Too bad he didn’t include nuclear in his proposal.

This is such BS.

The price of Oil in real terms isn’t anywhere near the price that is shown by the futures speculators.

Now many “Long” people are in that side of the market.

This is a fragile oil price.

Too bad he didn’t include nuclear in his proposal.

This bill is aimed a energy security, primarily for transportation fuels. 

The US has huge resources of coal for electricity production.  Nuclear power does not help our energy independence the way that increased oil production does.

I may be a bit jaded, but since the bill includes the “D” word (drilling) the Democrats will stomp it like a roach.

Simple.  Supply.  and Demand.  Increase supply and the price will decrease.  Decrease demand and the price will decrease.  Demand can be decreased when the price increases.  Supply will be increased when the price increases for a long enough time for anyone to produce the product.  If
and only if
the government would stay out of the way and not legislate monopolies.

If Obama, Clinton, and McCain were really serious about reducing gas prices they would all agree—together as Americans (not Democrat or Republican) to increase US oil production and refinery capacity by at least 50% in the next 5 years.

You would see an immediate drop in price.
DKK

Lifetrek,

An excellent observation, economically and politically.  If Senator Domenici’s bill were passed and signed into law, the price of crude would crumble.  Approvals for just a few more refineries along with the Domenici bill and the price of crude would drop like a rock.

I agree that we need to drill more.  Taking oil from our reserves like Pelosi wants to do will do nothing to lower the price of oil.  The only thing that will do this is increasing our supply.  I am glad to see that some republicans are getting it right. 

Conservatives need to take this message to the American people instead of going on Al Gore’s commercials and supporting worthless alternatives that do nothing in an attempt to get an endorsement by the Siera Club.

I wrote to Claire McCaskill about supporting this bill.  I was surprised that someone in her office provided a response, but not surprised that it contained the usual about alternative energy, blah, blah, blah, and no commitment to increase domestic oil production:

Thank you for contacting me about domestic energy production. I appreciate having your comments and welcome the opportunity to respond.

I am encouraged that so many of my constituents are voicing their opinions on how we could reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil. While domestic production of fuel is important to our nation’s security, we need a longterm comprehensive approach to America’s energy challenges. Congress should make producing renewable fuels a priority help free the U.S. from its addiction to oil and create a sustainable energy supply for generations to come.

In fact, this past December, the President signed into law a congressional mandate that would require the production of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022. Along with these reforms, Congress needs to provide incentives that would encourage Americans to invest in clean energy technologies. Tax benefits would not only boost alternative energy research, but it would make renewables more commercially available for average Americans.

Once more, thank you for your correspondence. Though we do not necessarily see eye-to-eye on this particular matter, please do not hesitate to contact me in the future with your other concerns.

All best,
Senator Claire McCaskill

I do think that it’s funny that the response still contains information touting biofuels despite the recent backlash in the media.  Perhaps it’s time to update the canned response, no?