DN printing only the right-wing agenda. Boring, old! You're editors are so transparent in their hate for Democrats- keep up the bias!

Are the democrats causing the drop in gas prices I've seen in the last three weeks? Out of the last eight years democrats have controlled congress less than two years.

The Senate has 51 democrats, 49 republicans and one independent. That's a big margin.

Where did you get your degree?

The problems of increasing oil prices and the Congressional ban on drilling in protected areas goes far beyond the current Congress where Democrats hold a bare majority. The fact is that the people of American don't want oil exploration in the national parks, protected areas, and other places they want to preserve for posterity.

Being a Range and Wildlife Biologist, as the writer claims, it is astonishing that he would make the claim that oil drilling in these regions would not have a detrimental effect on the wilderness areas and the animals that inhabit these areas. One might doubt that the writer is a field biologist because of his seeming indifference to the view a field biologist would have toward the environment and maintaining this treasured resource.

This letter appears to be supporting the policies of James Watt, former Secretary of the Interior in the Reagan Administration who advocated opening up national parks and wilderness areas to energy companies who saw potential for added profits. Since profit is the motive for opening up protected areas to oil and gas exploration, it is preferred that these companies utilize the leases they already possess rather than going where they are not wanted.

Perhaps it would be more acceptable if the original writer stated "Political decisions by President Bush added to the cost of oil."

Am I wrong when I think that each time Bush/Cheney threaten Iran over their nuclear ambitions the price of a barrel of oil increases?

I believe the oil speculators use the term "Uncertainty in the political situation in the middle east."

The unlimited borrowoing ($642,000,000,000} so far to support his war in Iraq which by the way for the umpteen time had nothing to do with 9/11 has caused economic problems.

Could it be that others outside of the Washington establishment feel that the US dollar is not worth the same as it was when Bush took office and hence more dollars are needed to exchange for a barrel of oil?

Could some one tell me why the borrowing for the war is not included in the budget?

I know the war in Iraq is popular here in Utah but people out side Utah and outside the US see it as having a negative effect on our economy.

Sign me a former republican. You will see a real surge November 7th.

I'm tired of the same old distorted enviromental views. They have done almost as much damage to the envoroment as industry has. For too many years industry ran amuck with no regulations to hold the rains on what they did. But the enviromentalist got into the act and instead of bulling on the rains for common scense control they just but on and locked up all the brakes. Now we are hurting. We need to find common scense balance on these things. We can access our resorces and take care of our enviorment at the same time. There is middle ground.

Nixon and Carter were adamant that the US have a good energy plan. Had their plans been implemented, we would not be having energy problems today.
Unfortunately, Reagan disagreed, tore down the solar panels Carter put on the White House, and did away with a responsible energy plan.
And now Democrats are getting the blame...(sigh)

Once again, I would like to ask anyone who supports drilling and building more Refineries in the US, why did oil companies shut down refineries and why are they not drilling on land they already have leased?

Refineries have gone from 324 in 1980 to only 148 today?

And, why did Republicans defeat the Drill Bill in July that said oil companies would have to drill on the 6 million acres of currently leased land before any new leases would be offered?

I am still waiting to hear the answer to these questions. I guess it is easier to spout some talking point proffered by Republicans or Rush than to answer these two simple questions.

Anyone out there got an answer?

Oh, and did you notice that when Exxon announced their highest ever quarterly income, their stock price went down because it was below expectations given the huge rise in gas prices? They attributed their failure to meet expected earning on a lack of drilling equipment and skilled labor, not refining capacity.

Why would they site "lack of drilling equipment" if they have no place to drill, as the Republicans suggest?

The truth is out there, move past talking points.

Drilling will not solve this long term problem. It will help but until we seriously begin moving towards alt energy and conservation the problem will not go away.

Neither party wants us to feel "too much pain" because we vote in the other party.

The needed solutions will cause inconvenience and sacrifice. And that is ok.

We need to push our politicians to work together and put forth a comprehensive solution that will attack this issue from a multitude of sides.

. . . the author of this letter is saying "drill, drill, drill" and to heck with the environment. Sad.

To hold the Dems responsible for rising oil prices is correct, but not in the terms of the writer. The responsibility lies in the fact that the dems are beholden to special interest groups such as the Sierra Club and the SUWA. That being said, the mere fact of rising prices are causing the usage of oil to drop, which causes, gasp, a drop in price. Now, the problem that we have is that the dems are insincerely crying over the high prices when they should be shouting for joy. Rising prices = drop in usage. Plain and simple.

