Democrats are causing high gasoline prices.

Email Print posted by KenTX 05/25/2008 11:49:30 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
Allowing American companies to produce American oil has a positive benefit on the country. It creates hundreds of thousands of high paying oil field and refinery jobs. It reduces our dependence on foreign oil. It balances the trade deficit because most of the imbalance is caused by oil imports. It balances the budget deficit because the federal government realizes enormous revenue from American produced oil.

Trillions of dollars of American oil is off limits because Democrats won’t let us drill on federal lands.

Trillions of dollars of American oil is off limits because Democrats won’t let us drill offshore.

Democrats’ solution is to nationalize American oil companies, ala Hugo Chavez.
< The Missed Point of the Clinton SD Interview | On Equal Rights: Adam and Steve in the Garden >
 Display:
Democrats are causing high gasoline prices. | 56 comments (56 topical, 0 hidden)
Cocaine... (none / 0)
We should increase cocaine production for the same reasons, less expensive coke=less crime. Anything can be justified this logic, its retarded. The US does not have enough oil to reduce prices, and by the time these oil fields come online, it will be insufficient to make up the losses in the Middle East. Let us avoid corporate welfare cheques and protect mother earth, or she will kill us as she should.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/25/2008 01:15:29 PM EST

lesson in economics (none / 0)
"The US does not have enough oil to reduce prices."

Who said anything about reducing oil prices? Increased global production and increased conservation will take care of that problem.

You never addressed the numerous benefits that domestic oil production has on the American economy:
 
1. It creates hundreds of thousands millions of high paying oil field and refinery jobs, and related petroleum industry jobs (piplines, equipment, service)
2. It reduces our dependence on foreign oil.
3. It balances the trade deficit because most of the imbalance is caused by oil imports.
4. It balances the budget deficit because the federal government gains enormous revenue from American produced oil.

by KenTX on 05/25/2008 01:39:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hmmm (none / 0)
"3. It balances the trade deficit because most of the imbalance is caused by oil imports. "

Do you have numbers on this?  I would really be interested to read them.

by jarett on 05/25/2008 01:44:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
happy to answer (none / 0)
The trade imbalance is markedly improving, if you take imported oil out of the equation.
trade

by KenTX on 05/25/2008 02:09:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Reach and stretch (none / 0)

and 1, 2, 3, 4

"During May of 2002, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his brother President George Bush reached a highly-publicized $235 million OCS agreement that was to lead to the buyback of 9 of a total of 11 leased-but-undeveloped offshore natural gas tracts along the Florida Panhandle, as well as result in the buyback and cancellation of certain onshore oil and gas leases in Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida Panther NWR, and Ten Thousand Islands NWR. Existing petroleum industry offshore leases on two of the most highly prospective natural gas tracts on Destin Dome, off of Pensacola, Florida, were not actually "relinquished"- or bought back by the federal government - at this time, although the State of Florida was assured by the Interior Department that it would have near-veto authority over any subsequent federal decision to develop and drill on these OCS tracts, which in any event would not occur for at least ten years from the date of the agreement (until 2012). "

C'mon people, work it. Reach and stretch and 1, 2, 3, 4.

"Perhaps Senator Mel Martinez said it best: "Look, it's give an inch and take a mile with these folks….. at this point, nothing Floridians offer in exchange for permanent control over our own waters will ever be enough for the pro-drilling interests. They will always want more. That's why we need to stand firm in maintaining all current protections off Florida's coast.""

Reach and stretch and link to article. 1 and 2 and 3 and 4. 

by z1p101 on 05/25/2008 01:41:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
here's where the price comes from (none / 0)
Democrats cause high gasoline prices by blocking refinery expansion and construction.

Democrats cause high gasoline prices by fighting for higher state and federal taxes.

Democrats cause high gasoline prices by legislating complex fuel formulation standards.stds

by KenTX on 05/25/2008 02:00:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
LOL (none / 0)

Nice article

"Democrats cause high gasoline prices by blocking refinery expansion and construction."

