CBS' Reid didn't note that experts, including Energy Dept., have rebutted assertion that expanded offshore drilling "will bring prices down"
SUMMARY: CBS' Chip Reid stated, "[Sen. John] McCain says he now supports increased offshore drilling, as do 73 percent of Americans, because, he says, more oil supplies will bring prices down," and went on to claim, "[Sen. Barack] Obama says offshore drilling harms the environment, and looks to the past, not the future." But Reid provided no indication that Obama has directly rebutted the suggestion that "increased offshore oil drilling ... will bring prices down" by pointing to the conclusion of "most experts, even within the Bush Administration," that doing so would not affect gas prices for many years.
During the July 28 edition of the CBS Evening News, correspondent Chip Reid stated, "[Sen. John] McCain says he now supports increased offshore drilling, as do 73 percent of Americans, because, he says, more oil supplies will bring prices down." After airing McCain's attack on Sen. Barack Obama for opposing efforts to lift a congressional moratorium on certain off-shore drilling, Reid went on to claim, "Obama says offshore drilling harms the environment, and looks to the past, not the future." But Reid provided no indication that, beyond simply expressing concern that offshore drilling "harms the environment," Obama has directly rebutted the suggestion that "increased offshore oil drilling ... will bring prices down," by pointing to the conclusion of "most experts, even within the Bush Administration," that doing so would not affect gas prices for many years. Reid did not note either that Obama had rebutted the suggestion that offshore drilling "will bring prices down" anytime soon or that the Department of Energy has done so as well.
After President Bush lifted the presidential moratorium on certain offshore drilling on July 14, Obama issued a statement that read, "If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks. But most experts, even within the Bush Administration, concede it would do neither." Indeed, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, in 2007, the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) considered the likely effects of allowing the congressional and executive moratoriums on certain off-shore drilling to expire in 2012 and estimated that access to offshore areas currently off limits "would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."
From the July 28 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
REID: As important as jobs and taxes are, polls show it's the price of gas that really gets voters mad. That's where McCain kept his focus today, as he toured an oil field in California.
McCAIN [video clip]: So offshore drilling -- drilling is something we have to do.
REID: McCain says he now supports increased offshore drilling, as do 73 percent of Americans, because, he says, more oil supplies will bring prices down. He says it's time for Obama to get on board.
McCAIN [video clip]: He is the Dr. No of the -- America's energy future.
REID: But Obama says offshore drilling harms the environment, and looks to the past, not the future.
OBAMA [video clip]: If we had made investments in alternative energy and fuel efficiency, we'd be less vulnerable to price shocks.
REID: So from gas prices to the housing crisis to the deficit, there are now so many economic challenges confronting the nation that, as one key senator put it today, whoever is the next president will have a very, very sobering first week -- Katie.
"The candidates for president continued to jab sharply at each other today, with McCain saying the sky is green, and Obama saying the sky is blue. The controversy continues. Back to you at the anchor desk, Katie."
And a recent Zogby Poll showed 43 percent of likely voters agreeing with McCain, 42 agreeing with Obama, and 15 percent having no opinion as to the color of the sky. That 15 percent also still believes that Bush is doing a good job... :-)
And yet we have existing technology that would allow us to go Solar, Wind and Geothermal energy within a few years!
We could so go away from crude oil and hardly break a sweat, but since our criminal leaders are in it for oil to the end......
It will take a monster grassroots movement to get us off oil..... before its to late, if its not already?
And yet we have existing technology that would allow us to go Solar, Wind and Geothermal energy within a few years!
Solar provides minimal power for the vast amount of land & resources required.
Wind is a joke - as it provides vastly less power & much greater space than could be accomplished by Nuclear - not to mention that its not nearly as environmentally safe when you factor in that it takes over 10x the amount of steel and 5x the amount of concrete for a wind field than it does a single nuclear plant. All while delivering 10x less power and 10x higher cost. All this, and we still don't have a sound storage mechanism yet for the power that it could generate.
Geothermal is a good alternative, although its only viable in a small amount of areas. Not nearly enough to produce enough energy to power a single state, much less a nation.
So sure, we can go with them all right now if we want. But the facts are that they won't provide anymore than 10-20% of the nations energy needs, max. All while costing much, much more. As anyone if they want to trade that $100 electric bill for a $1000 monthly bill. See what they say...
Science(-1) is stuck in the status quo, backward thinking of huge power grids, mammoth energy suppliers moving energy long distances. Basically, Science(-1) is arguing for greater dependency, instead of independence.
Science101 -
I notice that as you're running thru all the standard right-wing talking points about what a great idea nuclear power is, you've chosen to ignore the biggest drawback of all - what to do with nuclear waste that remains "hot" for thousands of years. If you're so gung-ho for nuclear, why don't you volunteer to store the nuclear waste in your basement?
