[Kerrigan]

Why is it that Americans are desperately begging OPEC to ramp up its oil production to bring down prices, while at the same time opposing domestic drilling? Let me get this straight...it's acceptable to drill for more oil in the middle east, because nobody cares about the Muslim world, but it's totally unacceptable to do more exploration in North America? How do you reconcile this discrepancy?

[Shaddim]

They bought our carbon credits?

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Blather...blather...blather...

Get your facts straight first and then come back and post something sensible.

[Kerrigan]

So you can't use your amazing authority of the "facts" to reconcile this discrepancy, and instead have resorted to rejecting two axiomatically true premises (a: that some Americans want OPEC to relieve prices and that b: many of these Americans also completely oppose new drilling in North America)?

Congratulations, you have failed in your weak refutation.

[tie]

Attention Republican hypocrites: oil question
Why is it that Americans are desperately begging OPEC to ramp up its oil production to bring down prices, while at the same time opposing conservation, higher mileage standards, and investing in technologies to reduce our oil dependence?
No need to reply, Kerrigan, because I already know the answer. Whatever gives the oil companies the highest profits is the policy you'll support.

That said, I'm happy to answer your question. I am perfectly willing to support increased exploration and drilling provided it comes together with investing in improved technologies, solar, nuclear, hybrid cars, etc. The fact is that technology could have a huge impact on our oil dependence and on global warming. We could double the MPG of our car fleet over the next twenty-five years, and this would reduce demand by about 25%.
In contrast, the effectiveness of increased drilling is tiny. The DoE released a report last month that forecasted the effect on oil prices of drilling in ANWR. The forecast is for a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case. (report, blog discussion)

A lot of people are predicting oil will be over $150 a barrel this summer. Your guys' brilliant proposal for drilling will cut 75 cents off that (!). Now do you see why I don't take you guys seriously? Do your homework.

[Kerrigan]

Great tactic: change the framework of the discussion to include irrelevant or selective information to avoid answering the original question, because you know you cannot reconcile the issue.

But to address your argument that oil resources in the United States are too little to contribute significantly to global prices, you conveniently left out an annoying fact: "even a moderate estimate of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia."

Furthermore you left out another inconvenient part, which is that oil futures trading, which is a determinate of oil prices, will respond more quickly to discovery of new oil than the 2 decades you have cited.

[tie]

Sorry, Kerrigan, what information did I bring in that is irrelevant or selective? I think we need a sensible energy policy. We haven't had one for the last eight years. Drilling is only a part of it, and a fairly minor one.

Even the administration itself concedes that the effect of drilling will be small. As I said above, they forecast a 75 cent decrease in the price of a barrel of oil from drilling in ANWR (which works out to be ~4 cents on a gallon of gas). You might be right that the administration is being too conservative, and that the market prices will shift dramatically, but given the small volumes of oil we are talking about that doesn't seem too likely, and anyway I don't really see why I should trust your estimates over their estimates. I don't think you are an expert on the futures market.

I actually think your bringing in the Green River Formation is somewhat irrelevant or selective, since the current debate is more about off-shore drilling and drilling in the ANWR. But I'm happy to talk about it. It would be great if those projections are correct. For one thing, that would make it even dumber to drill in ANWR or offshore. Why should we risk spoiling California or Florida beaches, or drilling in a nearly untouched wilderness for such tiny amounts of oil if this Green River thing is so much bigger?

Are you willing to concede that the effect of drilling is pretty minor compared to the effect of, say, putting hybrid technology in all our cars? Yes, that would be expensive, but it would cost significantly less than the Iraq war has, and it might help prevent another Middle East war. It changes the game, and I think we need to be more ambitious instead of just basing on our energy policy on throwing bones to small interest groups (corrupt Alaskan senators, or big oil companies).

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Why is it that Americans are desperately begging OPEC to ramp up its oil production to bring down prices, while at the same time opposing domestic drilling? Let me get this straight...it's acceptable to drill for more oil in the middle east, because nobody cares about the Muslim world, but it's totally unacceptable to do more exploration in North America? How do you reconcile this discrepancy?

Umm, it's not really an either-or questions like that, is it?

What we need is a COMPREHENSIVE energy policy that looks at the following.

• Increasing availability of petroleum (more drilling)
• Reducing usage of petroleum (more fuel-efficient vehicles, overall reduction is use of personal vehicles and increase in use of multi-passenger vehicles, building new energy-efficient power plants)
• Increasing funding for new types of energy (solar, wind, tidal, geo-thermal)

When the US government starts mentioning building more new wind farms in the same breath as it mentions drilling for more oil then I will believe the US government is serious about improving the TOTAL energy picture for this country. When we have a US president who give us "to the moon within a decade" speech like JFK but talks about "energy independence within two decades" then I will believe that the political powers in this country are serious about ridding us of our addiction to petroleum. (NOTE: This is not a criticism targeted specifically at the Bush Administration. There has yet to be a presidential administration that is *as focused* on renewable/alternative energy sources as it is on extractive, petroleum-based energy sources. Many administrations have paid lip-service to the ideas of renewable/alternative energy but none have yet focused their political will on the issue.)