How the price got there can be squarely put with the neglect of any new fuels such as new oil drilling, new refineries and new electricity sources which coupled with a greater usage worldwide, poor speculation and greed.

Can the dems be hel responsible? Yes, but so can the repubs. Bush? No, but then again the hateful dems will find a way in order to make themselves feel better about failing policies (way to go Bellicos Pelosi).

demands the persecution of anyone with credentials who does not worship at the alter of political correctness. If you do not believe me look at the abuse this letter writer will be given.

while oil prices have been steadily incresing, it wasn't until Harry and Nancy got the top posts in the senate and house that oil prices really skyrocketed.

When President Bush lifted the ban on off shore drilling prices went down. He is the reason for the price drop. If the congress would also lift it's ban prices would go down again, and even further if new refineries were built. If indeed T. Boone Pickens his correct in his assertion 700 billion dollars of oil is imported yearly, can you imagine the wealth that would be created in the US if we were to drill in the US? Nancy and her group would prefer to enrich our enemies by importing foreign oil.If ther was oil in current leases the oil companies waould be drilling. The democrats are the problem.

"the people of American don't want oil exploration in the national parks, protected areas, and other places they want to preserve for posterity." Gus said.

Well, maybe we have gone a bit too far in protecting or locking up a lot of promising resources. Consider that there are huge supplies of coal in southern Utah. Bill Clinton creates a huge national park, locking up these resources, presumably forever. Clinton does not equal the people of America.

And GWB:
1. Private companies drill where they believe they can get the greatest return on their investment (capitalism). If they believe that they will have to drill 100 holes on land they currently lease to get 10 wells producing 1000 barrels per day, or they can drill 100 holes on land they don't currently least to get 10 wells producing 100,000 barrels per day, which would they prefer? And which would potentially give you lower cost gas?

2. Drilling for oil is a crap shoot. Requiring them to drill on the 6 million acres they have leased is forcing them to bet on a hole they don't think has a good chance for a payoff. And how many holes? 1 per acre? 5?

Neither President Bush nor the Democrats are responsible for high oil prices. The free market is responsible. Demand for oil has been growing substantially for many years now, supply has not. I am not opposed to offshore drilling, but it won't make more than a small dent in prices because it will increase world oil supplies by only a small fraction. Americans drove about 3% fewer miles this year compared to last year, the reduction in demand is already having an effect, oil prices are down about 15% from their high point.

Let's consider an alternative model. A developer has 5,000 acres of land for potential development. 100 acres are just west of Lehi, while 4,900 acres are on the salt flats.

He goes before the planning and zoning commission, saying he wants to build his 100 homes on the 100 acres just west of Lehi because it is a growing area and he feels confident he can sell houses he builds there.

On the other hand, the commission tells him, you have 5000 acres of land. You must build 98 of your new houses on the 4900 acres on the salt flats, and you can build 2 houses on the 100 acres west of Lehi.

Now, the builder believes that 50 years from now he might be able to profitably use that land on the salt flats with the gradual growth of Tooele and Grantsville. But he also knows that if he builds 98 houses on the salt flats, they will sit there, unsold for the next 45 years.

Or perhaps your solution is to mandate that 98 families must now move out to the salt flats. And use my tax payments to pay for their houses!

See the analogy?

Gus Talwynd:
Your sophistry is commendable, even if your facts are fuzzy. From the position as a wildlife biologist, the writer would have more reason in his comments than you would, your emotional approach notwithstanding. He speaks from experience and biological statistic which you do not have. When you say that the American people oppose drilling and exploration in the areas you cite, you draw the conclusion that you speak for us all. You do not. There are a great many who do not support your position. The all or nothing approach inferred by your comments is a prevarication. There is a compromise position that would allow drilling without the despoiling picture you would foster in our minds. Whether or not it would effectively impact current oil prices may, in fact, be debated, but don't imply by your generalizations that the writer is wrong and you, of course, are right.

Okay class, repeat after me.

"The United States oil production peaked in 1970 and we have 3% of the world's oil reserves, we can never drill enough, to even make a dent, in world oil prices!"

Very good class, now take out your texts and read the chapter on "conservation, and alternative energy options."

