Drilling offshore vs. fuel efficiency 12

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   GRLCowan Posted 4:46 am
   03 Jul 2008

   OK, go ahead with raising CAFE standards ...I'll allow it. But that means reducing your take from the various gasoline taxes. You probably should go ahead and reduce that take to zero, just so it will be done, rather than having to fight all levels of government for every barrel-per-day of conservation.
   a somewhat cutesy but still quite illustrative comparison: the barrels of oil per day we could get by 2027 through offshore drilling (when production rate will max out) vs. the oil savings we would have gotten per day if we'd continued ramping up the CAFE standard at roughly the 1980-1985 rate.
   By "illustrative" you must mean "hopeful". Hopeful that no-one will notice the comparison is between a would-have-gotten and a could-get. A non-stupid comparison would be between what CAFE might have done if things had been different, and what offshore drilling might have done if, similarly, things had been different.
   --- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
   
   http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html

   Permalink

2. 

   kevinpaulmorris Posted 12:36 am
   04 Jul 2008

   so addicted!I don't understand how the thinking like this can be SO the opposite of what this country (and world) needs.
   They do drug tests before you can get a job at Wal-Mart, but they can't check world leaders for addictions before they take power?!!?!?! We need to get off this stuff. What about that natural resource they call Innovation of the American People?
   Crack addict is right!
   Mr Bush, Addicted to Oil:
   
   http://thekevblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/mr-bush-addict ...

   Permalink

3. 

   amazingdrx Posted 12:57 am
   04 Jul 2008

   Excellent DRI think conserving oil by switching to natural gas/biogas for tractors, long haul trucks, and trains might help too.  They have pumps already to fill up natural gas powered vehicles.
   Farm biogas from waste offsets GHG.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

   Permalink

4. 

   bigTom Posted 4:09 am
   04 Jul 2008

   No addiction test for voters.  That is why politicians don't understand this issue. The oft quoted "don't expect a man to understand something for which his job demands that he doesn't", applies to the political class even more than to more ordinary people (who aren't constantly concerned with winning the next popularity contest).
     The problem we have is the drill-drill-drill people are pushing a silver BB (indeed if you account for the limited capabilities of the oil industry (limited number of rigs and trained personell etc. it is a pretty tiny BB), but the voters are most math-a-phobic, and math is needed in order to understand the relative contributions of different strategies. Indeed there is real danger (as we've seen happen in the past), that such proposals create the presumption that we don't need any other solutions.
      My proposal has been that we offer a compromise, let them have some new drilling, in return for a serious effort at conservation. Obviously if that could be arranged, the silver BBs contributed by the conservation part of the program would greatly outweigh those contributed by the supply-side part.

   Permalink

5. 

   Wolverine Posted 5:09 am
   04 Jul 2008

   The Problem With PoliticiansKevin and Tom,
   As George Carlin once pointed out, where politicians are elected by the general population, if you have an ignorant and greedy population, you'll have ignorant and greedy politicians.  While serious defects in the U.S. political process -- private campaign financing, lack of proportional representation, lack of TV time for candidates who are not members of one of the two gangs, etc. -- cause the government to be more right wing and conservative than the general population, people in general get the government they deserve and the government is a good reflection of the people.  We won't fix the politicians till we fix the people.

   Permalink

6. 

   David Roberts Posted 6:12 am
   04 Jul 2008

   Cowan,A non-stupid comparison would be between what CAFE might have done if things had been different, and what offshore drilling might have done if, similarly, things had been different.
   If offshore drilling had been pursued 20 years ago, the amount in the illustration would be the peak production per day today, instead of in 2027. So you can make it a would-have-gotten vs. a would-have-gotten pretty straightforwardly. If you're non-stupid.
   
   grist.org

   Permalink

7. 

   hapa Posted 8:48 am
   04 Jul 2008

   andit's not like we get a free vacation for unused negamiles. just the opposite, now.
   though i'm still convinced it's how much we're overpaying for other services in this economy that makes us very sensitive to gas prices, at the level of personal transport. we shouldn't look at it as a percentage of income but as a percentage of a household's financial headroom.

   Permalink

8. 

   Earl Killian Posted 4:08 pm
   05 Jul 2008

   plug-in hybrids would do yet moreHe should have had a bar for adding plug-in hybrids in addition to the CAFE.  The potential for oil reduction from plug-ins is enormous.  This has the effect of reducing gasoline prices, reducing the trade deficit, putting more money in consumers' pockets, and sending less money to OPEC.  Strange that the government hasn't been moving on this.
   
   

   Permalink

9. 

   MAD MAC Posted 4:31 pm
   05 Jul 2008

   Drill off shore AND improve efficiencyWe are going to have to improve efficiencies and find new transportation energies, no question. But in this difficult and dangerous transition period, we are also going to have to exploit what national reserves we have.
   
   Victory in Pattani

   Permalink

10. 

    GreyFlcn Posted 5:01 pm
    05 Jul 2008

    Quite the reverseBut in this difficult and dangerous transition period, we are also going to have to exploit what national reserves we have.
    Quite to the contrary.
    If we are hellbent on drilling it at some point in time, then we should save it for when we need it.
    Rather than just burning it in inefficient SUVs, and saving people less on gas, than McCain's "tax holiday" gimmick.
    
    http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1815884, ...
    _
    Besides which, lowering resource prices, and increasing resource supply are directly opposed to each other.
    When resources are cheap, people tend to waste them.
    Anyone who knows basic supply&demand should know that.

    Permalink

11. 

    MAD MAC Posted 6:16 pm
    05 Jul 2008

    I don't disagree with thatTiming is everything. But it's going to take about five years to exploit those reserves, given their location. So, if we start within a year, we will have access about the time we need it. The SUVs are about to become a thing of the past - there won't be many kicking around in five years. Those that are, won't be driving much. Frankly,  I am surprised they survived as long as they did.
    
    Victory in Pattani

    Permalink

12. 

    BILL HANNAHAN Posted 5:27 pm
    06 Jul 2008

    Now is the time
    
    " If we are hellbent on drilling it at some point in time, then we should save it for when we need it. "
    What is the going rate for Sperm whale oil? The price of crude oil will drop when we have alternative energy systems and cheaper substitutes from biofuel or made directly from CO2.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/science/19carb.html?ref ...
    
    

    Permalink