Windmills are going up all over here in Texas, and there was a HUGE windmill farm put up outside Lamar, CO when I lived there. That's one renewable resource that we really need to expand. And not only can solar energy produce electric power, it can heat water, reducing demand for electricity or natural gas.
what to do with nuclear waste that remains "hot" for thousands of years.
Eh? Nuclear reactors generate a tiny amount of high-level waste. We can produce power for the next 10,000 years without needing more than a couple small disposal sites in the entire world.
Nuclear reactors generate a tiny amount of waste each year. They're actually a cleaner source of power than wind (think you can produce millions of tons of steel and concrete without environmental damage?) Compared to the amount of radioactivity present naturally in the environment, nuclear plants add a negligible amount.
For an interesting experiment, pick up a geiger counter sometime and try running it over a bunch of bananas. See how high the meter goes...OMG, you *eat* those? Or run it across some natural granite rock (a building like New York's Grand Central Station is many times more radioactive than a nuclear facility, for just that very reason).
Here's a common misconception. How much nuclear waste do you think is formed each year from a large nuclear reactor? 1000 cubic meters? 10,000? A million. Try 3. That fits in your bathroom, with room to spare. And if you reprocess the waste to form new fuel, then that number becomes 1. 1 cubic meter of waste for one year of incredibly cheap and efficient power. Ahh yes, the new reactors that use 97% of the nuclear waste for fuel reprocessing.
Windmills are going up all over here in Texas, and there was a HUGE windmill farm put up outside Lamar, CO when I lived there. That's one renewable resource that we really need to expand.
First - wind power does NOT store energy at all, nor does it produce much at all. Second, as I've already stated, it uses much more material to build than Nuclear. If you wanted to power the US with all wind power, you would need 50% of the entire worlds steel. Good luck! Not to mention that Wind power is entirely variable. Not only does it not produce power when the wind doesn't blow, it also doesn't produce when the wind blows too hard. YOu think there have been outages on Wind?
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2749522920080228?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true
And not only can solar energy produce electric power, it can heat water, reducing demand for electricity or natural gas.
But it doesn't store evergy. So I hope you don't want to boil that water or shower at night!
Science,
My question about backing up your numbers was meant for your comments earlier.
As for these comments, 10,000 years? I'd like to see you prove that one?
What is our current storage capacity in the US for nuclear fuel?
Don't forget, I already know the answer.
If you tie into the grid, there's no need to store any energy. You feed your excess that's created during windy or sunny times back to the electric company and they pay you for it.
Can you stop with that stupid talking point now that you can't store wind or solar energy?
The simple point you miss is “you can’t store energy on the grid”. Yes the power company has to purchase the power from you as required by law. The simple fact of this wind power argument is the power supply stations can-not run up and down (on line/off line) as the wind changes. The stations will consume the same amount of fuel to have power available regardless of the wind conditions to meet consumer needs.
If wind and solar power was the end all, they could be on their own grid. But then what would happen at night when there was no wind?
Who said that solar and wind were all we'd need?
But man, you did a heckuva job beating down that strawman!
My point still stands. There's no need to store wind or solar energy. Storage is not an issue or a necessity.
You said "If you tie into the grid, there's no need to store any energy".
You are making a false premise. The idea behind producing alternative power is to replace the need for other forms of power. Currently the power stations remain in normal operating mode to respond to consumer demands instantly. This means the stations are not idle, they are running at normal range using energy to produce power regardless of the output from wind or solar. Sending wind and solar down the grid is not enough for a power company to idle a generation station…so there is no energy savings.
Mike,
There's no wind at night?
Also, there are ways to store wind energy, and you also probably understand that since large wind and solar projects are relatively new, some technical aspects need to be worked out so that they can supplement the existing grid.
Just like the drilling mantra, if we don't start now, we will never work out the problems and make these ideas into viable solutions.
Skeptical,
I never said don't start now...you are drawing a conclusion I never stated. I was pointing out the false premise that currently exists with solar and wind power.
I can spend all night tossing out articles, spreadsheets, graphs,etc from science, energy, and corporate websites.
But the bottom line is this. I've done my research, because this is something that I am very interested in. But if you dont know the numbers, then its obvious you haven't actually researched any of the industries & costs yourself. You really should do some more research and look into them before making decisions on what types of energy policies youd like to see.
Me personally, I prefer Nuclear, coal and oil right now. However, I do think that solar and geothermal and hydro have great potential. But instead of trying to build up forms of energy that are too premature and provide little power at extremely high costs while being subsidized to Americans, id rather we use that money to invest in more R&D than production on those types. Wind is garbage in terms of viable energy - it faults when no wind, it faults to too much wind, costs are extremely high, output is extremely low, takes up huge amounts of land, requires so much steel & concrete, and last but not least - it doesnt STORE energy at all.