Thank you for your brainwashing effort. Now class, turn the page to oil shale. Two trillion barrels of oil; repeat after me, 2,000,000,000,000. Is that one of your alternative energy options? Do you think it just might take the edge off oil prices?

From 2001 to 2007 republicans controlled the White House, Senate and the House and they did NOTHING about drilling offshore or ANWR. They did NOTHING to solve energy problems.
Repugs, the party of doing NOTHING.

Thanks Liberal Larry, GWB, and A Different Point of View for throwing reason into this discussion. Unfortunately, the talking points don't allow for this kind of advanced thinking. How do you make a republican angry?........Use reason.

Has anybody noticed that when Bush took office the price of oil was $40/barrel? Now its well over $100. And that is 100% the result of Bush's private little war. All so he could be a "War President".

Let's just blame the Dem's for the problems though. That's how it works in Washington and Utah.

GWB has yet to take responsibility for a single failed policy.

I love all the banter of Republican vs Democrats and who is to blame for the high gas prices.

first - Who is responisible Democrats (who control congress) or the Speculators? Speculators are the reason the prices are so high. Not Bush, Not the Demcrats or Republicans. It the american way "Greed".

Second - The reason for the decline in refineries is the fact that they are expensive to maintain and kept running. Then with the Tree huggers getting the democrats to have laws passed to prevent them even building new ones, the cost effectiveness becomes to astromical. The Enviromentalist has as much responsibility for the current crisis in gas as does congress.

After reading these posts no wonder people in the world hates Americans, they americans can not even carry on a conversation without throwing insults.

Gee, do you think that is why they hate us? hmmmmm...

Joe: 2 comments:

First, you did not address the limitation on supplies caused by closing 176 refineries that was a result of mergers.

Second, if you own land in the Salt Flats, why did you buy there instead of Lehi in the first place? The second fla is that the developer doesn't own any of the land you use in your analogy. More correctly, the developer has the rights to Salt Flats land and goes to the planning commission in Lehi and says he wants them to let him build there because he likes it better than where he already invested, or perhaps to keep others from getting access to the land for development.

Apparently, the oil companies leased the land because they believe there is oil there. With advanced technologies like transverse drilling, they should be able to hit the oil deposits with more precision.

The bottom line is that they want both the ability to hold onto their leases and to lock up the continental shelf and ANWR so they can continue to produce only enough to maintain oil prices as high as the public will support. Unfortunately, they seem to have crossed the line.

I laugh at the people who suggest that Bush is to blame for the skyrocketing oil prices.

I laugh at the people who suggest that Harry and Nancy are to blame for the skyrocketing oil prices.

These are macroeconomics. And policy decisions going back decades factor into the current situation. That's not to say it wouldn't be nice to have our current leaders do more to address the concerns, even if their actions probably wouldn't have too great an effect immediately.

It looks like there is a consensus building, though (finally!). Even BHO is on-board now with drilling. And I thin everyone has gotten the idea we have to conserve more and develop alternatives in the long run.

Remember, all you neo-Dems, it was Ms. Nancy Pelosi that had the microphones and lights turned off in the Senate Chambers the other day. It was largely Republican leaders that stayed, and discussed the issues of high-priced oil, in the dark. When they attempted to get in touch with Ms. Pelosi, she was gone, nor would she answer phones, etc.

Ernest, I believe during the time period you mentioned the Repubs did nothing about drilling in ANWAR, the dems still had the filibuster. Oil wasn't over $80 a barrell, then, so the urgency did not exist.

The writer is correct. As one who has spent a lot of time in Washington, I can tell you that the environmental lobby is largely responsible for the energy mess we are in today. The Democrats are in the hip pocket of the environmentalists.

Nancy Pelosi has to keep the oil drilling bills from coming to the floor to protect her Democrat Members from having to vote on something that could kill their chances for re-election this fall. They don't DARE vote against their big environmental contributors so it's just safer not to vote at all.

If you vote for Jim Matheson or Spencer Bennion, you are ensuring that Nancy Pelosi will stay in power and continue this suicidal energy policy.

DON'T BE FOOLED! A vote for Jim Matheson or Spencer Bennion is a vote for Nancy Pelosi.

There is NO SHORTAGE of refining capacity, and the oil execs said this when they testified to congress. But thanks for spewing another talking point used to deceive the unthinking GOP base.
If oil companies have leases they are not drilling, then they should lose those leases.

SORRY! I goofed. The guy's name is Bennion Spencer--not Spencer Bennion.

