"Green conservative" and We campaign spokesman Newt Gingrich is mounting a new campaign: "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less."
His promise is that (blocking Lieberman-Warner and) opening up drilling off the coasts, in the Gulf of Mexico, in northern Alaska, and in the Rockies (for oil shale) would lower gas prices.
Now, for one thing that's just a lie. It's false. According to the EIA, the U.S. has about 21 billion gallons in proven oil reserves -- about 3% of the world's total. Even if we started drilling today, it would be 10 years before we got substantial production out of those fields, and 20 years before peak production. Ten years -- while gas prices have risen $0.50 just this Spring.
Right now, Saudi Arabia is sitting pretty, enjoying sky-high oil prices. They are ignoring our entreaties to pump more because they like these supply constraints just fine (and they probably can't pump any faster if they wanted to). Say we start pumping those reserves out into the world oil market. What's to stop Saudi Arabia from dialing back production a little bit, so supply (and prices) stay roughly the same? Answer: nothing. U.S. domestic oil prices rise to meet world prices, and those prices are outside our control.
In short: The U.S. cannot affect oil or gasoline prices in any significant way by drilling more oil. Full stop. Gingrich is knowingly lying to people (and taking their money).
The other thing I'd say about this is that the We campaign people and all the other earnest politicians and enviros out there trying to convince us that climate and energy are bipartisan issues should wait until they are actually bipartisan before celebrating. Gingrich is using a green fig leaf to push the same corporate-friendly policies the GOP has been pushing for decades, and rather than getting smacked down, he's being helped by greens. It's stupid.
Here's the man himself, delivering his oily lies just like those of us alive in the mid-'90s remember:
Climate psychology in cartoons: clues for solving the messaging mystery
Children and riot police face off in Canadian “Moms” video
Comments
View as Flat
Wolverine Posted 4:34 am
28 May 2008
The real issue here is, is it better to prohibit more drilling in the U.S., which causes massive oil imports -- causing even further consumption of oil -- or should the U.S. just drill more here? Obviously, we want to protect all pristine and relatively ecologically valuable areas -- they're all valuable in some way and to some extent -- but aside from protecting those areas, it would be better to drill more here, if there's any oil in areas that don't deserve special protection.
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 4:50 am
28 May 2008
DR displays a glaring lack of knowledge about how markets work. Supply and demand of crude oil are in balance. There are no shortages of either crude or gasoline. Two factors are primarily driving the price of oil today, a weak dollar and a perception of shortages in the future. Which is causing speculators to bet "long" on crude. Less than 10 years ago crude was selling below $20 per barrel. At the time OPEC had between 2 and 3 million barrels of excess crude capacity. Demand growth and lack of investment has worked off that surplus.
If the US opened additional lands for exploration, like the 1002 area, the market would need to acknowledge the potential for several million barrels of crude oil supply to be available. Prices would come down - immediately.
A lease sale in the 1002 would generate as much as a billion dollars in premiums which could be used to fund alternative energies or conservation programs. It would be a win both for environmentalists and for US consumers.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:11 am
28 May 2008
Here's an idea -- charge the oil companies royalties something close to the world price for oil, and then the U.S. treasury would pick up most of the "windfall tax" that every other country picks up. The major oil companies only handle about 10% of the world's oil, the rest is controlled by countries.
I hope that Gingrich's move here causes Gore and friends to reconsider their We ad campaign. They may have just spent a lot of money greenwashing Gingrich, who can now claim to be on the side of mitigating global warming while he's spending most of his time trying to produce as much greenhouse gases as possible (let's not even talk about Pat Robertson -- remember why 9/11 happened according to Pat?).
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:58 am
28 May 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/4/30/94151/4451
2. Drilling Oilshale isn't illegal, it's just stupidly expensive.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3969
3. Congress already authorized drilling in the Gulf, and they handed over $14 billion dollars to oil companies to do deep sea drilling there. (Where as they decided it was more profitable to just pocket the money)
http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/29/news/economy/offshore_oil ...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:00 am
28 May 2008
Peak Oil isn't something we should be leaning on to get people to move.
Peak Oil should instead be considered a challenge to overcome.
Or at very least a double edged sword.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:55 am
28 May 2008
Unfortunately, Grey, it looks to me like higher gas prices are concentrating the collective mind much more than global warming. but ideally, the prescriptions should be the same, a move to renewable electricity.
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 9:06 am
28 May 2008
Our dear Dr. Romm quotes EIA as the source of this 1 cent analysis and then trashes them for being lousy at forecasting prices. Speculators are betting that Congress will continue to keep productive US oilfields off the market. The best companies in the world at producing oil and gas have access to only 6% of the world's reserves. An immediate lease sale in the 1002 would change that. We haven't hit peak oil until the rest of the world has as many holes drilled into it as Oklahoma and East Texas. We may have reached peak access though, with shareholder companies prohibited from participating in the best plays.
At $120 / barrel, maybe not. The problem isn't high prices it is the fear of a return to $30 oil that keeps these investments from happening.
Another myth. Deepwater royalty relief was granted in the late 1990s not in 2006 which is the dateline of the story you linked to. In the 1990s oil was $15 a barrel and drilling budgets were slim. Incentives were granted to get companies to invest in US production rather than sending those dollars overseas.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 9:20 am
28 May 2008
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 9:23 am
28 May 2008
The US is the 3rd largest crude producer and 2nd largest gas producer yet is only 11th on the list of flaring. The top spots are dominated by the state owned or dominated oil companies. The countries with the biggest government take often have the least environmental controls.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 9:30 am
28 May 2008
The point actually is to eliminate the use of oil entirely, which would have the best consequences environmentally (and politically)
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 9:54 am
28 May 2008
You can see the excess world capacity stands at around 2.5 million barrels per day. The 1002 area is estimated to have 10 billion barrels of recoverable reserves (at $40 per barrel when the assessments were done). When in production it would produce 1 million barrels a day for 20+ years. That additional supply alone would help build the surplus capacity. Other countries would need to increase production to save market share, lowering prices.
Basic economics says that additional supplies will lower prices. It does depend on how demand reacts though.
So I guess if you say that US companies account for such a small amount of world demand then they also cannot be held responsible for setting world prices?
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:05 am
28 May 2008
After googling I finally figured out that "1002" is the ANWR, and as has been pointed out over and over again, it won't solve the problem, just like tar sands won't -- it may prolong the agony.
At the rate we're going, we're going to prolong the agony in many ways, like using biofuels, but anyway, I still think that's it's better to move to electric transportation now, it's much more prudent than going for a billion barrels here and a billion barrels there.
Permalink
In the belly Posted 10:10 am
28 May 2008
Katrina oil slicks
Not to mention onshore spills, 7 million gallons, I believe. You might ask someone from St. Bernard Parish if there were any spills.
Curious what these new drilling and production technologies are that you are referring to. I know O&G flacks keep talking about them, but I haven't seen any step changes in technology during the last 10 years, anyway.
Also, supposedly the market has already accounted for several billion barrels of scope for recovery from the Tupi discovery in Brasil's Santos Basin (with plenty of infrastructure), yet prices have continued to climb. Don't you think that undiscovered, exploration-risked volumes many years from production would have even less impact on the market? Immediately drop? I don't think so.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:14 am
28 May 2008
Thats why I balk at comments made by people like Knustler on "Why is it the environmentalists responsibility to prolong people's driving habits?".
The answer is that we have to provide a greener form of motoring, or else we'll get an alternative thats even worse than the status quo.
Permalink
In the belly Posted 10:24 am
28 May 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:28 am
28 May 2008
So the jury is really still out on that one, as far as I can tell. But people will try desperately to stick to the internal combustion engine, I think that's the big problem, because the ICE does not have a future, IMHO.