Well Science,
That's some nice pontification there, but you are wrong about your 10,000 years, you are wrong about not being able to store energy produced by wind farms, you are wrong about your concrete and steel factors.
I can produce reams of data also.
Science,
I've done the research, it's my job.
Try again!
scienceguy,
Nice, nice work...and the patience of Job.
I've thoroughly enjoyed your dismantling of the resident energy experts...in addition to the stuttering and sputtering that it produced.
Wesley,
Again you join the legions of liars. Science has provided not one single solitary fact. He has lied his way through this entire post.
Nice job.
You are lost in space if you think that Science101 has ever won a single argument here on Media Matters, and he didn't break his perfect record on this thread.
Bottle,
I don't even look at it as "winning" or "losing" an argument. If he was presenting a different opinion, that would be okay. The problem is, he makes stuff up to try and prove a point and that's where he and all of his sycophants like Wes and AA actually lose.
Skeptical, do you want all the storage batteries necessary to store wind energy in your basement (just for your use)? Plus you have added another cost factor in the disposal of the batteries over time. Wind will be a limited component of energy independence as will solar and geothermal. It will take wind turbines numbered in the 100s of thousands to make any kind of dent in our energy consumption, a lot of steel, a lot of concrete and a substantial area of farm land out of production, not to mention the high power lines required to get the energy from where it can be best produced to the areas of highest consumption. Sure maybe Pickens can power the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and part of Texas with his plan, but where will the energy useage be highest? Don't rule out nuclear, natural gas, coal, and oil as part of the solution (or I guess we can go back to candles and individual "bicycle" powered generators)
Oscar,
You are wrong on all accounts. The batteries are for solar energy, not wind. You also don't have to have them and they aren't like regualr batteries.
The concrete and steel costs are less than for oil rigs.
The net pollution of solar and wind is substantially less than oil and they are renewable.
whoever is the next president will have a very, very sobering first week
And guess whose fault that is? There's a titanic clean-up to be done, and Gramps will just continue to make a bigger mess of things.
But Reid provided no indication that Obama has directly rebutted the suggestion that "increased offshore oil drilling ... will bring prices down" by pointing to the conclusion of "most experts, even within the Bush Administration," that doing so would not affect gas prices for many years.
The key words: for many years
If it will eventually help in bringing prices down, even if it's not for many years...then let's get on it & stop wasting time.
The problem is our lawmakers have wasted years on exploring & talking about alternate energy & doing NOTHING because instant relief wasn't possible. This also includes drilling in our own backyard.
Maybe if we'd done something 15,10, even 5 years ago, we'd be a hell of a lot closer to lower fuel prices today.
I guess that's an assertion that can be supported with quotes from actual lawmakers who are not in the pocket of oil lobbyists?
In my opinion, more drilling is a stupid waste of effort. More drilling simply means more oil and oil is the problem, not the solution. It's time to end our addiction, it's time for a green intervention.
Well stated as usual, RH. Oil is so been there done that. And it's contributing to the climtae crisis. There's lots of stuff that could be done. We need a president, et al with the political will and leadership ability to foment a change in attitude. This new call for drilling is just a political ploy for the next election IMO. It sounds good to people who aren't thinking ahead (yes, that's you J2).
We don't need to drill more of a finite resource. We don't need to use up that finite resource as fast as we possibly can.
Secondly, the US Energy Dept not only said that the affect on gas prices of additional drilling in ANWR or in currently-protected US offshore areas is decades down the road, they also said that effect will not be a significant one.
Yes - not a significant pricing drop at "wellhead" prices of $50/barrel. We're at anything but because demand and supply do not account for wellhead prices.
You people take these snippets from articles and forget to take them in the context for which they are written.
Roundhouse & Julia,
Yeah there's lots of stuff that could be done...in fact should have been done by now. Hey I'm all for alternate energy. Solar power, wind power, nuclear power...whatever it takes.
But as I pointed out, it's been years & years of ALL talk NO action.
Heck a house in my neighborhood had solar panels on it's roof some 15 years ago...but that remains the exception and not the norm.
How long have politicians been yapping about getting off oil? If they'd actually pushed it years ago, we wouldn't be as dependant as we still are on oil.
Of course to eliminate oil altogether as an energy source is probably farfetched.
When I lived in Phoenix (20 years ago) I asked why more buildings weren't set up for solar. I was told that the local power company offered financial incentives for builders to make homes and offices so that they would be entirely on the power grid. As a result, if you wanted to go solar on new construction the cost was even more than the additional cost of the solar panels and their setup because you also lost out on the financial incentives offered. I'm sure the power company made back its discounts in a few months. Even if it took a couple of years, it would be nothing but profit for decades after that period for the life of the building.