I want a comprehensive government policy that promotes energy independence for the United States so that we are not getting a majority of our energy needs from any one fuel source and any one nation.
I want a comprehensive government policy that promotes the use of wind and solar power more aggressively.
I want a comprehensive government policy that subsidizes research into new energy storage systems for wind- and solar-power generators.
I want a comprehensive government policy that subsidizes the building/expansion of mass-transit systems in our urban areas.
I want a comprehensive government policy that subsidizes the building/expansion of greenways and rail-trail systems in our suburban areas such that walking or biking someplace is as easy as driving.
I want a comprehensive government policy that increases the national vehicle fuel-efficiency standards (CAFE) by 100% or more (effectively requiring a doubling of current average fuel-efficiency within the next 25 years).
I want a comprehensive government policy that doesn't subsidize oil companies who are making record profits.


All these things would help to improve our TOTAL energy picture as a nation while simultaneously not leaving us at the mercy of oil sheiks in the Middle East.

[hyteckit]

Enron loophole

msnbc.com Video Player

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Why is it that Americans are desperately begging OPEC to ramp up its oil production to bring down prices, while at the same time opposing domestic drilling?

I thought it was Bush who desperately begged Saudi Arabia for increasing oil production (and was swiftly rejected)? And it's been bi-partisan to oppose oil drilling in places like off the coast of California. So what does this have to do with leftists again?

I personally don't care if they want to drill for more oil in places they're not right now, as long as the people who live their don't mind. But it turns out that they do mind.

You may want to think about a new thread title, by the way. That seems a bit out of line, even for the Political/War lounge.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Why is it that Americans are desperately begging OPEC to ramp up its oil production to bring down prices, while at the same time opposing domestic drilling? Let me get this straight...it's acceptable to drill for more oil in the middle east, because nobody cares about the Muslim world, but it's totally unacceptable to do more exploration in North America? How do you reconcile this discrepancy?

Maybe those are different Americans?

This American says we should get off oil completely and so I don't want OPEC to do anything and I certainly don't want us to short-sightedly start doing more environmental damage by drilling offshore. What I want is for the government to start giving real incentives and disincentives to companies to promote clean forms of energy. Drilling is short sighted. It's not going to provide any quick relief for the gas prices. We need to think long term. Eventually, the oil will run out. Why not get off it now?

[Arkham_c]

On one side, we have Obama, who so far is towing the DNC company line about the problem. I'm not thrilled with his performance. On the other side we have McCain, who wants to open up drilling and build nuclear plants. I disagree about nuclear, but I think he's on some semblance of the right track.

Oil prices are high for two reasons. Reason one is that the worldwide demand is continually growing. But reason two is that investors are speculating that oil prices will go up in the future, and that's pushing today's prices upward. The only way to counter this is for oil futures to look less valuable. This can be accomplished by putting more oil in the "future pipeline" and by decreasing demand for oil at the same time.

Right now, we get electricity primarily through coal and natural gas, with a small portion coming from nuclear power, and about the same amount from hydroelectric. Coal is harvested here in the US, so the only problem there is pollution, which can be addressed separately. But natural gas is a different story. We've all seen buses running on it, but because we're using so much of it in power plants, the supply is low and thus the cost is high for us to use it in everyone's cars.

In the US, we have a lot of land. Tons of it. I think that if we used some of that land to generate electricity through wind power and solar power, we could then turn some of that natural gas that is burning in power plants toward consumer car use. It's efficient, burns cleaner than gasoline, and would go a long way toward reducing our dependence of foreign oil. These huge "wind farms" are a great use of our huge supply of unused and underutilized land in the middle of our country.

As to nuclear, the problem there is twofold. First, building a nuclear plant that both works and is safe is so expensive that it's not cost effective. But second, and a bigger problem, is that nuclear power generates nuclear waste, and so far we have no means of disposing of it. It would be great to put it in a rocket and send it into space, but should that rocket explode in the atmosphere, bad, bad things would result. With Yucca mountain likely never to be approved, we could find ourselves with a huge store of used fissile material and nowhere to keep it. This is bad, bad stuff, and we would need a solution before we could consider nuclear power to solve our problems.

So, in conclusion, Obama and McCain need to support reducing our dependency on foreign energy sources through the use of cleaner-burning coal, wind power, hydroelectric, solar power, and using more natural gas in vehicles.

[smacintush]

Drilling in ANWR: May not have a huge effect on the price of oil but there is still value in drilling there. ANWR is about the size of S. Carolina, the area they want to drill is about the size of Dulles airport. To suggest that developing a piece of the most desolate land in America, that is that small, will somehow destroy ANWR is laughable. If the oil companies feel it's worth spending the piles of money it would take to drill there then it probably is.

Offshore: Drilling offshore may or may not drive the true price of oil greatly, but it will go a long way to keeping the price of oil from being inflated. To say that drilling for oil in the most oil rich nation in the world will have NO effect on oil prices is, again, laughable.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by Arkham_c 

I think that if we used some of that land to generate electricity through wind power

Think of the birds!

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Drilling in ANWR: May not have a huge effect on the price of oil but there is still value in drilling there. ANWR is about the size of S. Carolina, the area they want to drill is about the size of Dulles airport. To suggest that developing a piece of the most desolate land in America, that is that small, will somehow destroy ANWR is laughable. If the oil companies feel it's worth spending the piles of money it would take to drill there then it probably is.

Offshore: Drilling offshore may or may not drive the true price of oil greatly, but it will go a long way to keeping the price of oil from being inflated. To say that drilling for oil in the most oil rich nation in the world will have NO effect on oil prices is, again, laughable.

Again I say do research tush. You do know there are thousands and thousands of square miles where the oil companies have bought rights to that are legal.

And I can go on and on but telling a junkie there is domestic crack won't mean (USA) will stay in rehab or mean cheaper prices.

You need to study THE FACTS.

But I ain't here to spoonfeed you.

[tie]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Drilling in ANWR: May not have a huge effect on the price of oil but there is still value in drilling there. ANWR is about the size of S. Carolina, the area they want to drill is about the size of Dulles airport. To suggest that developing a piece of the most desolate land in America, that is that small, will somehow destroy ANWR is laughable. If the oil companies feel it's worth spending the piles of money it would take to drill there then it probably is.

Your info is incorrect. You are looking only at the "footprint" of the development, in which for example a pipe doesn't count for anything because it is elevated off the ground---only the cross-section of its supports are counted. I don't know, maybe it wouldn't be so bad. But I am heavily put off by the preponderance of lies like this. Generally if people are lying, then they are doing so to hide something. The lead-up to Iraq is a good example.

Do you agree with Kerrigan about the Green River Formation? If that's right, then it is pointless and stupid to allow drilling in ANWR or offshore.

Still, I don't want to get caught in an argument about this. The administration has conceded that the effect of drilling in ANWR would be absolutely trivial. We need to be talking about serious solutions for energy independence. There are a lot of serious posts above on this, but none from you or Kerrigan.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

To say that drilling for oil in the most oil rich nation in the world will have NO effect on oil prices is, again, laughable.

WTF!11!! country are you talking about? Is that an error. Don't you mean glutton.

[olePigeon]

The United States has a problem with fuel efficiency. More drilling isn't going to solve bad habits, especially when the drilling will have only a miniscule effect on gasoline prices. People can continue to drive their SUVs, they're just going to have to pay $5 and maybe $6/gallon for the gasoline. Plain and simple.

Unless they change their driving habits, it's not going to get any cheaper even with drilling.

I'm hoping this is a kick in the ass for all the people who drove SUVs because "it's safer." Apparently it's not safe enough to pay $60 at the pump once a week.

[Rumor]

I am more interested in alternative ways to find fuel than finding more oil sources. Technology has changed so drastically in the last hundred years that we shouldn't have to rely on outdated and archaic fossil fuels.

[ironknee]

What if an American company invented a new low-cost, clean emission, simple energy source that takes us off of oil.

And with the copyrights and patents, America stands to make up all the lost billions from Iraq, 19th century fuel addiction, the value of the dollar...

America will have an ace with technology as we should... so where is the money going to?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by tie 

I think we need a sensible energy policy. We haven't had one for the last eight years. Drilling is only a part of it, and a fairly minor one.

Sensible is drilling for our own damn oil. Big Environment has been holding us hostage for way too long.

As for the money to the oil companies, at least they deliver a useful product and earn their money. Sure they'll get their 8 or 9 cents per gallon profit, but they do a whole lot more to find, extract, trasnport, refine, and deliver the product than the government, who seizes 45 cents a gallon.

And the oil CEO salary whining... I'd much rather these CEOs earn that kind of money than their celebrity counterparts like Tom Cruise. The CEO is responsible for the worldwide distribution of perhaps the most important commodity to developed and developing societies. The other dude acts in a movie once a year. Yet people rail on the CEOs? What crap.

[besson3c]

This thread is so hilariously unfocused and nonsensical. Are we supposed to be debating whether all CEOs in the world should earn more money than Tom Cruise? Can somebody tell me where I should jump in?

What a bunch of partisan wanking...

[spacefreak]

There's nothing partisan about getting a commodity that's needed. Partisan wanking is what those who want to stop us from getting a commodity do to prevent us from obtaining it.

If you need water, you go and get some. If you need oranges, you go and get some. We need oil, so let's go get some. It's really a basic concept.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

We need oil, so let's go get some.

speak for yourself. Not all of us bought an inefficient vehicle. some of us planned on this when we accurately predicted there wasn't really infinity oil reserves out there like the republican machine tried to tell us several years ago. Not all of us want to see a fast paced economy fueled by walmart shopping, where you can't save any money because inflation is so high. Our economy has become so ridiculous that youre the dumb one if you don't spend your money right away before it devalues...and its not to blame on oil.

You'd be better off channeling your anger at the oil companies you respect so much. They've abandoned fruitful projects in the US because they'd rather dedicate their resources to places like Ghana, Nigeria, Angola and the likes where they can pump way more out of a 10 ft hole in much less time. Sandridge energy is one of the few who seems to be willing to settle for the small profits of drilling in the US (come to think of it they haven't turned a profit yet). And funny thing is environmentalists haven't got in their way....because the 'big environment' thing is just a cop-out anyway.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

There's nothing partisan about getting a commodity that's needed. Partisan wanking is what those who want to stop us from getting a commodity do to prevent us from obtaining it.

If you need water, you go and get some. If you need oranges, you go and get some. We need oil, so let's go get some. It's really a basic concept.

Partisan wanking is what some do to prevent actual innovation and progress. Funny how so many Apple supporters here refuse to think "outside the box". Energy futures are not dependent on oil. It seems that many cannot see that.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

I am more interested in alternative ways to find fuel than finding more oil sources. Technology has changed so drastically in the last hundred years that we shouldn't have to rely on outdated and archaic fossil fuels.

Take a look at the link. It could be a beginning to weening us off oil.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

There's nothing partisan about getting a commodity that's needed. Partisan wanking is what those who want to stop us from getting a commodity do to prevent us from obtaining it.

If you need water, you go and get some. If you need oranges, you go and get some. We need oil, so let's go get some. It's really a basic concept.

Yes, quite simple. Simple as the fool in the desert who drinks all the water available on the first day.

[besson3c]

It's partisan wanking because of the failure to acknowledge the facts that have been laid out, and these are not attributed to some liberal blog, but the studies of the US department of energy. Again:

- no benefit until 2026
- minimal benefit then

All of the whining and unfocussed ranting about environmentalists and needing oil doesn't change these underlying facts. Put two and two together. This is a gimmick that prays on the naive, just like the whole gas tax holiday is. It is designed for either the uninformed to think "wow, gas is expensive, this sure *sounds* like a good idea" having heard it from the first time (and yes it does, before you delve into these details), or designed for the Republican fan base like several of you guys to rally behind these seemingly pragmatic ideas that seem to give the finger to environmentalists.

Then, of course, when the facts are actually laid out, instead of backing out and acknowledging that the drilling will do little to no good, we are treated to more unfocused yammering on about Tom Cruise. THIS is partisan wanking.

[CreepDogg]

I say we go drill in Kerrigan and Smacintush's yards. There may or may not be oil there, but hey, we need oil so we should check. They obviously won't mind. Cost/benefit be damned!

[tie]

This is definitely a partisan issue. Republicans have controlled policy for the last eight years, controlling both houses of Congress for six of them. Their policy: do nothing. (When there was an energy crisis in California, their policy was to support Enron!) When there is a nationwide political crisis, how do they respond? Let's go drill for oil in a place where there isn't nearly enough of it, and for which the best estimates have that drilling will cut the price of gas by four cents a gallon twenty years from now. The major benefit goes to the oil companies who are already earning record profits.

Orange juice?! spacefreak, I never know if you are being obtuse or are deliberately lying, since you were so happy to lie baldly about Iraq's WMDs. My own feeling is that we have enough oil company handouts already, and I hope that this standard Republican policy will finally die.

[kido331]

those oil companies are also paying record taxes on their revenues. the simple fact is that oil is valuable and will continue to be valuable for a long time, so why shouldn't we try to increase our share of that pie? looking at just one example, ANWR is estimated to have anywhere from 1.6 - 4.3 billion barrels of oil, with 2.6 billion being the mean estimate. that means that with todays oil prices that one site is worth $350 billion. that's more than $1000 for every single person in the USA. if we announced some moon mission like government program to drill safely and in an environmentally sound way, so as to tap that reserve in 5 years rather than 10, why wouldn't we do this?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Are we supposed to be debating whether all CEOs in the world should earn more money than Tom Cruise?

Not until Tom Cruise comes out of the closet. Why won't Tom Cruise come out of the closet?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's partisan wanking because of the failure to acknowledge the facts that have been laid out, and these are not attributed to some liberal blog, but the studies of the US department of energy. Again:

- no benefit until 2026
- minimal benefit then

All of the whining and unfocussed ranting about environmentalists and needing oil doesn't change these underlying facts. Put two and two together. This is a gimmick that prays on the naive, just like the whole gas tax holiday is. It is designed for either the uninformed to think "wow, gas is expensive, this sure *sounds* like a good idea" having heard it from the first time (and yes it does, before you delve into these details), or designed for the Republican fan base like several of you guys to rally behind these seemingly pragmatic ideas that seem to give the finger to environmentalists.

Then, of course, when the facts are actually laid out, instead of backing out and acknowledging that the drilling will do little to no good, we are treated to more unfocused yammering on about Tom Cruise. THIS is partisan wanking.

Well said.

And most oil company CEO's make enough money to pay Tom Cruise to dance around in a tu-tu at their kids' birthday parties.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Why is it that Americans are desperately begging OPEC to ramp up its oil production to bring down prices, while at the same time opposing domestic drilling? Let me get this straight...it's acceptable to drill for more oil in the middle east, because nobody cares about the Muslim world, but it's totally unacceptable to do more exploration in North America? How do you reconcile this discrepancy?

Domestic production will, at best, yield about 2-3 years of oil. I'm not opposed to domestic drilling, but please try not to be so deluded as to believe that it would have any impact on prices.

[stupendousman]

Oil prices aren't high simply because of a lack of supply. Oil prices are high because speculators are betting that OPEC isn't going to raise output and the far left will not allow additional drilling where it's most readily available. If you show the speculators that they are wrong and that the supply can increase, their wagers aren't the sure thing they thought and prices will likely to go down.

There is not really more or less oil now than there was just a few years ago. The difference is that speculators are artificially increasing the price. Soros and his buddies want oil prices high for political reasons. You aren't going to fix it unless you find a way to trump them.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's partisan wanking because of the failure to acknowledge the facts that have been laid out, and these are not attributed to some liberal blog, but the studies of the US department of energy. Again:

- no benefit until 2026
- minimal benefit then

Wow...that sounds like they stole the results straight from some anti-global warming initiative!

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I say we go drill in Kerrigan and Smacintush's yards. There may or may not be oil there, but hey, we need oil so we should check. They obviously won't mind. Cost/benefit be damned!

If you do a geological survey and it looks like there might be oil in my yard, go ahead and drill! There's good money in oil.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Oil prices aren't high simply because of a lack of supply. Oil prices are high because speculators are betting that OPEC isn't going to raise output and the far left will not allow additional drilling where it's most readily available. If you show the speculators that they are wrong and that the supply can increase, their wagers aren't the sure thing they thought and prices will likely to go down.

The supply can only be increased significantly by OPEC. Even the administration has conceded this, projecting that drilling in ANWR will only make a tiny difference in the supply situation twenty years from now.

When you have a crisis, you need to start by picking the low-hanging fruit. In this case, the lowest fruit is clearly to convince Saudi Arabia to increase production. The "speculators" would be getting nowhere if OPEC weren't completely happy with the price levels.

Unfortunately, Bush has squandered all of our leverage against the Saudis. So what is the next low-hanging fruit? There's been a lot of ideas put forward in this thread. Interesting though that all the data and all the concrete proposals have come from the "leftist hypocrites" in this thread. Why don't the righties want to do anything? How high will oil prices have to get before they concede that something needs to be done? Not twenty years from now but today.

[Rumor]

Saudis increase oil production - Jun. 22, 2008

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

The supply can only be increased significantly by OPEC.

Key word: significantly. Again, it's not a lack of oil that is driving up prices. It's the notion that OPEC has control, is playing politics, and the political left is helping keep supply low. Supply wouldn't have to increase significantly. All that would be required is to show that the current equation (a political OPEC flexing their muscles without any ability on our part to fight back in the least) no longer exists. That doesn't require huge increases RIGHT NOW. Only the ability to show that we are willing to do something about it (which will jolt OPEC into action).

It's a game of politics and gambling. Not lack of natural resources. Even the folks at OPEC admit it:

The president of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Khelil, blamed $135 oil on speculative investors, the subprime credit crisis and geopolitics, rather than a shortage of supply. Khelil, who is also Algeria's oil minister, today dismissed the argument voiced by consuming nations that possible supply shortages are driving up prices.

``The concern over future oil supply is not a new phenomenon,'' he told reporters in Jeddah. Asked if oil prices would fall after the meeting, he replied: ``I don't think so.''

So there you have it. It's not purely an issue of supply.

When you have a crisis, you need to start by picking the low-hanging fruit. In this case, the lowest fruit is clearly to convince Saudi Arabia to increase production. The "speculators" would be getting nowhere if OPEC weren't completely happy with the price levels.

True, and it appears that OPEC is getting antsy at the notion that people other than THEM are controlling the price of oil, hence the recent announcement that Saudia Arabia WILL increase output.

Why don't the righties want to do anything? How high will oil prices have to get before they concede that something needs to be done? Not twenty years from now but today.

We have a solution that does not require us to depend on Saudia Arabia or any other nation to be nice to us. Again, the price is gauged towards the notion that OPEC holds all the cards. Even showing that you might have a decent hand is enough to convince reasonable speculators that their oily goldmine is not quite as valuable as it once was.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Key word: significantly. Again, it's not a lack of oil that is driving up prices. It's the notion that OPEC has control, is playing politics, and the political left is helping keep supply low. Supply wouldn't have to increase significantly. All that would be required is to show that the current equation (a political OPEC flexing their muscles without any ability on our part to fight back in the least) no longer exists. That doesn't require huge increases RIGHT NOW. Only the ability to show that we are willing to do something about it (which will jolt OPEC into action).

So why don't you propose doing something about it? Instead, all I hear from you guys is that we should drill for oil so twenty years from now the price of gas drops by four cents a gallon. This is ridiculous. Over the last eight years we have proved that we are not willing to do anything about it by refusing to increase mileage standards. As a result, we are hostage to OPEC and our American car companies are doing terribly. Proclaiming that you want to "stay the course" with the standard Republican oil company subsidies is not going to make OPEC worry.

It's a game of politics and gambling. Not lack of natural resources. Even the folks at OPEC admit it:

So there you have it. It's not purely an issue of supply.

Sorry, I really don't get why you think we should put any trust in these public statements. That is really dumb. Maybe if they said something surprising I'd pay attention. But they are saying exactly what is in their best interest to say. And you taking it as gospel. I can't really argue with you. This kind of gullibility is what got us into Iraq, and you'll clearly never learn your lesson. By the way, on the same day, our Secretary of Energy said, "There is no evidence we can find that speculators are driving futures prices."

True, and it appears that OPEC is getting antsy at the notion that people other than THEM are controlling the price of oil, hence the recent announcement that Saudia Arabia WILL increase output.

This doesn't make any sense at all. Please look beyond the public announcements. Saudi Arabia and OPEC are very happy with the current high oil prices, and they are delighted that the US government doesn't want to do anything about them for another twenty years. Speculators couldn't increase the price of oil unless the suppliers were willing to go along with it.

We have a solution that does not require us to depend on Saudia Arabia or any other nation to be nice to us.

Oh, do you? I thought you were supporting more drilling so twenty years from now we would be able to import 3-4% less oil every year, cutting fifty cents a barrel off the price of oil. Yes, that really terrifies Saudi Arabia.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

So why don't you propose doing something about it?

It's already been proposed. Let's start drilling for oil in places where there is oil, where we currently aren't allowed due to regulations.

Instead, all I hear from you guys is that we should drill for oil so twenty years from now the price of gas drops by four cents a gallon. This is ridiculous. Over the last eight years we have proved that we are not willing to do anything about it by refusing to increase mileage standards.

You didn't read a thing I wrote, did you? You didn't read what the head of OPEC said either, did you? It's not a question of lowering the price of gas via actual increased supply. It's about showing investors that we are willing to act against OPEC's interests when we need to, thus making artificially high oil prices less likely. OPEC doesn't want us producing one extra drop of oil. As long as they think that we won't, we don't have much bargaining power. Again, the problem isn't a lack of supply, it's a political issue.

Sorry, I really don't get why you think we should put any trust in these public statements. That is really dumb.

Um...maybe because they make total sense. You only have to look at the markets and the current geopolitical situation to see the facts. There is no greater shortage of oil now than there was just 5 years ago, yet the price has doubled. There is no better explanation.

But they are saying exactly what is in their best interest to say. And you taking it as gospel.

Again...they are now INCREASING production since they don't have total control of the price. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together and see what's going on.

I can't really argue with you. This kind of gullibility is what got us into Iraq, and you'll clearly never learn your lesson. By the way, on the same day, our Secretary of Energy said, "There is no evidence we can find that speculators are driving futures prices."

George Soros disagrees.
The head of OPEC disagrees.
I disagree.
There is no more a "shortage" of oil now than 5 years ago, yet the price has doubled.

No "evidence" does not mean it's not happening.

This doesn't make any sense at all. Please look beyond the public announcements. Saudi Arabia and OPEC are very happy with the current high oil prices, and they are delighted that the US government doesn't want to do anything about them for another twenty years.

A. They do like it when when we do nothing. It gives them power.
B. They have gone on record as being very unhappy with the ARTIFICIAL high price of oil. Saudia Arabia is increasing production now because of it.

Speculators couldn't increase the price of oil unless the suppliers were willing to go along with it.

They have, to a point. For several months they've protested what the speculators where doing, now production is being increased.

Oh, do you? I thought you were supporting more drilling so twenty years from now we would be able to import 3-4% less oil every year, cutting fifty cents a barrel off the price of oil. Yes, that really terrifies Saudi Arabia.

Oil would be half the price it is if it weren't for NO reaction from the US. All it takes is a little bit of effort, and OPEC backs down. They don't want to lose control of even 50 cents a barrel. If OPEC saw that there was really any traction on increased oil production in the US, they would increase production and flood the market with cheap oil to keep control of their monopoly. It's not about supply, it's about politics and power.

We should start now showing OPEC and investors that we are serious about keeping prices low by increasing output AND investing in alternative energy resources. Doing both will solve the problem for some time to come.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You didn't read a thing I wrote, did you? ...
We have a solution that does not require us to depend on Saudia Arabia or any other nation to be nice to us. ...
It's already been proposed. Let's start drilling for oil in places where there is oil, where we currently aren't allowed due to regulations.

See, the problem is that I did read what you wrote. How is drilling for oil going to get us so we don't need to depend on Saudi Arabia or any other nation to be nice to us? Or are you backing away from that statement now?

Um...maybe because they make total sense. You only have to look at the markets and the current geopolitical situation to see the facts. There is no greater shortage of oil now than there was just 5 years ago, yet the price has doubled. There is no better explanation.

The price has doubled because demand has increased and supply decreased. Saudi Arabia wants to increase production by 500,000 barrels a day. But two years ago they cut it by 1,000,000 barrels a day. Saudi Arabia produced less oil last year than it did in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. OPEC as a whole produced less oil last year than it did in 2004, 2005 and 2006. This is the common-sense explanation.

Again...they are now INCREASING production since they don't have total control of the price. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together and see what's going on.

There is no more a "shortage" of oil now than 5 years ago, yet the price has doubled.

This is incorrect.

B. They have gone on record as being very unhappy with the ARTIFICIAL high price of oil. Saudia Arabia is increasing production now because of it.

"They have gone on record"? Why are you so gullible? Of course they say they are unhappy with high prices? Are they really?

Oil would be half the price it is if it weren't for NO reaction from the US. All it takes is a little bit of effort, and OPEC backs down. They don't want to lose control of even 50 cents a barrel. If OPEC saw that there was really any traction on increased oil production in the US, they would increase production and flood the market with cheap oil to keep control of their monopoly. It's not about supply, it's about politics and power.

No, it is about money. OPEC doesn't care about losing control of 50 cents a barrel, when oil is over $130 a barrel. They certainly aren't going to cut prices in half in order to prevent a 50-cent-a-barrel price cut twenty years from now. Can't you see that this would be illogical? I am honestly baffled why you think they would do that.

We should start now showing OPEC and investors that we are serious about keeping prices low by increasing output AND investing in alternative energy resources. Doing both will solve the problem for some time to come.

On this I agree with you. Too bad our president doesn't agree.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's partisan wanking because of the failure to acknowledge the facts that have been laid out, and these are not attributed to some liberal blog, but the studies of the US department of energy. Again:

- no benefit until 2026
- minimal benefit then

All of the whining and unfocussed ranting about environmentalists and needing oil doesn't change these underlying facts. Put two and two together. This is a gimmick that prays on the naive, just like the whole gas tax holiday is. It is designed for either the uninformed to think "wow, gas is expensive, this sure *sounds* like a good idea" having heard it from the first time (and yes it does, before you delve into these details), or designed for the Republican fan base like several of you guys to rally behind these seemingly pragmatic ideas that seem to give the finger to environmentalists.

Then, of course, when the facts are actually laid out, instead of backing out and acknowledging that the drilling will do little to no good, we are treated to more unfocused yammering on about Tom Cruise. THIS is partisan wanking.

You have this knack for railing on partisanship while using terms like "Republican fan base" and ignoring statements like; "I hope this is a kick in the ass for everyone who drives SUVs because they're 'safer'." You're part of the problem besson. The fact of the matter is that both parties have done little because of the massive amount of money and employment behind oil. We want to secure sources of oil because this gives us a leg up in futures when considering China's and others' needs.

My plan? Sell a substantial portion of our oil reserves back into the market. Drive speculation down by increasing supply short-term. In the meantime, buy a diesel, start collecting fry grease from the local fast food joint, wait 'til the Boeing 747 takes off this fall fueled by jatropha and buy some futures in it. Hell, start your own jatropha farm. This will take the pressure off until we can find something that burns cleaner or doesn't burn at all.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

See, the problem is that I did read what you wrote. How is drilling for oil going to get us so we don't need to depend on Saudi Arabia or any other nation to be nice to us? Or are you backing away from that statement now?

No.

There are two goals here. Drilling for oil will get the price of oil down short term by reducing the negative effect of having total control by the middle east over supply and pricing.

Long term, we do need to invest in alternatives, but that's going to be a long time coming and we can't depend on some kind of technological miracle to put all of our hope and faith in (and people aren't going to stop using oil). Short term, market forces will drive people towards purchasing cars with better fuel economy and car companies who do the best job will reap the rewards. Already, car companies are scaling back or totally eliminating vehicle lines for consumers that use excessive fuel due to lack of interest because of high fuel prices.

The price has doubled because demand has increased and supply decreased. Saudi Arabia wants to increase production by 500,000 barrels a day. But two years ago they cut it by 1,000,000 barrels a day. Saudi Arabia produced less oil last year than it did in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. OPEC as a whole produced less oil last year than it did in 2004, 2005 and 2006. This is the common-sense explanation.

But they still produce enough oil to satisfy demand and the price increases are not consistent with growth of the market, which is about 1.8 percent a year. Oil speculators have doubled their share of the market in the last several years. It would be different if the price increases where in any way able to be matched to equivalent rise in demand, but it isn't and that's clear evidence that market forces are not really at work here.

This is incorrect.

Who is unable to purchase oil due to there being none to purchase?

"They have gone on record"? Why are you so gullible? Of course they say they are unhappy with high prices? Are they really?

Yes. They aren't happy when they are inflated artificially. What goes up artificially can go down artificially. You don't have to look any further than the burst of tech stocks back in the late 90's for evidence of that. OPEC wants control. Artificial market forces do not give them that.

No, it is about money. OPEC doesn't care about losing control of 50 cents a barrel, when oil is over $130 a barrel.

IT WON'T BE if they lose control. The reason the price is so high is speculators are betting that the American left won't allow the US to act against OPEC in any way. It has traditionally been the case when OPEC has any hint that there will be any added competition, they increase production and prices go down. Again, the false assumption is that increased production will only make prices go down 50 cents a barrel. If traditional supply/demand forces were at work, that might be true. While supply is an issue, the reason why the price has doubled is not due to supply, but rather speculation. Of course, that assumes that those leading the speculation charge are doing so just to make money, and not assert political power over the US by hurting the economy. I leave that option open as well, and neither supply nor control will have a lot of effect on that.

They certainly aren't going to cut prices in half in order to prevent a 50-cent-a-barrel price cut twenty years from now. Can't you see that this would be illogical? I am honestly baffled why you think they would do that.

Market forces are not at work. The price is artificially high. If they don't do something to get it back to reasonable levels, they risk a bust in the market. Back in the early 90's they let the prices slip to the point where gas was well under half of what it is now. They could have had high prices then as well. The difference is that now, there are speculators causing unreasonable jumps in price, some of which I believe are being done to exert power to support left-wing interests. With increased demand they can make more money with volume, which is much better than hearing that others are getting into the game and we are developing technology to reduce our dependence on oil. If they lose control of the markets, they can't exert power. Power is more important in this situation that overpriced oil. That's been the way OPEC has played the game for a long time.

On this I agree with you. Too bad our president doesn't agree.

The US isn't investing in any alternative resources?

[besson3c]

Do you guys have an opinion on the so-called energy trading that is going on?

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There are two goals here. Drilling for oil will get the price of oil down short term by reducing the negative effect of having total control by the middle east over supply and pricing.

So I guess you are saying that you don't believe the DOE's projections for the effect of drilling. Because your claims completely contradict what they say (them: twenty years, four cents a gallon versus you: short term, cut prices in half). Okay, but I don't believe you.

Long term, we do need to invest in alternatives, but that's going to be a long time coming and we can't depend on some kind of technological miracle to put all of our hope and faith in (and people aren't going to stop using oil).

The technology is here today, so why is this the "long term" alternative?

