President Bush (is he still there?) accused Democrats in congress today of being the cause of our current high gas prices. Of course, congress has been Democratic for just over a year, and much of the problems with the cost of oil comes from that unnecessary war Mr. Bush started in the middle east. It wasn’t too long ago that our out of touch unpopular plague of a president was shocked at the idea that gas could cost $4/gallon.
All these calls to drill, drill, drill are sort of like a crack addict saying he should just take something less harsh like cocaine instead of getting off the drug (aka investment in alternative energy) in the first place.
Also, do we really want more of these for a relatively small supply of oil?
Bush learns about $4.00 a gallon, he sees his oil buddies sitting on a goldmine (actually, something much more valuable than a goldmine), no wonder he wants to get as much of it flowing as soon as possible. Before someone actually gets serious about alternative energies and the oilmen have to go back to the drawing board. It’s a cashgrab, plain and simple.
Of course, congress has been Democratic for just over a year
Not taking responsibility for filibustering, I see…
Got them links yet, Farris? I mean, you can prove it, right?
found it. Never mind.
Maybe Bush can release all those papers on Dick Cheney’s Oil company-run energy task force to prove his point.
I forget, what were oil and gas prices before the Glorious Iraq Invasion? SaveFarris, might you know?
and much of the problems with the cost of oil comes from that unnecessary war Mr. Bush started in the middle east.
In what way? Iraq’s oil production is back on track. Speculators aren’t even considering them in the calculations anymore.
And if drilling isn’t a good idea, then the Democrats in Congress should stop whining like babies about OPEC. If they’re going to force the United States to buy that much more oil from other providers instead of getting some of our own, then they have no call to complain about it.
Also, please explain how domestic oil production is going to lead to another Exxon Valdez catastrophe.
The US military is and has been the single largest consumer of fuel in the world. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has made that consumption 5X more than usual. Demand.
As Jay fails to understand the problem isn’t where we get the oil from, it’s that we are dependent on it in the first place, we use too much, we are falling behind in developing alternatives and that unless we change, we will always be vulnerable to supply disruptions and rising global demand. And that is economically. We aren’t even discussing the negative impact environmentally.
Midderpidge touches on something ANWR drilling proponents often gloss over. If oil companies drill for oil in ANWR, they’ll sell that oil on the world market. It won’t automatically go into American gas tanks.
That is, unless the GOP is planning to nationalize the oil companies.
It takes several years for oil drilling and exploration to yield consistent results. So drilling off of Florida and in ANWR would have zero impact on oil prices in the next 4-5 years. By the time we started getting results, global and domestic demand will have risen again, so it’s unlikely to have much of an impact on price per barrel. On the other hand, raising the fuel economy of cars, energy efficiency of homes and increasing the share of fuel and energy we get from renewable and alternative sources would decrease fuel prices over a period of time.
Drilling just delays the inevitable by a year or two.
The US military is and has been the single largest consumer of fuel in the world.
That quote is extremely misleading as it is held up as a single entity (340,000 barrels a day for ALL military operations around the world). To claim that the military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are the largest cause of increased demand is just plain stupid. The largest increase in demand comes from countries like the United States, China, India and Japan. Demand has been particularly high in China and India as those countries governments subsidize gas prices for citizens, demand is higher than ever. As high as prices are, demand in the United States is only down 1.7% over last year.
As Jay fails to understand the problem isn’t where we get the oil from, it’s that we are dependent on it in the first place, we use too much, we are falling behind in developing alternatives
Actually I understand perfectly. I understand market forces and you don’t. As for our dependence on it, whose fault is that? Alternatives were floated, but consumers didn’t give a shit about alternatives when in the summer of 2000 people were paying $1.00 on average for a gallon of gas.
As for drilling, you can’t go around saying, “We need to reduce foreign dependence on oil” only to resist any attempts to produce domestically.
We had this discussion back in 2002 or so. To kill ANWR all the democrats have to do is make it mandatory that oil drilled in Alaska be sold in the US, attach it to any bill and Republicans will filibuster the hell out of it.
Jay has a serious problem in reading comprehension. He claims he “understands perfectly”. Then he goes and completely demonstrates that he, in fact, doesn’t understand at all.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: “Republicans are determined to lower gas prices the only way we can: increasing supply.”
So do it. There is an estimated 25 billion barrels of off shore oil that Oil companies are permitted to drill, and yet they aren’t drilling it and, instead,are clamoring for more. There are 10,000 drilling permits stockpiled by the industry, and they want more. 44 million acres of onshore public lands that are leased for oil and gas development that they haven’t gotten around to. And the solution is opening ANWR?
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans blocked The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act this month.
If they’re going to force the United States to buy that much more oil from other providers instead of getting some of our own, then they have no call to complain about it.
There’s a fine line between being stupid and merely hoping we all are, Jay. The only thing “forcing the U.S. to buy that much oil from other providers” is Bush and an almost entirely-Republican contingent insisting we shouldn’t make any investment or research into (gasp!) using less oil.
By the most generous estimates, tapping into ANWR will still require 95% of the U.S.’ oil to come from overseas. So how does wanting more oil instead of finding ways to want less to begin with reduce foreign demand?
Also, 1.7 million gallons of fuel/day used in Iraq, doesn’t impact price?
If oil companies drill for oil in ANWR, they’ll sell that oil on the world market.
Increasing the supply in the world market would raise or lower the price? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
I’m also getting a good chuckle out of the “Oil from ANWR won’t hit the market for 5-10 years” talking point. As if increasing CAFE standards and pumping money into alternative energy research would affect the market any quicker…
As if increasing CAFE standards and pumping money into alternative energy research would affect the market any quicker…
(blinks twice)
Increasing the supply in the world market would raise or lower the price? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Amazing.
Increasing the supply in the world market would raise or lower the price? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Current world oil consumption is running about 85 million barrels every single day. It’s expected to hit 100 million barrels a day by 2025.
If we could pump 10 million barrels a day from ANWR, that might affect the price of oil by 10 percent–but we’d suck the known reserves dry in just 3 years.
According to the Department of Energy, the most likely scenario puts ANWR oil production at just under 1 million barrels a day by 2025–about 1 percent of world consumption.
There is an estimated 25 billion barrels of off shore oil that Oil companies are permitted to drill, and yet they aren’t drilling it and, instead,are clamoring for more. There are 10,000 drilling permits stockpiled by the industry, and they want more. 44 million acres of onshore public lands that are leased for oil and gas development that they haven’t gotten around to. And the solution is opening ANWR?
If all of this is so, why would they fight so hard over one more? And not the ‘they’re greedy fat cats’ answer; what possible argument could they offer? That doesn’t seem to make much sense.
The questions that Farris fails to address are:
Will increasing the supply of oil by drilling ANWR increase the market supply of oil faster than demand will rise?
What about all the other drill sites already permitted that aren’t being exploited? 25 Billion barrels offshore…
Why isn’t reducing demand a much better solution?
That doesn’t seem to make much sense.
Now, you’re getting it.
“And not the ‘they’re greedy fat cats’ answer;”
Why not? Profit is a powerful motivator. If ANWR is open to drilling, it will be profitable.
A million barrels a day at $100 a barrel = $100 million each and every day = $36 billion a year.
Hmm. Apparently, there’s ,a href=http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn44964.htm>quite a bit of oil hanging around. but refiners don’t necessarily want it.
Other possibly relevant question for SaveFarris et al:
If we drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge/Gwich’in Holy Lands and get all that delicious oil to the marketplace, how will OPEC respond? Will they inclined to produce more oil, or less oil?
Sorry.
Try that again.
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn44964.htm
Pretty good site, actually.
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/frame_ntn_news.htm
Here’s another one.
Hey, what happened to Farris? I was hoping for some more of that yummy snark he was dishing out.
Why not? Profit is a powerful motivator. If ANWR is open to drilling, it will be profitable.
Of course you’re right. But my answer to your question is that I find it always more effective to expose people on their terms than one’s own. I was hoping for the best argument that the pro-drill lobby would make, because if it’s true that there’s already a ton of unexplored and available sites (I have yet to check out Duros’ link) then I can’t even fathom a coherent argument in favor of opening ANWR. I’m no economist but that part of the argument seems at least somewhat debatable, relative certainly to the willful ignoring of the other sites.
From the source I linked above:
Opening of ANWR to oil and gas development includes the following impacts:
Reducing the U.S. dependence on imported foreign oil;
Improving the U.S. balance of trade;
Extending the life of TAPS for oil;
Increasing U.S. jobs; and
Reducing world oil prices.
The remainder of this section focuses primarily on the first three impacts, because the employment impacts are difficult to determine and are not within the realm of EIA’s expertise and because the impact on world oil prices is not expected to be significant. With respect to the world oil price impact, ANWR coastal plain oil production in 2025 projected to constitute between 0.5 to 1.3 percent of total world oil consumption. (Emphasis added–QIB)
In the first point, “reducing” is used in a somewhat controversial sense. The percentage of oil the U.S. imports from overseas will increase between now and 2025 whether we drill ANWR or not; the rate of increase will be slightly diminished by the availability of ANWR oil. However, as we know, in the Republican lexicon, it’s unfair to call this a “cut” in oil imports.
Regarding the ANWR vs. other sites argument, I happened to listen to Sean Hannity for about ten minutes in the car; he was covering the exact point about which I was so befuddled earlier, namely why drill ANWR when there are so many already available sites. He nattered something about how an organized cabal of ’seminar callers’ were swarming his lines and spouting the same ‘talking points’ but said nothing to actually address the issue. That’s not to say he didn’t later, but my brief sampling of the program came up negative.
There’s a fine line between being stupid and merely hoping we all are, Jay. The only thing “forcing the U.S. to buy that much oil from other providers” is Bush and an almost entirely-Republican contingent insisting we shouldn’t make any investment or research into (gasp!) using less oil.
Well after reading your comment, I’m not hoping. I’m convinced.
It’s the same old nonsense. “Oh the big mean Republicans don’t want to ‘invest’ in alternatives.” Give me a huge break. You people go on and on caterwauling endlessly about government “giveaways” and “subsidies.” Who do you think is going to be the beneficiary of these “investments?” Some pimply faced teenage whiz kid who discovered how to make a scooter run using day old cooking oil?
As for those “investments”, those ethanol subsidies worked out perfectly didn’t they? Lets pay ‘farmers’ like Archers Daniel Midland not to grow corn. Perfect!
Here’s an idea and I know that it might sound foreign to you, but why not let the market work? Demand, though declining slowly, will continue to drop. People are already looking for ways to cut down on driving. MSNBC has a story that shows gas prices are influencing where people buy their homes. More and more people are getting rid of their huge SUV’s and getting vehicles that are more fuel efficient. Auto makers are responding by moving more quickly to develop vehicles that will run on something other than conventional gasoline. These things take time, but they do work. We don’t need the government to “invest” (ie spend and waste money) in these technologies.
You people go on and on caterwauling endlessly about government “giveaways” and “subsidies.”
We do? I thought we were big-government tax-and-spend liberals. We caterwaul in favor of giveaways and subsidies. Rush told me so.
I guess we don’t need the government to invest (ie spend and waste money) in oil and gas research and developments either. I guess we should stop the various subsidies, tax breaks, royalty relief programs, etc that oil companies enjoy every year.
But that’s OK. It’s not like reducing our dependence on oil would pay any dividends like stabilizing our energy supply and making us more resistant to the vagaries of the oil market.
Look at the market Jay. How are those US auto makers doing now that they are playing catch up to foreign car makers that have been making more fuel efficient cars for years?
It’s the same thing that will be happening 10 years from now when our chief economic (Europe) rivals have energy markets less vulnerable to shifts in the world oil price because they are developing alternative energy sources now.
I guess we should stop the various subsidies, tax breaks, royalty relief programs, etc that oil companies enjoy every year.
You don’t have to tell me twice. I’m all for putting an end to all subsidies.
It’s not like reducing our dependence on oil would pay any dividends like stabilizing our energy supply and making us more resistant to the vagaries of the oil market.
Reducing our dependence on oil is not going to be driven by anything other than the market and we’re starting to see that now. Try and think like the average person for a moment instead of a partisan Democrat. What incentive is there for a person to want to go a different way when oil prices were cheap? Hell, there was no effect on our consumption of gas even when it started hitting $3.00 a gallon. Now that it is $4.00 a gallon and more, people are paying attention.
Look at the market Jay. How are those US auto makers doing now that they are playing catch up to foreign car makers that have been making more fuel efficient cars for years?
Yeah. Precisely. THE MARKET. It’s a wonderful thing. US automakers were more than happy to focus on the SUV and truck market for the last 10 years while continuing to put out crappy passenger cars and lagging behind in the hybrid market (focusing STILL on trucks instead of cars) and now they’re paying the price. I bought my first Honda a year ago and I can say that as it stands now, I won’t own another domestic car ever again.
It’s the same thing that will be happening 10 years from now when our chief economic (Europe) rivals have energy markets less vulnerable to shifts in the world oil price because they are developing alternative energy sources now.
Their market forced them into doing that. Europeans were paying $7.00 a gallon for gas when we were at $2.50 a gallon.
As for the oil companies, it’s they’re easy targets. But the fact of the matter is, their profit margins are only slightly higher than the average of the S&P 500. In addition, much of that money they get is pumped right back into the economy with dividends, employment and capital investment. End the subsidies, yes. But give the “windfall profits tax” nonsense a rest.
“Their market forced them into doing that. Europeans were paying $7.00 a gallon for gas when we were at $2.50 a gallon. ”
Ok, J’s almost there. Why is gas (over) $7 a gallon in Europe?
Right Jay, I understand you want to roll back the clock and return to the days of laissez-faire government prior to the great depression. But if we can accept that the government now gets involved in various sectors of the economy, could we perhaps advance the concept that it might be more beneficial to the overall health of the country to shift some of the heavy government support from the oil and gas industry to the development of a more sustainable alternative energy policy? Who knows, it could pay big dividends in foreign policy alone.
Why is gas so expensive in Europe? How much of European foreign policy has been about keeping cheap oil flowing? How much effort are European and other advanced industrial nations devoting to moving away from oil dependence?
You point that high European gas prices spurring development of alternatives, however, ignores that a lot of that much higher price comes from taxes. Also known as government interference. So are you advocating a 60% or more tax at the pump?
One additional point, we had a crisis in the 70’s. Various efforts were started and they all slowed when oil became cheaper. Now we are in trouble again, new efforts are spurred. If oil becomes cheaper are we going to repeat the cycle forever?