The Saudi’s today have made the statement they will not increase production of crude because supply is meeting demand. So, if supply is meeting demand, then why is crude at more than $140 a barrel? I'll tell you why - Greed. They know they can charge these exhoritant prices and no one will do anything about it.

While one could say there is plenty of blame to go around but that line of thought ignores degree of blame. The dems share of the blame is so great as to overwhelm the Republican’s share for being gutless and ineffective. The dems have intentionally by design got us to where we are.

Mort Kondrake - master of the “on this hand, on the other hand” moral equivalency school of political analysis.

Everything is getting blamed except the well-documented obvious: the law of supply and demand.

Blame is for God and small children

Who cares? Will determining and assigning blame drop the price at the pump? We need to start drilling now.

Newt Gingrich for the VP nomination.

propaganda.

few pubies want to destroy our free market economy.

“The history of U.S. energy policy is that Democrats have refused to increase supply and Republicans have refused to curtail demand. “

There you have it. Mort is an idiot. Democrats tried like hell to take our own oil away from us, make us stop using oil with no viable alternative. Republican liberals tried to have it both ways, let the Democrats keep taking our oil while devaluing the dollar to keep the economy going and ultimately driving up the price of oil. Republican Conservatives lacked even one leader among them with half the cojones of Rush Limbaugh, and certainly lacked the skills of leadership to educate the public at large as to the nearly superhuman idiocy of our government in virtually every endeavor it makes. And in the end we have two nitwits, Obama and McCain competing for power over what little is left of the country.

Newt Gingrich for the VP nomination.

I could go for that, but I don't know if having two believers in anthropogenic global warming on the top of the ticket is such a good thing.

The history of U.S. energy policy is that Democrats have refused to increase supply and Republicans have refused to curtail demand.

Proof, that Mort Kondracke (and all other leftists like him) hates freedom, and by extension, America.

Either that, or Mort has no clue what freedom is (just as likely).

The history of U.S. energy policy is that Democrats have refused to increase supply and Republicans have refused to curtail demand.

Okay, I can understand (and it can even be documented) how DemoRats have consistently refused to increase supply, but please, Mortimer, pray tell, how is it possible to affix blame on Republicans for the responsibility in not curtailing demand among the populace.

Sheesh, what a moronic nutjob!!

Without reading I’ll say it is both repubs and dems who are at fault. When the repubs had both houses all they had to do was vote for drilling. The other repub, W, could simply pull a Jackson and tell Congress to go to hell and sign an EO to start drilling. And he could have done that on day one of his presidency. But, he didn’t want to go against his daddy.

I don't know if having two believers in anthropogenic global warming on the top of the ticket is such a good thing.

I hear you. I really don't care so much what people think or say as much as I care what they do...and I think Newt will drill here now. I actually prefer Mitt to Newt but I need someone to get on board who is articulate, has an organization in place and can harness the gas price and ride it to a victory in November. Not to mention what it would do for our economy in the long run if we become energy independent.

“McCain’s fellow Republicans also are to blame for $4 gas. It took ex-oilman Bush six years to discover that America is “addicted to oil” and begin promoting conservation and alternative energy sources.”

They are both to blame, but the Dems. are significantly more to blame. But, Mort is so intent on blabbing about his take on the Republican failure to promote conservation and alternatives that he doesn’t mention their biggest contribution to $4.00 per gallon gasoline:

The Republicans also supported drilling bans everywhere the Dems. did except for ANWR. It’s been said many times on FR that GHWB was president and concurred when all our offshore areas except four Gulf states were put off limits. And W never mentioned lifting those bans in seven and one-half years, and he sided with Jeb to keep Florida off limits.

Except for ANWR, Republican presidents and many other Republicans are very recent converts converts to the drill here, drill now mantra.

Looks like the globalist vision of the death of the combustion engine will come to pass.

IMO, one pretty good test of how soon Americans are ready to talk sense about energy policy is how soon a majority of voters will come to understand that irrespective of how often and how deep we drill potential US production of liquid petroleum is such a small fraction of world demand that it can only move the price of oil a few percent in either direction - that though there are good reasons to support or oppose drilling, they have almost nothing to do with the price of a tank of gas either today or a decade from now.

Why should Saudi Arabia go out of its way to drive the price of oil down? It’s perfectly rational for a producer to try to maximize the returns for his product.

Microsoft, for instance, persists in charging hundreds of dollars for its software — even though they could sell downloads for next to nothing. They do this because they are rational economic agents.

Here, in Canada, we’re ramping up production in the oil sands as quickly as possible — to more than double exports to the U.S. by 2012. That follows a special request from the Bush administration & we’re happy to do our bit (and take your money too). However, the world would be a lot better place if less money were flowing into the middle east, and if the U.S. economy were on a stronger footing.

The U.S. is already the world’s third largest producer of oil & it has plenty of oil reserves (an enormous quantity, if you count oil shales — and you should). The U.S. has the capacity to drive down the world price of oil, to whatever level you chose — simply by drilling, and digging up your own supplies.

You can’t “curtail” demand!!!! How about demand for food? Want to “curtail” that?

“that though there are good reasons to support or oppose drilling, they have almost nothing to do with the price of a tank of gas either today or a decade from now.”

The decisions to not drill in new areas of the US going back years has a huge amount to do with the price of gasoline today. ANWR alone could have been supplying an addition one million barrels per day, and our offshore areas as much as more, and shale significant amounts.

A few million addition barrels per day would have been very significant, and would have definitely affected the cost of gasoline. And the same goes for the future.

This no drilling lunacy started with the Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969. Meanwhile, most all nations drill for oil when they have good possibilities, even England and Norway and any other Euro nation. The US has been particularly stupid in this regard.

Microsoft, for instance, persists in charging hundreds of dollars for its software — even though they could sell downloads for next to nothing. They do this because they are rational economic agents.

Comparing oil to Microsoft products is apples and oranges. The average American does not have to buy products from Microsoft in order to live. The same cannot be said of oil. Oil is what drives our economy, period.

The U.S. is already the world’s third largest producer of oil & it has plenty of oil reserves (an enormous quantity, if you count oil shales — and you should). The U.S. has the capacity to drive down the world price of oil, to whatever level you chose — simply by drilling, and digging up your own supplies.

I completely agree that were the U.S. to start drilling it's own reserves the price would drop (and I suspect much sooner than some are suggesting). However, there are those who do not want to see our reserves tapped as they are against use of fossil fuels, period. These people make the claim that drilling our own reserves would have zero impact on the price, and that it would take way too much time to obtain any benefit. But, it's a smoke screen used to manipulate those who don't know better.

Are you saying that producers of important products should be willing to sell them for less than the market will bear — just because the products are important?

Why does the U.S. get to lock up its oil supplies — while Saudi Arabia is expected to pump more oil than it wants to?

What is an “important product”? Cars are important, but I am not forced to purchase a car at an exhorbitant price - I have other options available to me. Food is extremely important, but I’m not forced to buy food that is priced too high. Again, I have other options available to me. I need water to survive, but I am not forced to purchase bottled water that is extremely expensive either. I can find other options there too. So, how does oil and other “important products” relate to each other? They do not. Oil is what makes the world work. Without it (at least until another source of energy is developed that can realistically replace oil) the world stops. No food will be delivered to your local markets except for that which is grown locally (and today that’s not much). Goods and services will not be available in the manner in which they are today. So, does this not place oil in a different category than every other “important product”? IMHO it does. And, because it does, those who supply the crude and refined products of oil have been allowed to artificially inflate the price of this “product” well beyond what supply and demand can explain. This is occuring because of greed. Greed born of knowing that they can do this without reprecussions - at least until the economics of what they are doing causes a busted bubble effect similar to what happened in the U.S. housing market.

Mort you’re an idiot. Read and learn,
Who’s Responsible?
ANWR Exploration:
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Coal-to-Liquid:
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed
Oil Shale Exploration:
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration:
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed
Refinery Increased Capacity:
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed
SUMMARY
91% of House Republicans have historically
voted to increase the production of American-
made oil and gas.
86% of House Democrats have historically
voted against increasing the production of
American-made oil and gas.
So  the next time you pay high prices for energy be sure to thank GOD for allowing Democrates to increase your energy costs and lighten your wallet.  Also to continue to have a lighter wallet be sure and vote for the Democrates every chance you get.
So as I said, Mort you’re an idiot. The democrats are traitorous scumbags who have stabbed America in the back and have up to now had scumbags like you in the ratmedia to lie for them because the increases were small and slow, but of course steady. Now the increases are coming at a rate of one penny a day at the pump and the ratmedia can’t lie fast enough.

Mort is still peeved that working Americans (and that’s mostly conservatives) don’t want to pay for his illegal cook, illegal houseboy, illegal lawnmower man, illegal roofer, illegal leaf blower, illegal painter and illegal driver.

Driving to Home Depot and needing to pay illegals to polish his doorknob is really irritating him.

If we had serious food shortages, you would pay whatever you could to get food — which is probably the only commodity more price-inelastic than oil. In almost every case, in modern history, where there's been famine (and the attendant rationing, black markets, food riots, and storming of storehouses); the root cause has been bad government — including even well-intentioned government interference in the marketplace. The oil market is no different.

There are already plenty of alternatives to imported oil available to the U.S. Drilling and digging your own are obvious medium-term solutions. Firing up coal plants is a short to long term solution. Nuclear power is a medium term solution (and could have kept today's oil shortages from occurring, had research, development and deployment of nuclear power not ground to a halt three decades ago).

As it is — there are no actual shortages. There are no ration cards; no line ups at gas stations, etc. Supply and demand have reached a new, temporary equilibrium at a higher price. Those price signals provide an incentive to energy producers (all sorts) to get busy. They also provide an incentive to consumers to use less — less, but still plenty to keep the world from stopping. In a free market, we make all those adjustments at the margin. We plan a little better, and take fewer trips. We use more trains and fewer trucks to move products around the continent. Etc.

That leaves government interference in the marketplace. If U.S. governments had allowed development of domestic oil resources a decade ago, prices would be much lower today. Instead, they are locked up. Big city mayors, and even a certain Presidential candidate, (whose middle name must not be spoken) want to shut down the Alberta oil sands. The oil sands are already the largest source of imported oil in the U.S. & production is ramping up to double that amount. Turning off that source of supply (which will soon be larger than Iran's production) would send world prices skyrocketing.

You use the word “greed”, which has moral overtones. The free-market system is based on the notion of the “invisible hand” — whereby we are all made better off when everyone is free to act in their own best interests. This system has worked remarkably well — especially compared to any system where governments have stepped in to control the markets. Today's oil problems can be traced back to government interference in the oil market (in particular, the supply side) — more government interference isn't the answer.

Blame Iammadjohn over there in Iran. Every day he does the Death to Israel and Death to America theme. Oil should not be over $100. Not that it matters.

A few million addition barrels per day would have been very significant, and would have definitely affected the cost of gasoline. And the same goes for the future.

Well... no.

World consumption is around 87 million barrels a day, and rising at around 1.5 million barrels a day/year.

Two million barrels is around 2% of world consumption, and equal about 18 months increase in consumption. In an increasingly tight world oil market that's just not enough oil to significantly move prices, and maximum predicted decreases in world oil prices if we bring Alaska and the Gulf on-line are order of 5%, with many energy economists predicting half that or less.

As for shale and other non-liquid petroleum resources keep in mind is that irrespective of production cost output will be sold a world market prices, so while such production might improve energy security mid-term it's not going to significantly reduce the price of oil.

IMO Concerns about price and environmental impact are both just distractions - drilling can almost certain take place without serious environmental impact, but it's not going to significantly affect oil prices either. And IMO people on either side who are strongly for or against drilling to "save the environment" or "lower gas prices" - if they have taken the time to understand the facts - are just reflexively emitting almost pure ideological hot air.

OTOH, you almost never hear a politician or pundoid on either side raise a question such as: "Given that we have only 2% of the worlds oil, should we be burning our share as fast as possible to fuel current ecconomic growth, or given the rising price of liquid petroleum is it better to leave it in the ground as the ultimate "Strategic Petroleum Reserve" and pay the current economic price to burn someone else's oil"?

“?Well... no.”

Well, yes, several million barrels per day could well make a significant difference in price. Whether crude taken from public land and offshore would always be sold at world market price is a political question.

If our bought and paid for pols ever truly decide to treat energy security as a national security issue, several things would have to change, one being that the level of production would not be left purely to oil companies, and most all areas with good potential would have to be opened for exploration and production. That’s also a political question, and it’s becoming a hotter political issue by the day.

There are many uncertainties about why crude is as high as it is, and supply and demand does not explain a doubling of price in little more than six months.

But the US has more than enough crude to increase its output three or four million barrels per day, or to even double it to around sixteen million barrels if the will to do it is there. There is a huge ace in the hole possible for the US, and that is to build an excess capacity where we would buy off the world market or produce more as the world supply might fluctuate.

I have no argument with what you say, for the most part. And, my comment concerning “greed” is not strictly applicable to just the oil companies, but can also be applied to those who are in our government - the higher the price of fuel, the more tax revenue that is generated as a result. This results in more money for those who are suppose to be “public servants”, but are more interested in furthering their own careers and lining their own pockets than in working for the “people” of whom they are suppose to represent.

You make a good point about government tax revenues going up with the price of fuel. That is a perverse incentive for governments to keep prices high.