All Posts Tagged With: "Drilling"
Obama Drilling Flip-Flop Because He’s Getting “Killed” On Issue
McCain Gains On Energy And Other Issues.
Eighty-one percent (81%) of Americans see development of new energy sources as an urgent priority. Only 9% disagree. For nearly two-thirds (65%), finding new sources of energy is more important that reducing the amount of energy Americans now consume. Twenty-eight percent (28%) think reducing current usage is more important.
 Sixty-seven percent (67%) of adults also believe there is an urgent national need to reduce the amount of energy Americans now consume, although 25% don’t share this belief.
 Those likely to vote for Obama see the two needs as almost equal, with 83% characterizing finding new sources of energy as an urgent national need and 80% saying the same of reducing U.S. energy consumption. Among potential voters for Republican John McCain, 80% agree that finding new sources is an urgent need, but only 53% feel that way about reducing energy usage.
Democrats are more divided than Republicans on which is more important. While 57% of Democrats say finding new sources should be the priority, 36% believe that about reducing energy use. By contrast, Republicans lean far more heavily toward finding new energy sources 79% to 15%.
Among unaffiliated voters, 61% say finding new sources is more important, while 31% believe it is more essential to reduce the amount of energy Americans now use.
 McCain has gained some momentum on the energy issue since he first proposed in early June lifting the long-standing ban on offshore oil drilling. Most Americans have responded positively to the idea of offshore drilling which Obama strongly opposed for several weeks. The Democrat now appears to be more supportive of it at least in part because, as the New York Post reported today, “Obama’s internal polling shows that he’s getting killed on this issue.”
Most voters like Obama’s proposal for a $1,000 energy credit for working families. But voters are evenly divided on Obama’s call for a windfall profits tax on oil companies, perhaps because many fear it will lead to higher gas prices.
Obama’s latest proposal — to draw 70 million barrels of oil from the government’s emergency oil stockpile to help bring gas prices down — is a lot less popular. Only 31% say that $4-a-gallon gas is the kind of emergency that justifies tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but 57% disagree.
 It’s high gas prices, in fact, that most voters (57%) say are more likely to reduce U.S. energy consumption than actions by the government. Just over one-quarter (26%) of voters say government regulations are more likely to reduce energy usage.
 Again, a partisan divide is evident. While 67% of Republicans believe high gas prices are more likely then government regulation to reduce the amount of energy Americans consume, only 49% of Democrats agree. One-third of Democrats think government regulation is more likely to curb energy usage, compared to just 17% of Republicans. For unaffiliated voters, 58% see high gas prices as the answer versus 24% who think government regulation is more likely to reduce consumption.
 In a separate survey late last month, McCain had gained ground on Obama on energy issues, with 46% of voters saying they now trusted the GOP candidate more than his opponent in this area versus 42% who say they trust Obama more. Two months ago, Obama held a four-point advantage.
Split Over Oil Speculators and Offshore Drilling
As far as public opinion is concerned, the best answer would be to do both.
Americans are nearly evenly divided on which is more important- cracking down on speculators or lifting the ban on offshore drilling — as the debate comes to a head in Congress this week over how to fight rising gas and oil prices. As far as public opinion is concerned, the best answer would be to do both.
A new Rasmussen Reports national survey, taken last night (Monday), finds that 45% think placing more restrictions on energy speculators is more important , while 42% take the opposite view that allowing offshore oil drilling is more important.
Most Americans still favor drilling for oil off the shore of the continental United States and believe that it will help reduce gas and oil prices. Fifty-seven percent (57%) favor offshore drilling versus 29% who are opposed. Nearly the same number (56%) believe that gas prices would be at least somewhat likely to fall if the ban is lifted.
Support for lifting the drilling ban has dropped slightly from 62% since Republican presidential candidate John McCain first proposed it as part of an overall energy strategy in mid-June. His Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, supports the ban, a position national Democrats and major environmental groups have championed for years.
