“Right now, our strategy on gas prices is ‘Drive small cars and wait for the wind,’ ”
Apparently the "People's House" is now the Village of Pelosi as "special interests" hold up the People's business. And since FISA is now off of the table, what issue is so terrible that it once again pushes the Majority to abandon transparency?
Simply put, it is $4.00 a gallon gas combined with the public observation that Congress is part of the problem (or Congress is the problem).
How did we get into this mess, well some blame the "Santa Barbara crowd". But a Santa Barbara special interest group, GOO (Get Out of Oil) is now supporting "an off shore drilling program" endorsed by The Environmental Defense Center. Yes, the drill site is right off of the coast of Santa Barbara.
My goodness, what has changed?
Well apparently those evil U.S. oil companies have developed drilling programs which are environmentally sensitive.
NASA and Smithsonian sum it up nicely:
A joint study by NASA and the Smithsonian Institution, examining several decades' worth of data, found that more oil seeps into the ocean naturally than from accidents involving tankers and offshore drilling. Natural seepage from underwater oil deposits leaks an average of 62 million gallons a year; offshore drilling, on the other hand, accounted for only 15 million gallons, the smallest source of oil leaking into the oceans.
So the next time you step on a tar ball while walking on the beach, blame "Mother Nature".
--
“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Timmy's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Conservative
Liberal
Moderate/Mixed/Non-Partisan
Non-Political/Reference
Related Sites -
Polisci Applied (Aaron)
Intrepid Liberal Journal (Intrepid Liberal)
Obsidian Wings (Bird Dog)
Open Hand/Open Eye (locutas)
Red State (Bird Dog)
Swords Crossed (brendanm98)
Wagster Speaks (Wagster)
WatchingAmerica (BlaiseP)
The Social Pathologist (TSP)
Foreign Affairs -
Abu Aardvark
'Aqoul
American Footprints
Council on Foreign Relations
CSIS
Democracy Arsenal
Intel Dump
The Fourth Rail
The Head Heeb
War and Piece
Politics -
Ace of Spades HQ
Andrew Sullivan
Balloon Juice
Belgravia Dispatch
Captain's Quarters
Crooked Timber
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical
Daily Kos
Democracy Arsenal
Eschaton
Firedoglake
Glenn Greenwald
Global Guerrillas
Hugh Hewitt
Instapundit
Jawa Report
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Liberals Against Terror
Matt Yglesias
Michael J. Totten
Michelle Malkin
Moon of Alabama
New America
OxBlog
Patterico
Political Animal
Political Wire
Publius Pundit
QandO
Reality Based Community
Talking Points Memo
The Agitator
The Belmont Club
The Corner
Truman Project
Winds of Change.net
War -
Counterterrorism Blog
Iraq the Model
Jihad Watch
Small Wars Journal Blog
Economics and Business -
Angry Bear
Brad DeLong
Daniel Drezner
Mahalanobis
Marginal Revolution
Roubini Global Economics
The Big Picture
Science and Tech -
Bad Astronomy
New Scientist
Real Climate
Science Blogs
Scientific American
The Panda's Thumb
Legal -
Balkinization
Conglomerate
Ideoblog
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Overlawyered
ProfessorBainbridge
ScotusBlog
Talk Left
The Becker-Posner Blog
Volokh Conspiracy
Sports -
Baseball Crank
Baseball Musings
Baseball Reference.com
ESPN.com
NFL.com
Only Baseball Matters
The Sports Economist
Books, Film and Music -
Amazon.com
Internet Movie Database
All Music Guide
News and Aggregators -
Asia Times
Boingboing
CNN
Digg
English Russia
Fark
Los Angeles Times
Memeorandum
MSNBC
Politico
Poynteronline
Slashdot
The New York Times
The Washington Post
References -
I'm for states making their own decisions regarding offshore drilling and I'm for drilling in ANWR. In some places it makes sense and in other places (where tourism is a huge business) it doesn't make sense. Then we can get that issue out of the way, let the US oil companies grab their money, and deal with the real issue of what we are going to do about our energy problems. The only solution is to be more fuel efficient and invest in alternative energies. Fuel efficiency and alternative energy are both huge opportunities for economic growth. If your goal is a real solution to the problem then you have to vote democratic this year.
--"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
- Login or register to post comments
)For example, I have an excellent solution to $4 a gallon gasoline; implement vehicles which get twice the gas mileage of the average vehicle when gas was $2 a gallon.