It has been 20 years, so I might be a little off on the details, but that was the basic reason as I learned it why Phoenix had so little solar when it would seem to be an ideal solution.
Systems can cost tens of thousands of dollars for individual homeowners. It can save those same homeowners thousands of dollars a year though. You don't need batteries, either. You tie into the grid and send any excess energy produced during the day back to the electric company.
Do you ever know what you're talking about, Science101?
Science, yes they are. Battery back-up adds 20 - 30% to the cost.
Average cost is actually around $25,000, therefore battery would be an additional $5000 making it $30,000.
Yeah, you're right. We should just give up. Technology moves so slowly these days it's useless to even imagine that we can invent our way out of this mess. It's useless, totally useless. Just look at that huge computer that fills your entire living room, it will never be possible to shrink it down to a size that it rest comfortably on your lap.
Sheesh. Thank God we weren't given an imagination. It's just too scary to ponder a better future.
In Texas average customers in medium to large homes spend much more than $2000 in energy costs and can get solar panels that will provide most of the energy with a payback period under 10 years.
Don't forget there are federal and state refunds for installing solar as well...
http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/maphomeowner.cfm?State=TX&CurrentPageId=1&RE=1&EE=1
http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/genericfederal.cfm?currentpageid=1&search=federal&state=US&RE=1&EE=1
And this guy is my Hero. Anyone who can get solar in Michigan and basically get off the grid shows the rest of us we'd likely do better especially in the south and west.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bgoodsel/solar/blog.htm
I like that, JJ. I also like the way Jim Hightower often puts it, "those who say you can't do that, need to get out of the way of those who can."
I agree with you that it will take bold leadership to get us through this quandary, but that leadership will have to come from every one of us.
So the question for us is, how will we lead?
And as I requested, pony up the facts.
One fact I know for sure is that Jimmy Carter took the initiative to make us energy independent and then St. Ronnie nixed Carter's very patriotic attempt to secure a future free from the whimsy's oil rich dictators.
oil is the problem, not the solution.
Oil is not the problem. Not using our oil resources, and depending on non-friendly countries for their resources is the problem.
You mean like how about 10 times since 1900 we've heard that oil would run out in 10 years?
Who said oil would run out in ten years?
Science, what's your source for that misinformation?
Do you deny that oil is a finite resource?
Of course you don't. But somehow you think that arguing that there's lots more of that finite resource still available makes a difference.
It doesn't.
The issue is we should not race to use up a finite resource as quickly as we can.
I have made this argument on every oil-related thread, and you have never been able to debunk it, and you never can. It's stupid to use up a finite resource as quickly as one can.
There is nothing to counter your point because what you say is so illogical.
By your thinking, we should have never used oil in the first place. Thus never enduring the industrial revolution, the standard of living we have, and the national wealth our country has.
Your method of thinking is ridiculous and so far fetched, that you think the only way out is to migrate back to the stone age.
You sure love that oil. Can't get enough of it. Let's use it as fast as we can because that way we can maintain our fabulous, post-industrial revolution lifestyle.
You've got some issues. Please join us in the 21st century.
That's not what she said you idiot. As usual make something up.
Oil is finite. Use of oil will end at some point because there is none left. Whether it's 50 years, 100 years or 1000 years, it doesn't matter.
We need to find alternatives. The sooner the better, or would you rather leave the world worse off for future generations?
But it won't affect prices in a significant way even in years or decades! That's the whole point.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
Even Media Matters covered this two weeks ago.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200807150007
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."
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."
You do realize than right now, our oil prices are anything but "average wellhead prices". That figures in that supply production is meeting or exceeding the current page of demand, which its not. It also factors in that suppy manipulation by OPEC is not occurring. Both of which are reasons that oil is not $50-$60/barrel. If we produced more oil, then we would reduce the ability of OPEC to manipulate supply by decreasing their hold on 40% of the current producing reserves on the market - all of which would bring us down to "average wellhead prices".
Talk about someone skipping over that entire part of the sentence.
Science,
I realize that more than you do. I also realize that is a lot of steel and other metals as well as lots of equipment manufactured (creating pollution) to drill for and refine oil.
So, your point again?
Science, how do the "acres" contribute to pollution?
And, the net pollution generated from wind is substantially less than oil.
And, the net pollution generated from wind is substantially less than oil.
And so is the net energy - and a much higher cost!
How's Olkiluoto 3 coming along?
You know, the one that's supposed to be the flagship for the next generation of "safe" nuclear power?