To Anonymous: The oil-leases argument is a "red herring" used by the Democrats to distract attention from the fact that they HAVE to vote with their big environmental contributors. It is nothing more than a "talking point" for election year campaigning.

The leases are only good if there is oil there. The oil companies need to be able to explore and drill where the oil is, not just where the government has issued leases. We can't put unreasonable limitations on where this exploration can be done. That's what is happening now. As far as the National Geological Survey estimates--those estimates were done many years ago and are considered to be very outdated. It is now believed, by energy experts, that there is much more oil in ANWR and off the continental shelf than previous estimates.

Please, let's give ourselves a chance. Let's not continue this suicidal energy policy that the environmentalist lobby has perpetrated on us for so many years.

I thought George Bush was a republican. I didn`t know he was a democrat. I was blaming the wrong party!

Oil companies lease land that they believe or believed contains oil. On an old lease, current technology may not indicate any promising areas for development. That may change with time. Until something changes, searching for new oil on an old lease may not make sense.

Despite all the advanced imaging and sideways drilling, a lot of holes are dry. Until you actually hit oil and start extraction, you don't know how big or small a certain resource may be.

Now, back to the analogy. You leased/bought land on the salt flats because you didn't have a good map and couldn't tell how close or far it was from major population centers. It was not a good decision in hindsight, but that decision was made 20 years ago. You have a shack and a gas station out there that does some business, so the lease has some value. However, if you tell me I have to build another 50 shacks and 50 gas stations out there before I can have access to the Lehi property, I would decline. I've made my bet, paid my money, and am getting some return. However, the return in this case doesn't justify new investment.

I tend to agree that Democrats appear-to-be blocking any progress on energy policy. It seems to me their policy is to block or obstruct ANYTHING (other than investigations of Bush Administration people) until November, afraid that the other side will get credit for doing something "good" or to prevent something good from happening before President Bush leaves office.

HOWEVER... We all need to quit blaming the other side and work together or nothing will happen and prices (not just oil, and not just energy) will continue to rize and the economy may completely collapse (some may think that is a good thing, I don't see how).

I agree we need to develop alternate energy sources and reduce our fossil fuel usage (regardless of if Global Warming is man caused or a combination of man and nature). But we can't just say "We need alternate energy sources" and just abandon the development and refinement of the energy sources we currently need to function while we work on developing the alternatives.

We also need a short term solution to prevent overseas oil-tyrants from controling us and our economy. It's NOT a partisan issue (or at least it shouldn't be).

I flew over ANWR on an ice survey mission, over the very area for the proposed drilling. It is a mosquito-infested bog with no scenic value, far from the scenic Brooks Range mountains of the environmentalist's posters. The Alaska pipeline has been a success and not detrimental to the caribou herds. But the envirnomentalists are so invested in their theories that they will not admit it when they are in error. So many of them support "feel-good" policies and avoid looking at their consequences.

The Democrats have allowed themselves to be played like fiddles by the Republicans when it comes to this issue. A cursory understanding of the fundamentals of our oil reserve situation would lead to an understanding that the Democrats are right on the facts, but horribly wrong on the PR. The total amount of oil estimated to be in protected areas amounts to less that 2 years reserves at current US consumption. Drilling for more oil is not the answer, getting the United States off of oil is.

But...people don't want to hear that. They want someone to tell them that if we just drilled for oil in ANWAR, the price of gasoline would drop back to $1 a gallon and we would have an infinite supply. How do you teach someone who believes that? (which curiously includes many posters on this board)

If the Democrats were smart, they would call the Republican bluff by saying "Sure, drill wherever you want, but...all of the oil produced needs to stay in the United States for consumption by our citizens."

The oil companies would balk, and the Republicans would start chattering about free markets and the benefits of global trade...all would be good.

Are Demos also to blame for the $30 drop in oil prices in the last month?

Here is a thought to ponder....and I've stated it here before. Oil trades internationally on the dollar. If I was an OPEC nation and the value I got for a dollar wasn't worth what it was two years ago I'm going to want more dollars for my oil. Let's get beyond the oil drilling nonsense and look at the real reason oil is expensive; because of the weak dollar. Now....why is the dollar weak? I say it's the huge deficit. Please someone out there respond to this rationally.

First off, I'm one of those citizens that don't care where we drill. We could drill in Yellowstone and it wouldn't bother me. We need to drill where the oil is, and it sometimes isn't where the leases are.

Like it or not, this economy runs on oil. We will still have cars that we need to drive. We still have plastics that need to be made. Rayon, Polyester, and many other fabrics come from oil.

We don't need to use corn that should be used for food to supplement oil and drive up the cost of food for us all.

We can drill ourselves out of this. We can harvest the tar sands and oil shale. We just need to have the balls to tell the Environazis to pound sand.

Bush ought to have the courage to call Congress back into session. He doesn't have a clue. Make the Democrats put up or shut up. If I was president, I'd be hammering on them every day until they passed a good bill that took the shackles off.

This is a national security issue. No more, no less.

So GWB would make the oil companies drill dry holes. That sure would help our oil situation. Unlike some of the emotional bloggers, I know something about oil exploration and development. Oil companies lease large tracts of land for a fixed period of time. They then do seismic studies to determine where it is promising to drill. Its a risky and very expensive process. They only drill where there is a reasonable chance of finding oil. There is no advantage for them to hold onto leases that are unproductive. It is absurd to think that by holding them that they can control the price of oil.

Speculators are not the problem either. They make a market more liquid but cannot control the prices. Speculators sometimes make money, but more often lose it. Only Hillary makes quick money on commodity futures without huge risks.

Listen people, enough with the reasoned responses.

This is the only point people understand:

If something bad happens, it's the other guy's fault. If something good happens, it's because of their guy. Just pass the blame, or take the credit, whatever the situation might call for.

Gas prices are high? It's not Bush's fault. It's the democrats in Congress! It's that simple, I guess.

But ask yourself one question: if gas prices fell, would the Bush apologists then give the credit to Congress? Of course not. THEN it would be Bush's doing.

YOU PEOPLE NEED TO READ ATLAS SHRUGGED!!!

The problem is many many citizens DO care if we drill in Yellowstone, Arches, or Bryce.

I read Atlas Shrugged. The most pinched, narrow, niggardly, self-absorbed piece of right-wing propaganda I ever read. Ayn "Ebenezer Scrooge" Rand: "The masses are just moochers. Let 'em die and decrease the surplus population."

You need to read Dickens.

HJ, I can't add anything to your argument. You are absolutely right. The titanic Bush deficit has trashed the value of the US dollar, thus we bleed more and more dollars for oil. But you will never get something as sophisticated as the law of cause and effect through some people's minds. It's nice to know we have some HJs out there.

"drill, drill, drill"

Drill in Yellowstone. Drill in Yosemite. Drill in the Arlington National Cemetary. Drill off the coast of Santa Barbara. Drill in San Francisco Bay. Drill in Temple Square.

Is it really better to "drill, drill, drill" than preserve some areas from desecration? People who flock to the beaches of California and Florida don't want to look out at oil platforms or even risk the possibility of an oil leak contaminating the environment.

Ayn Rand is starting to look like a prophet isn't she!

Let's solve the problem and its simple, just fill up your tires to their recommended pressures and make sure the engines are tuned. If we all did this then our fuel problems would be solved. No, seriously. It is true, just ask Barak Obama. He says it and it has to be true!!!!

Hey Gomer,

If the Republicans are the heroes here, why didn't they do something when they held stronger majorities in the house and the senate than the Democrats do now? Less than two years ago this was the case. They also could have done it throughout much of the 90's. But they didn't.

Arguing for sound solution is one thing. Sycophantic ranting and blame are another thing. Both parties are to blame here.

Everybody repeat after me, " I am a Junkie, I am addicted to oil. I have no desire to cure my addiction, I just want a cheap shot of the good stuff."

This is the mindset of those who want us to "drill, drill, drill."

I personally have no problem with drilling in areas that show promise of oil.

I do however recognize that our country needs to curb its addiction to oil if we ever want to see any overall energy improvements.

Ask yourself what have I done to decrease my oil consumption. WE ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!!!
If everyone in this country would make some very small sacrifices we could watch the price of gas drop significantly.
Inflate your tires to the max on the sidewall, SLOW DOWN, don't let your car idle at red lights or in parking lots, etc.
People could see their fuel economy improve 10-50% TODAY, not in 10 years.
I know personally, I am averaging 44 MPG over my last 4 tanks of gas in my car that is rated at 29 MPG Hwy. Thats 50% better than EPA rating. Be part of the SOLUTION, TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY don't blame others.