It is dated 2005. Republicans owned the Senate, House and White house that year. So why didn't the bill pass Ken?

"Democrats cause high gasoline prices by fighting for higher state and federal taxes."

I live in New York state and I am well aware of the NY fuel taxes. I also hear our Republican state representatives argue against repealing the gas tax on a weekly basis. 

 

 

by z1p101 on 05/25/2008 02:12:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Democrats get the blame for gas prices! (none / 0)
Republicans didn't exactly own the Senate in 2005. As I recall, since 2001, the breakdown has always been about 50/50, and it takes 60 votes to move any legislation through the Senate.

But luckily, there are numerous roll call votes where Democrats have gone on record opposing expansion of refinery capacities.

H.R. 5254 Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act.

When it comes to blocking refinery expansions and bringing down the price of oil, the ball is squarely in the court of the anti-business, anti-corporate, anti-industry, anti-oil Democrat Party.

by KenTX on 05/25/2008 07:13:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So Republican President (none / 0)
Republican majority and the Dems still get the blame.

OF COUURRRSSE!

Palin in 2012? Bitch, please! No, really, please run in 2012, bitch. ;)

by richardshort2001 on 05/25/2008 07:26:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
ken is one of the most (none / 0)
fair minded people on this forum. He is probably the only one here who has never found fault with a republican policy or politician for any reason. Now ask yourself, can you honestly say the same?

by hazmat on 05/26/2008 02:54:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken (none / 0)

I just did about 15 minutes worth of research on H.R 5254 and all I saw was another giant George "big government" Bush bureaucracy building attempt. It did roll back environmental standards but a lot of us like it when we can't see the air we breath.

Truth is, no one is stopping energy companies from building refineries but it is a huge investment for them and they can get a quicker return on their money by investing elsewhere.

You linked to an article not too long ago and as usual didn't read the whole thing before posting. It was about off shore drilling up near Alaska somewhere and they spoke to some energy executive and he was pretty honest about it. He basically said it costs a lot to go play hit or miss out there in the middle of the ocean and it is really not worth their time.

So stop spinning with all this bull shit. 

by z1p101 on 05/26/2008 01:19:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Sulfur Issue (none / 0)
I'm far from an expert in oil issues, but I have heard that Alaskan oil has a high sulfur content and must be refined in Asian refineries that are equipped to handle this issue. Then that oil tends to stay in Asia, and not benefit Americans unless they own stock in Big Oil. IS this still the case?

by Verified1 on 05/25/2008 04:05:51 PM EST

Oil prices (none / 0)

Oil prices have little to do with taxes, taxes have always been on gasoline even when it was dirt cheap back in the 1990s. It is important to have gasoline taxes to make sure that the government, should it want to, invest that money into infrastructure and investment in alternative technologies. 


The problem is that by reinforcing oil as the main lubricant for energy production, we are only digging a hole deeper. If we open Alaska, then we will destroy even more natural habitat for very short term, and very dirty oil. The US does not have enough oil to make a difference, even if the US were to exploit all of its oil it would be terribly expensive and destructive. The only people who would benefit would be oil companies and some workers, who would gain only temporary jobs. Many oil towns will become like those towns in the 1800s when the gold was totally exploited the town would disappear and all jobs lost at the expense of the environment. The REAL beneficiaries are NEVER workers, it is those who own the oil firms. 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/25/2008 04:58:11 PM EST

The facts versus Nick (none / 0)
Nick says this:
"The US does not have enough oil to make a difference, even if the US were to exploit all of its oil it would be terribly expensive and destructive."

The facts say this:
"Every year, Americans use about 7 billion barrels of oil (nearly 60 percent of it imported) and more than 23 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. According to the Department of the Interior, U.S. offshore areas contain an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that has yet to be tapped. This is a big enough supply to make a real difference in energy prices for decades to come."

Remember, that's just offshore production. ANWR could supply American energy needs for 32 years.

If Congress negotiates with the oil companies for a reasonable share of the profits, the U.S. Treasury could gain many trillion dollars from oil production on government owned land and offshore tracts. We could erase the entire Federal deficit.

I hope you've enjoyed these links on Democrat stupidity on energy policy, because you are going to see this information again and again and again during this campaign season.

My 527 will be broadcasting it nationwide. You are invited to contribute. I only take 50% off the top for salary and expenses.

Your Friend,
Ken from the Great State of Texas

by KenTX on 05/25/2008 07:31:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Why, oh why, dont you ever read before you link? (none / 0)
32 is the high estimate (5% probability) and 12 is the low. 

It also assumes that it is used for 5% of our consumption.  Not exactly going to save us, is it?

Palin in 2012? Bitch, please! No, really, please run in 2012, bitch. ;)

by richardshort2001 on 05/25/2008 07:39:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm talking real money here! (none / 0)
$1.3 trillion in ANWR.

$12 trillion offshore.

If the federal government takes 30%, we're talking real money.

That doesn't count the trillions and trillions of dollars in the Bakken Formation, and other oil tracts.

I'm talking about solutions here. Balancing the budget. Balancing the trade deficit. Making America more energy independent. Creating millions of jobs for American workers. Creating wealth for America!

Osama Obama (as Ted Kennedy calls him) has been fighting drilling and refining ever since he got to the Senate. He is an Un-American, Al Qaeda-loving Bad Guy!

by KenTX on 05/25/2008 07:50:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken's Sourcing (none / 0)

I love how Ken links articles from Freeper and Heritage Foundation as is they were legitatime.

It's like when people link articles from the CATO institute to prove that voodoo economics work.

This just in from Benson & Hedges - turns out cigarettes don't really cause cancer.

by Randomambusher on 05/26/2008 06:33:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken's "sources" (none / 1)

Ken's sources almost make his nonsense worthwhile.  When they aren't right wing think tanks they usually directly contradict his argument.  Its like a monument to incompetent decietfulness.
Another Ken Klassic is posting to a legitimate news source quoting an illegitimate one.  Example:  He sends you to the BBC to read an article about how the Heritage foundation said "insert right wing talking point".

Or he posts a link to an MSNBC story covering a Bush speech thinking the quotes from Bush make the quotes true.  Evidently he can't tell the difference between reporting on something and reporting on someone saying something.  You can set your watch to it. 

by ProfRich on 05/27/2008 10:59:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Irrelevant (none / 0)

On the short term, it's irrelevant how much oil is down there. It's how much you can get out per day that affects the price.

 
Unless you prove it is possible to get out enough per day to have an actual effect on prices, while taking into account the rising consumption your policy preferences induce, you're just throwing around random facts to prove points factually wrong - as always.

by Cogitor on 05/25/2008 07:48:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Democrats are GUILTY! (none / 0)
Trillions of dollars of oil in the Bakken Formation.

Trillions of dollars of oil in offshore tracts.

Trillions of dollars of oil in ANWR.

Millions of jobs for Americans.

Trillions of dollars for the U.S. Treasury.

Balancing the trade deficit.

Democrats are fighting commercial progress and destroying the U.S. economy!

It's all Barack Obama's fault!

by KenTX on 05/25/2008 07:54:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You do it again! (none / 0)
Stop throwing words. Prove your point. Explain why my analasys was wrong. Stop wasting your time; you could be playing 'shoot the terrorist/Mexican' with all of your minuteman friends right now, keeping us all safe.

by Cogitor on 05/25/2008 08:10:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Read it again! (none / 0)
This is what Democrats are doing to drive up the price of gasoline.

Democrats cause high gasoline prices by blocking refinery expansion and construction.

Democrats cause high gasoline prices by fighting for higher state and federal taxes.

Democrats cause high gasoline prices by legislating complex fuel formulation standards.

These are reasons why Democrats should allow American oil companies to drill in offshore tracts and on federal owned lands.

Trillions of dollars of oil in the Bakken Formation.

Trillions of dollars of oil in offshore tracts.

Trillions of dollars of oil in ANWR.

Millions of jobs for Americans.

Trillions of dollars for the U.S. Treasury.