It's two years behind schedule and over 2 billion euros over budget.
Wake me up when it finally breaks even, in God only knows how many years.
Nuclear's just looking more and more economical all the time, ain't it?
Have you found any private insurers willing to write up a policy for a nuclear plant yet?
No? I didn't think so.
The nuclear industry gets to rely on the immunity provided by the recently-renewed big-government Price-Anderson act, which provides only about $9.5 billion in the event of a catastrophe, provided that every nuclear power company meets its obligation to pay (yeah, right).
Considering that the Three Mile Island accident was mostly contained, yet still had a clean up cost of $1 BILLION, it really makes me wonder how far $9.5 billion will go in a major catastrophe.
Do you have any comprehension of how much oil is used worldwide and how little oil, in comparison, we could add to the supply by drilling offshore and in ANWR?
If you did have any comprehension of how little the oil we might find there might affect oil prices, you would shrivel up and die.
You've tried this before. This is the opinion of multiple experts at the US Energy Dept who say that the affect on the price of oil would be insignificant! You've tried to pretend that you know more than they do before. We've seen your act, and it's boring and trite.
Science,
If you extract every last drop of ouyr oil now (In the US), it will only last 4 to 5 years.
Please don't lie about the numbers anymore.
No, the US consumes 21M barrels per day.
(21M x 365days = 7.6B)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale
1317T barrels worldwide x 70% Us = 921B barrels.
921B barrels / 7.6B barrels per year = 121 years of proven reserves in the US alone.
Science, the number is 1317 billion stupid not trillion.
Try again!
I was posting my mistake before you noticed it, and why the names? Can't you have a civil discussion.
Now, the 130 years makes you an idiot and I thought you said you were researched. I never thought it myself, because you have been wrong about everything.
You haven't done anything! Science, you have misstated or blatantly lied about several things in this thread. You continuously make up numbers and when someone confuses daily consumption (21 million barrels per day) with yearly (7 billion) because I have seen so many bogus numbers from you and automatically assumed you cited the wrong thing, I am the "idiot".
Nice try, but, except fo rthat one slip up, I have cited the actual information and you continue to cite bogus information.
Thank you very much!
With all the land leases they can't get arround to, cause they somehow don't have the rigs to exploit them. When are any of those rigs going to be availible to exploit geothermal resources? Its not like we don't know where their located.
The current situation is a great money maker for speculators. How this does anything positive for the rest of us is something I don't see.
Wolf, I've read that "all" the coal sent to China, (or was it Russia,) from Alaska is because it is cheaper to send it there. But who knows.
It goes back to supply and demand. If there is more supply and less demand, the price goes down.
Aside from that, extracting oil domestically keeps the dollars spent on oil in the country rather than adding to the balance of payments deficit.
Keeping the price of oil artificially high by limiting production only hurts the economy and, get this, hurts poor people more than rich! Economic growth lifts people out of poverty. That's why China is hellbent on growing.
I'm all in favor of alternative sources of energy. Our economy and our people rely on energy, whatever the source. Not allowing drilling only increases our reliance on foreign countries, many of whom are not our friends.
First, the crude oil market is global. Oil companies sell all over the world. The price of crude is established by global supply and demand. So even if 3 million additional barrels a day could be extruded from lands and seabeds of the United States (that sum is the most optimistic figure, after all exploration is done), that sum is tiny compared to 86 million barrels now produced around the world. In other words, even under the best circumstances, the price to American consumers would hardly budge.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/06/no-to-further-offshore-drilling.html
I'd just advise you not to spend too much of your time trying to make brainwashed people think. It's hard labor, & not very rewarding
Col, since I tried, I think deserve an A+ for effort and a small glass of wine with dinner. :-)
Pearlene,
It would account to a 20% increase of oil here in America and help reduce our dependence on foreign oil while we develop alternative fuels.
No matter how you slice, energy conservation directly correlates to pricing. If the 70's oil embargo wasn't proof enough, I don't know what is.
Conserving energy is ALWAYS temporary, only when prices are high. Once they drop down, people conserve less and use more. And to expand the national wealth and GDP, we need more and will use more.
So now you want to force people to live a lifestyle that correlates with your beliefs, while instituting more redistribution of wealth to punish successful people from living the lives that you dont want them to?
Thats exactly one of the reasons our founders did not institute a communist or socialist government.
quoting science 101
to punish successful people from living the lives that you dont want them to?
quoting me
you ate totally nuts
So now you want to force people to live a lifestyle that correlates with your beliefs
No. Your lifestyle is dictated by what you can afford. Most people try to live within their means.
Ahh - but your talking about purposely taking their money so they cannot rightfully afford to live their own lifestyle.
So which is it....