Permalink
kirasaffron Posted 10:34 pm
28 May 2008
If the Saudis limited production while other countries had large supplies, there'd still be greater supply and the Saudis would be making less money. They live in a world market too, and would be forced to compete in it. They're ignoring entreaties to pump now because we have no leverage and are only consumers. Why would be forced to pay what the Saudis wanted if we were energy independent? If we became energy independent with an environmentally friendly, but limited source, would our prices depend on foreign supplies? I think you are the person guilty of lying, DR. You are either lying or you are very confused and have a poor understanding of economics.
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 2:13 am
29 May 2008
That you have to go to some obscure environmental website to make your point proves it didn't happen. The spills onshore were from floods lifting tanks off their foundation when the levees failed. These were refineries and petchem plants. We aren't talking about building more of those in the 1002.
The discoveries in Brazil are in acreage that has been available for over a decade. The market has already factored this into the price. In fact Brazil and the US have both increased production over the last 5 years, more than all the OPEC countries COMBINED.
I'm talking about new acreage currently off limits. If Saudia Arabia suddenly opened exploration and production to international companies I don't think anyone would argue that prices would drop in the short run in expectation of substantial supplies coming on in the future. Most of the exploration in the Kingdom is centered around Riyadh in the east. Much of Saudi Arabia remains unexplored and undeveloped. We won't know until we try, but it won't happen because the Democrat Party is beholding to fringe environmental groups.
Permalink
Bear80 Posted 1:40 am
30 May 2008
Even the most staunch paper saver will admit that. How you come to your conclusions is puzzling...and plain wrong.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:05 am
30 May 2008
The price of oil is set on the world market. If we'd started drilling here 10 years ago, there'd be maybe 2-3% more oil on that market, assuming everyone else kept pumping at full speed.
Why would the price of our gasoline be lower?
grist.org
Permalink
Bear80 Posted 4:02 am
30 May 2008
Even with your guess,3%, do you realize how much of an impact that could make on prices if we built new refineries and stopped the regional gas "blends"? My guess is a lot...but, truth be told, until it happens it is all a guess on your part and mine. However, basic economics of supply and demand still have the greatest effect on the price of crude.
It boils down to people like myself are willing to take the chance to produce more oil here in the U.S. and see what impact it will have on the price. You are not, there lies the debate. It should be a friendly debate.
And with gas prices going through the roof, you are going to hear more and more of the chant "drill here, drill now". Your side has won the debate to this point, we'll see what happens as prices continue to increase.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:11 am
30 May 2008
grist.org
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:00 am
30 May 2008
Permalink
Bear80 Posted 12:19 pm
30 May 2008
I would say good luck in your quest to stop all drilling in Alaska and off shore...but, my fingers would be crossed:)
Permalink
Swarren8703 Posted 9:51 am
01 Jun 2008
Permalink
EdR Posted 10:36 am
03 Jun 2008
While the Senate is holding hearings over the profits of oil companies and typical left wingers are blaming Bush for his old ties to the oil industry, and waging a war in the Middle-east, the dirty little secret is, the left doesn't want to support drilling for more oil. In fact they want gas prices to go up. Thats right! The left wants higher prices. They see higher gas prices as a tool to stop all of us from driving. Why? The left is in bed with environmentalist who have made it their mission to stop all carbon emissions.
Anyone can look it up. You can google "Hooray for high gas prices" and find other blogs which actually suggest ways to keep gas prices high in the name of the environment.
Permalink
Fosters Posted 12:53 am
05 Jun 2008
What makes me smile a bit though is seeing their whole view coming apart in some cases. The EPA now has made it so the US has by far the worst and most restrictive emissions regulations out there. So what does that mean for the typical enviro who has little clue about physics and mechanics? - We're saving the earth!!!1! What does that mean in the real world? It means our cars and trucks are forced to be less efficient than they could be, getting worse mpg and in turn polluting just as much if not more as their european counterparts. I loved it when they announced the specs of the US version of the Smart and the thing dropped from 60mpg in Europe to 33 over in the US. Oh and it lost the 70mpg diesel that, as we all know, diesel is bad because the smoke (even though they're much more efficient than gas engines).
Fosters - Resident global warmer.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:18 am
05 Jun 2008
Conservatives might want to give some consideration to their philosophy as a whole rather than focusing on the bright shiny portions that help their personal bottom line.
(1) They really like global trade. Petroleum is a global commodity. Opening up areas of North America to oil extraction will NOT lower the price of gasoline for U.S. drivers. The global supply far exceeds what might be extracted here anytime soon. So price will not drop significantly. Furthermore, the oil will probably end up in China or Japan, not the lower forty-eight states. It will go to the highest bidder.
(2) Conservatives don't like nationalization of natural resources or controls on their profits. The only way drilling for oil in Alaska will help American drivers would be for the the U.S. government to control the oil fields and sell refined products directly to American consumers, no profit margin for middlemen OR require oil companies to sell the refined products to American consumers... with a cap on the profit margin.
(3) Aren't conservatives all about maximizing profits on their investments? Shouldn't true conservatives want our Federal government to leave oil in the ground until the rest of the world essentially runs out?! Then it could be sold to the highest bidder -- those who have not invested in alternative energy -- for maximum return for the American people. Use those massive returns to fund all the tax cuts you care so much about.
(4) Conservative pretend to care about national security. Alaskan oil should stay in the ground in case the U.S. becomes isolated due to GW's various foreign policy blunders. Real Americans realize "freedom" isn't free" and we might have to pay more for gasoline now so we have oil for running our war machine later. Why do conservative hate America?!
Conservatives who say Americans will benefit from drilling for oil at home are spewing a load of crap not even suitable for enriching the soil in an organic garden.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:40 am
05 Jun 2008
In fact, if you look at the posts on Grist, there is plenty of discussion of the possible negative effects high gas prices might have, including things like exploiting tar sands or going for coal-to-liquids or biofuels, as well as a very clear understanding of the tragic suffering being caused. And plenty of solutions are offered, from plug-in hybrids to public transit to walkable communities.
However, I'm sure that this sort of party line will be propagated, it fits in with the general "liberal elitist" Trotskyist-cum-Republican line, that somehow progressives don't care.
Permalink
EdR Posted 6:26 am
05 Jun 2008
Your excuse to prevent drilling for oil is that it won't reduce global demand, and that oil would end up in China or Japan. So your solution is don't drill for more oil. Thats pretty far sighted of you Mr or Mrs Liberal.
Heres the problem, history proved otherwise. In 1973, OPEC in their protest for our support of Israel, boycotted America with the intent to hurt us economically. This event is also known as the (first) fuel crisis. When Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976 he adopted an extensive energy policy. These policies were driven by environmental concerns which promoted conservation and the development of alternative energy, but his policies wrecked proven conventional energy sources. It limited the use of oil and coal, ended the use of nuclear energy and placed numerous limits and regulations on the entire energy industry. In a misguided attempt to lead the nation by example, he wore sweaters, and installed a wood burning stove in the living quarters of the White House. The reality was, while he was promoting conservation as a solution to the oil shortages due to his resistance to drilling for more oil, the nation was dealing with skyrocketing gas prices, which spurred high inflation, economic stagnation, and high unemployment.
At his nomination, in 1980, Ronald Reagan made the following statements;
"America must get to work producing more energy. The Republican program for solving economic problems is based on growth and productivity ... the Carter administration seems to believe the American people would rather see more regulation, taxes and controls than more energy."
"We can't conserve the problem away: Conservation should play a role in energy policy, but we will not conserve our way to prosperity"
You can read the rest here;
http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php? ...
When Ronald Reagan was elected, drilling resumed and the price of gas went down, this resulted in lower unemployment, the end of inflation and economic growth during the 1980s
The oil didn't go to the rest of the world, it went to the biggest customer, which is us.
If we begin to drill for oil, today, even if you are correct and we sell some of that oil to the rest of the world, we can still force OPEC to lower their oil prices based on a simple economic principal known as "competition". If OPEC attempts to raise their oil prices, a competitor can always cut their price. If OPEC intends to stay in business, it has to play the game. Right now, OPEC has no fear of a strong competitor, because there is none and they can dictate to the world what they think oil prices should be and how much they want to pump out of the ground. During Reagan's administration, they had no such luxury and they had to keep prices lower to compete . The result is lower overall prices.
