Wash. Post, LA Times failed to note Energy Department's assessment of effect of offshore drilling on oil prices
SUMMARY: The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times each reported that "Democrats and environmental groups" say that allowing new offshore drilling would not have an effect on oil and gas prices in the next several years. They did not note that it is not just Democrats and environmental groups that say this: The Bush Energy Department has determined that production from offshore drilling "would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030" and that such production is expected to have an "insignificant" effect on "average wellhead prices."
In a July 15 Washington Post article, staff writers Dan Eggen and Steven Mufson reported that "[President] Bush argued that allowing drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines would ease pressure on oil prices by increasing domestic production" and that "Democrats and environmental groups replied that expanding offshore oil production would take years and have no impact on oil prices for a decade or more." Similarly, in a July 15 Los Angeles Times article, staff writers Richard Simon and James Gerstenzang reported, "Democrats and environmentalists said that even if obstacles to new drilling in the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico were quickly lifted, the resulting gasoline would be years away, as refineries are running at or near capacity -- so there would be little or no immediate effect on supplies or prices." But neither article noted that in addition to Democrats and environmental groups, the Bush Energy Department has determined that production from offshore drilling "would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030," or that such production is expected to have an "insignificant" effect on "average wellhead prices," which Mufson himself noted in a July 14 Washington Post article.
In his July 14 article, Mufson reported:
A report last year by the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration said that "access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017." It added, "Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."
This is not the first time the Post has reported on the potential effects of offshore drilling without noting the Energy Department's estimates, as Media Matters for America documented.
From the July 15 Washington Post article:
President Bush yesterday lifted a presidential ban on offshore oil drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf that was implemented by his father, escalating a confrontation with Democrats in Congress over how to cope with soaring gas prices.
Lifting the presidential moratorium has no immediate effect on exploration because Congress has enacted its own prohibitions on offshore drilling every year since the 1980s as part of the Interior Department's appropriations bill, and congressional Democrats yesterday vowed to do so again.
But Bush's move carries symbolic and political significance on an emotional issue in an election year. In a Rose Garden statement at the White House yesterday, Bush argued that allowing drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines would ease pressure on oil prices by increasing domestic production. Bush also urged Congress to approve other steps, such as allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, and he blamed Democratic opposition to drilling for the current run-up in gasoline prices.
"We need to take action now to expand domestic oil production," Bush said, adding later: "With this action, the executive branch's restrictions on this exploration have been cleared away. This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress."
Democrats and environmental groups replied that expanding offshore oil production would take years and have no impact on oil prices for a decade or more. They urged oil companies to make greater use of federal lands and waters already open to exploration. And they pressed Bush to back other measures, such as releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to lower the price of oil now.
"People who tell us that the solution to our problem is drilling offshore are peddling our addiction," said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. "The drug is oil, and they don't want us to get off it."
From the July 15 Los Angeles Times article:
President Bush lifted a long-standing White House ban Monday on new oil and gas drilling off the nation's coastlines and pressured Congress to take a similar step, stoking the battle over how Washington should respond to high gasoline prices.
Bush's decision to lift the executive order, which was imposed by his father in 1990 and renewed by President Clinton, will have no effect unless Congress cancels its own ban on offshore drilling.
But with the price of gasoline sitting above $4 a gallon, his action places the possibility of new drilling squarely in the public debate and gives him a political cudgel. Lawmakers are increasingly nervous about high gas prices in an election year, and Bush made clear he intended to use the pro-drilling argument against Congress' majority party.
"With this action, the executive branch's restrictions on this exploration have been cleared away," he told reporters in the White House Rose Garden.
"This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress.
"Now the ball is squarely in Congress' court," he added. "Democratic leaders can show that they have finally heard the frustrations of the American people by matching the action I have taken today."
Some drilling advocates have cited estimates that 18 billion barrels of oil could be recovered.
Democrats and environmentalists said that even if obstacles to new drilling in the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico were quickly lifted, the resulting gasoline would be years away, as refineries are running at or near capacity -- so there would be little or no immediate effect on supplies or prices.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), rejecting the president's challenge, countered that Bush should tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower prices by increasing supplies.
He has refused to do so, arguing that the reserve was created to relieve a national emergency.
This is all utter silliness and taken vastly out of context.
First, the price of oil today is not ONLY due to supply & demand, although that plays a major role. You have terrorist plots and actions disrupting current supply, you have the falling dollar of 30%, and you have tension in the mideast region (and Venezuela) that are curbing speculation.
If the price per barrel of oil was solely depicted on the laws of supply & demand, it would rightly so be about $60-70/barrel based on the vast increase in demand by China & India (regardless of the US lowering demand 1.3%). Globally, we produce 86M bpd, and have about 85M bpd consumption. That does not leave much room for any country to have vast supplies on hand over overhead, nor does it leave much room for supply line disruptions.
The current problem is based majorly on supply & demand, and will only get worse. The world has so many proven oil reserves that is there is no reason for panic when it comes to be able to produce from them. The problem comes in when its politically viable to produce from them. If we dont increase supply, but demand keeps increasing, you'll see gasoline go from $4/gal to $8/gal in a matter of 2-3years. Now, the middle east, and non opec nations, are going to increase supply as they are currently doing, but to discount the fact that it does effect pricing is ridiculous.
Of course the US economy is going through tough times, especially with the banking industry, and housing markets, but lets not fool ourselves here. The commodities market bids up and down on a grand scale of rumor and verbage, and POTENTIAL. The $7 (up to $10) drop today was not solely due to Bernanke's economic speech, but also ado to the presidential lift on offshore drilling. If the congress does the same, you can be sure to see another $20-$30/barrel drop off the price, and if the reserves are sold, you'll see another $10 drop off that.
Nothing you said changes the fact that people who know what they are talking about have said that it going to be years and years before we see any oil and whatever oil we might see from offshore drilling would have an "insignificant" affect on oil prices.
Nothing you said changes the fact that this very pertinent fact was not mentioned by these two media sources. Their failure forwards the conservative agenda by failing to include all the relevant data a reader would find necessary to fairly evaluate this subject! The conservative agenda on this topic is aimed at forwarding that false meme that opening up further drilling offshore will have any affect on our supply and our prices today or in the future.
In fact, it's counterproductive, as I've pointed out on other threads, for us to speed up the use of our finite resources. That's not a good plan. So, it's not going to help prices or supply in a significant way and it is going to hurt to use up a finite resource more quickly and it might hurt the environment or tourism to drill offshore in many of these locations.
It's a grandstanding ploy without any reasonable basis.
Don't they understand he's a Science guy? How could he be wrong with a name like that?
I read in one of science101's postings on another thread that (s)he hasa 403b retirement plan. That (likely) means that (s)he's a teacher. This could mean a PhD at a respected research university, or a 2nd grade teacher. Putting 'science' in your title means nada.
Not knowing anything about the credentials of science101, I'm more inclined to accept the DoE findings.
(Channeling Andy Rooney) - "Did you ever notice that the right-wing seems to think that repeating assertions over & over, increases their validity?"
So when someone makes a viable point like science, your response is to speculate on his/her qualifications? Why don't you just admit that their point is valid and that opening up drilling could have an immediate effect on prices at the pump?
You folks are so predictable!
Obama's plan to tax big oil to reduce prices sounds like it should work....NOT!
Ah, what makes you think that when Science makes a viable point we don't admit it?
As I described above, he didn't make a viable point here.
And FYI - I'm not really a right winger. I consider myself more libertarian than anything else.
If you want to question my credentials, then I'll lay them out for you. I have a bachelors in both Mechanical Engineering & Computer Sciences (from Ohio State), as well as a masters in Business Management with minor Economics (from Northwestern).
I am not a teacher by trade, I am actually a Director of IT for a large non-profit childrens hospital system, as well as a part-time business professor at a small secondary education college. On the side, I own my financial planning business that centers around mutual funds, bonds, & inflation linked bonds.
You can question my statements or qualifications if you want. Make no difference to me.
Science,
I could tell by most of your responses that you are an academic type. By that I mean that what you know comes from a book and not real world experience.
It's typical of an over educated person.
Most of what you say comes straight from a textbook.
Therefore most of what you say is typically not very complex or robust.
You are also wrong most of the time, because the real world doesn't work that way. Textbooks are great for getting a simple, straightforward and basic understanding of principles, but here in the real world we like to deal in facts.
You provide a lot of specualtion but nopt much in the way of facts.
I've seen too many of your posts that are as ignorant as they can be to believe you have the degrees you say you have. For example, on the Social Security thread, you tried to school us, like you knew what you were talking about. In fact you're the least educated person I've ever seen discuss that topic, and you acted the whole time like it was us who were not well informed. And top that all off with the fact that after it was explained to you how wrong you were, you failed to ever come back and acknowledge any of your errors or admit that we were right. I don't know anyone who has the schooling you claim you have who would behave that way.