Stunning! It provides jobs which cannot reasonably be outsourced (design and construction), is environmentally friendly (okay, a net negative for many), and will still be useful if another Republican administration takes power and halves the value of the dollar again.
There is no "solution" to $4 a gallon gas, any more than there is a "solution" to the problem that not every girl gets a pony. There will be $4 a gallon gas indefinitely; too many Chinese and Indian firms have too many productive things to do with gas even at those prices for it to come down outside the context of a global financial meltdown.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
)maybe just one of the productive efforts they are pursuing.
Europe and diessel, France and nuclear
But I know of no other country who isn't pursuing energy buried in their own country, outside of the U.S. It might just explain the decline of the $.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Cheney and others have since retracted. Maybe you didn't get the memo.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )a link citing PRC drilling in the Gulf of Mexico?
I'm assuming that's the "Gulf" you mention, and I've read bits and pieces about this here and there, but haven't seen any actual report about it. I would think this would be a huge story.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )link, after you are done please share with Wagster.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )bidding for those leases and if not why not?
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Check it out.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )link
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )And you know it has. You are purposefully spreading misinformation and using the cover of an establishment media outlet to point the blame away from you. Different year, same tactics. Yawn.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/12/politics/politico/thecrypt/mai...
--"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but offshore drilling is being pursued off of the Island of Cuba, Cuba has even executed leases.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )doesn't restore your credibility.
--"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the links I've shared on this topic here at the site, covering various arguments against more drilling and put it into one Uber-Post I could link back when the topic comes up again, because it will, again and again, and while I was re-googling those previous links, I discovered that the Center for American Progress had already gone ahead and done it.
Ten Reasons Not to Lift the Offshore Drilling Moratorium
I realize the Center for American Progress is the Center for American Progress, and some of us may question their motives and their methods, but the arguments are sound and their data appears to come from reputable sources.
Reasons Three (OilCos haven't fully utilized existing leases), Four (Drilling would have an insignificant impact on prices), and Seven (Domestic producers don't have the capacity to drill more (they're short on ships and labor already)) seem more compelling than the rest.
Reason Ten (continued focus on more drilling distracts us from pursuing alternatives -- alternatives we can produce and sell to the rest of the world) is the most compelling.
- Login or register to post comments
)just one question, according to whom?
With respect to #7 then, in addition to more energy are you also saying it is a great program for jobs?
Since the rest of the world is drilling as well as pursuing alternatives, are you saying we can't do both?
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )OilCos haven't fully utilized existing leases just one question, according to whom?
The CAP itself. Unfortunately they don't provide a solid source for their 4000 un-tapped lease figure. Which is just as well, since the lease figure doesn't tell us much (for reasons you've noted elsewhere), and a little digging lead to something better.
The EIA tells us there are 40.92 Bbl of technically recoverable oil in areas currently open to leasing (primarily the Western and Central regions of the Gulf of Mexico) and 18 Bbl in areas closed to exploration and drilling (Pacific Coast, Atlantic Coast).
With respect to #7 then, in addition to more energy are you also saying it is a great program for jobs?
The additional energy to be had is miniscule (the EIA has done the analysis), but clearly more drilling = more drilling jobs. One would have to do a more thorough analysis of opportunity costs to determine whether or not the resulting jobs program would be "great."
And obviously, if prices continue to trend upward, more drilling is great for oil companies and those who hold shares in oil companies.
Since the rest of the world is drilling as well as pursuing alternatives, are you saying we can't do both?
To date we haven't shown much inclination to do much of the latter, though certainly we could do both. "Can't do both" is the wrong formulation. "Won't do both" is probably the right one.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but has their been an auction. that is, has anyone declined a parcel which has been made avaible.
You may find interesting as well as this
A little more history
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )CAP's editors can point to Page 89 the next time somebody asks.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )about existing leases. If they have so many acres of unused land, why are they seeking more drilling sites? There must be a reason. Nobody seems to know.
However, yes, if we want to spur alternative energy, leave prices high. Nothing else is as effective. Plus, they could be really aggressive about it and tack on a tax every time the price falls from now to offset the drop in price. But that won't win many votes. ;)
Alternatives will only truly win the day when oil is simply not as economical. And we are simply not there yet.
