Vote Grand Oil Party! Multi-layered deception coming to a street corner near you

By: A Siegel
Published On: 9/16/2008 4:35:51 PM

In my neck of Virginia, the local Republicans are showing a real green thumb (actually, perhaps green hammer) as there is green sprouting all over. Green signs with a gas pump are appearing with the words "Drill Now! Pay Less! Vote GOP!"

Now, other than the direct linkage of a gas pump and the Republican Party (the Grand Oil Party), it is hard to see any honesty in this poster. It is a continuation of the concerted Republican efforts to mislead and lie to the American people about critical energy issues. It is, in fact, impressive that this sign can be deceptive and simply dishonest on so many levels at the same time.
1. A green sign? A green sign associated with a gas pump, drilling, and the Republican Party? Am I the only one to see the irony of this? And, well, this greenwashing cannot be considered accidental.   No, this is part and parcel of a systematic attempt to greenwash the McCain campaign and Republicans into something that they are not.

2.  Drill Now?  Reality is that new drilling doesn't happen overnight in newly opened areas and, in any event, the world does not have the drilling rigs to expand offshore drilling in the near term.  Opening up new lands (ashore or at sea) to drilling, as the Republicans are demanding, will not lead to more drilling for at least five more years (and probably more than than in any notable amount) and not significant amounts of production for well over a decade (eg, the 2020s) ... at the minimum.  That additional production from offshore drilling:  about 200-250 thousand barrels per day or about 1 percent of US and 0.25 percent of current global consumption.

3.  Pay Less?  Okay, the Department of Energy analysis suggests that opening up drilling would contribute to a to about a 1.2 cent reduction in gasoline prices ... twenty years from now.

4.  Vote GOP?  If you want "green", if you want to be "paying less" for your (overall) energy, it is clear that voting for the GOP won't get you there. And, as noted above, they can't deliver drilling now.  Oops, perhaps this isn't fully dishonest, as it is the Graft-ridden Grand Oil Party, after all.

So, at least four major truthiness elements in one sign with six words.  Unlikely to be a record in stretching credularity and creating confusion, but this sign is definitely in competition for the most misleading elements with so few words as the Republicans continue to press forward with Drillusion.

A Draft LTE ...

Here is a draft letter to the editor that I will send to my local newspapers.  Please provide comments, thoughts, reactions below.  And, when (not if) these sorts of signs start appearing in your neighborhood, listen to the Boy Scouts, and Be Prepared ...

A deceptive sign is sprouting up like mushrooms around our neighborhoods. This green sign reads "Drill Now!  Pay Less!  Vote GOP!"  

Some facts from the Department of Energy:

  • Drilling "Now" is not a possibility in any newly opened drilling areas.  Drilling would not occur for years and notable production would not occur until the 2020s.

  • New offshore drilling would add about 200,000 barrels per day to the world supply ... in 2030. (Note that, in the past year, US consumption has dropped almost 1,000,000 barrels per day due to increased energy efficiency and conservation moves.)  In 2030, this increased production would help lower prices ... about 1.2 cents per gallon.

    • And, I'm sure readers can see the subtle deception of coloring a pro-drilling, pro-fossil fuel sign green.

    The only element not dishonest here: encouraging votes for the Grand Oil Party.

    We need real solutions to problems, not empty and misleading slogans.

    Does that work? Let's go through the list:

  • Short? 150 words, check!  

  • Relevant to a current and, now, local issue? Check!

  • Fact based? Check! (note: when sending in LTEs, I always seek to provide references to expert organizations to back up any cited facts. In this case, Department of Energy should do well. (Please check Get Energy Smart! NOW!!! for any updated versions with reference material when these signs appear in your neighborhood and you want to write letters to the editor.)  

  • Pithy, strong, catchy?  I think so, do you?

  • Sent?  Not yet ... waiting for feedback ...

    • And, as a reprise, some words from the Words of Mass Deception from the 2004 RNC ...

    Switch a few words, like "Drill, Baby, Drill" and singing about "Drill Here! Drill Now! (Forget about) Pay(ing) Less, and it seems oddly reminiscent ... with the exception that Dick and George were not as warmly embraced in 2008 as Republicans sought to disassociate themselves from their seven+ years of destructive governance.

    Comments



    Lies, lies, and more lies (Lowell - 9/16/2008 5:27:29 PM)


    Will Americans get the output (Teddy - 9/16/2008 6:22:14 PM)
    from any offshore drilling? Since these are multinational oil companies that will do the drilling, won't they sell the oil in the open global market (you know, get the most profits possible). Therefore, it is most likely that the oil will go not to us American suckers but to, say, China, whose continued rapid development is sucking up every mineral, every commodity they can lay their hands on. Lowell, is that right? China or other countries are as likely, or more so, to get the oil from our new fields than we are.

    So, all opening the American wilderness and drilling offshore will simply provide more profits for the oil companies and not necessarily any more oil for us, the supposed owners of that oil.  



    Not exactly (tx2vadem - 9/16/2008 6:41:41 PM)
    The oil will most likely come here.  The pipeline system is setup to transport it here.  Granted they could load it on a ship and send it elsewhere, but not likely.  Refiners here would pay the same amount they would get anywhere else and it would cost more to ship it somewhere.  To ship to China, for example, you would need to put it on a Panamax freighter, named as they are the largest ship that will fit through the Panama Canal.  A Panamax doesn't hold a lot of oil either and then you either have to transfer it to a larger ship or cart that across the Pacific on multiple long haul voyages.  That runs a lot of money.

    It's easiest for countries to get oil from sources located close to them.  In China's case, that would be the Persian Gulf.  And at Ras Tanura, Saudi Arabia they can load VLCCs (simply Very Large Crude Carrier) which is a much more efficient process for delivering crude to China.

    It would likely displace some longer haul crude purchases assuming our demand was to remain flat, but likely it would just be meeting increased demand should we do only drilling.  And the stream of crude carriers would keep coming from across the Gulf and lining up at LOOP or the Port of Southern Lousiana or Houston.  



    Drill Baby Drill (agscribe - 9/16/2008 6:55:03 PM)
    tx2vadem makes a valid point. Oil is a fungible commodity. It matters not where the supply increases, it will move to meet the demand. This Republican mantra surpasses the standards Goebbels set in the 1930s (as I posted on another comment). Is Americans really this dumb?


    I feel like a broken record on this, but... (Lowell - 9/16/2008 6:53:51 PM)
    ...it's a world oil market and a fungible commodity, so it's pretty much completely irrelevant where the oil goes. That's simply not the way it works.


    What about transportation? (tx2vadem - 9/16/2008 9:10:34 PM)
    Where it comes from matters from both a logistics and a cost perspective.  The reason we get a great deal of our oil from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela is because they are close.  The only reason Saudi got to the spot they hold is that they discount their crude (or used to).  Otherwise, to move a VLCC around the horn of Africa and to the Gulf is both long and expensive.  And if you are going to a crowded port, you can rack up demurrage charges of 80k+ a day (but that is probably a lot more these days).  


    Drill now, fish less! (Kindler - 9/16/2008 9:12:36 PM)


    Still I say why not call their bluff (tx2vadem - 9/16/2008 9:20:22 PM)
    If they want to use this, bring them to the table with a comprehensive energy plan and say if you want to remove the moratorium you have to as a part of this comprehensive package.  You put it to the floor of both houses, prevent amendments in the House, play a game of chicken, when Republicans in the House refuse to vote yea, then we can accuse them of voting no on lifting the moratorium.  In the Senate, just shoot down all of the Republican amendments, and force them to an up or down vote on the package as a whole.  If they refuse to vote on it, then the charge gets slapped against them.  

    And if, by the grace of God, they decide to support a comprehensive solution, then everyone wins.  



    What is happening tonight ... (A Siegel - 9/16/2008 9:50:17 PM)
    is an "all of the above" energy bill with many things not to my liking ... and it includes drilling ... and George the W has threatened to veto it if passed.  The Grand Oil Party will use this as messaging, because there is basically nothing else that they can use.


    Great! (tx2vadem - 9/16/2008 10:22:08 PM)
    Then we should start running a ton of ads.  And if McCain doesn't vote on it, we can accuse him of blocking offshore drilling.  See I knew Pelosi is smart!  Now all we need to do is play the same games Republicans play.  


    We could say (Pain - 9/17/2008 9:35:49 AM)

    We could say that they not only blocked smart drilling but incentives for renewable energy too. Does that represent Change?


    No, more of the same (tx2vadem - 9/17/2008 6:10:38 PM)
    But voting no on offshore drilling is priceless.  They said they wanted this more than anything.  They were willing to hold up spending bills for FY09 to get this.  And given the opportunity to finally effect its passage, they said no.