Balancing the trade deficit. 

by KenTX on 05/25/2008 08:37:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Jesus (none / 0)

Why do you post stuff like this?

We know you're lying. YOU know you're lying. Once we tear down your lies you just stop posting in the thread...

You're like the Pedro Ramos of the right-wing posters.

by Randomambusher on 05/26/2008 06:39:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
America... (none / 0)
Good luck with ppl like KenTX being able to vote! Im having my iced tea watching the ship sink!

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/25/2008 09:21:20 PM EST

The good part is (none / 0)
people like ken troll are the lunatic fringe and a definate minority .

by Chinese Democracy on 05/25/2008 11:21:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Caution (none / 0)
Was it not his class of sub-human which voted Mr.Bush into power in 2004? Fool enough Americans, and his vote suddenly becomes relevant.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/26/2008 12:21:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
This hurts my feelings. (none / 0)
"Sub-human."

"Lunatic fringe."

I think I might cry. I'm going to send a formal letter of complaint to Dave.

by KenTX on 05/26/2008 01:06:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Dave seems to finally (none / 0)
be getting sick of you... with some people it takes longer. Maybe next time he wont just delete your posts. One can hope.

by Chinese Democracy on 05/26/2008 01:56:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The more things change... (none / 0)
Predictable turn of events.  Next Ken's going to demand that you apologize to his wife.

by OneHitKill on 05/26/2008 11:51:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
why do i even bother? (none / 0)
I guess I can't help myself...

The original post in this thread is complete bullshit.  Ken knows that a large percentage of the reason oil is so expensive is that the dollar has been fucking destroyed over the past few years due largely to poor policies and huge dificits run up by Bush.  The tiny amount of oil in these "restricted" areas would not come close to moving the needle on global markets. 

He also knows the reason that no refineries have been built is that no oil company wants to make a 50 year investment in infrastructure that will be obsolete before it is build due to the inability to significantly increase oil supplies for the long term.  It is very possible that last year was the most oil the US will ever consume in a given year.  Even if world oil supplies increase, we will be outbid for the additional supplies by developing nations and prices will remain high.  High prices will make people like ken rethink driving big ass SUV's around sprawling suburbs.  It takes a long time for them to change, but change they eventually will. 

although the entirety of ken's arguments are pretty much full of shit, I will agree with him on one thing...I am finally comming around to the idea that we should tap anwar and offshore resource...especially resource off the coast near the multi-million dollar homes of wallstreet bankers and hollywood superstars!  It's about time they sacrifice for the good of the country. 

The leases for the new exploration areas should be sold at auction with all world oil companies at the table.  At $135/barrel oil we'll finally get a good idea of what they think oil is worth in the long term.  I'm betting we'll all be suprised by the high prices that get paid.  There also should be significant environmental protections built into the contracts.  Revenues from the oil leases should then be half paid directly back to consumers and half used for incentives and research funding for sustainable energy sources.  In the end it will make a tiny difference in world oil markets, but at least it will provide a significant source of funding for energy technology. 

by alphasigmookie on 05/26/2008 01:36:20 AM EST

For the good of America? (none / 0)

"I am finally comming around to the idea that we should tap anwar and offshore resource...especially resource off the coast near the multi-million dollar homes of wallstreet bankers and hollywood superstars!  It's about time they sacrifice for the good of the country."