To me, the only real question is a two-prong philosophical one:
Should the government be trying to dictate how and when we move away from oil and to alternatives? Yes or no.
If you say no, then all of this theorizing and effort is moot.
But if you say yes, then it becomes a question of how. The bad way would be to try and pick the alternatives and encourage ideas. The better way would simply be to be to force gas priced to be higher than they should be. Government is already helping do this but I doubt it is by design. :)
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Every lease doesn't produce a viable oil well. In fact, you may enter into a lease and end up with nothing.
Leases are subject to Federal and State environmental laws and oversight.
Leases are also subject to suits, often tied up in courts.
"Why are they seeking more drilling sites?"
Apparently, what isn't available appears to be some of the very best sites.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )"Why are they seeking more drilling sites?"
Better to have the leases than not to have the leases. Leases, developed or undeveloped, are assets. One would assume that clever oil company finance people know how to leverage that asset whether or not it actually has any oil.
Apparently, what isn't available appears to be some of the very best sites.
Apparently?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but a parcel of land smack dab in the middle of nowhere cannot be leaveraged if it has no value. Finance people do have their limitations and the oil business IRRs are limited as are the margins.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Actually, you overlooked the real argument, which is that we need to drill out all that polluting oil to prevent future seepage problems. Same with trees, cut them down so that we can stop killer trees from polluting.
Unfortuantely for this nonsense, slow continual natural seepage over decades is not the same environmental problem as a catastrophic release of millions of gallons of oil. It makes no differnce that slow seepage may cumulatively result in a greater amount over time.
And the belief that more drilling is going to lower gas prices in any meaningful amount has no basis in fact. Find some other scapegoat than Congrtessional opponents of the "drill anywhere and everywhere" mentality.
- Login or register to post comments
)Hint! Hasn't Pelosi stated that releasing oil from our strategic reserves would lower the price of gasoline? If a little works, doesn't alot work better.
Hey, all I am asking is give Congress the vote to make the decision. Come November we shall see how it plays out.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Drilling off California's shore would mean gas that's a couple of pennies per gallon cheaper, about 20 years from now.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )As someone (MSE?) pointed out, if we had started drilling in ANWR twelve years ago when the Dems blocked it, the wells would be online now. Meaning The Dems are 100% responsible for shortages here that could have been offset by domestic production. I saw Dickhead Dornan on TV yesterday making the same logic-free argument. Nothing will ever be finished unless it's started.
People claiming there's no oil in ANWR there are deaf to the oil companies' eagerness to open the place up; plus, in the unlikely event the Dems still blocking ANWR drilling are right, only exploratory wells will be drilled there and then the oil companies will abandon the place to Rocky and Bullwinkle.
The often-repeated claim that domestic production will have no effect on US gas prices is no more than a wild-a$$ed guess at this point. How many of the pundits making this very convenient claim anticipated the crisis in gas prices? Shows how useful these predictions are, doesn't it? And which prediction takes into account the fact that the sale of leases could be coupled with the requirement that the product be sold in the US only?
Right now oil demand comes very close to the supply available, to the point where Venezuela or Iran going off-line would have a tremendous effect on gas prices and the world economy. The oil-producing countries are leading us around by our noses because we are not exploiting our own reserves. And our requests for them to increase production sound pretty hypocritical when we won't touch our own reserves.
How much have gas prices risen since the Reid/Pelosi Congress has been running things? Answer: they've doubled. And anyone making the argument that Congress is powerless to do anything about gas prices first needs to look at how many Congresscritters are or will be running for office claiming they's lower gas prices if elected or reelected. Even Durbin took time out from blaming Vush during one of his stemwinders to say this on the subject:
We need Congress to stand up on its hind legs and finally say ``enough.''
The Dems never are going to say "enough" to anything except the Iraq war and tax breaks.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If we had started drilling in ANWR, both the environmental degradation and the oil would have happened by now. But I don't think they would have much of anything to do with the price of oil. ANWR wouldn't be putting out anything like the multiple percentage points of the world's oil output necessary to move the price more than a few pennies.
So what is being said is, "This is a long term non-solution." I think that's reasonable. If it were something that were essentially swift and costless, then sure, go ahead and do it even if we don't expect much out of it. But given the time constraints and lack of expected importance, drilling in ANWR cannot be justified on oil price grounds.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The Democratic congress is responsible for the world-wide supply and demand balance of oil? Just because congresscritters say stupid things (surprise, surprise) doesn't mean we have to take them seriously.
It's not just pundits making the claim that ANWR oil won't affect the world price much... it's the US Department of Energy as well:
As to your idea that we could concentrate the benefits in the U.S. by making sure the oil is sold in the U.S. -- that would do no good. No matter where you sell the oil, it's still a fungible world market. US buyers would bid the price up until it matched world levels... they'd be foolish to do otherwise.
In Europe cars get around twice the mileage per gallon. From 1975 to 1985, US CAFE standards caused fuel efficiency to improve from 13 mpg to around 21 mpg, a huge improvement. So keeping in mind that we use around a quarter of the world production of oil, if we reduced consumption by just 5% -- which history and example has shown to be relatively simple -- we could affect the supply-demand balance immediately and permanently by the same amount that ANWR would provide, for limited amount of time, a couple of decades hence.
So tell me... are we really having the right discussion?
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )regardless of what your link says. You can tell that just by looking at what people drive there. This link says the number is in the low thirties; whatever it is, it's definitely not double the average FE of cars on the road in this country.
A true 40 mpg car is a rare beast, as many Prius and Honda owners have found out. I think your link confused the European Union's average fleet economy target for anew cars sold in 2012, which is in the high 30's. Obviously, even if they hit that target it will be many years before that becomes an average of all cars on the road in Europe. Since the Europeans as a whole have not come close to meeting their Kyoto pledges, I'm skeptical about the 2012 number as well.
WRT the 25% of all oil figure, how much of that is consumed in manufacturing goods that are sold outside the US? The need to factor in that number is obvious, I assume.
Europeans have access to diesel fuel - we don't. It's worth checking out why that's the case here if you aren't already familiar with that issue.
Europeans buy high MPG cars because their fuel prices are outrageous due to confiscatory taxes, a proposal no one has credibly made for this country.
Internal combustion engine technology is getting pretty close to the maximum efficiency figures that can reasonably be realized in that technology in mass production, meaning that the 8 mpg increase you reference is no longer feasible as the point of diminishing return w/r/t IC engine efficiency gets closer. Most mpg increases today are realized by building smaller, lighter cars, which is great at the gas station but deadly if you are in anything approaching a head-on collision with a 5000 pound SUV, Chrysler 300, Lincoln Town Car etc. The physics there are inescapable, regardless of crunch zones, impact-absorbing bumpers, air bags or any other crash mitigation technology. And of course no one likes to talk about the environmental effects of manufacturing and disposal of hybrid car batteries.
Alternate fuels are not remotely the answer. Any fuel that has to be manufactured, whether ethanol, hydrogen or even vodka, is really an energy transport medium rather than a true energy source like fossil fuels.
Before you do your calculations regarding the effect of CAFE increases, you need to find what percentage of the oil we use is burned by passenger cars, as compared to fueling power plants, powering aircraft and heating homes. You will then see why building nuclear power plants makes far more sense from both a scientific and an economic viewpoint than a 5 or even 10 mpg boost in the fuel economy of new cars sold here. I'm fully in favor of reasonable, phased CAFE increases, but their effect will be far less than I think you are assuming.
All of that said, I myself drive a pretty efficient car (Subaru Forester - green, of course), but that doesn't mean I think others should be forced to buy them (though someone should be forced to buy mine), or that the gas price crisis would be dramatically changed if they did.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Is there any sense in building more buses? They carry perhaps ten times the number of passengers than the typical passenger car and would cream an SUV in a collision if that's a concern. It seems to me that the bus is a very reasonable vehicle to cope with rising fuel costs, increasing energy efficiency and reducing pollution. Yet nobody sees fit to even consider the possibility.
As a lad, I rode in a bus every school day. I enjoyed it. And today, if it came to a choice between living beside a nuclear power plant and commuting to work in a bus, I would choose the bus. And enjoy it.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Buses are also excellent candidates for emerging hybrid technologies, for obvious reasons.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )situation. That is, where the growth in price is growing at a faster rate than the growth in demand?
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )component to the current price of oil (in which the falling value of the dollar contributes to rising price, like inflation), which would lead to prices growing faster than rising demand would otherwise push them.
When this topic came up here a few weeks ago, I managed to find a study from 2004 that sought to quantify the effect.