Ahh - but your talking about purposely taking their money so they cannot rightfully afford to live their own lifestyle.
This doesn't make any sense.
You said your lifestyle is dictated by what you can afford. So you purposely want to dictate peoples lifestyles by taking their money, so they can no longer choose their own lifestyle by what they can afford. They would have to live a lifestyle that you choose because you limit what they can afford.
That is SOCIALISM. You people are nuts with that garbage.
You said your lifestyle is dictated by what you can afford. So you purposely want to dictate peoples lifestyles by taking their money
I'm not taking their money; they're purchasing stuff. That's capitalism.
You're limiting their purchasing power by artificially keeping prices high, and taxing more to limit their conservation.
That's capatalism. You either pay the price or find some other alternative. It's your choice.
Alternatives in the free market come to means when they can offer the the same or greater end product at the same or cheaper price.
Subsidies and artificial pricing do quite the opposite. Or wasn't ethanol enough proof for you?
Prices are determined by a break even point and what others will pay until alternatives come on the market to challenge the current price point.
You aren't playing capitalism, you're playing forced communism. Try again.
Prices are determined by a break even point
No they're not. They're determined by how much profit one wants to make.
And when there are VIABLE alternatives on the market which can produce a similar product of similar end means, at a lower price, then the price of the original product will either decrease, or total sales figures will decrease.
THAT is capitalism.
Loonz,
You do what you want. Good luck staying in business.
Loonz,
You were just referring to yourself. Are you now a monopoly?
I know you hate free market, but to act like you either dont understand it - or that its something totally off the wall from what it is, is nonsense.
I know you hate free market is not an interjection?
I didnt interject anything. The poster claimed they wanted to keep prices artifically high and subsidize the fuel to lower income people.There is no interjection there.
It has nothing to do with keeping prices artificially high. The prices are what they are. You either pay the price or you don't.
That is SOCIALISM. You people are nuts with that garbage.
And we all knew you were nuts back when you were posting here as Columbus1492.
AA, nothing would reduce our reliance on foreign oil! There isn't enough in the US to allow us to stop using foreign oil.
Also, if we don't buy it, the demand worldwide will still increase, (unless alternatives are developed) maintaing high prices, keeping the money flowing to "the middle east" (because that's really who you care about).
AA, nothing would reduce our reliance on foreign oil! There isn't enough in the US to allow us to stop using foreign oil.
You mean besides the 90B barrels in the artic claimed by the US, Canada, and Russia...as well as increasing R&D to find cheaper ways to extract 120+ years of shale oil.
Try again.
90B is only the arctic - not the rest of the items I claimed.
Shale oil itself worldwide is at 1317 Trillion barrels, of which 70% is in the US. Take that simple math equation, and factor in that the US uses roughly 7.3B barrels per year, and that equates to over 131 years in itself. Not counting the artic, anwr, coastal, ND, montana, gulf and current producing US reserves.
Science,
I've seen much lower estimates, like 2 trillion! Do you get paid by the lie?
http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm
Even using a 1.2Trillion estimate yields 105 years. So whats your point? Or are you still trying to coin your 4-5year max statement? lol.
Because it is a very good source of domestic fuel. The process for extracting and using it is already widely known, and we are investing more into R&D to make it more environmentally viable.
You want oil independence? That should be one of the most invested methods while we tap the coasts, anwr, and invest in other alternatives.
AA & Science, those numbers are actual reserves worldwide that could be produced if those fields were being developed right now.
This is also a finite resource, that is not cheaper than the alternatives, produces for more waste (so the costs increase) and that was not what Science was referring to originally.
He changed his argument halfway through.
Our (US) current total oil reserves, including everything, would provide enough oil for the US for 4 -5 years at current consumption rates.
That's what I stated earlier. So, AA, Science is a liar. I am trying to present the truth. You and Science only come here to spout nonsensical right wing talking points.
It's impossible to have a "nice" discussion with either of you, because neither of you deal in actual facts.
You both make stuff up and think that you can make a point with lies.
I really don't understand what the heck you think you are accomplishing, which makes me wonder why I feel the need to have a "discussion" with people who lie, distort and can't face facts. You two idiots can't even come to grips with the fact that no one believes the crap you spout here about any subject including your own biographies.
Skeptic,
Instead of calling people liars, it would be more helpful if you tried to find the truth. A simple google search shows Science may be in error when he said shale oil reserves are 1317 tb world wide. I found a website that said that all oil reserves are 1317 trillion barrels. An innocent error.
However, the U.S. Energy InformationAdministration’s International Energy
Outlook 2007 says a report in the Oil
and Gas Journal puts the world’s proved
oil reserves at 1317 billion barrels of oil
as of January 1, up 2 per cent on the
previous year.