But let's say that you have that level of schooling. That makes it worse. If you hadn't had the opportunity to learn from teachers and others, if you had these kinds of degrees, then you've learned how to learn too, but you demonstrate none of those characteristics.
I don't know why you think claiming that you have degrees lends you any more credibility. It actually diminishes your credibility. How can someone who has your level of education act so stupid?
going to be years and years before we see any oil and whatever oil we might see from offshore drilling would have an "insignificant" affect on oil prices.
It will be years before we see any of our *physical* oil, however prices will be effected seeing as how the commodities market is based on FUTURES, not present. Futures speculation will be vastly altered due to the potential and opening for more future reserves to be made online.
Nothing you said changes the fact that this very pertinent fact was not mentioned by these two media sources.
I didnt write their article. I dont care about partisanship, as I lean more toward libertarian than anything. However, its obvious that you know nothing of financial markets & commidities exchanges or speculation to come up with an education statement on how they work and why.
In fact, it's counterproductive, as I've pointed out on other threads, for us to speed up the use of our finite resources....more quickly and it might hurt the environment or tourism to drill offshore in many of these locations.
Finite resources only matter when the amount left has an effect on standard of living, which does not come into play. Proven oil reserves that are tappable using EXISTING technology are estimated at over 100+ years factoring in an increasing demand growth by all countries. The "hurting the environment" talk is nonsense seeing as how most of the oil in the ocean and shores come from natural seapage, not oil spills/leaks from drilling. When a rig is based off shore 50-200 miles, the effect on tourism is going to be null. Many countries, and some of the most environmentally safe ones in Europe, are self sufficient from off shore drilling and prospering economies that include tourism.
It's a grandstanding ploy without any reasonable basis.
What is clearly without any reasonable basis is your lack of knowledge of the industry, economics, and technology.
Science,
Are you saying 100 years is not finite?
It will be years before we see any of our *physical* oil, however prices will be effected seeing as how the commodities market is based on FUTURES, not present. Futures speculation will be vastly altered due to the potential and opening for more future reserves to be made online.
Nope. Wrong, bong-breath. People much more educated than you have said that those oil wells and the oil they produce will not affect prices in a significant way. Do you really think that they didn't take into account futures? Really? Do you think that you're the only person who's thought of that as one of the variables that has to be considered? That's really weak thinking on your part then.
I didnt write their article. I dont care about partisanship, as I lean more toward libertarian than anything. However, its obvious that you know nothing of financial markets & commidities exchanges or speculation to come up with an education statement on how they work and why.
I didn't say you wrote those articles. I said that what YOU said had no relevance to what Media Matters is talking about here. Gosh you are dense! And your claim that you aren't partisan is ridiculous. Do you even know what partisan means? Look it up. I know a lot more than you do. I've proven it with my comments. I know to trust experts and distrust you. That shows that I'm smart just by itself!
Finite resources only matter when the amount left has an effect on standard of living, which does not come into play. Proven oil reserves that are tappable using EXISTING technology are estimated at over 100+ years factoring in an increasing demand growth by all countries. The "hurting the environment" talk is nonsense seeing as how most of the oil in the ocean and shores come from natural seapage, not oil spills/leaks from drilling. When a rig is based off shore 50-200 miles, the effect on tourism is going to be null. Many countries, and some of the most environmentally safe ones in Europe, are self sufficient from off shore drilling and prospering economies that include tourism.
The above paragraph is nonsense. What part of "finite resources" don't you understand? Finite resources don't only matter when the cost is going to be extreme. Rushing headlong 'til the time that the costs are going to be extreme is beyond stupid! Hurting the environment is stupid? We haven't seen gross degradations of the environment from oil spills from a variety of sources? And you're trying the "natural seepage" argument again? That got shot down. Another reason why I don't think your degrees are valid. Anyone with that education is willing to admit their errors and then doesn't come back the next day or the next week with the same discredited arguments. You do! Tourism will suffer from oil wells offshore places in the USA. It's undeniable. Yet you deny it.
What is clearly without any reasonable basis is your lack of knowledge of the industry, economics, and technology.
No, what's clearly visible is your ignorance and partisan behavior.
Baloney. RIG, the largest oil drilling company in the world, has said that drilling on some wells would start in a year, some in 4 years and no well would take more than 6 years to start production.
The report that MM cites, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html has many holes, one of which it assumes no leases would be assigned for 4 years which of course is ridiculous in the real world.
The plan is perfect. We need to drill today which would bring oil prices down to under $100 per barrel since it would crush a great deal of speculation because of the change in U.S. policy. Then we need a bridge policy to get us through the next 20 years while we convert to nuclear, wind, natural gas liquification, solar, ethanol etc.
The threat of environmental disasters to hurt tourism and/or the environment is low. Technology to clean oil spills has improved dramatically and even a Cat 5 hurricane like Katrina caused no tourism problems due to oil spills.
They do have certain ties, no doubt. But anyone who thinks that oil has risen primarily because of the fallen dollar is out of touch with reality.
The dollar has fallen 30%, oil has risen 300%. Oops, theres goes that theory ;-)
You gotta admit, the part about OPEC concerned about the value of the dollar against the euro is a major concern. There has been much talk among the cartels about switching their oil base to the euro. That would have devestating consequences for the US.
Of course it would! Thats because they know the dollar will rebound, and the $140/barrel they received will soon not be worth so much. If you read their organizational mission on their website, you'll notice they blantantly change supply & pricing in order to give their own countries the best economic outcome possible.
And just to prove my point - you'll notice that the Euro gained today to be the highest exchange rate ever....but that oil dropped $7/barrel (as high as $10/barrel). You really think OPEC wants to deal with decreasing oil prices while the euro continues to go up? Further proof of supply constraints and supply manipulation....but if we start to control a piece of the supply, such manipulation will be a hard thing for them to control.
:-)
For some reason I forgot the link...
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P100650.asp
And a few graphs...
Just saying that there is a correlation that the tie is not some anomoly.
Science,
I'd love to see where you get your numbers. I can't seem to find them anywhere, which leads me to believe that you are making them up.
Maybe I'm wrong, but showing some backup might help your credibility a little.
The numbers referring to dollar amount drops in speculation are just that, speculation...but from major economists. No one can be certain until it actually happens...if it happens.
However, the amount of bpd the world produces and consumes, as well as the actual "market" price has been well known for quite some time.
Science,
Would you care to provide a link to those numbers? Please?
Sure. Here is the current world oil production:
http://www.worldoil.com/INFOCENTER/STATISTICS_DETAIL.asp?Statfile=_worldoilproduction
Current world oil demand: Here is a good article based on data from the IEA http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=64001
Science,
What about your pricing forecasts?
So curbing speculation on oil is a bad idea??? Don't see it.
Our demand for gasoline has decreased. I'd say this will continue. I'd also say production increases world wide are in part a desire to sell as much oil as possible at the current inflated prices.
The problem with your theory is two fold.
First, energy conservation always has, and always will be, a short term fix. Thus, given an increase in population, per capita energy increases must also exist.
Second, oil production has to increase due to global demand. OPEC is the only oil producing sector capable of fixing the prices because they are the only countries that operate not at full capacity. They each have spare capacity, while non-opec countries are pumping at 100% full steam.
We've had little reason or history of work on the efficiency side. Our energy use per may be the worst in the world. Your concern for speculators and the current energy power structure is noted. Your position unchanging and blinkered. Your path is of value only to those in position, energy-wise to make lots of money in the present system. These people are your sole concern. I can't think the reward for standing up for them would be worth while.
Just read a bit on Raw Story. Jonathon Hoenig of the fox business channel could be your clone.
Please read my comment that I posted below this. You'll clearly see that I do not stand up for speculators. I clearly spoke of hammering them with major losses.
What I do stand up for, and clearly why I consider myself a libertarian, is the promotion of free market in good and bad times, and the least government involvement as possible.
Nice job science...Your arguments on energy production and prices are well reasoned, factual, and even handed.
In a Fournier-like salute...keep up the good fight.
Wes, I do gotta admit. When Histy 1st came here, he threw out bombs that were quite rediculous to even want to reply to. But since he's changed his name, on this particular subject he's been quite reasoned. I don't agree with everything he says, but he's made some solid points worthy of respect.
That gets another "nice job"...this one to you, snoop.
But be careful...the Lieberman mob is angry in the streets.
Build a great bridge and your buddies will call you snoopy the great bridge builder. Build a great skyscraper and your buddies will call you snoopy the great builder...but support a conservative just one time...well, you know how that ends up.
I think you might be surprised, Wes. When you look at the arguments, here's the points that most everyone here agrees with:
When you look at the real arguments, they boil down to whether shale development will have an immediate impact on prices or an eventual impact. Same for drilling, same for alternate sources. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of us are basically in agreement that we need multiple programs funded by the government to move forward and break our addiction to mideast oil.
-- Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of us are basically in agreement -- snoop
OK...you're wrong...just kidding...I think you're correct.
I certainly support the development and production of all types of domestic energy. That includes wind, solar, ethanol, nuclear...and yes drilling for more oil. We need energy and we cannot sustain our way of life and economic prosperity without it.
I also believe we can improve the situation with sensible conservation efforts.
There is a certain level of radical fringe who go ballistic over anything that has to do with oil or oil companies...or if you're not waving and throwing candy from the float in the parade down green street...our gutless politicians must grow some cods and stop the foolishness of letting these people drive the issue.
Drill here, drill now...and yes...conserve here, conserve now.
those bullets MMFA provides sux...
They are still sucking...lol.
Anyway, I enlarged the screen enough to get your points...I don't disagree with them.
Wesley: "Your arguments on energy production and prices are well reasoned, factual, and even handed."
Science's unsubstantiated accusations of plagiary toward other posters are pretty classy as well.
ScienceGuy, I've been skipping your posts lately, as I've found I can get through the comments sections much more quickly than before, and without losing any substance, but this one caught my eye (or maybe I was actually able to smell it as I scrolled past)
"energy conservation always has, and always will be, a short term fix"
Really? Consuming less is a temporary solution? Which necessarily returns to previous levels, because.........?
Is this based on your experience with responsible behavior? A short stint "on the wagon", that gym membership that got you fired up for a few weeks, staying away from the adult pay-per-view channels ? I don't know what your particular excesses are, but to project onto everybody else that reducing energy consumption, especially of the sources we're relying on now, is some sort of fad, is a little unfair.
If you're comfortable with your own low standards, nobody's likely to talk you out of them, but please don't pin them on anybody else.
I never referred to a reduction in energy consumption as targetting individuals who will only stop using it temporarily.
The base I was referring to is the fact that reducing energy consumption only lasts as long as the current population stays the same, the standard of living does not increase, and no new items needed energy are produced for individual use.
Don't try to classify this as a greeny-hater speech, because its nothing of the sort. We all want things that are more efficient because it saves us money in the long (and hopefully short) run. However, we can keep making things more efficient, but there will also be newer, bigger, better, and additional items on the market, not to mention more people, to use that energy. Thus meaning that the current decrease in oil demand is nothing more than temporary. To believe otherwise is vastly out of touch with reality, much less history and present day expanding economies.
given an increase in population, per capita energy increases must also exist
Per capita consumption doesn't necessarily increase with the population, in fact it should probably go the opposite direction if the efficiency of the system is improved with the growing population.
But that's a relatively small mistake in your post. The bigger one is the assumption that controlling our reproductive habits is as impossible as taking responsibility for our energy consumption. Population control (and I mean that on a personal level, not a government sterilization program) is as essential part of conservation as anything.
I think this is one of the biggest roadblocks for the conservative mind, trying to discuss greatness and innovation, while staying shackled to too many assumed "traditional" ideas.
A gasoline engine with slightly better mileage is a good first step, so is a light bulb that requires less energy, but try to also entertain the idea of something completely different than what you're familiar with now. People are already thinking of things that may be impossible today, but a lot of that impossibility is not so much because of physical or mechanical limitations, as due to preconceptions and the way our primitive brains hang onto the familiar.
"energy conservation always has, and always will be, a short term fix"
Really? Consuming less is a temporary solution?
Thanks Col. I also thouht that was a crazy argument. I note that Science Guy isn't actually a scientist, which might explain the problem. He thinks of conservation as turning off alight bulb when you leave the room.
Measures such as re-design of factories, power-plants, new technologies, switching to renable energy sources can easily become permanent fixes. That they always be short term is hardly a scientific claim. It's nonsense.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), rejecting the president's challenge, countered that Bush should tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower prices by increasing supplies.
While I am also for something similar to what Pelosi has planned, it must be brough to daylight that her idea is something short-term...very very short term.
The reserve currently holds about 760M barrels - an estimated 30 day supply in case of a supply emergency (which technically speaking, there is not). She wants to release 10% of the reserve to counter high oil prices. The problem with that, is that prices are not going to be curbed by only giving a 3 days increase in supply. Also, the problem is that current legislation does not allow for the fuel in the reserve to be sold on the private market.
What needs to happen is two fold:
First, change legislation so that the reserve can be sold on the open market so it has an effect on the speculation market.
Second, dont just take out 10%, take out and sell 30% for two days straight. This will royaly hurt the speculators and cause the prices to falter greatly in the short term, by an estimated $30-40 per barrel.
After that, we must fill up and expand the reserve to a 90 day supply as quickly as possible.
Science,
please explain that dropin price. I don't see how you get that.
Science,
But the futures traders know it's only a blip, therefore it won't effect the price.
I think all of that is a red herring. windpower has been around for a long time. geothermal has been around for a long time, solar has been around forever, water power turbines have been around forever. they have not provided the answer and at least in the first three instances they only are successful if they get all kinds of tax breaks. on a level playing field they cannot match fossil fuels.
but the dems don't like fossil fuels. so let's do away with them. NO MORE DRILLING ANYWHERE. SHUT IN ALL WELLS. NO PRODUCTION ANYWHERE AND NO IMPORTATION OF EVIL FOSSIL FUELS. put your money where your mouth is, and man up.
Let's see what happens to the price of oil when we do away with all those tax breaks they get
The consumer price will increase in order to maintain net profit margin. Price of oil itself will not show an increase - this isn't a subsidy.
Maybe you'll get a clue that oil isn't as cheap as you make it out to be.
Of course it is. Exactly why Saudi Arabia can sell it for $.45/gallon
You might also see that alternate sources you mentioned could compete on an even keel.
Not quite. In order for them to compete - they would need to offer similar, if not better, energy power at a cheaper cost. Given the tax breaks and subsidies on alternatives, you'd quickly find out that alternatives are not cheap at all. They are actually being forced on the market before they are economically & technologically viable.
But that's what happens when you try use government regulation to force changes on the free market - always a bad idea no matter how you slice it.
Maybe you need to read up on the TVA too. One of the greatest economic successes to deliver power to a starving nation under one of the greatest Democrats of all time...
Nuclear and wind easily come to mind.
Nuclear can sell their items at the same price, sure. But the amount of energy that they actually produce is far less. Given the comparison of a per/unit on any scale, it would become very clear.
And we'll all live happily ever after. If we just believe the people who lucretivily benifit from the current system. People from the same schools and background that work in and control our financial markets and companies.
Their compitence largely based on image. Their commitment to their supporting societies, suspect. Like the 3rd generation of Mongol leadership in China. Their just going thought the motions. Their Great grand daddies would laugh themselves sick at the effetteness of todays energy leadership. We can't, We can't, we can't.
Why the freaking not!
Their Great grand daddies would laugh themselves sick at the effetteness of todays energy leadership. We can't, We can't, we can't.
Perhaps. But our great grand daddies would be sick because our politicians are sacrificing our economy and stardard of living (that our great grand dads helped build) for sake of agenda and fringe groups.
Standard of Living is an economic term dum dum, not to be confused with the living standards of a select few.
Standard of living has to do with the average economic wealth as a proportion of our GDP. Its what measures the US vs other countries for an average of individual wealth.
To keep heading over the cliff of unsustainability for who's benifit?
Agendas and fringe groups, Oh No! No cults?
Feel free to add some examples and diffinitions just as soon as your reliable source tells you what those might be.
I just want to say that the psychological imapact of the prospect of offshore drilling has been a big boost for me.
It has on the commodities market so far, and thats good enough for me.
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, let's pretend that the following situation exists tomorrow:
1. Every conceivable proven oil reserve is leased, developed and producing oil. All these oil wells are owned (nominally) by US companies. Supply meets and can easily exceed domestic demand.
2. Refinery capacity is expanded to handle all this oil.
3. Oil-fired electric generating plants are eliminated through other sources (coal, nuclear, wind or solar).
4. We produce so much oil that we no longer import a single drop from anywhere, including Canada and Mexico.
With this scenario, does anyone have any idea what the price for a barrel of domestic crude will be? For the "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" crowd, what sort of price drop do you anticipate? Where is the oil companies' incentive to reduce prices? We have a situation where $4/gallon gas is now tolerated. Will they decide that $3.50 is OK? What about $3.00 a gallon? What is their incentive to produce enough to drop the price to $50 a barrel? If oil companies have the option of manipulating markets to make $10 billion or $20 billion in profits, what do you think they'll do? What if, in order to recapture the US market, OPEC decides to undercut domestic crude prices by even 10%? Would Americans suddenly want even cheaper gas? Are the oil companies really out to help the American people? Of course they are - for a nominal fee...