Is that the analysis you're after?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the price shift. All you need to do is to track the price of oil in Euros.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You know as well as anyone (or should) that oil is priced in dollars, not Euros. Unless you want to put the exchange rate of the dollar and Euro on the same graph, tracking oil prices in Euros makes nearly as much sense as measuring electrical currents in pounds per square inch instead of volts.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )a standard graph
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )of the rise from $30/barrel to +$140/barrel.
There was a recent diary on the subject.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )let's guestimate the impact of a sabre rattling foreign policy that fosters regional instability at, say, another 20% increase, where the remaining 50% is due to rising demand in China + india, etc.
That means the Bush admin. is the main cause behind roughly 1/2 the increase in the price we're paying for oil. Does that sound about right?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )as he was the original instigator of the Iranian mess.
--Congress carries some of the risk with their anti-drilling campaign. And can you imagine the price of oil if this was a much bigger conflict.
“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )back under Eisenhower. The Shah brought on his own demise: he aped the West, he ran a police state and he made the mistake of letting his enemies live. Ayatollah Khomeini lived in Iraq for a long time, Timmy. Eventually he went to France, but this had nothing to do with Jimmy Carter. Carter just let the Shah in the country for cancer treatment. But Iran knew who'd overthrown the regime of Mossadegh, and that happened long before Carter.
I might add this: OPEC was the Shah of Iran's idea.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The Shaw held the executive before the Americans ever showed up. It was the Iranians who created the heriditary office for the Shaw's father.
What the Americans did was to remind the Shaw that he had constitutional powers to throw the PM out. (In response, to the PM's power grab with respect to the military). The Shaw exercised those powers with the help of a American, an Iranian radio station and British walking around money.
With respect to Jimmy, the Shaw cut a power sharing deal but Jimmy would have none of it. That is, Jimmy helped put the Shaw out and reaped (well we all reaped) the resulting situation.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )To your professed interest in democracy for that region.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Seriously, there's this whole theology out there that's as detailed and recondite as anything the Mithras mystery cultists or ancient Greeks put together.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )might I first suggest you read up on Kermit Roosevelt.
Second and related, the 1906 (I believe) Iranian Constitution will provide the necessary background on the executive powers of the Shah, especially with respect to replacing the prime minister.
When you are done, please follow up with a comment.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Ooh, I get all warm and squishy when people on internet forums tell me to do things.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )although my % increase was a little higher
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )must be a component. I have no idea how one would measure it.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is more often than not, the last time the French recognized military leadership.
Energy leadership incorporates drilling as part of the mix.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Doesn't take too many miles to start.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )heather green, four doors, it died on the way to Boulder.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Even when supply is fixed, there doesn't have to be a direct corelation between price and demand.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )which is what the next analysis you link to should address.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )What shortages?
It's my understanding that refineries are operating at near capacity, but there's not much profit in refining crude or selling gas. So consequently there is little economic incentive to increase refinery capacity. Big oil makes big money on the front end, not the back end.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )My simple statement to anyone complaining about gas prices is that they should stop looking for satisfyingly partisan explanations that ignore reality and simply get back to basics:
Any measure that has been taken by government to interfere in the business of oil that has netted us less oil production...whether here (mainly Dems) or overseas (mainly GOP)...is a real and direct reason as to why gas prices are higher. Plain and simple. Don't get complicated. Don't stretch for explanations. Don't make a joke out of your intelligence and that of anyone else. It's that simple. Less drilling means less usable oil. Less usable oil means less available gasoline.
People can't have it both ways. You want cheaper gas? Stop supporting any politicians that contributes to netting us less oil. You want alternative energy? Stop complaining about high gas prices. Nobody controls the economy. Nobody runs it. It is the arrogant and the ignorant who think otherwise and think they have the capacity....either individually or as a group...to make such decisions about our an amazingly complex catallaxy....which is what our "economy" really is in real life.
Hence why the most common thing I murmur under my breath when watching economic hubris is:
"Get OVER yourself!"
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Come on. There's ample evidence to the contrary. See my comment above. In the 70s and 80s, regulation improved fuel efficiency by around 60%.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )of course supply and demand are both variables. Nontheless, the simple act of enacting policies that curb future supply by any means will drive up future gas prices.
Btw, dont become overly enamored with policies that aim to increase fuel efficiency. Better fuel mileage is a reaction not an action. And the necessary force to spurring better gas mileage choices in the market is high gas prices. People respond to incentives. That basic point is such stickler and takes much of the intrigue out of policy. Europe had gas prices as high as here now if not still higher when I was living there 15 years ago.
When market conditions are like that, demand for better fuel mileage is ripe. Legislation in that context is like a matador who comes into glamourously slay the bull once it is on the brink of death. Big deal.
Beside, keep in mind that Europeans generally drive less and shorter distances. That is a huge factor in explaining another part of why they consume less gas. Also, remember that better gas mileage will simply offset a goid part of expected reductions in gas use by simply encouraging more driving and less conservation. Again, people respond to incentives. You can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink it....so goes the saying. However, a thirsty horse will FIND water whether you lead him or not.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Drive small cars and wait for the wind certainly are not solutions
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Which would be the most effective and quickest way to reduce our dependance on oil imports, starting today?
If you say let's do both together, then I repeat which would be the most effective and quickest way to reduce our dependance on oil imports, starting today and what are the relative merits of each?
Show your work.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and I missed your workpaper.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )there's no such thing. Oil is fungible. It goes into a world market.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It may make sense to talk about reducing our dependence on oil but 'foreign oil'? A farce, as you say.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )to remind the reader where oil typically comes from?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )tells a far differnt story.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )you reduce dependence, notwithstanding that oil is fungible
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but not the price.
--Dein Grundsatz war, z'erst überleg'n, / a Meinung hab'n, dahinterstehn / Niemals Gewalt, alles bereden / Aber auch ka Angst vor irgendwem -- STS
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )As John correctly points out oil is a fungible commodity. Even if the oil is produced in the US there is nothing stopping it from being sold abroad, if it makes economic sense.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but we export around a million barrels of refined product to Canada and Mexico on a daily basis.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is import-substitution and mercantilist nonsense. Might as well close the country to external trade.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The first steam engines were powered by wood. Coal only came into its own when wood grew scarce. Bessemer learned to convert coal to coke, and the Industrial Revolution really took off in earnest thereafter.
The era of petroleum is not yet over entirely, but it's coming to a close. We'll eventually master hydrogen for ground transport and reformulate powerful enough liquid fuels necessary for jet aircraft. Like as not, we'll begin with methane, a resource we waste prodigiously. Every flushing toilet and barn cleaning ought to be harnessed to the recapture of methane.
There's plenty of energy out there, we're just now beginning to approach the price point for economic viability. What's needed now is a massive push to run our vehicles on hydrogen: not the current liquid hydrogen paradigm but a chemical suspension in a recyclable and non-explosive slurry. Any fuel-injected vehicle can run on this stuff: it's a minor retrofit to the fuel lines and another tank to hold the depleted slurry until it can be drained off for recycling. The hydrogen is released via a small heater. The hydrogen comes from cracking propane ( CH4 ), there's no free lunch here, but there's plenty of what lunch eventually turns into. Hydrogen is more than a better battery, it can also be burned directly. Even now, it's economically viable: the active molecule is powdered magnesium in a mineral oil base, looks like paint. Mineral oil is dirt cheap, it's a byproduct of refining petroleum now. Magnesium is one of the most abundant elements in nature.
We will leave off gasoline, and fairly soon. We used to flare off gasoline fractions from refineries: it was considered too dangerous, that's why they called it gasoline. Only until metallurgy improved to the point where an internal combustion engine didn't explode did we ignore its power. But within ten years of the first internal combustion motor, we got both the modern automobile and the airplane. Same thing is true of hydrogen: the solution is just too obvious to ignore.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...and there are some...what does this have to do with what I or Gabriel are saying?
Changing technologies has nothing to do with the notion we are discussing.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You're talking about reductions as if they were impossible. There will be import substitution. End of story.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Although I guess you can interpret new technology as 'import substitution' that is not what I was referring to. Import substitution is the economic doctrine that supports creating at home what would otherwise be bought abroad. In my example import substitution ONLY applies to the idea that by producing more oil in the US you reduce the dependency on foreign oil, which is nonsense so long as we have free trade.
I get what you mean, that there will be an import substitution of sorts though new technology, but that's another issue.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )ditto.
There is a huge difference between new technology driving out old and believing that any technology, new or old, used on a world-wide scale will reduce foreign dependence...regardless of who is exporting or importing it. National borders create false boundaries that confuse and muddle what's really going on.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )