Restricting oil supplies? Take a look in the mirror.

A Senate committee last week passed legislation that would attempt to allow lawsuits in U.S. courts against any foreign state or cooperative for limiting the production of oil or natural gas. The bill, nicknamed “NOPEC,” targets the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

It’s ironic that the “NOPEC” bill tries to ban the very thing that U.S. energy policy does on a daily basis – limiting production of oil and natural gas supplies. Consider the following:

  • The majority of America’s offshore acreage remains off-limits to oil and gas exploration and production.
  • Exploration and development in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico – which accounts for 30 percent of all U.S. crude oil production – was effectively banned for the past year.
  • Legislation enacted in the U.S. is targeted at restricting the supply of oil from Canada – a country whose oil reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia’s.

Like the “use it or lose it” smoke screen, this legislation is nothing but a tactic to divert Americans’ attention from the fact that U.S. politicians continue to restrict access to domestic energy supplies – a decision with negative consequences for U.S. energy security and energy markets.

Opening up U.S. resources can create jobs, increase government revenues and put downward pressure on prices. Instead, some politicians keep using every excuse in their playbook to avoid having to take a look in the mirror. “NOPEC” is just the latest example.


31 Comments

Already have a username? Log in to comment. First-time commenting? Sign up to create your username. It's easy, and we won't share your information.

  1. Daniel Paquin says:

    The US GOVT is trying to protect its coasts. Exxon sees it as preventing access to revenue. I’m a US citizen. Exxon should stop complaining and trying to manipulate people.

    • Greg Ecklund says:

      Daniel, are you really that dimwitted?

      While Exxon certainly requires government oversight to ensure that it is a decent steward of the environment, the liberals in Congress continue to conspire with the environmental wackos in our country to severely restrict our supply of domestic energy. Even natural gas, once the fossil fuel darling of the environmental movement, is now coming under fire now that we are increasing drilling for it here.

      If you are willing to accept much higher energy prices in exchange for severely restricting our access to domestic supplies, be my guest, but you are a minority in that view by a very large margin.

      • Charles Cory says:

        Just because someone disagrees with you calling them dimwitted gets us no where.

        Higher gas energy prices are directly attributable to manipulation of the futures market by speculators. That is the major reason gasoline prices have risen so dramatically.

        You assertion that Daniel is in the minority for the reasons you state is a red herring of most odorous kind.

        Government oversight is an oxymoron at best.

        • BK Flanagan says:

          Wrong, Charles! The current spike in oil and other commodity prices is directly related to the the mismanagement of our nation’s fiscal affairs by the Obama administration combined with the debasement of the dollar by Helicopter Ben Bernacke. No credit rating combined with worthless dollars equals higher costs. No amount of tap dancing by Obama, Geithner or Bernacke can change that reality.

        • Phil Eagan says:

          Production of more oil would wipe the speculators out. The reason they are making such bets, and winning, is because of our government regulations taking off the table nearly 80% of proven U.S. petroleum resources.

          And don’t think oil companies can’t be responsible. BP has paid a steep price for their incompetence. and the Gulf environment has made a comeback.

      • Mad Tr8r says:

        Mr. Ecklund are you really that dimwitted “Exxon are Stewards of the environment” on what reality cuz Im pretty sure its not everyone elses but yours. Im no tree hugger but the way I look at it, everyday Oil stays above $100 a barrel the planet comes closer to fully developing alternative energy ie, electrifying all vehicles, solar efficiencies that will create completely independent power, I cant wait for the day the Crude Oil is relegated as an archaic form of energy, hey well still need petroleum based products but hopefully fuel wont be one of them, its destroying the planet, and Exxon singlehandedly did quite a bit of destruction on their own, Im sure BP and Exxon can laugh about it over dinner. SO yes Im willing to pay $4 or $5 a gallon for now if it means a paradigm shift down the road.

    • jerry dotto says:

      why is it that with fracking the production of natural gas and oil
      is increased domestically but the product is shipped over seas to be sold to foriegn buyers.these are the resources of the people of the united states and should be used to create a domestic supply not increase the wealth of speculators or corporations. if it’s drilled here use it here.

    • Rich H says:

      Yes, they want to protect the coasts, thats it. And in Alaska, we need to protect those Caribou, because… Well, just because. We can use candles for light. And put windmills on top of our cars. And beg those nice people in the middle east to be nice to us.

      DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW!

    • S Reed says:

      Protecting the coast is important, but the two goals do not have to be oppositional. It is amazing how many citizens complain about our dependence on foreign oil, yet we are not allowed to access our domestic oil. You cannot complain both ways. Accessing our domestic oil off the coasts can be done safely which creates more domestic oil and more domestic jobs.

    • sevan claig says:

      Protecting it’s coasts? Why should China’s oil firms via Cuba and or Petrobras be allowed to drill in waters around us where Exxon or anyone else is not? Well, Petrobras I can understand… your King Soros owns a piece of them.

    • Phil Eagan says:

      Dan-
      It isn’t manipulation when it’s true. Our government has restricted oil production, killing jobs in the process, for over 20+ years across both Dem & Republican administrations. Look at Russia – their economy was in the toilet until they discovered and developed their petroleum reserves. If you’re like me you drive a car which needs gasoline. Let’s let the free market do it’s thing, and only regulate HOW oil is developed – not destroy the market completely.

  2. Anita Sherman says:

    Like most marketing perspectives, this piece seems a bit weak on some details. The industry is being forced to decide what kind of entity it wants to be in global energy policy. The old ways are not sustainable. The industry is using less than 1/3 of it’s leases on public lands in the US, and choosing not to develop these options. When the industry chooses not to develop what it has – but has a focus on including more offshore options – the industry is creating the ‘cat and mouse’ posturings that plague us from moving forward. Why? Regulatory oversight, and stronger consumer protections on public land leases. In otherwords, the industry will use these leases when they’ve exhausted less regulated private options that maximize their bottomline profits. There is minimal US control in offshore drilling. Something we all should have learned in the wake of BP’s oil spill disaster. But, then again, that might be the point of this piece.

    The industry needs to be regulated to save itself from implosion. This could and should mean removing speculator loop holes currently driving oil/gas prices, better returns on taxpayer investments/gov’t subsidies to the taxpayer – in health care services, infrastructure, education in the US – with stronger environmental protections outside of industry controlled agencies de facto currently regulating the industry. When unregulated corporate profits interfere with the environment, human health, and economic stability with US taxpayer dollars in the US, and globally, that is a problem. When a gov’t is rendered useless at the hands of unregulated corporate abuses to remain profitable, that is a problem.

    I support responsible corporate partners that see their role as part of a greater whole. There is room for responsible cooperation – a concept that hasn’t been the prevailing voice in the industry’s ‘profit… read more »

    …over people’ anthem for the past century. Just because we can – for profit – doesn’t mean we should. Develop the “unused leases” on fully regulated public land before citing the gov’t as obstuctionist, denying the industry of developing economic solutions.

    • Dav Fusi says:

      The industry’s reply can be summed up by the following excerpt from WSJ’s interview of John Watson, Chevron’s CEO, and an industry spokesman on the issue of producing oil on land leases and how long it takes to develop them.

      “It has taken “the better part of a decade to do the seismic work, drill the exploratory wells, evaluate those wells, drill other development wells, to delineate it, to build the facilities and to place the oil wells online,” he explains.

      The endless moratorium has already meant that “if you go out to the middle of the decade, there are already 200,000 to 300,000 barrels a day of oil that aren’t going to be produced that year. . . . That won’t be retrieved.” And the lost production number is getting larger, since the new Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management is still dallying on permits-and those primarily for backlogged projects, not new leases.

      Democrats are now arguing, as Mr. Obama did in his speech, that the oil industry already “holds tens of millions of acres of leases where it’s not producing a drop.” Some are advocating “use it or lose it,” calling for the government to strip oil companies of their leases if they don’t immediately start producing.

      Mr. Watson explains why this is bogus. Only one-third of Chevron’s offshore leases are classified as “producing” oil and gas today. The other two-thirds either are “unsuccessful” (they don’t hold viable oil or gas) or “are in varying stages of development-seismic work, drilling wells, constructing facilities.” Mr. Watson says companies would be crazy to sit on productive lands, since leases require costly bonus payments and annual rental payments to the government.”

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013604576248881417246502.html

    • bill hill says:

      what are u talking about? Oil companies drill in areas that make them the most money and present the lowest risk. If they don’t drill its because they don’t think they will make a profit…would u force them spend money foolishly? Risk to drilling includes risk of not getting permitted to drill and this is a direct result of adversarial regulation. Offshore drilling is heavily regulated. BP spill was result of crappy project management something you and I are exposed to every day at work and at home. Accidents will and do happen and this is the price we pay as an industrialized society…and yes we must strive to limit accidents. The industry is regulated by the states and the EPA.

