Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Why we aren’t and won’t ever be oil independent
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, June 12, 2008

William Yeatman, an energy policy analyst for the Competitive Enterprise Institute asks:
"How long can America, on the one hand, say, 'We're sick and tried of high gasoline prices,' and on the other hand say, 'We're not going to do anything about it; we're not going to tap our own resources?'" Yeatman said. "We're going to be the only industrialized nation that keeps itself from its own resources.'"
Or more succinctly:
"We've got the supply," Yeatman said. "Why not tap into it?"
Well there are all sorts of excuses and they've been used to do a number of things over the decades. Stop drilling, derail nuclear power and prohibit the building of new refineries.

Here's an example of argument which claims to explain away drilling in ANWR:
ANWR is estimated to be able to produce two million barrels of oil a day. Since America uses about 20 million barrels a day thats a pretty impressive amount. The problem is that that the Alaskan pipeline can only transport 2.1 million barrels a day and its already moving an average of 650k barrels a day which means its remaining capacity for carrying oil produced from drilling at ANWR would be 1,450,000 barrels on average. Thats still a good bit. However the additional problem is that since crude oil's price is set by a world wide market that currently consumes roughly 90 million barrels a day. So even if all of ANWR's oil is used only by Americans (say through a clause in the drilling rights lease) then it would only offset an equivalent amount of imported oil (a good thing) however it would only represent a 1.6 percent increase in global supply thereby resulting in an equal price drop. With gas currently at four dollars a gallon that would only equal a 6.4 cent per gallon decrease in prices.
[The author of this quote would like me to clarify the fact that he is not opposed to drilling in ANWR, but was making the point that "advocating drilling in ANWR to lower gas prices was such a weak argument that anyone making it was either ignorant of the facts or had a motive that had nothing to do with lowering gas prices. I went on to point out that arguing that drilling in ANWR would increase our countries energy independence was vastly superior reason by comparison." -ed.]

And, of course an upgrade of the capacity of the pipeline is possible so that the full 2 million barrels a day (10% of our daily total, of which about 60% is imported) could be carried south. There's also the argument which claims ANWR wouldn't be on line for 10 years an our crisis is now. Of course that's the same argument that was made 10 years ago and our crisis is worse isn't it?

Consider as well that ANWR would be only part of the solution. So the argument that it would only equal 6.4 cents on a gallon isn't a particularly convincing one. It is the cumulative reduction from a number of sources that would bring oil prices down.

For instance couple ANWR's contribution with what is available on the Outer Continental Shelf (OTS):
The Interior Department's Minerals Management Service determined in February 2006 that approximately 85.9 billion barrels of "undiscovered technically recoverable" oil could be found on the Outer Continental Shelf.
Do you think recovering 80+ billion barrels of oil might cut our foreign oil dependency a bit and lower oil prices?

Of course nothing is going on toward that recovery because Congress, in 1981, passed the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Moratorium, which has prevented leasing for the purposes of recovering fossil fuels.

And oil shale?
America's oil shale reserves are enormous, totaling at least 1.5 trillion barrels of oil. That's five times the reserves of Saudi Arabia! And yet, no one is producing commercial quantities of oil from these vast deposits.
There, sitting under Wyoming, Utah and Colorado, is enough oil for complete oil independence for this country for decades ... while we get our "alternative energy" act together.

Yet it continues to just sit there. Shell has developed a method to remove it and as even told Congress about it, back in 2005:
But a new technology has emerged that may begin to tap the oil shale's potential. Royal Dutch Shell, in fact, has recently completed a demonstration project (The Mahogany Ridge project) in which it produced 1,400 barrels of oil from shale in the ground, without mining the shale at all.

Instead, Shell utilized a process called "in situ" mining, which heats the shale while it's still in the ground, to
the point where the oil leaches from the rock. Shell's Terry O'Connor described the breakthrough in testimony before Congress earlier this summer (And Congress may have an acute interest in the topic, since the U.S. government controls 72% of all U.S. oil shale acreage).
Got that last little point? 72% of all the acreage in which shale oil exists is controlled by the federal government.

It is a complex process which is described at the link. And because of the complexity of the process, there is more work to be done to make it commercially viable. But, given the vast amount of oil available coupled with the high price of oil and the promise of oil independence (if properly exploited), it would seem the incentive - for both industry and government - to make that process commercially viable already exists.