It's so simple to understand unless you have an ulterior motive which is, you "want" higher gas prices in some misguided belief that we can curb global warming.
Yes real Americans like many of us Conservatives do know that freedom isn't free and thats what it all boils down to. We don't need liberals, i.e. socialists telling us what cars are "approved" and which are "verboten" based on their concept of conservation due to the theory of global warming.
Our freedom is directly linked to the access of cheap and abundant energy. It is that energy which allows us to be productive, improve our lives, expand our horizons, yet the liberal left such as yourself opposes this view and would prevent us from energy access.
To Jon Rynn;
Progressives (Code word for socialists) Firstly if you find a so called Republican who has leftists tendencies, we call them RINOs and cannot by confused with "Conservatives"
A Conservative, believes in the original intent of Freedom and Liberty as envisioned by our Founding Fathers, and outlined in our Constitution. Socialists and other like-minded "progressives" do not.
The left are in bed with the environmentalists who hold to the concept of global warming. They are opposed to cheap and abundant energy as they see this as a threat. Cheap energy to them means more cars on the road, which means more pollution and more green house gases in the atmosphere. Their solution is to keep oil prices as high as possible, and limit domestic production as a tool to reduce driving and overall consumption. Which is why they oppose drilling for more oil here at home and make dozens of excuses as to why drilling won't work. You can see it in their conservation approach in their energy policies, proposed punitive taxes such as a carbon footprint bill being reviewed in the congress (Liberian-Warner) and numerous other examples.
These blogs pretty much sums up their view, take note how many want to raise taxes on gas prices to insure higher costs in the name of reducing green house gases;
New York Times, Freakonomics;
Hurray for high gas prices!
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/18/hurray-f ...
http://jaundicejames.blogspot.com/2006/05/i-love-high-gas ...
http://telstarlogistics.typepad.com/telstarlogistics/2008 ...
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:31 am
05 Jun 2008
No. My reason is that it will not lower the price and help American businesses and consumers. High energy prices are a problem. Our federal, state, and local representative should help find REAL solutions, not pretend that increasing the world supply of oil by a few percentage points will dramatically lower the price Americans pay for gas. There is nothing liberal or conservative about wanting to find real solutions to problems.
And a representative of the oil industry who was on a national radio program, responding to my question about this matter, admitted that drilling in Alaska will do nothing to increase the supply or lower the price of gas in the United States. It will only provide Asia -- our economic competitors -- with cheaper more secure energy for a short time. There is nothing liberal or conservative about not wanting to sacrifice your own resources to help a competitor.
"In 1973, OPEC in their protest for our support of Israel, boycotted America with the intent to hurt us economically. This event is also known as the (first) fuel crisis."
I think you mean "embargo". They refused to sell oil to the United States. And clearly demonstrated the hazards of depending on foreign sources of energy or global commodities as a foundation for one's economy and national security.
"When Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976 he adopted an extensive energy policy. These policies were driven by environmental concerns which promoted conservation and the development of alternative energy, but his policies wrecked proven conventional energy sources. It limited the use of oil and coal, ended the use of nuclear energy and placed numerous limits and regulations on the entire energy industry."
The goal was to end our dependence on foreign sources of energy or global commodities (see above).
"In a misguided attempt to lead the nation by example, he wore sweaters, and installed a wood burning stove in the living quarters of the White House. The reality was, while he was promoting conservation as a solution to the oil shortages due to his resistance to drilling for more oil, the nation was dealing with skyrocketing gas prices, which spurred high inflation, economic stagnation, and high unemployment."
It takes time to build infrastructure. Conservation was a short-term solution to buy time for bringing new and efficient technology online. If he had order the construction of new power plants and additional drilling as an immediate response, the economic harm due to he embargo would have been far worse.
"The oil didn't go to the rest of the world, it went to the biggest customer, which is us. If we begin to drill for oil, today, even if you are correct and we sell some of that oil to the rest of the world, we can still force OPEC to lower their oil prices based on a simple economic principal known as "competition"."
Have you noticed that China is rapidly growing and acquiring control over natural resources from South America to Africa to the Middle East and Asia. They are using diplomacy and providing economic assistance to various countries to secure natural resources and markets. They also control our economy by lending us more money than we'll ever be able to pay back.
Regarding the economic principle known as "competition", the oil will not go to the "biggest customer". It will go the the one who can pay the most money for it -- unless you propose nationalizing the Alaskan and Gulf oil fields. Who can afford to pay more for oil, gas, kerosene, or gasoline? An American worker or a country with more money than they know what to do with? The only way to reduce the cost of energy is to stop relying on oil, foreign or domestic.
"It's so simple to understand unless you have an ulterior motive which is, you "want" higher gas prices in some misguided belief that we can curb global warming."
I don't want higher gasoline prices. I've admitted elsewhere on this website that I drive an SUV, though a small one, and commute 23.7 miles to work each day. I've also expressed concern for those people who've constructed lives around cheap personal transportation.
My motive for not supporting drilling in Alaska and Gulf? It will not solve the energy problem! It will not enhance national security! We will destroy valuable wilderness, destroy ocean resources, and piss away a natural resource that will become even more valuable in the future -- as a feed stock for the chemical industry, not as a transportation fuel. What sort of responsible business person, liberal or conservative, sells a valuable commodity a low price when we know it is rapidly rising in value? Ever heard of "investing"?
"Yes real Americans like many of us Conservatives do know that freedom isn't free and thats what it all boils down to. We don't need liberals, i.e. socialists telling us what cars are "approved" and which are "verboten" based on their concept of conservation due to the theory of global warming."
Liberals are not socialists.
Liberal... open to new behavior or opinions, willing to discard traditional values if they no longer meet our needs, favorable and respectful of individual rights and freedom, favoring maximum individual liberty as long as we do not trespass on the rights and freedom of others, interested in learning about new ideas and considering whether they are worth adopting.
One can be a liberal without being a socialist. One can be a liberal and a free-market capitalist.
"Our freedom is directly linked to the access of cheap and abundant energy. It is that energy which allows us to be productive, improve our lives, expand our horizons, yet the liberal left such as yourself opposes this view and would prevent us from energy access."
If freedom is linked directly to cheap and abundant energy, we are currently screwed. Let's assume, however, that you are correct. Then we DON'T NEED more fossil fuel. We need an Apollo-style program to bring photovoltaic or other forms of solar energy directly to every single household and business, so no one is dependent on a few enormous corporations or foreign despots for energy. We also need an Apollo-style program to create more-efficient automobiles, lighting, machinery, et cetera, so we can be productive, improve our lives, and expand our horizons while consuming less energy.
The liberal left? I'm a liberal, but far from left. And I want our politicians, corporate leaders, small business, et cetera, to find ways for us to get more from less energy (see above). I have no desire to stand in the way the progress you describe.
"A Conservative, believes in the original intent of Freedom and Liberty as envisioned by our Founding Fathers, and outlined in our Constitution. Socialists and other like-minded "progressives" do not."
Try cracking open a history book. The Founders were liberals. Those resisting formation of a democratic republic were conservatives. And the Founders were aware of the importance of Federal control over natural resources for national security. Thomas Jefferson, for example, proposed restrictions on the harvesting of trees to ensure we always had enough trees of suitable size for constructing ships. The British, in the meantime, clear-cut their island and were forced to secure suitable material via military means. A nation that conserves its resources so it is not dependent on foreign sources is a stronger nation.
The terms "socialist" and "progressive" are not interchangeable. One could be both, but it is not necessary. I'm not a socialist, but definitely progressive.
"The left are in bed with the environmentalists who hold to the concept of global warming. They are opposed to cheap and abundant energy as they see this as a threat."
They appear more opposed to waste, unnecessary pollution, and unnecessary destruction of natural resources. Why burn more gas than you have to to move from point A to point B? Why drill in Alaska when it will not reduce the price of energy? Why pollute the atmosphere when you can construct efficient non-polluting vehicles? Basically, why pay more than you have to -- directly or by degrading other resources -- to get what you want? This is not liberal or conservative, left or right... it is just common sense. And why trample on someone else's right to clean air, clean water, of clean food when you don't have to? It is not a liberal, conservative, left, right problem.
"Cheap energy to them means more cars on the road, which means more pollution and more green house gases in the atmosphere. Their solution is to keep oil prices as high as possible, and limit domestic production as a tool to reduce driving and overall consumption. Which is why they oppose drilling for more oil here at home and make dozens of excuses as to why drilling won't work."
You fail to recognize that liberals, the left, environmentalists, progressives, all the people you apparently despise, are interest in the general well-being of humans and our society. Expensive energy causes a lot of other problems that are not desired by such folks. We don't want to see the cost of food or heating skyrocket. We don't want to see a decline in health care because it costs too much. We don't want to see unemployment due to the closing of factories. The progressive "agenda" cannot move forward if energy is expensive.
"You can see it in their conservation approach in their energy policies, proposed punitive taxes such as a carbon footprint bill being reviewed in the congress (Liberian-Warner) and numerous other examples."
Much of this amounts to ensuring that the free-market system REALLY works. For the laws of supply and demand to work, for consumers to make good decisions as far as their personal well-being is concerned, the cost of goods and service has to include ALL costs. What's the point of paying a lower price for widget A if you then have to buy a water-purifier, pay for extra flood insurance, and invest in a home security system because production of widget A also polluted the ground water, released greenhouse gases, and resulted in someone not having enough income to care for his family? Better to know the true cost of widget A so "competition" really provides the best product for the lowest cost.
Have a nice day.
Permalink
EdR Posted 12:22 pm
05 Jun 2008
And exactly what are those real solutions? So far a small handful of Conservatives are suggesting that we open up the spigots. Flood the market with oil. It's the simple economics of supply and demand. If there is more supply on the market than demand, gas prices will go down. It was proven when Reagan did it and reversed Jimmy Carter's failed energy policies which the Democrats are now once again supporting. This simple economic rule works everytime it has been tried. You can argue it all you want no matter who the customers are but it always works.
The solutions that Liberal Democrats have; They oppose drilling for oil for all sorts of reasons ranging from damage to the environment, contributing to global warming, and finally the same excuse you have, it will not make a difference. And yet theses same liberals in power want to tell us that it's the oil companies fault because they make billions of dollars in profit. And people like you are happy to rake over yet another corporate business over the coals. Did you know that the classic Marxist, Socialist were anti-corporation, a characteristic that many Liberals hold to?? Liberal politicians want you to believe that if we took the profits of the oil companies we would save money at the pump which is why they are holding these show hearings. But what would we really gain if we didn't have to pay the additional cost of the profit margin? 11 Cents, which is a drop in the bucket when we are all paying about $4 per gallon. Thats no solution. What else, Oh yeah, The liberals are promoting an energy conservation plan. OK, I can agree with the concept of conservation, when I decide to. Whenever I choose to save money it would be nice to have products I can buy that have such features. However sometimes a fuel efficient product may not do the work I need it to do. Take for example cars. Small little commuter cars are fine if you want to save money and all you need is four wheels and a motor to get you from point A to point B, but I don't want it forced on me if I can't use simple transportation. If I need to haul cargo or a small group of people, then I want a larger vehicle which will do that role safely. The Liberal left's solution gives us no such option. They frown on using larger cars they deem as gas guzzlers. Conservation alone is not a solution. What good will it do us if we can make a car that gets 80 mpg, but the price of gas increases to $100 per gallon? There are other so called solutions that the left is promoting, none of them address price, except to find new ways to add a tax, either by some carbon footprint tax, taxing the oil companies which will eventually be passed onto the consumer, or other environmental impact fee. So in the end, the Left's solution to higher gas prices is to do nothing about actually addressing the costs, and it goes back to the fact that secretly they love higher prices because it forces us to drive less which makes the environmentalists very happy.
"And a representative of the oil industry who was on a national radio program, responding to my question about this matter, admitted that drilling in Alaska will do nothing to increase the supply or lower the price of gas in the United States. It will only provide Asia -- our economic competitors -- with cheaper more secure energy for a short time. There is nothing liberal or conservative about not wanting to sacrifice your own resources to help a competitor."
And yet heres another excuse not to drill for more oil. Which is you still do not have a solution. None of you know where that oil will go. You're assuming that all of the oil will be sold to 'Asian competitors', but remember that we are the world's largest consumer of oil and therefore a rich market. Fear of exporting domestic oil isn't a good excuse to keep on paying for more oil at home and you simply ignore all other domestic oil sources. Besides Alaska, we have many large reserves in the continental United States, and just off our shores. The libs have blocked drilling in these places for fear of environmental impact. And yet just off the coast of Florida, a mere 60 miles from Key West, the Chinese are angle drilling (towards us) for oil while we are not allowed to due to govt regulations placed by Liberal Democrats (And a few RINOs) I wonder if the Chinese plan to sell back some of that oil??
"I think you mean "embargo". They refused to sell oil to the United States. And clearly demonstrated the hazards of depending on foreign sources of energy or global commodities as a foundation for one's economy and national security."
"The goal was to end our dependence on foreign sources of energy or global commodities (see above)."
Yes it was an Embargo, it was also called the first fuel crisis at the time. Many people do not realize why it happened, they assumed it was due to our consumption which resulted in a shortage.
The goal of ending our dependence would not be realized by conserving what we were getting. The result was still the same, high unemployment, massive inflation and other national ills due to a failed energy policy which current Liberals are hoping to reinstate.
"It takes time to build infrastructure. Conservation was a short-term solution to buy time for bringing new and efficient technology online. If he had order the construction of new power plants and additional drilling as an immediate response, the economic harm due to he embargo would have been far worse."
Conservation is the only solution they have. They do not want to address lowering the cost of fuel by introducing more to the market because of the environmental movement within their ranks. There would be no economic harm done as Reagan proved. The economy reversed itself from the inflation, and high unemployment of the Carter years and it took much of OPECs power to hurt us economically.
"Have you noticed that China is rapidly growing and acquiring control over natural resources from South America to Africa to the Middle East and Asia. They are using diplomacy and providing economic assistance to various countries to secure natural resources and markets. They also control our economy by lending us more money than we'll ever be able to pay back."
If you haven't noticed, China is in an economic war with us. You can also thank another Liberal for helping them. Bill Clinton when he supported giving them favored nation status which opened our market to their cheap goods. While we are buying their stuff and taking their loans, they are using that money to build a military to rival ours. The only thing in our favor is that to beat us economically, they have to allow their people to taste freedom, which isn't good for a Communist based nation
"I don't want higher gasoline prices. I've admitted elsewhere on this website that I drive an SUV, though a small one, and commute 23.7 miles to work each day. I've also expressed concern for those people who've constructed lives around cheap personal transportation.
My motive for not supporting drilling in Alaska and Gulf? It will not solve the energy problem! It will not enhance national security! We will destroy valuable wilderness, destroy ocean resources, and piss away a natural resource that will become even more valuable in the future -- as a feed stock for the chemical industry, not as a transportation fuel. What sort of responsible business person, liberal or conservative, sells a valuable commodity a low price when we know it is rapidly rising in value? Ever heard of "investing"?
The solution is to drill for more oil, here at home. Flood the market with more oil. If we can use it to put OPEC out of business, that would be great. There is plenty of oil in the world. Even after 100 years of the automobile, we are still finding vast reserves of the stuff. It is ideal for our needs. It is abundant, it contains a high energy density compared to all other forms of energy, which happens to make it the most efficient form of energy. It is relatively safe and stable. Heres a fact. There are oil deposits so close to the surface that much of it has been seeping into the environment for eons. The world's oceans have not been spared from this. There are thousands of volcanos on the earth, at any given time there is several active volcanos spewing out tons of so called green house gasses into the atmosphere, from hydrocarbons (The main ingredient of petroleum) to carbon dioxide and other hazardous gasses. It's been happening since the beginning of time and yet we are all fine.
"Liberals are not socialists."
Despite the similarity of the word, Liberal has nothing to do with "Liberty"
"Liberal... open to new behavior or opinions, willing to discard traditional values if they no longer meet our needs, favorable and respectful of individual rights and freedom, favoring maximum individual liberty as long as we do not trespass on the rights and freedom of others, interested in learning about new ideas and considering whether they are worth adopting."
And yet in all of this definition you give, it has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of Freedom and Liberty as envisioned by our founding fathers of this great nation.
"One can be a liberal without being a socialist. One can be a liberal and a free-market capitalist."
Unfortunately the two are also very identical
"If freedom is linked directly to cheap and abundant energy, we are currently screwed."
And that is why it is so important to start drilling for more oil, because we will be screwed, we as a nation will cease to exist
"Let's assume, however, that you are correct. Then we DON'T NEED more fossil fuel. We need an Apollo-style program to bring photovoltaic or other forms of solar energy directly to every single household and business, so no one is dependent on a few enormous corporations or foreign despots for energy. We also need an Apollo-style program to create more-efficient automobiles, lighting, machinery, et cetera, so we can be productive, improve our lives, and expand our horizons while consuming less energy."
I completely agree that an Apollo style program would be needed... forget Apollo, we would need another Manhattan project. I happen to agree that alternative energy could hold some promise in the future. But the current state of alternative fuel can't compare to petroleum based fuels at the present time. All current forms of alternative energy do not compare to the energy release of gas. There is a tall order for the new fuel to be cheap, abundant, clean and efficient. The sad fact is, gasoline can easily fit the criteria much sooner than starting from scratch. Although I would love to have another fuel available to compete with gasoline on the same terms, but the reality is, there is none. Until one can be developed which may take years, we cannot wait for an alternative fuel. We need to drill now before we all go hungry.
"Try cracking open a history book. The Founders were liberals. Those resisting formation of a democratic republic were conservatives. And the Founders were aware of the importance of Federal control over natural resources for national security. Thomas Jefferson, for example, proposed restrictions on the harvesting of trees to ensure we always had enough trees of suitable size for constructing ships. The British, in the meantime, clear-cut their island and were forced to secure suitable material via military means. A nation that conserves its resources so it is not dependent on foreign sources is a stronger nation."
Perhaps you should crack open a history book. While you are at it, you might want to contrast the concepts of Freedom and Liberty which those men believed in, to the concepts of Karl Marx. You maybe shocked to discover how much of Liberalism is the concepts of Marx and the eventual socialism and communism which evolved. You do not have a clear understanding of Liberalism no less Conservatism or the Constitution. The term 'Progressive' is a typical socialist term.
"They appear more opposed to waste, unnecessary pollution, and unnecessary destruction of natural resources."
They intend to enforce those views by mandate. Such a concept should be an individual's choice, not the select handful who use the power of govt to enforce such views.
"Why burn more gas than you have to to move from point A to point B?"
It should be up to the individual to make that decision. Afterall it is their money. If a person wishes to economize, they should have the option to choose to and exercise their freedom and liberty. If they choose to use a vehicle which consumes more, it is their right to do so. No one has the right to dictate how others should live, what to own etc. These are the things which lead to socialism. (When individuals cease to be individuals and become part of a collective.)
"Why drill in Alaska when it will not reduce the price of energy?"
Drilling in Alaska and in other domestic places will provide us an alternative source of oil, instead of us having to buy it from OPEC. If OPEC wishes to stay in the business of selling oil, they will have to make their oil cheaper which is reflected in the market and at the pump. If we keep our domestic oil at lower prices, they will have no option but to cut their costs to remain competitive. It has already been proven. You would drive an extra mile to save a penny per gallon.
Permalink
Fosters Posted 5:00 am
06 Jun 2008
What about Florida? No one seems to tackle or comment on that one. China and Cuba seem to be getting plenty of oil from there, just fine. How is it ok for them to drill there but not ok for us?
What about North Dakota? If Alaska and Florida don't have enough oil, North Dakota definitely does.
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s ...
What's the reasoning behind not drilling there?
On a totally separate topic, Jon Rynn, you mention plug in electrics as an alternative to internal combustion engines. First off, what is switching the source of the energy going to get you? A large electric bill, a small gasoline bill, and the same or more emissions from the power plant that generates that electricity. There is a lot of electricity lost in the resistance of the cables that bring the power to your house from the power plant; and coal doesn't exactly burn any cleaner than gasoline.
On top of all of that, once your car is plugged in, you would be storing that power into rechargeable batteries. If you've ever bought something that comes with batteries, you'd know that they loose charge over time, simply by sitting. So not only is energy lost on the way to your house, once you recharge your car, you will immediately, and constantly be losing that energy. Then there's the point that batteries aren't exactly the greenest thing on earth, not the easiest to recycle (as compared to typical car parts), they're much less reliable in cold weather, and don't offer nearly the long range we would need to feasibly switch to plug in hybrids.
Last but not least, I know you all don't believe in supply and demand, but wouldn't the increase caused by (if it was possible/feasible) switching to plug in hybrids as soon as possible the massive increase of demand on the electrical power plants cause the same exact thing - the cost of electricity to rise? Imagine the effect of moving the energy produced by 20 million barrels of oil per day to the electrical companies to come up with. Is THAT a sufficient number to cause supply and demand to kick in?
So once again, where's the advantage?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 5:58 am
06 Jun 2008
Top Five Consumers:
#1 United States: 20,730,000 bbl/day [and growing]
#2 China: 6,534,000 bbl/day [and growing]
#3 Japan: 5,578,000 bbl/day
#4 Germany: 2,650,000 bbl/day
#5 Russia: 2,500,000 bbl/day [and growing]
Global Consumption: 82,234,918 bbl/day [and growing]
Top Five Producers:
#1 Saudi Arabia: 9,475,000 bbl/day
#2 Russia: 9,400,000 bbl/day
#3 United States: 7,610,000 bbl/day
#4 Iran: 3,979,000 bbl/day
#5 China: 3,631,000 bbl/day
Global Production: 80,247,128.09 bbl/day
Information from:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil- ...
and
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_pro-energy-oil- ...
Predicted ANWR Production: 510,000-1,450,000 bbl/day (max of 1.8% of global consumption).
How might an increase in global oil production of 1.8% scare OPEC into significantly reducing the cost of a barrel of oil?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:06 am
06 Jun 2008
"What about Florida? No one seems to tackle or comment on that one. China and Cuba seem to be getting plenty of oil from there, just fine. How is it ok for them to drill there but not ok for us?"
China and Cuba can supply themselves with inexpensive oil from territory controlled by them -- directly or indirectly -- by simply setting a cap on the profits of the companies extracting the oil, subsidizing extraction, sending it directly to state-controlled industries, or capping the price paid by their consumers.
Are you suggesting that the U.S. federal government nationalize our oil reserves and/or make sure it gets to American consumers and business for a "reasonable" price set by our representatives in Washington, D.C.?
(As a liberal, NOT a socialist, and a supporter of free markets, I don't think this is a good idea.)
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:23 am
06 Jun 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:52 am
06 Jun 2008
I raised the issue of plug-in hybrids because most of the environmental community likes the idea, and if I went for my favorite idea, which is to have no cars and walkable communities serviced by just public transit, bikes, and walking, I figured I'd lose a bunch of people. So, your arguments against plug-ins are well-directed -- generally people have the proviso that the plug-ins will get their electricity from renewables.
Wiscidea -- the US is about the only major country -- maybe except Britain -- that does not have a nationalized oil industry. Think what would happen if we did -- all those huge profit margins could go straight into trains, solar , wind, or what have you. The "majors" only control about 6% of the world's oil supply, the rest is "state-owned companies".