  3. Eddie Aguirre says:

    According to your map we have about 20 billion barrels that currently are off limits. Let say that tomorrow all of that was available. We import around 350 million barrels a month, that comes to about 4.2 billion barrels per year. So even if your estimates of 20 billion is right, we’d probably find that it’s lower in reality, we could stop importing for less than 5 years.

    I would rather have that as a reserve than tap it now in the hopes that it would lower prices. Let’s say that relations in the middle east and South America continue to deteriorate, and we continue to fight wars. What if some foreign producers decide to cut us off. Wouldn’t it be nice to have some local oil to fall back onto? Or will we be looking around in 10 years with less suppliers and no reserves here. What would happen to prices then? What would happen to our defense department?

    Being short sighted is was got us in this position and what keeps us in this position. We need a 5, 10, 20 year plan. But instead we are only looking at tomorrow. Gas prices go up, cars get more efficient. Gas prices go down, muscle cars return pumping out 400, 500 horsepower.

    In 2009 Exxon Mobile made over a $42 billion profit, and how much of that went to the IRS? $0. But, I know I’m commenting on an Exxon Mobile website so I don’t expect anybody to agree with me.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

    • bill hill says:

      nice thoughts on the reserve, i don’t totally agree but yeah if the US had a plan might be more viable…but I see it as a crazy wild west out there and no one seems to care. I mean look at our cars they are huge and get 12 to 16 mpg…arent we silly (mine get 16 and 16) but that is America today. I think drill baby drill and keep the Chinese out of our waters…because believe me they are coming with lots of cash from sales to us.

      We do need a plan but no one seems to have the backbone to get it going. All this environmental smokescreen is immaterial. We as a nation are cleaner than we have ever been.

  4. Tony Baker says:

    The U.S. has enough the ability to be an oil producing and exporting country. We simply choose to buy from others in order to somehow “save” our oil for a later date. Meanwhile, the country is bankrupt and we send billions to countries that support terrorism and views that are contrary to our western philosophies. Yes, the oil companies should be using its leases, even if they’re less profitable at the time. However, the U.S. Government should do everything to open the floodgates on oil production and even exportation so that the U.S. is once again the super power that it once was. Otherwise, in the next fifty years we’ll see our standards of living and our culture radically changed in ways we couldn’t have imagined just 50 years ago.

  5. Bob Fitzgerald says:

    I think it would be helpful if the map also pointed out where all of the big giant oil spills were. It might help people understand the closure of some areas.
    Like the Santa Barbara spill, the Deepwater Horizon spill, the ongoing Taylor Energy spill or the Ixtoc I spill.

  6. Howard Tanner says:

    This map is misleading. Get past your ideology and actually look at the numbers in ExxonMobil’s graph above. The numbers indicate the amount of oil and gas estimated to be recoverable in the region, but neither the size nor the color indicate the quantity. So visually, this map is tries to trick you simple-minded readers into how much reserves would be available if only we’d allow good ol’ ExxonMobil to drill! However, when you add up all the numbers, you’ll see that the areas currently “off limits” total less than 30% of the reserves already open.

    So all this additional drilling and potential pollution for a maximum potential of less than 30% of what’s already open to drilling. And considering that ExxonMobil STILL hasn’t paid their fines for the Valdez, do you really want them drilling in more waters than they already can?

    • bill hill says:

      The point is that drilling offshore is a viable option and will help the US oil production. We need the oil so let’s drill and let’s be careful doing it. The map is not misleading it is an estimate so let it go. There is a fair bit of oil offshore do you want it or not.

      The other thing is that foreign companies will drill if we do not, especially the Chinese.

  7. Hallie Byerley says:

    Really? If US is merely trying to protect it’s coasts, why did our President recently visit Brazil and agree to use US taxpayer dollars to support Brazil’s deep water drilling in Gulf of Mexico? You can get back to us on that, Daniel, as you are presently clueless to facts.

    Accidents happen, and when Brazil is responsible for the next one, who do you think will be called in to clean up the mess?

    The United States Federal Government recently stole $2.2 billion from an oil company . You see, this un-named corporation spent 2.2 Billion dollars on government leases. They also spent over 4 Billion on exploration and the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board refuses to grant critical air permits.

    You see, Daniel, government has directly and intentionally caused an increases in the price of everything you need to survive by allowing the EPA, which is under Executive control, to take this action.

    Who do you think is going to pay for government fraud aimed at oil companies trying to do business in USA, Daniel?

    Are you prepared to pay $10 dollars for a gallon of gasoline? Or $20 dollars for a loaf of bread? How about paying $6 dollars for a McDonalds hamburger? Year, I didn’t think so.

    So, Daniel, take comfort in the fact that President Obama has kept his promise. He said in January 2008 that “Under my plan energy prices would necessarily skyrocket.”

    What Obama failed to tell you, and what you failed to anticipate, was that everything else in your life would cost a lot more when President Obama kept his promise.

  8. Drill Babydrill says:

    Why does the U.S. export oil??

  9. D H says:

    Since acreage is not the relevant variable, I get my calculator:

    Oil – open to exploration: 65.6 out of 83.7 Bbl (78%)
    Gas – open to exploration: 316.6 out of 401.5 Tcf (79%)

    In other words it looks like you guys have access to the good bits already.

  10. bill hill says:

    Why do we need more legislation that allows or even encourages lawsuits. Lawsuits do one thing migrate money from one entity into the pockets of attorneys…period. On the other point…the silly demonization of an industry is not healthy and only increases the money American citizens pay for stuff. Let oil companies do what they do, properly regulate them, and get out of the way.

  11. tony long says:

    Greg, absolutely right that hedge funds and wall street are manipulating futures and increasing cost of oil by 40% higher than it would be in a naturally. Last year and this year oil inventories were increasing as usage was dropping. Even Saudi Arabia was complaining to US gov’t that Wall Street was artificially increasing prices for their own profit. Let the Republicans put some restrictions in place, oh I forgot that’s their biggest campaign contributor?

  12. Bill Donovan says:

    Oil companies have a credibility gap. I believe you do some things for the environment, and also create jobs. I drive a car that uses gas, so I am complicit in the destruction caused when something goes wrong. BUT, and this is a big but, no one will believe Exxon, because you make record profits and it’s an unpopular way to do that. The reason it is unpopular is because Exxon profits by taking natural capital, oil, and then making money from it without replacing the capital in some equitable way. YOU CAN’T TAKE A LIMITED RESOURCE, make money from it, and then not replace it somehow for the future. This could take the form of alternative fuels. If you demonstrated an equitable solution, to what is now a one sided equation in your favor, you would find more supporters. Making money is not enough of a reason.

    • Gerald Leddin says:

      Well said Bill! There is much more at stake than just increasing Investors portfolios! CEO’s need to make a commitment to their real assets, the consumers. We all live in this world together and the future generations of their own families will have to deal with the same as ours! The old adage of reinvesting in your base seems to be lost on the business community of today.

  13. pw henderson says:

    It’s high time Exxon invested it’s vast resources in renewables.

    I can think of 3 reasons to leave the stuff in the ground:
    -leave it for future generations.
    -end wrecking our natural resources to get it.
    -the best way to capture carbon is to leave it in the ground.
    -it’s last centuries energy, it was a great source for building our empire but we’ve evolved. it’s time to move on to smarter energy.

    Some facts:
    -100 sq. miles of solar panels would power the US alone.
    -wind generators installed in our windy areas would power the US alone.
    -geothermal, wave generators (I live on the coast), algae biofuels, etc would create industries, jobs and energy independence.

    Combine all of our renewable sources and the US becomes an energy exporter. That’s as American as you can get.

  14. pw henderson says:

    Oil prices are set by OPEC, period. When they want to raise the price, they pump less. I would not matter if we produced more. They would just adjust output to get the price they want.

  15. Daniel Paquin says:

    The US GOVT is trying to protect its coasts. Exxon sees it as preventing access to revenue. I’m a US citizen. Exxon should stop complaining and trying to manipulate people.

    • Greg Ecklund says:

      Daniel, are you really that dimwitted?

      While Exxon certainly requires government oversight to ensure that it is a decent steward of the environment, the liberals in Congress continue to conspire with the environmental wackos in our country to severely restrict our supply of domestic energy. Even natural gas, once the fossil fuel darling of the environmental movement, is now coming under fire now that we are increasing drilling for it here.

      If you are willing to accept much higher energy prices in exchange for severely restricting our access to domestic supplies, be my guest, but you are a minority in that view by a very large margin.

      • Charles Cory says:

        Just because someone disagrees with you calling them dimwitted gets us no where.

        Higher gas energy prices are directly attributable to manipulation of the futures market by speculators. That is the major reason gasoline prices have risen so dramatically.

        You assertion that Daniel is in the minority for the reasons you state is a red herring of most odorous kind.

        Government oversight is an oxymoron at best.

        • BK Flanagan says:

          Wrong, Charles! The current spike in oil and other commodity prices is directly related to the the mismanagement of our nation’s fiscal affairs by the Obama administration combined with the debasement of the dollar by Helicopter Ben Bernacke. No credit rating combined with worthless dollars equals higher costs. No amount of tap dancing by Obama, Geithner or Bernacke can change that reality.

        • Phil Eagan says:

          Production of more oil would wipe the speculators out. The reason they are making such bets, and winning, is because of our government regulations taking off the table nearly 80% of proven U.S. petroleum resources.

          And don’t think oil companies can’t be responsible. BP has paid a steep price for their incompetence. and the Gulf environment has made a comeback.

      • Mad Tr8r says:

        Mr. Ecklund are you really that dimwitted “Exxon are Stewards of the environment” on what reality cuz Im pretty sure its not everyone elses but yours. Im no tree hugger but the way I look at it, everyday Oil stays above $100 a barrel the planet comes closer to fully developing alternative energy ie, electrifying all vehicles, solar efficiencies that will create completely independent power, I cant wait for the day the Crude Oil is relegated as an archaic form of energy, hey well still need petroleum based products but hopefully fuel wont be one of them, its destroying the planet, and Exxon singlehandedly did quite a bit of destruction on their own, Im sure BP and Exxon can laugh about it over dinner. SO yes Im willing to pay $4 or $5 a gallon for now if it means a paradigm shift down the road.

    • jerry dotto says:

      why is it that with fracking the production of natural gas and oil
      is increased domestically but the product is shipped over seas to be sold to foriegn buyers.these are the resources of the people of the united states and should be used to create a domestic supply not increase the wealth of speculators or corporations. if it’s drilled here use it here.

    • Rich H says:

      Yes, they want to protect the coasts, thats it. And in Alaska, we need to protect those Caribou, because… Well, just because. We can use candles for light. And put windmills on top of our cars. And beg those nice people in the middle east to be nice to us.

      DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW!

    • S Reed says:

      Protecting the coast is important, but the two goals do not have to be oppositional. It is amazing how many citizens complain about our dependence on foreign oil, yet we are not allowed to access our domestic oil. You cannot complain both ways. Accessing our domestic oil off the coasts can be done safely which creates more domestic oil and more domestic jobs.

    • sevan claig says:

      Protecting it’s coasts? Why should China’s oil firms via Cuba and or Petrobras be allowed to drill in waters around us where Exxon or anyone else is not? Well, Petrobras I can understand… your King Soros owns a piece of them.

    • Phil Eagan says:

      Dan-
      It isn’t manipulation when it’s true. Our government has restricted oil production, killing jobs in the process, for over 20+ years across both Dem & Republican administrations. Look at Russia – their economy was in the toilet until they discovered and developed their petroleum reserves. If you’re like me you drive a car which needs gasoline. Let’s let the free market do it’s thing, and only regulate HOW oil is developed – not destroy the market completely.

  16. Anita Sherman says:

    Like most marketing perspectives, this piece seems a bit weak on some details. The industry is being forced to decide what kind of entity it wants to be in global energy policy. The old ways are not sustainable. The industry is using less than 1/3 of it’s leases on public lands in the US, and choosing not to develop these options. When the industry chooses not to develop what it has – but has a focus on including more offshore options – the industry is creating the ‘cat and mouse’ posturings that plague us from moving forward. Why? Regulatory oversight, and stronger consumer protections on public land leases. In otherwords, the industry will use these leases when they’ve exhausted less regulated private options that maximize their bottomline profits. There is minimal US control in offshore drilling. Something we all should have learned in the wake of BP’s oil spill disaster. But, then again, that might be the point of this piece.