Thats very idealistic but not gonna happen, those "wall street" types will not want to see the value of their beach-front property devalued due to working class untermenchen need to drive to work, they can take the bus or walk! They will not sacrifice until Americans vote people into power wiling to stand up to these men, and sadly no one on the ballot is actually wiling to do that, certainly not McCain or Clinton, and not Obama. ANWAR will do virtually nothing in the grand scheme of things, it will barely move the price of oil and I would say not at all. Prices in the oil market are not due to "supply and demand" its due to speculation. As you state the collapse of the dollar and the US mortgage crisis is forcing investors to invest in commodities, to the detriment of everyone who works. Since the government is loath to regulate financial markets, things will only get worse, there is TOO much profit to be made right now in the oil and food markets. They know (investors) that consumers have no choice but to buy these goods, so its a guaranteed profit, until people start rising up and challenging the system. This is capitalism on a suicidal binge. 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/26/2008 02:13:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
speculation (none / 0)
I disagree, the dollar and speculation are both factors in the price of oil, but they are simply piggy backing the fundamental supply and demand imbalance.  Supply of crude oil has not increased since mid 2005.  Over that period demand has increased significantly.  The increase in price is due to this perpetual imbalance.  Speculators are smart to piggy back on this trend and the dollars destruction is to a large degree a response to high oil prices not the other way around, either way though it is definitely a synergistic feedback loop.  This feedback loop only dies if the supply problem resolves itself, but it frankly doesn't look promising that it will anytime soon.  At least not with countries like mexico announcing record depletion in their largest oil fields, oil majors like exxon returning nearly 100% of their profits to shareholders instead of investing in exploration and OPEC refusing to increase production. 

by alphasigmookie on 05/26/2008 09:54:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Proof? (none / 0)

 

"I disagree, the dollar and speculation are both factors in the price of oil, but they are simply piggy backing the fundamental supply and demand imbalance"

Last time I heard on CNN there are 2 million barrels not being pumped at the moment. The only reason supply is low is because OPEC refuses to produce more. The current conditions are NOT the reason for the high oil price, its the SPECULATION of future oil prices, the fear that we may indeed have reached peak. Institutional investors as a result have piggybacked on this and have forced the price higher and go up faster than natural or normal. Almost nothing goes up in price 40% in  5 months. This is hyperinflation, redistributing wealth to oil companies who, as you stated the oil majors do not invest because they see little to no incentive to do. Profit for these companies is through market manipulation, they are probably using proxies as all corporations do so as to seem innocent. With stagnant  or even declining oil production for the oil majors, and the need for ever increasing profits, the only way they can do that is by pushing the price up. Supply and Demand...not buying it. 

 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/26/2008 12:06:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No where else to drill (none / 0)
The reason oil majors are not investing in more production is that there are few places left to drill that arn't controled by a national oil company of another country (why do you think they're pushing so hard to open up offshore and ANWAR?)  OPEC at best has 1-2 MBPD of production not online, but the vast majority of that is saudi heavy sour crude that no refinery in the world is set up to utilize.  If i get around to it i can post some links later

by alphasigmookie on 05/26/2008 02:20:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Re: (none / 0)

I agree with you completely that oil majors are not capable of drilling anywhere because nations, with some self-respect, have kicked them out. I don't see how this is disproving what i said, because it reinforces my point that profit is being made through inflation not production. As their production goes down, prices go up, and they do this by manipulation of the markets through speculation. They would usually not do this themselves, but through proxy investors to avoid the oligopoly charges that they are engaged in. As you note there is excess production available, so it is not the current "supply and demand" thats the issue. Let's get away from this childish notions of supple and demand and look at capitalism as it actually works, profit, what makes mega-corporations profit...if its increased production fine, if its increased prices fine...lets not mystify the process with unscientific jargon. About ANWR, they want it open obv to get the oil, but they know that the oil coming out of ANWR will not make a stitch of difference to prices. Let me give you an example, off the coast of Brazil they found the Tupi and Sugar Loaf fields, these fields are the third largest in the WORLD, puts ANWR to shame...has the prices MOVED? Yes upwards...shows how much "production" and discoveries does to the price...again stop with the pseudo-science and get into the real world. 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/26/2008 04:24:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
production vs. discoveries (none / 0)
Ah nick, I once was as blissfully ignorant as you now are.  I recommend you stay that way (reality can be more depressing than the fictional reality that now exists in your own head), but if you want an education I'll do my best to provide it...

first lession:

oil "discoveries" do not move the price of oil until they become "production".&nbs p; This takes years and billions of dollars in engineering and infrastructure.  the brazillian discoveries (or ANWAR for that matter) will not affect supply (and thus prices) for at least 4-5 years. 

by alphasigmookie on 05/26/2008 08:07:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"no where else to drill" (none / 0)
There are plenty of places to drill. We simply need to develop the technology. Where there's a buck, there's a way.