Permalink
Fosters Posted 7:00 am
06 Jun 2008
Allow me to spin your statistics around a little:
Assuming you're right, and only 1,450,000 bbl/day may be produced from ANWR, that is 7% of the total we use per day. 7% is a bit more significant than 1.8%, right?
Next up, since the idea is getting away from OPEC and the middle eastern oil, which is what every conservative is wanting, therefore pressuring them into lowering their prices, here's why that would be happening:
Here's where we get our oil from:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publica ...
Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country YTD 2008
CANADA 1,886
SAUDI ARABIA 1,541
MEXICO 1,220
NIGERIA 1,102
VENEZUELA 980
IRAQ 697
ANGOLA 433
ALGERIA 269
ECUADOR 217
KUWAIT 232
BRAZIL 175
COLOMBIA 174
RUSSIA 68
CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE) 98
CHAD 103
So, now, if you count the amount of oil we get from the middle east - you have only 5,471,000 bbl/day. Suddenly, that 1,450,000 bbl/day is 26.5% of the volume. Is THAT significant enough to make OPEC drop it's prices - or is 26.5% still not enough to influence supply and demand?
Now consider us getting similar "insignificant" amounts from North Dakota and off the coast of Florida (averaged, as it seems North Dakota alone would put us pretty close to saudi arabia in terms of oil reserves, and there's no way to tell how much oil is off the coasts of florida because of eviros opposing drilling). Would 75-80% of the total oil coming from OPEC be significant enough for supply and demand to kick in?
That would also equate to just over 20% of our daily supply alone, that we wouldn't have to purchase for.
I'm looking forward to your answers. Statistics are my favorite thing... You set them up, I'll knock em down.
Permalink
Fosters Posted 7:06 am
06 Jun 2008
"China and Cuba can supply themselves with inexpensive oil from territory controlled by them -- directly or indirectly -- by simply setting a cap on the profits of the companies extracting the oil, subsidizing extraction, sending it directly to state-controlled industries, or capping the price paid by their consumers.
Are you suggesting that the U.S. federal government nationalize our oil reserves and/or make sure it gets to American consumers and business for a "reasonable" price set by our representatives in Washington, D.C.?
(As a liberal, NOT a socialist, and a supporter of free markets, I don't think this is a good idea.)"
Not sure where you got that Government should nationalize our oil reserves out of my post. All the government would have to do is allow our own oil companies to drill there, refine* (more on that later) and sell the products to wherever they deem normal. Since we're by far the largest consumer, and less transport fees and taxes are involved for them to do business internally, guess where that oil is going to go?
The simple mentality that most of the people on this blog share, that of being against the big rich oil companies who must be behind all of this is pure proof of socialism. You're all considering the fact that they're making record profits, they need to be brought to justice. It is the communist/socialist model - everyone should be equal. Why not bring to justice all of the successful companies out there, they're obviously all evil then, right? Oh wait, isn't that what socialism is about?
Permalink
Fosters Posted 7:30 am
06 Jun 2008
"I raised the issue of plug-in hybrids because most of the environmental community likes the idea, and if I went for my favorite idea, which is to have no cars and walkable communities serviced by just public transit, bikes, and walking, I figured I'd lose a bunch of people. So, your arguments against plug-ins are well-directed -- generally people have the proviso that the plug-ins will get their electricity from renewables."
So you're suggesting that we can all just drop internal combustion engines and run all on electricity that we can get from the wind, sun, or what have you?
Have you spent any amount of time to see just how much electricity a house with a roof full of solar panels can produce? Not even close enough to power itself usually. Moving a 1-1.5 ton car for a 2x20 mile commute each day is not gonna take a whole lot less energy - think about how much stronger the electrical motor to move your average 3000 lb car has to be, compared to the biggest motor(s) found in your typical household - Air conditioning unit or refrigerator.
Then there's the fact that your average electrical plug in car would not be able to haul what semis do today - get all the goods you buy out to your local store. Rail based transport would be just a great alternative. I live in the twin cities, where the whole state has to pay gasoline taxes to support the light rail system that can't even support itself; and only services a small part of the twin cities. What are they going to tax to be able to keep that thing going, if there's no gasoline sold overnight as you suggest? Then there's the fact that those still eat up a lot of energy even when empty - they're not exactly as light as a car - so they're not a great alternative to everyone having their own cars because of the fact that they're only efficient when they're packed to the hilt.
So in conclusion, please suggest something feasible, or at least, think about how feasible the solutions you're posing are.
My opinion is this: Yes, we should strive for efficiency in everything we do. Yes we should be looking for more efficient ways of producing energy, of any kind. However, we don't need to force technology to go somewhere via either CAFE standards and (the most stringent on the globe) EPA requirements, or flat out cut the ability to produce goods because sometime in the future we may have something more efficient, that we simply do not yet.
What would have happened if Edison would have invented the bulb and said, naah, I won't release these, I'll just wait until they come up with the compact flourescent and LED bulbs... Technology will evolve by itself, it's never worked out for anyone when technology was "forced" by laws to accomplish something.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:38 am
06 Jun 2008
"Since we're by far the largest consumer, and less transport fees and taxes are involved for them to do business internally, guess where that oil is going to go?"
Sure, we consume 25% of the world's annual oil production. But I fail to understand the focus on the supposed power of the largest consumer. Supply does not go to the largest consumer. It goes to the highest bidder. Let's spin the numbers some more. Combine China, Japan, Germany, Russia, and one or two other countries and you have another entity that consumes 25% of the world's annual oil production. Those countries are growing, economically, and need more energy. Collectively, they are the largest consumer. Demand is rising. And they have the money to bid higher for the oil. We, as individuals and as a nation, do not have the money. The price of oil from Alaska or Florida or North Dakota will reflect the global market.
Why do I keep asking whether you folks want to nationalize America's oil? If you think extracting oil from U.S. territory will lower the price of gasoline, you must also think it should be nationalized... or at least there should be a very tight cap on oil company profits.. or companies should be restricted to selling it to the highest bidder in the U.S. and nowhere else.
Those who pump the oil out of the ground are not going to give American consumers a special break. If the transportation cost is lower, they will benefit by collecting higher profit, not sell it cheaper than the Saudi or Venezuelan oil we have to consume. They are going to sell it on the global market. This does not mean the oil will physically move from North America to Japan or some other country. It will likely be traded electronically or as futures or some other financial "instrument". It will, in the end, cost as much as oil extracted elsewhere. It is a global commodity traded by people who very likely never see it, never touch it, never physically possess it... and they are interested in getting as much money as they can each time it changes hands.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:47 am
06 Jun 2008
Since I would have liked to visit my cousin in Minneapolis from Chicago, but didn't feel like spending hours on a slow train, I can tell you that I would certainly appreciate a nice high-speed electric rail network in the midwest and the whole country -- which will be the only way to get between cities when oil is too expensive for airlines or long-distance driving.
The US uses something like 8 billion barrels of oil per year. Any of the sources you're citing will just delay the inevitable by a few years. The prudent thing to do is to act now, and build an infrastructure for a post-petroleum future.
Nobody's going to be able to lug around 3000 pound vehicles, unless they're trains, at some point in the future, and electric cars -- which are the only possible salvation for the automobile, long-term-- will probably have to be lighter, slower, and shorter-distance than today's cars.
As for "socialism", the term doesn't mean anything, unless it's short-hand for government ownership of companies, which noone I'm aware of is advocating -- although, as I explained above, in every other country but the US the government owns the oil company. But Saudi Arabia is usually not considered socialist.
The only way to be energy independent is to stop using petroleum and replace most petroleum use with electricity. That will increase our national security by orders of magnitude over any schemes to drill for oil or take over oil-producing countries.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:55 am
06 Jun 2008
"Dow Slides 394 Points; Oil Surges $10.75"
Permalink
Sloben Posted 2:16 am
07 Jun 2008
By your own admission it would take 10 years to get the oil from ANWR and other places fully online. That is true and Newt does not deny that.
However, I find it very interesting that you left out one important fact. Bill Clinton vetoed the bill that would have allowed drilling in ANWR. That was in 1995! We could have it now!
FACTS: Hurricane Katrina damaged or destroyed nearly 1000 oil wells/rigs in the Gulf of Mexico region. How many leaked? NONE
--ANWR is the size of South Carolina. The drilling operation would take up space equal to about 1/6th of Dulles International Airport.
--China is drilling 60 miles of off Florida's coast. But we can't?
"Big Oil" is not the problem. The Government makes nearly 10 times the profit the oil companies do, yet do absolutely nothing to get it out of the ground and to the market.
We have the technology to get our own oil without damaging the environment.
Fear these facts being known by the American Public.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:10 am
07 Jun 2008
(2) Twelve years ago, technology would not have permitted environmentally sound extraction of oil from ANWR.
(3) In 1995, crude oil was being sold for about $20/barrel (2008 dollars). It is now being sold for $138/barrel (2008 dollars). Since extracting oil from ANWR will not lower the cost of gasoline, Bill Clinton was fiscally responible. The owners of the crude oil -- the American people -- are now sitting on a resource worth almost SEVEN TIMES what it was worth in 1995!
The crude in the ground is an investment. Wait for further improvements for extracting oil from harsh environmentally sensitive environments. Use the rest of the world's crude first, then tap ANWR for maximum return on the taxpayer's investment -- the purchase of Alaska and the cost of protecting it,
Regarding oil off the coast of Florida and the Gulf oil platforms that survive hurricanes... good thing the Federal government imposes strict standards on those operations. Were it not for government regulations, far more businesses along the coast -- tourism, fishing, etc, -- would be financially destroyed, jobs would be lost, and families displaced by harsh weather.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:35 am
07 Jun 2008
"The Government makes nearly 10 times the profit the oil companies do, yet do absolutely nothing to get it out of the ground and to the market"
The Governemnt, also known as the American people, the citizens, the taxpayers, the voters, essentially purchased Alaska as an investment, for national security and for natural resources. Some of the land was given to or sold to private citizens. Some of the land was set aside for future use. Current citizens have inherited that investment. They devote valuable resources to protecting Alaska by maintaining military bases there or patroling the coast. They devote other resources to ensuring that resources like oil can be extracted without degrading other valuable resources, say, by damaging fisheries.
One could say The Government (see above) is entitled to maximum return on this investment. It reduces the need to collect taxes from hardworking Americans. They invest much in getting the oil out of the ground and to market.
Are you saying that the CEOs and stockholders who do nothing to physically extract natural resources, get them to market, and manufacture and distribute products, do not derserve maximum return on their investment, epecially those who simply inherit stock or property?!!!
I'm shocked. Why do you hate American taxpayers? Why do you want to deprive investors of maximum return and benefit from their investment? Sloben, are you some sort of communist who thinks 100% of wealth should be redistributed when the original owners pass way?!
Permalink
EdR Posted 3:21 am
09 Jun 2008
You are assuming that drilling for domestic oil equates to nationalizing oil to keep it here at home where we can consume it. This is not the case. You have to have an understanding of how the free market works. In a free market the concept of the "highest bidder" driving up the cost of a product can only occur if and only if there is more demand than the supply. The price isn't dictated by buyers or bidders, it is dictated by how much product you have available in the market in relation to it's demand.
Currently the demand for oil worldwide is up, however the supply of oil has not kept pace. For example, OPEC has been pumping the same relative amount of oil for the last 20 yrs. It has not increased production at the same rate of demand. Therefore world demand has gone up which has resulted in an increase in the cost of the product. Now here is the thing. If we begin to drill for oil and bring it to market, we will add more oil to the global market, this increases supply which causes the price to fall, even despite the presence of a highest bidder. Even the highest bidder will not buy anything above it's value, adding more oil on the market will make it's value lower.
Now as to the question of "nationalizing oil" You are making the assumption that domestic production equates to having to nationalizing oil companies to keep domestic oil here at home. First, If anyone wants to nationalize oil, it will be the liberal left. Recently Representative Maxine Waters (D) suggested that the American oil industry "should be nationalized". She acknowledged that it was an extreme step, but necessary to curb oil company profits (Remember that liberals have that same anti-corporate stance of socialists)
Second, in a distorted view, the liberals have been crying that we should keep the oil in the ground and even suggest that we should use everyone else's oil so that when they ran out, we would have a supply. They even suggest that these domestic reserves should be saved in the event that we need it in some national emergency or national security issue. If you can't read between the lines you probably want the federal government to control the oil reserves and keep it from the market using an excuse which sounds like it has our collective interests at heart. Or in a nutshell, use the power of govt to control how a private sector corporation does business based on the policies that govt keeps.
Here is how we can see that the liberals are talking out of both sides of their mouth. If we are sitting on the oil for a 'rainy day' where is the infrastructure to deliver the product in the event that rainy day comes?? What if for some reason OPEC shut off the spigots tomorrow? Or Iran set off a nuke in the middle-east? Or some other form of major interruption of oil occurs?? Could we replace that loss of supply by tomorrow? No we can't because besides the oil the left doesn't want to drill for, they do not even want the infrastructure that brings it to market.
We do happen to have a national security issue now. We must drill for oil now. Not only to save our vital economy from disaster, but to prevent our enemies from using oil as a weapon against us. We as a nation are extremely vulnerable at this very moment. One hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico this year can drive up the cost of oil nationwide easily over $7 per gallon
Now if we as Americans want domestic oil to stay in America, we as Americans have the right and the power to require our legislators to legislate law to require oil companies to sell domestically sourced oil, specifically to the American market. It is not the same as nationalizing the oil companies. The oil companies will still be free to do business, the only difference is, they will be required by law to sell domestic oil to the domestic market. They can still do business as usual as it does not effect their other business ventures. Nationalized oil would mean that the govt would take full control of the oil companies and run it as if they were in the oil business.
Right now the American people need to get Congress to change it's failed energy policies, stop pandering to the environmentalists and let us drill for more oil
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:56 am
09 Jun 2008
If drilling for oil in the ANWR increases global oil extraction by 1.8% ...
How much might the cost of a barrel of oil here in the U.S. drop?
How will this affect the price of a gallon of gasoline?
And is there any reason to believe that OPEC won't reduce production to keep the price up?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:31 am
09 Jun 2008
How will I, if I agree to sell the stuff, directly benefit? How much money will I personally make from the sale? How much will it reduce my taxes? How much will it lower the cost of gasoline and for how long?
A person cannot make a sound business decision--like selling oil and destroying pristine wilderness--without a full understanding of the benefits, the cost, and the risks.
Two specific pieces of information:
(1) Per capita revenue for the Federal government from proposed oil fields.
(2 Some sort of chart of graph that shows how much the cost of gasoline will plummet as new oil fields in North America and off the coast start producing.
Permalink
EdR Posted 6:58 am
09 Jun 2008
Lets stop right here for a second. You consistently bring up this 1.8% "global" extraction figure and it is misleading. How about comparing U.S extraction figures to U.S oil consumption? You seem to keep insisting that we would sell off all of the oil abroad. Or that we would try and supply the rest of the world. That is not the case. We want to drill for oil here at home to reduce "our" costs.
Lets also bring up the point that you're fixated on just one site, ANWAR. ANWAR is not the only source of oil in the United States. Besides ANWAR Alaska alone has several large reserves including the largest oil fields in North America, the north slope, Prudhoe Bay
Then there is the Bakken oil fields (or shale oil) which the USGS has estimated to contain more oil then Saudi Arabia. There are oil deposits in the Gulf of Mexico. A large reserve was recently discovered which may contain 50% of our oil needs.
The technology is available today to drill deeper and even horizontally to extract oil previously unavailable or unreachable. Shale oil extraction for example is now possible for the first time economically, especially in the light of $100+ per barrel of oil. And finally we could also add in a relatively new technology to convert coal into gas. If you didn't know it already, The U.S. contains the world's largest coal reserves. In fact we have well over twice the coal reserves that the entire middle-east has in oil. Thats just what we know of. Large reserves are being found all over the world and we are still finding more of it domestically. We have the oil available to easily impact prices
"How much might the cost of a barrel of oil here in the U.S. drop?"
"How will this affect the price of a gallon of gasoline?"
It depends on how much we can bring to market
"And is there any reason to believe that OPEC won't reduce production to keep the price up?"
It is a possibility, but, the economic reality of that option will be that they will go broke. Remember we are not their only customer. The entire world is feeling the effects of the high oil prices, and many peoples are beginning to protest. China and others are not wasting time drilling for oil off of our coasts.
"EdR, I assume you are an American citizen."
Yes I am
"You and I and couple hundred million other people own the petroleum sitting under Federal land. Like all good capitalists, we should probably look at how we will directly benefit from releasing that petroleum in exchange for money. Leave everyone else out of the equation."
If you mean drill domestic oil for use by the American people, I am all for it. If I have to argue the concept of Supply/Demand or economics 101 then I can do that too, no matter who the customers are.
As mentioned before, 'assuming' you are correct and the oil companies sell domestic oil abroad, the price will fall depending on how much supply there is vs. demand. If we brought 10% more oil to the market but demand increases to 25%, no positive impact will be realized because demand will still be greater than the supply. It's always works on an economic model based on supply / demand.
If we were to become completely self sufficient, which I believe is possibleIt will happen if we drill for oil from coast to coast, and from the depths of the Gulf to the top of Alaska we would make a serious impact worldwide. OPEC for one would lose it's largest single customer. Now, OPEC could reduce it's production in an attempt to artificially keep prices up, but whose gonna buy it if you happen to have another option? It would be like McDonalds trying to increase the cost of a Big Mac by not making them, which means nothing when you can always go over to Burger King and get a Whopper.
"A person cannot make a sound business decision--like selling oil and destroying pristine wilderness--without a full understanding of the benefits, the cost, and the risks."
There's no reason to assume that we "will" destroy a wilderness by drilling for oil. It's just another excuse put in place to prevent drilling. ANWAR is not the pristine wilderness that they show you on TV. It's a barren inhospitable land. I know the environmentalists have attempted to etch images of the Exxon Valdez oil spill into our collective minds. But the environment is far more resilient then they lead you to believe. In the past and even recorded in the Bible, people have been using oil long before drilling was developed. How do you think people originally got oil?? There had been pools of oil so close to the surface that they simply scooped it up with buckets. It was natural for oil to wash into the seas and yet the earth always survived despite "polluting" itself with oil.
In the mean time China is drilling off our coasts, Now would you trust China or Americans off our coast?
Permalink
Rocketgirl Posted 9:34 am
13 Jun 2008
http://www.AmericansForJobsAndEnergy.org/
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 11:20 am
13 Jun 2008
The earth's crust contains over a third of a quadrillion barrels of oil -- over ten thousand years worth, at the present consumption-rate of 84 million barrels per day.
http://www.akadeemia.ee/_repository/File/VALISSUHTED/Oil% ...
Permalink
noblefuse Posted 8:17 pm
13 Jun 2008
the organization looking for alternative energy for america has deleted me- the man who solved the energy crisis-
why- because i say I am a messenger of god
you want your cake and eat it too- you want life exactly the way you want it and not told by another
you dont pick your messengers- they are chosen-
i had enough- i have now endured 13 months on this net being deleted by every arrogant organization run by humans and just regular folk like you who have always ignored my messages since my time upon the net-
well i am done with your stupidity-
let your oil prices go up- let your food prices go up- watch your economies crumble- see your jobs lost- get rid of all your pet animals as you cannot feed your family and pet dog as so many are giving them to the pound-
I have come openly with a solution 13 months ago only to be ignored-
now a gluttonous world playing on the internet shall all learn how primitive man is and must be civil to one another- instead of shunning someone bringing forth a solution- in the months to follow- you will learn there is no alternative fuel- panic mode will set in very soon-
when you understand clearly how important energy is- i guess your arragance will stop and just implement my scientific deeds - as for my messenger duties- it will make sense in time- all is well- but it will only get better after your destruction- i am sorry i have to say this- but it is I who has now watched you completely ignore and ridicule a man of god- as always you will learn the hard way-
time will tell
solomon azar
solomon azar
Permalink
bkfab Posted 1:17 am
17 Jun 2008
Permalink
Bear80 Posted 6:41 am
19 Jun 2008
Well, I have certainly gotten it. Mr Roberts stated back then, that he was certain his side would continue to win the debate...aka, no drilling.
I hate to say it David, but you were right to this point. But, my side is beginning to win this debate...every time someone fills up these days, drill here, drill now crosses many of their minds.
Now, 20 days later, I am very certain that my "side" will prevail. Too bad it's about sides though.
I say let's drill for the children. I don't want my seven year old daughter to still be relying on Saudia Arabia, Iran and Venuzela for her tank of gas.
IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN. DRILL NOW!!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:52 am
19 Jun 2008
You obviously have no ideal the scale of what you're talking about and how it would translate into prices.
Can you honestly tell me that saving $0.02 cents a gallon, over ten years from now, is worth eliminating species and risking destroying the economic viability of coastal states?
http://theoildrum.com/node/4174
http://motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/06/8678_gop ...
http://huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/mccains-offshore-dri ...
http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/04/opening-anwr-cuts-g ...
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/thoughtanarchis ...
http://boston.com/lifestyle/green/greenblog/2008/06/obama ...
Permalink
Bear80 Posted 3:05 am
20 Jun 2008
If you can facts that prove that we would "eliminate species" by drilling, that would be a good read for me. However, I have always been facinated by those who never want to lose any "species". Even before man was destoying and pillaging the earth, thousands of species went extinct. (I found that little fact with a google search) Sometimes it's the course of nature...the strong survive...animals don't adapt. If the dinosaurs still roamed the earth and were running around eating children, would we want them to "survive"?:) Especially, the one that spit in your eyes, before he ate you.
But, really, if you have proof that drilling has completely wiped out a species...I would love to see that. But, I have personally done some research on some of the new cleaner, safer technologies used for oil exploration. Oil companies have the ability now to move in to an area, extract the oil, and leave it as pristine as before. Now, I know you will say that is a pile of shit...but, I've read that in journals that were not printed by oil executives.
Listen, I appreciate the passion on both sides of the issue...and America has a long history of debating these types of issues and one side will winning. At this point, I'm not going to change your mind and you won't change mine...so let's just agree to be civil, keep up the good fight and see which side eventually comes out on top. My post was only to say "see, I told you so"(childish, I know)...but I do see more and more anger by those as they realize that we have millions of barrels of our own oil and we still rely on countries that have hated us for 200 years for our supply...and they are sick of paying $4.08 a gallon...no matter what they choose to pay in Europe.
No, we will not use oil forever. But, we do not have other technology completely in place yet to take place of the combustion engine...so in the meantime, many of us want start using our own supply, so that in 7 or 8 years...we at least don't have to rely on dictators to fill up our tank. In the meantime...of course, let's use America's greatness to expand alternative sources of transportation power. I think the only place we disagree is that I believe, for now, we need to become self sufficient...while we tweak these new technologies. Plus, we disagree on your theory that if we become oil independent, it will only move the price .02 cents. It is OPEC and other cartels that are charging us $138 a barrell. I truly do not believe that if our oil was produced here...it would be costing us near that much. But, like your theory, mine is that. Neither of us know what will happen to prices. The difference is that I am willing to drill here and you are not. That's cool, we all have our opinions. I know this long diatribe will not change anyone's mind on the left and it is not meant to....just letting you know how I have thought this through...so you don't need to come back and correct any mistakes....because, again, most of the basis of both of our arguments is based on theory and projections.
Well, like I said...keep fighting the good fight and keep it civil!
Permalink
Bear80 Posted 3:10 am
20 Jun 2008
Keep fighting
Permalink
Larry9247 Posted 9:46 pm
06 Jul 2008
Permalink