    The industry needs to be regulated to save itself from implosion. This could and should mean removing speculator loop holes currently driving oil/gas prices, better returns on taxpayer investments/gov’t subsidies to the taxpayer – in health care services, infrastructure, education in the US – with stronger environmental protections outside of industry controlled agencies de facto currently regulating the industry. When unregulated corporate profits interfere with the environment, human health, and economic stability with US taxpayer dollars in the US, and globally, that is a problem. When a gov’t is rendered useless at the hands of unregulated corporate abuses to remain profitable, that is a problem.

    I support responsible corporate partners that see their role as part of a greater whole. There is room for responsible cooperation – a concept that hasn’t been the prevailing voice in the industry’s ‘profit… read more »

    …over people’ anthem for the past century. Just because we can – for profit – doesn’t mean we should. Develop the “unused leases” on fully regulated public land before citing the gov’t as obstuctionist, denying the industry of developing economic solutions.

    • Dav Fusi says:

      The industry’s reply can be summed up by the following excerpt from WSJ’s interview of John Watson, Chevron’s CEO, and an industry spokesman on the issue of producing oil on land leases and how long it takes to develop them.

      “It has taken “the better part of a decade to do the seismic work, drill the exploratory wells, evaluate those wells, drill other development wells, to delineate it, to build the facilities and to place the oil wells online,” he explains.

      The endless moratorium has already meant that “if you go out to the middle of the decade, there are already 200,000 to 300,000 barrels a day of oil that aren’t going to be produced that year. . . . That won’t be retrieved.” And the lost production number is getting larger, since the new Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management is still dallying on permits-and those primarily for backlogged projects, not new leases.

      Democrats are now arguing, as Mr. Obama did in his speech, that the oil industry already “holds tens of millions of acres of leases where it’s not producing a drop.” Some are advocating “use it or lose it,” calling for the government to strip oil companies of their leases if they don’t immediately start producing.

      Mr. Watson explains why this is bogus. Only one-third of Chevron’s offshore leases are classified as “producing” oil and gas today. The other two-thirds either are “unsuccessful” (they don’t hold viable oil or gas) or “are in varying stages of development-seismic work, drilling wells, constructing facilities.” Mr. Watson says companies would be crazy to sit on productive lands, since leases require costly bonus payments and annual rental payments to the government.”

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013604576248881417246502.html

    • bill hill says:

      what are u talking about? Oil companies drill in areas that make them the most money and present the lowest risk. If they don’t drill its because they don’t think they will make a profit…would u force them spend money foolishly? Risk to drilling includes risk of not getting permitted to drill and this is a direct result of adversarial regulation. Offshore drilling is heavily regulated. BP spill was result of crappy project management something you and I are exposed to every day at work and at home. Accidents will and do happen and this is the price we pay as an industrialized society…and yes we must strive to limit accidents. The industry is regulated by the states and the EPA.

  17. Eddie Aguirre says:

    According to your map we have about 20 billion barrels that currently are off limits. Let say that tomorrow all of that was available. We import around 350 million barrels a month, that comes to about 4.2 billion barrels per year. So even if your estimates of 20 billion is right, we’d probably find that it’s lower in reality, we could stop importing for less than 5 years.

    I would rather have that as a reserve than tap it now in the hopes that it would lower prices. Let’s say that relations in the middle east and South America continue to deteriorate, and we continue to fight wars. What if some foreign producers decide to cut us off. Wouldn’t it be nice to have some local oil to fall back onto? Or will we be looking around in 10 years with less suppliers and no reserves here. What would happen to prices then? What would happen to our defense department?

    Being short sighted is was got us in this position and what keeps us in this position. We need a 5, 10, 20 year plan. But instead we are only looking at tomorrow. Gas prices go up, cars get more efficient. Gas prices go down, muscle cars return pumping out 400, 500 horsepower.

    In 2009 Exxon Mobile made over a $42 billion profit, and how much of that went to the IRS? $0. But, I know I’m commenting on an Exxon Mobile website so I don’t expect anybody to agree with me.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

    • bill hill says:

      nice thoughts on the reserve, i don’t totally agree but yeah if the US had a plan might be more viable…but I see it as a crazy wild west out there and no one seems to care. I mean look at our cars they are huge and get 12 to 16 mpg…arent we silly (mine get 16 and 16) but that is America today. I think drill baby drill and keep the Chinese out of our waters…because believe me they are coming with lots of cash from sales to us.

      We do need a plan but no one seems to have the backbone to get it going. All this environmental smokescreen is immaterial. We as a nation are cleaner than we have ever been.