Russia just planted their flag on the floor of the ocean in the Arctic.

I suggest we construct an offshore platform, and drill directly through the Russian flag. 

As I always say, give peace a chance, then kick their ass.

by KenTX on 05/26/2008 04:26:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Shame on Mookie. (none / 0)
Bad Mookie! Bad! Bad Mookie!

Mookie, I’m not bothered when the average Joe in this forum makes erroneous or misleading statements about energy, because they just don’t know any better. I’m quite happy to let them ramble on as they struggle to understand the issues. It makes me laugh.

But you’re pursuing a doctorate in sustainability, and you’re supposed to know this stuff. You’ve placed a large personal bet that the world is running out of oil. You’re watching these developments and holding your breath and crossing your fingers. If oil goes to $500 per barrel and higher, you’re a very happy, lucky guy. You’ll have a great career telling people how to power vehicles with recycled cooking oil.

If the supply curve crosses the demand curve, like it’s always done in the past, and oil plunges to $20 per barrel, you’re screwed. It means cheap oil for the rest of your life. It means you’ll have to go out and get a real job.

“The tiny amount of oil in these "restricted" areas would not come close to moving the needle on global markets.” 
Here are just a few examples of the “tiny” amounts of oil we’re talking about.

$12 trillion worth of recoverable oil in offshore tracts.
$7 trillion worth of recoverable oil in the Williston Basin in Montana.
$1.4 trillion worth of recoverable oil in ANWR.

Who said anything about moving global markets? Here are the benefits to the American economy of increased domestic drilling.

1. It creates millions of high paying American jobs in oil production and refinery work, and related petroleum industry jobs (pipelines, equipment, service)
2. It reduces our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
3. It balances the trade deficit because most of the imbalance is caused by oil imports.
4. It balances the budget deficit because the federal government gains enormous revenue from American produced oil. We can add trillions of dollars to the U.S. Treasury.

“It is very possible that last year was the most oil the US will ever consume in a given year. Even if world oil supplies increase, we will be outbid for the additional supplies by developing nations and prices will remain high.”
But when world oil supplies increase, and world demand decreases, prices will come down. They always do.
Look what happened to U.S. oil consumption during the period 1979-1985. I was working on pipeline and refinery automation back then. Demand decreased, production increased, and oil became cheaper than water. The only reason demand increased again is because oil was so cheap. And even then, it took America 20 years to return to 1979 consumption levels, all the while our population was exploding. You’re completely overlooking the financial incentive of developing energy saving technologies.
bad mookie! 
 
“High prices will make people like ken rethink driving big ass SUV's around sprawling suburbs.  It takes a long time for them to change, but change they eventually will.” 
A good play now for your personal finances would be to buy a used SUV from someone desperate to unload it. People are giving away Lincoln Navigators.

Markets work. It may take 2-3 years, but you’re about to learn this lesson the hard way. I was about your age when I first received the lesson.

by KenTX on 05/26/2008 02:29:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken's lesson (none / 0)

Ken you've said in the past you made your decision to become a fascist was when Jimmy Carter talked about challegning times ahead and Regean talked about halycon days.

Unemployment peaked during the mid-80s.

It's always higher during (R) years, but you know that... you just don't care.

The lesson you learned is that you love people telling you lies. Now you tell them.

by Randomambusher on 05/26/2008 06:45:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I hope you're right ken (none / 0)
Ken I hope you're correct.  I do not wish to view the extended recession that will occur if I am right.  For the record I do think demand will wane in the developed world, unfortunatly the efficiency gains that we saw in the 1970's may not be possible now.  Darn thermodynamics limits the potential energy efficiency of most technologies and we're bumping up against them in many ways.  There are still improvements to be made, but those pushing efficiency as the solution generally have no concept of thermodynamics or have never heard of "rebound effects".  Increases in supply are the only way I see prices dropping.  Unlike your days in the 70's and 80s when arabs decided they didn't want to give us their oil anymore, this time they're selling all they can get and its still not enough. 

Even long time conservatives like Ben Stein and Glenn Beck are starting to come around and understand that this time is different:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008 /05/25/business/25every.htm l?_r=3&bl&ex=121186 0800&en=bd602c42bf4daa1 e&ei=5087%0A&oref=s login&oref=slogin&o ref=slogin

by alphasigmookie on 05/26/2008 08:19:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I hope you're right Mookie. (none / 0)
If the world really is running out of oil, and the U.S. successfully transitions to nuclear and coal, America will rule the world (in economic terms) for 100-200 years.

Our productivity will be orders of magnitude higher than competitive countries. Nobody (except China) will be able to compete with us.

by KenTX on 05/26/2008 09:44:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
stock tip for Mookie (none / 0)
Syntroleum

by KenTX on 05/26/2008 10:39:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
headwaters (none / 0)
I already own headwaters.  They sell catalysts used to upgrade the oil produced by FT.  I've owned them for over 6 months.  FT is still only marginally profitable, but selling required inputs is quite profitable.  Profits are down because tax credits on synfuels have lapsed and synfuel production has dropped significantly.  The subsequent drop in stock price means HW is relatively cheap right now compared to long term prospects. 

by alphasigmookie on 05/26/2008 11:27:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
caribou (none / 0)

I challenge those who want to drill in ANWR to watch the movie "Being Caribou" to see the beautiful wild place that you are talking about.  I'm not going to get into endless arguments with people who put no value into beauty and wildness and ecological integrity though.  I just feel sorry that you would trade this for a few more years of sucking Big Oil's tit.  As if it will bring prices down or somehow bring us more quality of life.  There are very few places in the world where large migrations of megafauna like this take place.

being caribou 

by desertpear on 05/26/2008 09:37:10 PM EST

Caribou are welfare bums (none / 0)
Caribou love the Alaskan Pipeline. It’s nice and warm in the winter months. Engineers can’t keep the heat seeking bums away from the man made structures. Total caribou head counts have doubled since 1972.
Time for an Arctic hunting expedition to thin the herds.

1

2


3

by KenTX on 05/26/2008 10:03:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
speaking of thinning the herd (none / 0)
Dont you feel the winds of change ?

by Chinese Democracy on 05/26/2008 10:24:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
you don't value beauty (none / 0)
Otherwise you would understand what is at stake.  Thus, there is no sense arguing with you over this.  I just feel sorry for you.

by desertpear on 05/26/2008 10:26:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
what I mean is (none / 0)
You don't see beauty in untrammeled wild places and you see no value in wild things for their own sake, only in how they might benefit you.  And you don't find any reason to preserve such places for the future. 

by desertpear on 05/26/2008 10:29:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
How much to YOU value it? (none / 0)
I believe I put into my proposed energy plan a system for bidding on leases.  You can round up all the people who value these areas and get them to chip in and buy up all the leases and hold the land indefinitely.  You could even put in webcams all around so these people can see all the beauty that they have saved over the internet on their laptops.  This is of course becaue oil will be too expensive for most people to actually fly all the way up there and experience the beauty firsthand. 

by alphasigmookie on 05/26/2008 11:34:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm (none / 0)
I hardly think that scientists (that's me) can pony up the same kind of money that Big Oil can, because they would get their money back in spades.  Personally, I don't need to SEE these areas to want them protected for the future.  I don't need to be there in person to feel happy that it is there.  Again, it is assumed that the only value these places has is for humans.  Thing is, so drilling in ANWR reduces the price of gas for a few years.  So what is in it for you?  I would rather pay more for gasoline and protect it.  Sooner or later we need to reduce our dependence on oil.  There is no real emergency or compelling need to drill there now.  I maintain that we should be conservative. 

by desertpear on 05/27/2008 01:01:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Caribou burgers are mighty tasty! (none / 0)
"You see no value in wild things for their own sake, only in how they might benefit you."

Since you're my friend, I have a recipe for you.