Science's calculation of of 7.3 bby into 1.5 trillion barrels lasting 100+ years is very reasonable. I came up with over 200 years at that rate.
All in all, an interesting discussion.
Dang it! Sorry for the small print:
The U.S.Energy Information Administration's International Energy Outlook in 2007 says a report in the Oil and Gas Journal puts the world's proved oil reserves at 1317 billion barrels of oil as of January 1, up 2% on the previous year.
http://www.1degree.com.au/files/AdvertiserPartworks_Part5_Page9.pdfScience,
I found that Wiki number, it's 1,317 billion you idiot not trillion!
AA,
So at 1317 billion barrels worldwide, no tust in the US, and worldwide consumption at 31 billion per year, the worldwide reserves will last 42 years. Finite Resource, Finite Resource!
You both use false numbers. Nice!
Science,
Shale oil can't be made into gasoline, so how does that help?
Also, if we don't buy it, the demand worldwide will still increase, (unless alternatives are developed) maintaing high prices,
The alternatives that you're trying to force on the market (wind, solar, etc) are keeping the market oil prices high because those alternatives provide far less power at a higher cost. What is the incentive to lower oil prices when your only alternatives cost several times as much and produce less power? Oh wait - thats it, we can subsidize them like ethanol and incidentally pay 3x as much for them!
that sum is tiny compared to 86 million barrels now produced around the world.
That sum is actually 300% greater than the excess capacity the global world has in oil production at its current point - not factroring the increase in demand by developing countries. non-opec countries do not have any excess capacity, thats the problem Pearlene.
Science 300%. Boy your math skills are worse than your science skills!
1M barrel is the current excess daily capacity of oil production (85M barrels used, 86M barrels produced).
1M barrels x 300% = 3M barrels excess as they OP claimed.
Please, feel free to refute the simple math.
Science,
Are you trying to say that 86mbd is the max that can be produced?
Wow, you really don't know what you are talking about!
Err, simple math equations are considered proofs, not lies.
You're losing ground if you had any to begin with Skep.
Huh,
Your statement is false. Production capacity is not 86 mbd, therefore 3 mb is not a 300% increase.
You really need to pass those drugs around that you are on!
And you are wrong. If there is only 1.0 million excess capacity then 86 mill is the capacity. That is a lie and you admitted that.
Stop trying to prove a point with lies. You are wrong. Your 300% number is wrong.
Oil is no the solution, it is the problem. Increasing US production will not lower prices any time soon if at all.
Stop the lies!!!!!
And you are wrong. If there is only 1.0 million excess capacity then 86 mill is the capacity. That is a lie and you admitted that.
Stop trying to prove a point with lies. You are wrong. Your 300% number is wrong.
World production: 86M/day http://www.worldoil.com/INFOCENTER/STATISTICS_DETAIL.ASP?STATFILE=_WORLDOILPRODUCTION
World consumption: increased in 2007 to 84.66 mbd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption#Oil
Any questions. lol.
Science,
Are you really this stupid or just obstinate? I asked you earlier if you really that 86 mill was the most the world could produce. You said no. Bu tnow you keep throwing that number out.
Production Capacity is the capacity that could be produce today if required. That is much higher than 86 mill. Taht means excess capacity is not 1.0 mil you idiot.
Stop throwing out a meaningless number to try to prove a false point.
Science, please, please, please stop your stupidity. 1.0 mill is the current excess over current production levels.
You are so stupid it's aggravating. Actual Capacity is somewhere in the range of 100 to 120 mill. So excess capacity is 14 to 34 mill.
So three mill is what % again you absolute moron!
You dont classify excess production for what we dont actually produce. Thats estimated production capability. Our current excess is 1M bar/day, which shows we need more production, and will decrease prices.
Clearly you cannot even be this miscontrued.
Yes Science you idiot, excess capacity is that which we could produce over what we do produce.
You are now the biggest moron, besides AA, on this thread.
Nice going!
Gee what a surprise, science101 insisting belief in unsubstanciated figures that support giving 2% of our population even more profit than they make today. Didn't see that coming.
Geothermal resources in America are approxomately 5000 times our curent energy usage.
Where are you getting your numbers from?
The same place AA gets his numbers - out of his butt.
Define your metrics.
The 5000 times, is our current national total energy usage. Per hour,perday,per month,per year, due to decreasing energy usage this figure may expand till it and other sustainable energy systems come on line. Energy use should then continue to expand, prehaps slower due to increased efficiences of energy use.
Energy use should then continue to expand, prehaps slower due to increased efficiences of energy use.
Yes, increased efficiencies, but also an increase in population, and an increase in items that consume energy.
Seeing as how you can fit the entire worlds population, each person into a small square, into the state of Texas, I will disagree.