Falling gasoline consumption, increasing supplies, and the threat of more domestic oil production, and the “secret agreement” with Iran have conspired to send the price of oil down. Most think the per barrel price will be pushed below $100 and maybe as low as $80 this Fall. Relieving pressure on consumers and creating a sense of relief.
Hypocritically some in Congress want to “take advantage” of lowering prices to raise federal fuel taxes.
Survey of NRA, Supreme Court, Offshore and ANWR Oil Drilling
Over half of Americans (56%) express a favorable view of the National Rifle Association,
although only 17% of voters say they are more likely to vote for John McCain if he is endorsed by the pro-gun lobbying group.
But, 21% of all voters say an NRA endorsement will make them more likely they’ll vote for a non-endorsee.
Six of ten says an NRA endorsements means nothing to their vote.
Sixty-five percents (65%) of men view the NRA favorably, only 47% of women agree, with nearly as many (42%) rating the group unfavorably. Proof men and women are different.
Seventy percent (80%) of Republicans give the group favorable marks as opposed to 39% of Democrats. Both the NRA’s favorable and unfavorably ratings are up since the Virginia Tech shootings.
In an elated matter following the Supreme Court decision decision which upholds the right of citizens to bear arms, 34% of voters say the Supreme Court is doing a good or an excellent job. That’s an eight-point improvement in just a few days.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) support offshore drilling, a figure that is unchanged from a previous Rasmussen survey. By a 60% to 31% margin, voters also support drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Republicans favor ANWR drilling by an 85% to 10% margin and Alaska’s Republican Governor Sarah Palin has written to the United States Senate demanding that such drilling be allowed.
Democrats are evenly divided on ANWR drilling-46% are opposed while 41% are in favor. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 61% favor drilling in the Wildlife Refuge while 29% are opposed.
Call For Offshore Drilling Helps McCain; Hurts Obama
62% Support Offshore Drilling
A Quinnipiac University Polling Institute poll reports a delayed bounce for Barack in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio now that Hillary is out of the way. The bounce is based on young voters and blacks (90% support him) while mature White voters and especially men do not. A Rasmussen Poll released at 9Am PST Thursday still has Obama 45-McCain 42%. McCain seems glued to the 42% figure. 62% agree with McCain on ending the offshore drilling moratorium; including 61% of Floridians where Rasmussen contradicts Quinipiac finding McCain leads, and that will help him while only 27% agree with Obama’s opposition to it and that hurts him. Not unexpectedly 85% of Republican agree with McCain on offshore drilling and surprisingly Democrats are split at 45%.
52% says Congress is doing a poor job, and 30% says it Is corrupt only 11% says it is doing a good or excellent job. 64% says the Democrat control Congress, now 233 Democrat and 202 Republican, has done nothing to improve American life. 73% say member of Congress are only interested in improving their own political career.
Democrats Tell Bush to “Drop Dead” On Lifting Offshore drilling Moritorium
57% Support Ending Offshore Oil Drilling ban
Democrat members of the House of Representatives called for nationalizing oil refineries at a Wednesday News Conference. Proponents point to the fact that Norway, Mexico, Venezuela and other socialist and communist countries have nationalized their oil and many other industries as justification for this radical proposal. At the same time Congressional Democrats told President Bush to “drop dead” on his call to lift the moratorium on offshore oil drilling despite 57% of American’s support for that idea.
Thanks to god-like environmentalists: Exxon will not make money drilling offshore. Cuba and China will.
We have a defacto suicidal oil avoidance policy which makes Bush’s shortsighted oil focus look like a misdemeanor in a world of capital crimes.
Bush once declared he was never part of “big oil,” rather he once was part of “little oil”. Bad, bad man. So punish the entire US population.
Well, I say to you, Cuba and China working together to drill for oil in our neighborhood is about Big Oil, but not what ignorant shortsighted politically motivated environmentalists usually think of. Such Stinging hypocrisy. I am an environmentalist, but do not think we have to commit suicide.