But that doesn't seem to be the case, does it? Congress still has its collective head up its posterior.

Yesterday Congress again voted down OTS drilling. Democrats - who had previously supported OTS drilling - changed their minds and voted with their party to nix the possibility of such drilling:
Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., spearheaded the effort. His proposal would open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles off shore for drilling. The first 50 miles off shore would be left alone.

But the plan failed Wednesday on a 9-6, party-line vote in a House appropriations subcommittee, which was considering the proposal as part of an Interior Department spending package.
Of course I can promise you it will be these very same Democrats who will jump in front of the first camera available and lament the high price of oil, all the while being directly responsible for it staying in the $130 a barrel area.

And, as noted before, we get the usual argument from the environmentalists:
"It would take anywhere from seven to 10 years to bring those resources to shore — to have any measurable impact on supply,” Binns said, advocating renewable energy sources.
The same song and dance we've heard since 1981. Imagine what shape we'd be in if we'd been bringing a few million barrels a day of those 85 billion OTS barrels available for the past few decades?

So what can you expect from your presidential candidates?

Well, Barack Obama is easy - no drilling. He's into ethanol:
Obama explained why he opposed domestic oil drilling in his bestselling book, "The Audacity of Hope."

"We cannot drill our way out of the problem," Obama wrote, adding, "over the last 30 years, countries like Brazil have used a mix of regulation and direct government investment to develop a bio-fuel industry; 70 percent of its new vehicles run on sugar-based ethanol."
The problems of such a switch get nothing more than a hand-wave from him. He essentially ignores the available for the unavailable and apparently thinks that we have "30 years" in which to make such a switch. What we do in the interim, apparently, is suffer. He has absolutely no short-term solution.

And McCain? Well he's a bit harder to figure out.

Recently, speaking of McCain, Lindsey Graham said:
On ABC's "This Week -with George Stephanopoulos," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C), a McCain friend and supporter, said the Arizona Republican would be open to talking about looking for oil and gas "in our own backyard."

"John McCain would allow offshore explorations, if the states consent," Graham said Sunday.
That apparently is the same position that McCain took on a League of Conservation Voters last year. Of course it really puts the decision in the hands of the states instead of the Federal government and gives McCain the ability to shrug off any refusal as their right to do so (but I have to wonder what state claims and enforces the 200 mile limit now in force).
At a town hall meeting in Michigan last month, McCain said he believed the United States should expand its domestic oil drilling operations, but said the states ought to have the right to make the decision whether to drill or not to drill, Reuters reported.

It is difficult to gauge McCain's past voting record on domestic drilling, mainly because in many instances he did not vote.

In March 2008, McCain did not vote, either for or against, on an amendment to increase spending levels on energy-related programs, including the development of oil and natural gas resources in coastal areas not covered by presidential or congressional moratoria. On the same day, McCain did not vote regarding an amendment to increase spending levels on programs to develop natural gas off the coast of Virginia and to develop oil shale resources on public lands.

In June 2007, McCain did not vote, either for or against, on an amendment to allow the governor of Virginia to petition the secretary of the Interior Department to permit natural gas exploration and extraction off its coast.

But McCain did vote in 2005 in support of an amendment to keep the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) closed to oil drilling.
So there you have it - a short-term energy solution right in front of our faces. Yeatman's question of "we've got the supply, why not tap into it", remains unanswered. And, as a consequence, oil prices continue to rise, consumer prices continue to rise, and the economy begins to falter. All of it a condition of our own making.

Congress has made foolish decisions over the years by prohibiting exploitation of vast oil resources within our borders or control. And we have one presidential candidate who refuses to consider tapping into them (instead he'll institute "windfall profits taxes" which will only drive gas prices higher) and another who is so wishy-washy you have no idea if he'd actually push exploitation if he were elected.

Instead we'll hear a lot of promises about the coming revolution in alternative fuels - the same promises which have been made since Jimmy Carter was president. Meanwhile expect the price of oil to continue to climb while those that can afford it the least suffer the consequences of our nation's inept politicians and their brilliant energy policies (and don't get me started on nuclear energy and refineries).
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
We are getting exactly what we deserve and the world is looking on and laughing. While the rest of the world is madly scrambling over the recovery of any and every possible hint at energy access, we sit on our collective *sses and whine about the price of gasoline.