But they still produce enough oil to satisfy demand and the price increases are not consistent with growth of the market, which is about 1.8 percent a year. Oil speculators have doubled their share of the market in the last several years. It would be different if the price increases where in any way able to be matched to equivalent rise in demand, but it isn't and that's clear evidence that market forces are not really at work here.

This paragraph betrays a real lack of knowledge of economics. What kinds of price increases do you think would be consistent with the growth of the market? What does, "Oil speculators have doubled their share of the market in the last several years" mean? What does, "if the price increases where in any way able to be matched to equivalent rise in demand" mean?

The right response to my quoting the Energy secretary would have been to say exactly what I said to you, that he is just saying in public what he needs to to satisfy the American public, and that we shouldn't trust him blindly. This pseudo-economics destroys your whole argument.

Who is unable to purchase oil due to there being none to purchase?

I contradicted you, and you can't refute me.

Yes. They aren't happy when they are inflated artificially. What goes up artificially can go down artificially. You don't have to look any further than the burst of tech stocks back in the late 90's for evidence of that. OPEC wants control. Artificial market forces do not give them that.

Nonsense. Oil isn't a stock. There is no way to make prices go down "artificially."

The US isn't investing in any alternative resources?

Over and over again, we have let expire the tax credits for wind and solar energy. They will expire again at the end of this year because Republicans, including McCain, keep on blocking the renewal bills. I'm glad that you agree with me that we need to do more than just drill, but Bush obviously doesn't agree. McCain agrees with us when he gives campaign talks in California, but not when he talks in Texas, and his voting record shows that he disagrees. So I don't know, but I don't trust candidates who say one thing in California but vote another way.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Who is unable to purchase oil due to there being none to purchase?

Um, that would be the people who are unwilling or unable to pay the higher price the market demands. They teach this in Economics 101. Look for any explanation on "demand curve". It will have all the information you're looking for.

[Big Mac]

It's true - the Dems will cry about OPEC not increasing production while blocking every attempt to increase domestic production. They only whine about the price of crude because they know their constituents care about gas prices. They don't care a bit about the inherent hypocrisy of their stance.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It's true - the Dems will cry about OPEC not increasing production while blocking every attempt to increase domestic production. They only whine about the price of crude because they know their constituents care about gas prices. They don't care a bit about the inherent hypocrisy of their stance.

Yep - I agree with their stance about increasing domestic production without any real evidence there will be a benefit from it, but I also find it hard to reconcile their whining about OPEC and "record profits" for oil companies whose margins hover around 8-9%.

Then there are the Republicans, who seem to have no coherent plan whatsoever.

So all this partisan BS is keeping us from working toward a real solution, and leaves us once again with a choice between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich...

Thanks for contributing to that.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If you do a geological survey and it looks like there might be oil in my yard, go ahead and drill! There's good money in oil.

Sure - if the survey turns up positive, I'll buy the drilling rights from you for oh, say $50K. That's all it's worth, because after all, the drill will only be a small footprint on your yard. Then I'll keep the profits for any oil I find. Sound about right?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Sure - if the survey turns up positive, I'll buy the drilling rights from you for oh, say $50K. That's all it's worth, because after all, the drill will only be a small footprint on your yard. Then I'll keep the profits for any oil I find. Sound about right?

My family has sold drilling rights on property it owns. The smart thing to do is sell for the right, plus a percentage of whatever is brought up.

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Um, that would be the people who are unwilling or unable to pay the higher price the market demands.

Whuh? I didn't ask who REFUSED to buy oil that is available.

Originally Posted by tie 

So I guess you are saying that you don't believe the DOE's projections for the effect of drilling. Because your claims completely contradict what they say (them: twenty years, four cents a gallon versus you: short term, cut prices in half).

If you look at it just as a supply/demand problem, sure - that would make sense. The problem is that IS NOT WHAT IS currently raising prices to double what it was just a year ago. You can't make an excel formula or a powerpoint chart to determine speculation, and that's what is currently responsible for the cost of a barrel of oil. The DOE hasn't a clue what the price of oil might be. It's all a big guess based on traditional supply/demand formulas. If those formulas were realistic, we would not have oil at double the price in about a year.

The technology is here today, so why is this the "long term" alternative

The technology is not "here today" to give us cheaper power without a huge and significant cost in other places.

What does, "if the price increases where in any way able to be matched to equivalent rise in demand" mean?

Demand has not doubled. Supply has not halved. There is not a shortage of oil - they do currently make more than they sell. Yet, cost has doubled. The increase in demand is about 1.8%. The increase in cost is double. Something does not compute.

Nonsense. Oil isn't a stock. There is no way to make prices go down "artificially."

Oil is a commodity. It can be traded. When you trade in something you can give it perceived value it does not have, the same as stock. You have to look no further as to how this happens than back in the 90's with tech stocks. As far as making prices go down "artificially", I meant that what goes up artificially can be brought back down due to those artifices being removed or being shown to be unreasonable over the long haul.

Over and over again, we have let expire the tax credits for wind and solar energy. They will expire again at the end of this year because Republicans, including McCain, keep on blocking the renewal bills.

Well, heck. I didn't realize that the only thing stopping us from being able to use wind and solar energy for things like automobiles was a lack of desire on the part of Republicans to have taxpayers help pay for those implementing it! You should have said that right off!