They have their heads in the wrong place and deserve any peculiar awards they get. Any ideas?
Suicide. Oil. Policy. Not by Bush. Get it? Iraq WAS about oil, not our appropriating it, but specifically about keeping oil lanes and supplies open to all of the world including poor countries who are dependent on oil and cannot assure it’s availability in a world where volatile countries own and control a lot of oil. It is important to keep the shipping lanes open and half of our military expenditures may be directed to that end for the BENEFIT OF THE ENTIRE FREE AND OTHER WORLDS WHO USE OIL.
Do you know any country that does not use oil?
Do these Energy Brilliants know that while Brazil may be independent of oil thanks to massive forest destroying cultivation of sugar cane and it’s wide use throughout the country they still search for oil? No matter, damn those Exxon profiteers! Boycott their gas stations until they reduce their gas prices. Again, no matter, just fly me in a private jet to the next conference without delay, my limousine and award is waiting.
You follow in a non private plane to take my picture. And don’t be late. And do not us oil products made in the US, be sure to get them off the next boat from half way around the world. Hope any leaks are not on our shores.
Who cares that Venezuela, the country controlled by a mad man who “cares about the people”, owns Citgo. Why bother boycotting them? Well, because they are not Exxon, the Great Satan, who produces, what? Only a small percentage of world wide oil production? How can that be?
No matter. They only give 40% of their political donations to liberals, Democrats or progressive interests so they are bad.
Despite not being dependent on oil, Brazil and it’s sovereign Oil Firm has recently announced that they looked for and found new massive oil reserves in offshore fields. A second one just recently. But only because they looked for it, found it and will drilled it without the permission of god-like US environmentalists. Big Oil again. Taxem, taxem I say.
It is good news for these politically motivated liberal environmentalists because they will get to rejoice that Exxon is not going to make those profits, let along those made off our very own shores. After all if they did, we would have to penalize them and tax the “windfall” for making maybe an 8 to 10% return on equity on a large investment base. That is not a windfall even if measured in billions. Goldman Sachs just announced a poor financial result for the last quarter, just a little over 2 Billion. Where are the cries for a windfall profit on a company that probably makes 60% of their political donations to liberals, Democrats and progressives.
Many industries make a far greater return, but no matter, penalize them. Union pensions own a lot of stock in such companies but that is just hypocrisy, not worthy or mention.
Such shortsighted folks, including those sympathizers in government, do not know what a windfall is. Their extraordinary pensions, health care and other perks and fine china are windfalls and should be taxed at 90%.
Actors or actresses getting 1 to 20 million for a single movie taking 4 months to film, is a windfall requiring poor people to pay $8 to $12 per person for a movie.
An athlete getting similar egregious salaries so that poor people have to pay through the nose to see a single game, is a windfall. Oh and do not forget the 4 dollar popcorn. Unhealthy oil included at no extra charge.
Bill O’Reilly and Larry King’s salary and benefits are egregious and true windfalls.
Al Gore makes windfall profits by scaring us but has no solutions his own worshipful constituency would pay for. Hugh fees for speeches by former Presidents like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are windfalls.
Which US legislator is going to introduce the Windfall Profits Tax on Brazil? Or Reagan’s estate or Clinton’s ventures?
Or Cuba or China or Russia?
Hey, how about this, let’s tax Iran for their windfall profits!
Why didn’t we think about this sooner? Notice something here? Those are countries, not stockholder profiteers owned by our pension funds and universities. All conduct foreign policy and build and buy weapons and train and pay for armies. No conflicts of interest there, is there?
Kind of like several much bigger Exxons, some with nuclear weapons, others wimply with nuclear ambitions like Iraq under Saddam. Where will they get the money for those kinds of programs? Not from Profits but from the entire asset base of the company/country. Wake up.