The lemmings leading us to ethanol nirvana can’t see beyond their own screaming constituents and the result is what you can expect from our government and political leadership - blame somebody, ANYBODY!
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
I think part of the problem is that alot of vocal people are glad the price is so high because burning oil is wrong. (Not that I agree.)

My best friend in California, who I consider to be a rational and intelligent person thinks that the high price of oil is good. He believes using oil is wrong.

I made the comment to him, "So you are okay charging me and my parents on a fixed income more for oil becasue you think we shouldn’t be using it." He said, "Yes. It’s not good for oil to be cheap."

Today VDH had an arcticle talking about the exact same thing.

The people who this hurts most are busy working and trying to pay bills. Not lobbying Congress.

 
Written By: Ody
URL: http://
"How long can America, on the one hand, say, ’We’re sick and tried of high gasoline prices,’ and on the other hand say, ’We’re not going to do anything about it; we’re not going to tap our own resources?’"

As long as dimwitted people keep electing Democrars to control things, they can continue to pay ridiculous amounts for gas, for "biofuels" (with an equal rise in food prices), and for no drilling.

But we will have plenty of "green jobs," whatever that means.

 
Written By: James Marsden
URL: http://
Of course it would never occur to this person that perhaps an upgrade of the capacity of the pipeline is possible or that 2 million barrels a day is 10% of our daily total, of which about 60% is imported.
An upgrade of the pipeline, given drilling in ANWR is a certainty. The thig is well beyond it’s projected life span and will need to be replaced, even barring ANWR’s being opened. With ANWR, an upgrade, as part of the replacement seems the most logical course, and one the oil companies are likely to insist on.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
America will never be energy independent, if by that you mean not subject to $4 a gallon gasoline, because of the world market for oil.....Do you mean we ought to be exploring and drilling, sure it will increase the supply, worldwide, and lower costs. But it will NOT make us "energy independent." Unless you’re proposing draconian/Fascist autarkic controls on oil production and sale, for the US and Canada and Mexico.....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I’m suggesting that if we produce an amount equal to what we use (whether we import or not) we are, in effect, oil independent. No one can hold oil over our heads as a lever for whatever.

And, in terms of national security, it is something we could, if necessary, keep within our borders if we had too. You don’t need a Strategic Petroleum Reserve if you’re tapped into 1.5 trillion barrels of shale oil.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Regardless of having oil, many Americans think that using oil is immoral.

Drilling for oil is legalizing murder of the planet in their eyes.

Whether we have it or not is a secondary issue.
 
Written By: Ody
URL: http://
what we use (whether we import or not) we are, in effect, oil independent.
But not free of $4 gallon gasoline....True, OPEC couldn’t "cut off" our oil and prevent us from operating, in time of war...but nonetheless we’d still be seeing $4 gasoline. That pesky world market for oil.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
But not free of $4 gallon gasoline ...
I don’t see why not. If we were to bring an additional 20 million barrels a day on line and into the market, I’d guess oil prices would go down as we’d have added a significant amount to the 90 million barrel a day usage worldwide.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I’m way past caring....more to the point, I’m way past caring about people whining about oil prices and how they’re "suffering"

I’m suffering too but at least I didn’t vote for it.

This is what we’ve been allowing to happen for decades. Even a child learns not to touch a hot stove after one quick singe.

China is drilling right off our own coast, but we cannot.

Instead we get "gas tax holidays" and "tap the strategic reserve" bandied about as rational alternatives.

We’re paying the price for our national economic illiteracy, not to mention our growing propensity to blame BIG ________ (fill in the blank) for all our problems.

How about we blame big idiocy instead?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
You mean TOTAL global supplies will rise and hence there will be a commensurate decline in crude, prices, true...until India or China use up the "slack" in the system and then, the market tightens and the price rises. It’s a GLOBAL MARKET for oil, and unless the US is not going to allow the export of "’Merhi-Kun Erl to Fur’iners" as the global price rises, so too the domestic price. Cost-wise, yours is a difference that makes no difference...yes we won’t import oil, but we’ll still be subject to oil shocks, UNLESS you prevent the sale of oil overseas.

I may be picking nit’s here, but let’s get our terms correct. We are NOT going to be energy independent. Domestic exploration, drilling and exploration will increase global supplies and therefore reduce the pain at the pump.

Even in the realm of the "independence scenario"...OPEC cuts off oil to the US, in order to force the US to abandon Israel, but the good Ole US of A has no imported oil, you’ll see a spike in oil prices in the US, as now the TOTAL supply of crude to the US is limited, limited to domestic production. Less supply, same demand, higher prices....

I just want us to speak clearly, we are NOT making the US independent of foreign oil or from foreign oil production/consumption issues, what we ARE doing is easing the global supply concerns and thereby aiding ourselves.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Got that last little point? 72% of all the acreage in which shale oil exists is controlled by the federal government.

It is a complex process which is described at the link. And because of the complexity of the process, there is more work to be done to make it commercially viable. But, given the vast amount of oil available coupled with the high price of oil and the promise of oil independence (if properly exploited), it would seem the incentive - for both industry and government - to make that process commercially viable already exists.
This concerns me. What’s going on with the 28% not under government control? If there really is 1.5 trillion available, 28% would be nothing to sneeze at.

Are they using it? If not, why not?

And if they aren’t using it without some kind of reason like further government restrictions, I’d have to question the viability of the extraction process or the seriousness of oil companies to use it.

In otherwords, is the extraction process no further along development than say some alternative fuels. Proved in the labratory, but a working facility hasn’t been built.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Well JPM if I controlled 72% of your yard, in strips and blobs of .1 to 3.0 metres Sq. could you really use your yard....it’s not like there’s a big box, Marked Oil Shale and the US guv’mint holds a square within it totaling 72% of the total area.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
We are NOT going to be energy independent. Domestic exploration, drilling and exploration will increase global supplies and therefore reduce the pain at the pump.
Again, if we are producing the same amount that we use (regardless of how that all breaks out in the global market) we are, in fact, oil independent, since, as a practical matter, we would not be subject to any of the leverage from or problems within overseas oil producing states. Should there be a supply disruption elsewhere, we would have the ability, if necessary, to divert our own resources to fill that gap.

And, that additional capacity within the global market will see prices at the pump go down (until, of course, demand expands again to consume the total output again).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
What’s going on with the 28% not under government control? If there really is 1.5 trillion available, 28% would be nothing to sneeze at.
Read the link under the "72%" in the post.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Again, if we are producing the same amount that we use (regardless of how that all breaks out in the global market) we are, in fact, oil independent,
No because IF Exxon-Mobil can make $150 a barrel selling Oil to the PRC or make $125 selling it to the US, they’ll sell to the PRC...the oil produced here doesn’t, necessarily, get sold here...it depends on the GLOBALLY set price for oil.

All we can say is that we have increased the GLOBAL supply of oil, with the resultant effect of reducing EVERYONE"S price per gallon, by some amount.

We are NOT independent of the global market for oil....

As I say it is a small but important distinction. IF you are trying to sell this as a way to be rid of them stinkie AY-Rabs, it will ultimately blow up in your face, as Exxon-Mobil or Occidental sells that ’Merhi-kun erl to the Japanese or the Europeans, because that’s what international companies in an international market do, they sell where they can maximize profit. IF, however, you sell this as increasing TOTAL global supply and that it is the GLOBAL market that is driving up prices, THEN it makes sense...otherwise, it’s not really true and will lead to a bitter taste in voters/consumers mouths. People were upset that Prudhoe Bay oil goes to Japan...not understanding that if Japan is buying Alaskan crude they aren’t bidding for Venezuelan crude, that we use....It’s the "market" in action.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Drilling for oil is legalizing murder of the planet in their eyes.
Sadly, such people vote. Fortunately, they’re a distinct minority... and they’re about to be a smaller minority.

Tell me; Do we know of any such people who have sworn off oil in all it’s forms?