Certain AREAS may be overpopulated, but the world as a whole is not. There is more undeveloped land than developed land with people living on it.
I apologize to everyone for actually engaging in the liar known as Science and making this thread virtually unreadable to other posters.
I should know better than to try to have a discussion with someone that uses lies and distortions as the basis for their points.
In the future, I will do my best to ignore his falsehoods, made up data and foolishness.
Sincerely,
Skeptic,
Save the sanctimony. Science carried on a very civil discussion while you laced yours posts with invective and insults. You rarely, if ever, (I don't recall seeing any,) provided any documentation backing up your assertions.
AA,
Point out some invective. I never said anything bad about Science until he called me an idiot.
And, as I stated in an earlier post, I have provided the exact same amount of documantation as Science.
AA, how does it feel to always be wrong?
Skeptical,
I would not accuse you of outright dishonesty but you posted this:
Science,
If you extract every last drop of ouyr oil now (In the US), it will only last 4 to 5 years.
Please don't lie about the numbers anymore.
If you'll look back you'll see that is 39 minutes before Science called you an idiot at 8:17.
You repeatedly used the word lie or liar in four posts since then. Go back and look.
So my friend, I have pointed out the invective and the fact that you started it.
Furthermore, You don't win any points for claiming the same defense of not supplying any references when you accuse Science of doing the same. (As an aside, I did see Science provide a reference or two.) To do so is hypocritical.
If you think all this somehow proves me wrong again, so be it.
AA,
Wrong again. My number was correct. That is actual oil reserves in the US will only last 4 - 5 years at the current consumption level of the US.
You really are stupid and wrong.
Also AA,
Please fight your own battles, youy look stupid fighting for a known liar.
Skeptic,
To say the U.S. has 3-4 years reserves, you are assuming all the oil used in the U.S. over the next few years is produced from sources in the U.S. By your posts, it looks to me like you are ignoring the fact that the U.S. imports 60% of it's oil. Therefore the U.S. reserves are not going to be depleated in 3-4 years because most of the oil we use is produced elsewhere. You can cling to your number, (which you so far refuse to support,) but you are ignoring the fact that beyond the narrow definition of proven reserves there is a vast amount of oil that the U.S. could access domestically, which has been Science's argument all along.
From the July 30th N.Y. Post
The U.S. Minerals Management Service (a branch of the Interior Department) estimates 102 billion barrels of oil and 635 trillion cubic feet of gas beneath federal lands and coastal waters. By way of comparison, the reserves lying beneath the North Sea, a major source of oil for Europe, are believed to contain a total of 18 billion barrels of oil.Geologists estimate that another 300 trillion cubic feet of gas and 50 billion barrels of oil are waiting, yet to be discovered, off the "Lower 48" states. The American Petroleum Institute (API) notes that this is enough oil to replace current imports from the Persian Gulf for 59 years.
Overall, experts estimate that the undiscovered resources on the federal Outer Continental Shelf that could be recovered with today's technology are some 420 trillion cubic feet of gas and 77 billion barrels of oil - as much oil as Canada and Mexico combined, and almost three times their gas resources. (Generally, the OCS begins three to nine nautical miles from shore, depending on the state, and extends 200 nautical miles outward.)
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10112006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/americas_untapped_oil_supply_opedcolumnists_mackubin_t__owens.htm
And, it looks to me, this article doesn't include the trillion+ barrels of domestic shale oil.
AA,
You complete idiotic moron!!!! The argument all along has been how much oil the US has for it's needs. I have stated my premise over and over again.
I have also included all of the unproven fields in my number you complete dope.
The US consumes 7 billion barrels per year. Our proven reserves are 21 billion barrels. North Dakato and Montana hold about at best 4.5 billion, ANWR holds about 4.0 billion. Adding those up gives us rougly 30 billion divided by 7 equals 4.3 years.
See Stupid.
New take the remaining untapped and completely unproven and unknown off shore fields, with who knows, the highest estimate being 80+ Billion. That's another 11 years that I'll even concede. But, that is completely pie in the sky.
Forget about shale oil, it cannot even be converted to the grade of crude oil used to make gasoline, there are too many impurities, so stop the stupidity!
So, in the future, don't back liars like Science, he knows nothing. Use your own brain and try to come up with an accurate and salient point once in awhile.
What about Concentrated Solar Power (CSP)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_Solar_Power
CSP plants are in California (SEGS) and Nevada (Nevada Solar One)
There should be more and more of these plants
The California plant displaces 3,800 tons of pollution per year, they power 232,500 homes, and their energy displaces 815,000 barrels of oil annually
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Energy_Generating_Systems
The US should be a leader of this technology, not Spain