I'm the president of PEETA: People Enjoying Eating Tasty Animals!

by KenTX on 05/26/2008 11:51:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll bite (none / 0)
I'm not a vegetarian you know.  And wild game is my favorite meat because it wasn't raised in a factory.

by desertpear on 05/27/2008 12:54:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Don't hate the player (none / 0)
Hate the game.

Ken is about 2% right. He neglects to mention the war on terror (as being currently fought) is the primary reason for hugh gas prices.

He neglects to mention India and China as well

Another hugh reason for oil prices is the Pubs putting politics ahead of national security.

The first oil embargo was broken though the work of Conservative Margaret Thatcher and Liberal Jimmy Carter and their conservation policies. When OPEC broke in 1982 we went back like a crack adict becoming even more addicted and Reagan took credit for the economy. We have known for 40 years that we needed a new energy source and ignored it to our own peril. Pubs have routinely blocked efforts at alternative energy. In fact the Pubs have often enabled our addictions through tax breaks for oil companies.
 
Imagine if back in the 80s it was mandated that every home be built with a solar power source.

Ken also doesn't mention the negotiations for drilling in ANWAR and other places. Oil companies are loath to take on the expense of ensuring the natural habitat of the areas in which they would like to drill. Most Dems I know would not be adverse to drilling if the proper precautions (to protect the environment) were in place.

It is this "bottom line" attitude, this greed at all cost, that is destroying our very future.  But then again the Pubs were always against the future (except Ike)

Pubs are like teenagers with credit cards

by LORD FOUL on 05/27/2008 06:02:01 PM EST

From my lowly point of view. (none / 0)
I have spent some time winding my way through these posts trying to get a feel for the conversation. Ken invited me in to give my opinions on this subject because I work in the oilfield. Some of what Ken says is right. I work in North Dakota drilling wells in the Bakken Shale. The area is booming and almost everyone is benifiting right now. Tax revenue is up, landowners are becoming millionaires, thousands of jobs are being created. Even people who have no connection to the oilfield have seen benifits. Wages across the board have had to go up to get people to not jump into the oilfield. It was a lot like this in the early 1980's. Then 1982, it was all gone. The people here remember that. There is a huge distrust of the industry. I see very few people investing in things like hotels or restaraunts. A good percentage of hands are farmers supplementing their incomes or just plain doing anything they can to keep there farms afloat.
Long story short, the benifits are great but short lived. Investing in alternative energy sources is in my mind far more important than beating a dead horse. So much more to say and so little time. I have a well to land.

by juebawl on 05/29/2008 06:46:11 PM EST

Thank you Juebawl! (none / 0)
Since you're a lifelong Democrat, your perspective on this issue is valuable.

We agree that drilling for American oil is good for the American economy. We agree that the oil bubble will be short lived, like the bubble of 1979-1982.

This surprises most people in the forum, because they're convinced the world is running out of oil.

Alternative sources are nuclear and synfuel.

by KenTX on 05/29/2008 06:58:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Short lived is a relative thing (none / 0)
Short lived may be 10 years, who is to say. Yes, drilling for oil is good for the economy, but so would green industry's like solar power or wind power. What I would like for everyone to understand is if you start charging the big companies big fees, it will just be pushed out in higher prices, with the sidebar of hurting all of the little people who make their living off the oilfield. I don't have any pity for big oil, but trust me, they have no pity for any of us. As for why prices are so high, speculation is a large part of it, but even larger is the weak dollar, as several of you have mentioned. 2 other quick things, on ANWR, drilling there is not the solution to our problems. If I remember correctly, almost all of the oil from Alaska is shipped to Japan, but the oil industry has made gigantic strides in being less intrusive and more environmentally sound. That doesn't mean they don't have room to improve. Secondly, many of you know, but some may not, every drop of oil sold in the world is bought with greenbacks. If alternative fuels do succeed, we will lose that advantage in the international field, and it is a big advantage.

by juebawl on 05/29/2008 10:41:22 PM EST

Democrats are causing high gasoline prices. | 56 comments (56 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: