your last post proves my point. If you read past the first sentence of some of the key paragraphs, you'll note these phrases:

"September 20 Oil prices close at $37.20 on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), after trading as high as $37.80 during the day's trading session. The price spike comes amid an increase in tensions between Iraq and Kuwait.

"October 12 Oil prices rise sharply on news of a terrorist attack on an American warship, the USS Cole, in the Yemeni port of Aden, as well as escalating violence between Palestinians and Israeli security forces.

So, the price of oil is closely tied to events in the Middle East. And oil spikes when there are tensions, suggesting a possible disruption of the oil flow.

You are correct that 2000 was an unusual year for oil prices, with the 2nd Intifida and USS Cole attack in late September and early October respectively.

Perhaps this will be add some perspective:

Yearly average price of oil (and on Bush's inauguration)

1996 $20.46
1997 18.97
1998 11.91
1999 16.55
2000 27.41

Jan,2001 28.66 (closer to $20 than $40, but who's counting right?)

2001 23.00 (Interesting note: the price of oil falls for many months in the immediate aftermath of September 11)
2002 22.81

Now here's where the fun, and by that I mean the Iraq War, begins:

2003 27.69
2004 37.41
2005 49.81
2006 58.30
2007 64.20

That's a serious jump, and until someone supplies data to support the Winger contention that this is purely a result of the rise of demand in India and China, I think its just as reasonable to contribute a significant portion of the price increase to policies enacted by the Bush Administration- the Iraq War, large yawning structural budget deficits, cheap credit and the resulting inflation, refusal to confront US demand, etc.

This is the type of addictive behavior that turns true Republics like Paulo off.

Posted by: jackson | January 15, 2008 3:40 PM

What makes you think Paulo is turned off by this? It hasn't ever stopped him from cheerleading his beloved Know-Nothing party.

Jones, Middle East turmoil does increase the price of oil, but that has had less affect on the price of oil in the past 5 years. The growth in India and China, as well as economic expansion through most of the world in the past 5 years has more to do with the price of oil going up. This is why whenever a negative economic report comes out, the price of oil DROPS!

Oil did drop some following the attacks on 9/11. Why? Because the U.S. economy suffered as did much of the world.

Jones,
It is true, and Republics don't like to admit it, that we spend more per gallon of gasoline with our constant military presence in the Persian Gulf than we do in gas taxes. And this was true prior to invading Iraq!!! Wrap your heads around that Republicans.

The oil minister was besieged by questions about oil production, but when asked about the future of gas prices, he said: "If I knew the answer... I would be in Las Vegas."

Don't let him fool you, he owns Vegas!!! Lord help us.

p.s. John D, what kind of drugs did you do back in the day to fry all those brain cells???

This is why whenever a negative economic report comes out, the price of oil DROPS!

Posted by: John D | January 15, 2008 4:11 PM

But your 401(k) is going gangbusters? Tell me more about how the world works.

"Jones, Middle East turmoil does increase the price of oil, but that has had less affect on the price of oil in the past 5 years. The growth in India and China, as well as economic expansion through most of the world in the past 5 years has more to do with the price of oil going up."

Ok, you reasserted your original assertion, and I have now TWICE asked for some evidence to back it up.

Provide me some data that suggests that the consumption of India and China has increased 4-5 fold in the last 6 years, thus accounting for the 4-5 fold run-up in prices.

I'll be anxiously awaiting.

I can't believe how many wage slave, Bu$h apologists are here trying to deny that the prices first spiked when this idiot ran for president (and the oil industry began to reap record profit quarter after quarter) and the additional spike after the illegal invasion of Iraq took place. I'm sure they have some nonsensical talking point to attempt to counter that fact, but those who cannot, I'm sure will continue the irrelevant polemic attacks against others.

The Saudis are just treating our corporations the exact same way the corporations treat the American people.

"SAUDI'S SPEAK"

PIMPIN AIN'T EASY BUT THIS COUNTRY HAS TO DO IT.

DICK CHENEY SAID IT'S NOT AN OPTION!

$100.00 A BARRELL AND NO ONE IS USING OUR CITIBANK CARDS ANYMORE.

YEA RIGHT.

BECAUSE THIS IS WHY THEY CALL HIM BIG POPPY. AMERICA THROW YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR LIKE YOU JUST DON'T CARE.

SAUDI DON'T.

OH GEORGE LETS, OH GEORGE LETS NOT. OH GEORGE, OH GEORGE, OOOOOOOH GEORGE.

Jones, here is a link for you:

http://www.iags.org/china.htm

By the way, where do you get 4 to 5 times?
the information I supplied earlier clearly shows oil selling for $32 to $37 a barrel for a good chunk of 2000. Oil is not selling for $120 to $150 a barrel -- yet!
Anyway, it's not just China's and India's growth, but our own, Europe's and the whole wide world!

Did Roger Morris say something??? I'm not sure because ALL CAPS ARE ANNOYING!!!

Little John D, you are losing it amiga.

See John D's latest witty tirade below.

"As usual, you ignorant fools on the Left have NO CLUE about ANYTHING!

Posted by: John D | January 15, 2008 2:50 PM

Dude, if commander and chimp Bush were taking glass bottom boat rides (which he may very well) you'd kiss his a%s to crawl on board!!! p.s. because your to clueless to google it I provided a link. Now go back to your Kool-Aid.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Glass+Bottom+Boat+Ride

Memorable quotes for
"Aqua Teen Hunger Force"

Glass-Bottom Boat Captain: Hi. This is your captain speaking. Welcome to the glass-bottom boat ride at the world famous Trenton Tar Pits. I just want to let you know I'm a convicted sex offender.
Glass-Bottom Boat Captain: Oh-no, ladies and gentlemen, now we're being attacked. Look to your left over the Tarboard side. Giant microscopic Tar Monsters.
Frylock: There ain't nothin' over here but tar and a condom wrapper. This is gross.
[after faking fighting off Tar-Monsters]
Glass-Bottom Boat Captain: OK, I'm back, and we're safe, ladies and gentlemen. They won't be bothering us any more. I chased them off with my nudity.
[pause]
Glass-Bottom Boat Captain: Does that arouse anyone down there?
Meatwad: What does that mean?
Frylock: It means we're gonna get off this boat right now.
Meatwad: Hey, how do I know if I'm aroused?
Glass-Bottom Boat Captain: OK, and we've docked, and I feel a little sexy. Who down there wants to meet the captain and feel sexy with him?

John D: Hey Swamp Things, insert comment here...

The beginning and end goal of this administration was greed. NO president in recent history has ever shown such disdain toward the problems of the American people as much ss GWB/Cheney.

As for the price of oil - logic would dictate that since this is the last year of the Bush/Cheney dominance of economic and political agendas, they would make a last ditch effort to "make more money for themselves and their military/oil/industrial buddies before leaving office.

The Bush/Saudi meeting had less to do with lowering the price of oil by increasing supply, and more to do with Bush's desire to go out in a blaze of glory by attacking Iran and creating the one unique legacy of starting a "WWIII" at which he has hinted. Then he and Cheney can safely remove themselves to their hidden bunkers and watch the fireworks.

Provide me some data that suggests that the consumption of India and China has increased 4-5 fold in the last 6 years, thus accounting for the 4-5 fold run-up in prices.

I'll be anxiously awaiting.

Posted by: Jones | January 15, 2008 4:47 PM

Jones-

Don't wait- look it up yourself! There is no SUGGESTION that the price of crude is being spiked by the increased demand from devloping nations- this is fact.

The attached article includes the quote, referring to China alone-

"...Its oil consumption grows by 7.5% per year, seven times faster than the U.S.' ..."

http://www.iags.org/china.htm

read it for yourself- I anxiously await your spin on facts to make this another I hate bush driven issue..

Ok, you reasserted your original assertion, and I have now TWICE asked for some evidence to back it up.

Provide me some data that suggests that the consumption of India and China has increased 4-5 fold in the last 6 years, thus accounting for the 4-5 fold run-up in prices.

I'll be anxiously awaiting.

Posted by: Jones | January 15, 2008 4:47 PM

Don't hold your breathe while you wait, Johnny Torture has a long & well documented history of making up 'facts' & then ducking & covering when asked to provide proof. Pretty soon he'll just fall back on hurling insults at you while claiming he actually answered your questions.

First - looking at these pictures, I think there has to be a Pizza Hut that is missing some table cloths

Dog,

You'll hate hearing this - its supply and demand. The economies of the world's two largets countries has taken off in the past decade.

Jones,

What was the state of the US economy on Sept 11th and months thereafter?

"Provide me some data that suggests that the consumption of India and China has increased 4-5 fold in the last 6 years, thus accounting for the 4-5 fold run-up in prices."

Pricing of commodities is not a linear function.

I have spoken to folks in the oil industry - they would love to be in ANWAR, they have given up because they know its not a political possibility with the dems being wrapped around the econuts' finger. The citizens of Alaska would love to have ANWAR being drilled and the great paying jobs that come with it.

RCK,

In 2015 where will all that electricity come from? What do you think will happen to the price of electicity in 2015 from all those electric cars on the road - up or down?

CM,

The drilling and production in ANWAR would account for the size fo a postage stamp on a football field. It wouldn't evebn be noticable. Have you ever heard of directional drilling?

Rlicht,

15 of the 9-11 terrorist were from Saudi Arabia - were they sent by the gov't? Timothy McVeigh was born in NY, should we kick NY out of the union?

Nuclear Reactors Terry. France gets 75% of their electricity from them. This isn't Russia, we can work with the stuff.

People, why are we waisting our time talking about how to get more oil? Our number one priority should be advancing lithium/ion technology for transportation and focusing on nuclear energy to meet our electric needs.

If we can succeed on these issues, our national security and economy would benefit directly. I'd think that could even make your average liberal be proud to be an American again.

Heartburn, thanks for the link. I submitted the same link at 4 pm central, but the afraid-of-the-truth anti-First (and Second, for that matter) Amendment censors at the LIBune apparently didn't like it.

Really, how in the world can the alleged First Amendment believers at the LIBune claim that mantle when you folks rarely ever practice the reality of the First Amendment and free speech and free dissemination of information?

RCK,

Good luck getting that past the left-wing econuts.

It's you average liberal that has put us in this $90-$100 per barrel of oil situation in the first place - no nukes, limited domestic drilling

RCK,

Good luck getting that past the left-wing econuts.

It's you average liberal that has put us in this $90-$100 per barrel of oil situation in the first place - no nukes, limited domestic drilling

Posted by: Terry | January 15, 2008 11:15 PM

Terry represents the party of non-accountability. His party's energy policies have been non-existent. Their foreign policies destabilized the middle east. Now it's the Environmentalist fault (what, Clinton didn't do it?).

heartburn,

Let's see, 7.5% per year, times 7 years, equals 52.5%. The price of oil has increased 400+%. Seems like we've got a whole lot of extra padding in there somewhere.

Thanks for proving my point.

heartburn,

Let's see, 7.5% per year, times 7 years, equals 52.5%. The price of oil has increased 400+%. Seems like we've got a whole lot of extra padding in there somewhere.

Thanks for proving my point.

Posted by: Jones | January 16, 2008 10:44 AM

You don't get it- I will try one more time..

I made no assumption that to rationalize the 4-500% ( your number) increase in perbarrel crude requires an equal increase in Chinese consumption..i offered that as a compelling CONTRIBUTOR to the increased price of crude.

My point, along with others in this subject, is that instead of conjuring up some bug eyed scenario blaming the current administration for intentionally driving up the price of crude- I challenge you to take a more reasonable, fact based, logical look at facts. The 52% increase in consumption from China alone is having a huge impact on the per barrel price- when you throw in the increases in India's consumption, and our consumption you will have to see that the demand for oil is spiking - then if you are being intellectually honest, you have to agree that increased demand on a relatively finite resource will cause a increase in the price of the resource.

Og course, that would take all of the fun out of relating every bad news story to this admin - right?

dt,

It was the Republicans, under vice-president Cheney, that called for more nuclear power.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/05/08/power.woes.02/index.html

If Bill Clinton hadn't vetoed exploration in ANWR, oil would be lower today.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg1921.cfm

Let us not forget off-shore and federal lands in the lower 48.

As far as Clinton, he punted the terrorist issue down the road to his successor

Nice one thanks for the info