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Do we know of any such people who have sworn off oil in all it’s forms?
I have...I live in a cave, sleep on a woven grass mat, bathe in a mud hole filled with rain water, I power my internet connection with a squirrel.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I have...I live in a cave, sleep on a woven grass mat, bathe in a mud hole filled with rain water, I power my internet connection with a squirrel
That’s the "Bin Laden" suite?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
IF Exxon-Mobil can make $150 a barrel selling Oil to the PRC or make $125 selling it to the US, they’ll sell to the PRC...the oil produced here doesn’t, necessarily, get sold here...it depends on the GLOBALLY set price for oil.
If the PRC or whoever is willing to overpay by $25/bbl then let them do so. That’s more money for us offsetting our trade deficit and which can be reinvested in technology improvements to make our fields even more productive than they can be currently and also facilitates development of new properties. Every additional mbpd adds additional downward pressure on GLOBAL prices. FWIW, not that it matters long-term, it won’t take much anticipated new production to stave off the current bubble rally. I bet dollars-to-donuts that, miracle-of-miracles, mere announcement of ANWR development will result in an immediate $30/bbl drop in crude price.
 
Written By: CR
URL: http://
Then CR you misapprehend how a market works...IF the PRC needs one more barrel of oil, and that barrel costs them $150, the market price for ALL oil is $150.

If Exxon-Mobil can sell a barrel of oil to the PRC for $150, they will, even if they could sell it for US $125...for the US to lure that barrel back from the PRC might take an offer of $150.01 per barrel...

The PRC is NOT "over-paying" for oil, it’s paying the market, clearing rate, IIRC, for oil, as would the US, in the example I used.

Oil is fungible, and if it costs me 25$ to produce a barrel of oil but it’s going for $136 per barrel, GOOD TIMES for me...I will sell my oil at $25.25 (10% return on costs) or $136 per barrel, oil costs what the last guy to buy any barrel of oil is willing to pay for it, be it $5 or $500 per barrel. There is no "over-pay".

And that being the case, that’s why I don’t like the phrase "Energy Independence"...there is NO SUCH THING. There is the global market for oil and the clearing rate set on it...if we lower demand or increase total global supply the price, for EVERYONE falls.

I would agree, the passage of an ANWR bill and Offshore Drilling Bill would signal the global market that the US is SERIOUS about production and, in time, it would "pop" the speculative bubble in oil...but none of this makes the US independent of the true effect of oil price fluctuations, which is what I take it to be when someone says "Energy Independence."

Rest assure if the US imported NO oil, but oil suddenly hit $400 a barrel, the US economy would rapidly slide in recession, and not simply from the global down turn that would lead to, but from the huge SPIKE in oil prices in the US. Drilling here, does not make us independent of Fur’n Oil...and what fur’iners do with their oil, either in the terms of supply or consumption. If all the world’s oil but the oil in the US, disappeared tomorrow it would be just a catastrophic for the US as for any other nation...oil prices would increase by 20 times, for everyone...not just the rest of the world.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
If Exxon-Mobil can sell a barrel of oil to the PRC for $150, they will, even if they could sell it for US $125...for the US to lure that barrel back from the PRC might take an offer of $150.01 per barrel...
So, which is it? The PRC is not gonna buy all 80mbpd of global production (their current use is about 9-12mbpd). Once they have bought as much $150/bbl supply as they can handle their upwards pricing pressure is no longer a factor. Hello $125. And, yes, the PRC just overpaid; perhaps not the full $25/bbl but a significant chunk of that. Put in the personal invective frame you use above, it is YOU who doesn’t understand markets.

Irregards the preceding silliness, yes, there is only one market for "light sweet crude" and one price. Yes, "energy independence" is probably unattainable and, frankly, irrelevant for the reasons you state. What is important, however, is increasing the global supply so it keeps up with demand. That, more than anything else, is what we should be seeking with our domestic energy investments.

BTW, it would be far easier to take you seriously if you avoided absurdities about "if the US imported NO oil, but oil suddenly hit $400 a barrel" or "If all the world’s oil but the oil in the US, disappeared tomorrow". None of which is ever going to happen in the lifetimes of either of us.
 
Written By: CR
URL: http://
actually, it probably would bring down oil prices, if the oil companies here wanted to try a price war.

They decide two things: 1, only to sell their oil here and 2. to sell it well bellow market price. Refineries will then only buy the American oil, which in turn will be sent to retail. That means we, as the number one consumer on the planet, stop consuming in vast quantities imported oil, somewhere to the tune of 2 million barrels a day. That’s an EXTRA 2 million barrels a day that in the market, increasing supply while dwindling demand (for THAT particular oil) by 25%. Global prices, theoretically, tank.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
I don’t see why not. If we were to bring an additional 20 million barrels a day on line and into the market, I’d guess oil prices would go down as we’d have added a significant amount to the 90 million barrel a day usage worldwide.
Correct, but it goes further than this.
Even the somewhat smaller mount currently rojected as being in ANWR would lower the world price by severa dollars per barrel, as the OPEC folks to try lower prices by pumping more crude... something we know they’re able to do, and have a history of doing when any serious new field comes online.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
So, $4 or $5 a gallon gas and $130-150 a barrel oil is a strategic national security minus for the US? I’d guess not. It’s just the new way of war. We sit on our oil reserves, watch the futures prices for a barrel of oil go through the roof, watch the dollar fall, and laugh at other countries that subsidize the cost of their petro-fuel as an engine of their growth.

We won the Cold War by outspending the Soviets on weapons. We’ll win The Unnamed War by making the Chinese outspend us on oil.
 
Written By: Arcs
URL: http://
Sorry, my wife must’ve slipped the whacko pill in with my vitamins this morning.
 
Written By: Arcs
URL: http://
BTW, it would be far easier to take you seriously if you avoided absurdities about "if the US imported NO oil, but oil suddenly hit $400 a barrel" or "If all the world’s oil but the oil in the US, disappeared tomorrow". None of which is ever going to happen in the lifetimes of either of us.


Examples, at the extreme are easier as illustrations...check out Econ 101, there’s a lot of over-simplification of this sort. We are trying to convey the essence...you want the "reality" get a PhD and work in the oil business for a decade (NOTE: I have NOT done that).

So you grasped my point(s)? That the important thing...you know the example of wool and port wine is a little silly, but explains "Comparative Advantage" nicely...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Even the somewhat smaller mount currently rojected as being in ANWR would lower the world price by severa dollars per barrel, as the OPEC folks to try lower prices by pumping more crude...
I expect OPEC will start cheating on their quotas...it’s what happened in the 1980’s...if I can make a whole lot of money selling X barrels at Y price, I can make even more by selling over my quota..once someone starts they all do. So it’s not just drilling in ANWR or Brazilian oil deposits or Wyoming oil shale, it’s also going to be market forces operating on OPEC.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
FWIW, Opec as already increased it’s output, after telling Bush they saw no reason to do so.

So much for the ’opec won’t raise it’s output because it can’t... they’re running out’ meme.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
This is one of those issues that is now coming to a head.

It’s even got (non-politician) Democrats asking ..
No oil to invest in. They [Democrat rank-and-file] know ExxonMobil is making a filthy killing in this energy crisis, but what galls them even more is the knowledge that ExxonMobil can’t spend any of its $40 billion in profits to find American oil in the most obvious places.
.. but Congress has got it’s mind set on making them invest in alternatives because why ?

Meanwhile, the Earth-huggers have got one of what I expect to be many problems heading there way ..
MADRID - A group of real estate developers and property owners in La Manga del Mar Menor - a spit of sandy, low-lying coastal land and Murcia’s premier beach resort - are threatening to take Greenpeace to court over its graphic predictions of what global warming may do to the area, which they say have caused house prices to plummet.

The lawsuit, which the plaintiffs plan to present unless Greenpeace agrees to an out of court settlement of almost EUR 30 million in damages, comes more than six months after La Manga featured prominently in a photo book published by the environmental organisation that was intended to shock Spain into action on climate change.
.. showing once again that he who lives by the lawsuit, dies by the lawsuit.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Oh, are we running out....AGAIN? oh my.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Peak Oil, PEAK OIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
In other news the US is losing its superpower status. Not because of Russia, Venezuela or Iran but because of Brazil.
 
Written By: CR
URL: http://
Editorial point of order: Is there something about the President of Brazil’s name that sets of the profanity blocker?
 
Written By: CR
URL: http://
Bithead,

Tell me; Do we know of any such people who have sworn off oil in all it’s forms?
No I don’t know any. That’s really what burns me. Even my good friend who thinks high oil prices are good owns multiple vehicles. When they had children they had to go out and buy a mini-van.

 
Written By: Ody
URL: http://
Heh. So did I.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
shark wrote:
China is drilling right off our own coast, but we cannot.
Shark, is this correct? According this site:
http://blogs.tampabay.com/energy/2008/06/china-cuba-oil.html
Mel Martinez says it is a myth.
 
Written By: anonymous
URL: http://
the real myth is Mel Martinez having three braincells to rub together.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
McQ I’m calling BS.

You quoted me completely out of context.

I never once in my post advocated not drilling in ANWR. The point of my post was that advocating drilling in ANWR to lower gas prices was such a weak argument that anyone making it was either ignorant of the facts or had a motive that had nothing to do with lowering gas prices. I went on to point out that arguing that drilling in ANWR would increase our countries energy independence was vastly superior reason by comparison.


"Of course it would never occur to this person that perhaps an upgrade of the capacity of the pipeline is possible"

Yes, it is. But not without taking the entire pipeline offline for a long time. If you don’t believe me trying upgrading the capacity of the pipes under your kitchen sink without disconnecting anything. The logical course of action would be to build a second pipeline.
 
Written By: Dyre42
URL: http://crapomatic.blogspot.com
What’s going on with the 28% not under government control? If there really is 1.5 trillion available, 28% would be nothing to sneeze at.
Read the link under the "72%" in the post.
Hardcore Environmentalists aren’t really interested in ’alternatives’. Their interest in affecting vehicle use runs much deeper than limiting C02 emissions. But they dangle ’alternatives’ in front of the general public as a placebo to make their other policies more palatable. A promise that if "you just put up with a temporary inconvenience, we’ll be able to return you to your normal life any day now."

After reading the article, I got the same feeling. "Stick with oil, any day now we’ll be able to unlock these vast reserves." I’m old enough to remember the last oil crisis. There was talk about oil shale back then. They’ve only had 30 years to develop processes to extract the oil. I’m not expecting to only take a few more years.

Six of one, half dozen of the other.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
The point of my post was that advocating drilling in ANWR to lower gas prices was such a weak argument that anyone making it was either ignorant of the facts or had a motive that had nothing to do with lowering gas prices. I went on to point out that arguing that drilling in ANWR would increase our countries energy independence was vastly superior reason by comparison.
The argument is typical of those which are used to claim drilling in ANWR is something we shouldn’t do, and that’s how I presented it.

If you feel I unfairly quoted you, I’ll note that in the post and refer readers to your comment.
Yes, it is. But not without taking the entire pipeline offline for a long time. If you don’t believe me trying upgrading the capacity of the pipes under your kitchen sink without disconnecting anything. The logical course of action would be to build a second pipeline.
You’d think. If it will take 10 years to bring ANWR on line, as you say, then there is plenty of time to build a new pipeline of higher capacity or to upgrade the existing one. It is, after all, an aboveground pipline, so we’re not talking about quite the job a buried pipeline would entail.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
As I’ve suggested elsewhere, the existing line is due for a refit But there’s no reason that a parallel line cannot be built.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Written By: Bithead
the real myth is Mel Martinez having three braincells to rub together.
Okay, but is he correct? Is it a myth?
 
Written By: anonymous
URL: http://
And Congress is doing NOTHING.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Okay, but is he correct? Is it a myth?
kinda.

They’re not drilling as of yet, but the plans are in the works for it.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
And Congress is doing NOTHING.
Well, "con" is the opposite of "pro"...
 
Written By: CR
URL: http://
"We are kidding ourselves if we think we can drill our way out of these problems," House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., said during the bill mark-up session.
For his part, Peterson said: "There is no valid reason for Congress to keep the country from energy resources it needs."
.. or worse than nothing
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Written By: Joel C
kinda.

They’re not drilling as of yet, but the plans are in the works for it.
Thanks.

 
Written By: anonymous
URL: http://
Environmentalists said the new regulations give oil companies a blank check to harass the polar bear.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Of course with useful idiots like these ..
A29-MEMBER independent task force of the Council on Foreign Relations released a report Friday that adds another authoritative voice to the clamor for U.S. leadership on climate change. Co-chaired by former New York governor George E. Pataki (R) and former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack (D), the bipartisan document makes an argument that has fallen on deaf ears at the White House. "As the United States takes increasingly aggressive action at home," the authors correctly note, "it will be in a stronger position to ask more of others."
.. we will remain stuck in reverse.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider