"No" to Further Offshore Drilling
As predicted, Bush and McCain and their cohorts are responding to $4 a gallon gas by urging that more federal land and offshore rights be available for oil drilling. This makes no sense because:
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.
Second, whatever impact such drilling might have would occur far in the future anyway. Oil isn't just waiting there to be pumped out of the earth. Exploration takes time. Erecting drilling equipment takes time. Getting the oil out takes time. Turning crude into various oil products takes time. According the the federal energy agency, if we opening drilling where drilling is now banned, there'd be no significant impact on domestic crude and natural gas production until 2030.
Third, oil companies already hold a significant number of leases on federal lands and offshore seabeds where they are now allowed to drill, and which they have not yet fully explored. Why then would they seek more drilling rights? Because they want more leases now, when the Bushies are still in office. Ownership of these parcels would serve to to pump up their balance sheets even if no oil is pumped.
Last but by no means least, environmental risks are still significant.
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.
Second, whatever impact such drilling might have would occur far in the future anyway. Oil isn't just waiting there to be pumped out of the earth. Exploration takes time. Erecting drilling equipment takes time. Getting the oil out takes time. Turning crude into various oil products takes time. According the the federal energy agency, if we opening drilling where drilling is now banned, there'd be no significant impact on domestic crude and natural gas production until 2030.
Third, oil companies already hold a significant number of leases on federal lands and offshore seabeds where they are now allowed to drill, and which they have not yet fully explored. Why then would they seek more drilling rights? Because they want more leases now, when the Bushies are still in office. Ownership of these parcels would serve to to pump up their balance sheets even if no oil is pumped.
Last but by no means least, environmental risks are still significant.
posted by Robert Reich | 11:47 AM
214 Comments:
Although I agree that we should not add more off-shore oil leases, I do wonder if it would have an effect on prices.
If a component of the current high price of crude on the market is a result of speculation, wouldn't a move like this cause a price change disproportionate to the actual supply variation?
Tim Beauchamp
This is a clear last-ditch effort by Big Oil to snatch up land leases because they believe Obama is most likely to win the White House. What will more likely bring oil prices down are progressively higher CAFE standards and the acceptance of Shai Agassi's electric car business model, and any other non-oil competition that wishes to enter the marketplace. This is what the government should encourage, not more drilling of depleting resource. www.thunkbot.blogspot.com
US oil companies are no longer players in the world oil market.
Control negleglegible resources while national oil companies own 80%.
So the message: Please drill for oil in your backyard and sell to me(USA) at a price I like else I sue OPEC ?
Saudi Aramco is 5 times the size of our 'giant' Exxon-Mobil . . . in a decade XOM(and others) will be like GM in the automarket . . irrelevant and and a shadow of itself.
The folks in Washington are the laughing stock of the world now, both parties !!!
mano
i wish more commentators were emphasizing the first point: EVEN if we take the optimistic figures of what can be discovered, the effect on prices will be almost negligible...
True supply and demand is not driving the current price of a barrel of oil. Just like it wasn't driving the price of electricity in the Enron days (as commented on the last blog) just like it wasn't driving the price of the tech stocks in the late 90's (potential profit was the driver there) just like it wasn't driving the housing prices in the first half of this decade (demand was fabricated through a mortgage process that gave huge loans to people who had no hope of ever being able to pay them). No market goes up at this rate for this length of time without coming crashing down.
Agree, no need to drill. Unless you use the income to fund our nations public schools.
1) If prices are determined by supply and demand, then the evidence suggests current demand is extremely inelastic. (There have certainly been no supply shocks in the last year.) Therefore even a small increase in supply would cause a large drop in prices, just as slightly constrained supply has caused a spike in prices.
2) "Whatever impact such drilling might have would occur far in the future anyway". Perhaps, but that is what futures markets are for. If more supply were slated to come on-line in, say, five years, then the 5-year futures price would come down. This would encourage suppliers to increase production and decrease hoarding today. Futures prices do affect spot prices.
3) "Third, oil companies already hold a significant number of leases on federal lands and offshore seabeds where they are now allowed to drill, and which they have not yet fully explored." References and numbers, please?
If you simply do not like the idea of people profiting by ripping hydrocarbons out of the ground, or you want to see gas more expensive, just be honest about it and say so. "It's not very much supply" seems a pretty silly argument when oil prices have doubled in 12 months for want of a couple million bpd.
The Democrats are on the wrong side of this issue. So what if it will take a while for the new fields to be productive? Odds are good we'll still need oil in 2030, even if higher prices mean that we'll be transitioning away from it for marginal uses before that. And it's likely to be even more valuable then than it is now. Further, the demand for oil is comparatively inelastic, so even marginal increases in output can have disproportionate effects on its price.
No, it's not going to do anything about gas prices before the election, but allowing more oil exploration, with the conditions that environmental damage is minimized, taxpayers don't get screwed, etc... is good public policy anyway.
On top of that, it's good politics. After the last eight years, the center is ready to give the Democrats a turn in power. Don't screw it up by pandering to the fringe environmentalists, come up with a sensible compromise that's in everyone's long-term interest. Or is all this talk of a new politics just a lot of hot air?
The Left: don't drill. Don't drive. Why don't you just outlaw living?
PS: Enjoyed 'Supercapitalism.' You can do better, Dr Reich.
Robert said....
("No" to Further Offshore Drilling)
I hope that's an emphatic no.
This silly idea is analogous to the tax holiday political gimmickry we had a few weeks ago.
The real issue is that the expected production is a drop in the bucket and will take years to get. The drilling ship makers can't make the drill ships fast enough. The oil companies are trying to boost their balance sheets while they use their profits not to drill where they can but to buy back shares.
If you want a short term impact you have to go with conservation and alternative energy sources as those can start yielding much more quickly. And sooner or later, you are going to have to conserve. We can not keep living this way forever.
1) Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less. The Dems are running scared! Spread the word!
2) For the record, I signed and advocated for the petition well before McCain or Bush got on board. I’m glad they both did.
Now, if we can just educate McCain on Climate Change.
3) Yes, Oil is a global commodity. And, beginning in 2007, world demand exceeded world supply. That link is my chart created using data from this spreadsheet downloaded from this page.
When demand exceeds supply two options exist:
A) Allow prices to rise until demand drops enough to get it back in balance with supply.
B) Increase supply, thereby lowering prices.
So, all those in favor of even higher prices, give a shout out to Mr. Reich and his fellow Dems.
4) If, in 1995, President Clinton had not vetoed opening 1/100th of 1% of ANWR, we (the global economy) would be in better shape than we are now.
5) The Dems are now saying they want to continue to constrain the world supply of oil (thereby driving gasoline prices ever skyward). They say this in the face of Mean Estimates that we are sitting on over THREE TIMES the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia!
Again, that last link is my chart created from these data sources:
A) International Proven Reserves
B) Domestic Oil Shale Mean Estimate
C) Domestic Outer Continental Shelf Mean Estimate
D) ANWR 1002 Area USGS Mean Estimate
To examine all those domestic resources and assert that we cannot significantly impact the global supply of oil is way beyond laughable.
6) Mr. Reich also asserts:
“environmental risks are still significant”
I submit that the quantitative facts say otherwise. But, we all expect the Dems to propagate that myth (in order to appease the Environmental Extremists who pull their puppet strings).
P.S.) Mean estimates from ANWR and OCS alone indicate we are sitting on more conventionally accessible oil than Iraq!
The previous link is my chart created from these data sources:
A) International Proven Reserves
B) Domestic Outer Continental Shelf Mean Estimate
C) ANWR 1002 Area USGS Mean Estimate
So, all who think prices would not change if Iraq stopped producing oil, give a shout out to Mr. Reich and his fellow Dems!
Opt for a full or hybrid electric car. A plug-in hybrid electric car can give 60-100 miles a gallon, and an electric car can do 20 miles for 40 cents of electric charge. It amounts to paying 40 cents for a gallon of gas. It is time to save ourselves from escalating cost of gas. Join us today, We shall help you and serve you to cut down on your gas cost. Our advice and your decision: Set up plug-in electric stations, we are there to help you.
40 cents a gallon charge or $ 5 a gallon gas. To know, visit housedna(dot)com
Saying that the potential production from US offshore fields is "only" 3 out of a global production of ~90 million barrels per day... and therefore to small to matter is ridiculous and narrow-minded.
In fact... it is exactly the same argument as the climate-change-deniers are using; a cut in the US doesn't matter because US emissions are "only" 20% of the global total.
Anyway... as long as Americans keep burning fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow, the least we can do is to do our part in producing those fuels. Blocking offshore drilling is nothing but good old NIMBY-politics; we'll burn the oil, but let other countries take the environmental risk of producing it.
Thanks, I was completely unaware that oil companies already lease land they have not even bothered to explore.
Common sense approach to me would be duct tape the mouths of everyone connected to the oil industry, the people tied to it, and speculation that trades oil futures. Then figure out what energy resources the North American continent-United States zone-actually has that is renewable and sustainable, and which equals and exceeds what we now import from outside the United States.
If it's solar and wind, so be it. If it's bicycles and trains-use them. If Iowa floods every 15 years, then can anything be put in Iowa? solar panels, wind turbines. Given the increase of hurricanes and tornadoes, we probably don't want nuclear reactors, throw in the possibility of earthquakes as well. Joseph Schumpeter wrote about creative destruction, so we muddle through it for the sake of energy independence.
Regarding this latest total BS shell game from the Dems (“Use it or Lose it”)…
Quoting the “non-partisan” Congressional Quarterly:
“When federal land or waters are leased to oil companies in parcels of about 1,000 to 3,000 acres, usually for 10 years, there is typically just ‘a very general sense of the value of the land,’ said Larry Nation, a spokesman for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Only some portions of leased land may hold accessible oil, while other portions do not, Nation said, but companies must continue to lease the entire parcel.
‘There’s the misconception that every lease has oil,’ added David Curtiss, director of the association’s Washington office. ‘A lease is a line on a map. It has nothing to do with the geology of where oil is.’
Young, meanwhile, called it ‘most ironic’ that Markey, Hinchey and Emanuel were ‘even attempting to talk about increasing America’s energy production.’
‘That they are attempting to make it appear as if they are for domestic energy production is baffling to me,’ Young said. ‘Barely one month ago, Mr. Markey and Mr. Hinchey voted against my provision to open [the Arctic Refuge] for production.’ ”
Here is a truly bi-Partisan message for REAL change, producing REAL results.
Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less!
The Dems? They’re still pandering to the Environmental Extremists, using phony talking points designed to deceive.
I agree! Don't permit oil companies to expend their resources to find and develop new oil supplies because we need more oil now and this won't be an immediate solution and can't be done with absolutely no risk to nature. Besides which we'd just be helping the oil companies make profits they don't deserve.
While we're at it, don't permit farmers to plant crop seeds because we're hungry now and harvest can't happen until sometime in the future. So, it is no good. It can 't help us now. Also, it is an undeniable fact that tilling up the ground to plant seeds can't be done without destroying all the plants (weeds) that nature intended to be in those fields! Besides which we'd just be helping farmers make profits they don't deserve.
Anonymous,
That was PRICELESS!
How sad it is to see how insane the Dems have become.
Good evening Mr. Secretary,
I could not agree with you more. When will the politicans tell us the way it is and think beyond the now? What bothers me is that they think we're fools.
A big yes to this, Third, oil companies already hold a significant number of leases on federal lands and offshore seabeds where they are now allowed to drill, and which they have not yet fully explored.
And they, Big Oil, et.al. finally got what they really wanted all along from the War in Iraq:
Big Oil Firms Ready to Sign Agreements With Iraq Two-Year, No-Bid Contracts Aimed at Boosting Production Just gotta otta love those continuing no bid contracts, yes?
It wasn't Sadam nor democracy nor WMD,s. It was oil. Reminds me of the film, Mad Max.
There was a long time early on in this administration when we neither saw nor heard from Cheney. I suspected then that he was carefully mapping out Iraq for oil and cutting the slices just a little thicker for his buddies.
tt
sbvor
Although I agree with many of the things you are saying, when you bash my party through stereotyping which has an effect only on the uneducated and the stupid, you sort of lose me.
Athena,
I see you are in academia. That is an environment where the number one goal is to avoid offending anybody at any cost (just ask Larry Summers).
I don’t live in that world, that is not my number one goal and Larry got a bum rap from a pack of “Cultural Marxists” who appointed themselves as “The New Thought Police”.
Your best interest is served by taking from me whatever you find valuable and casting aside that which you may find less so. You are not well served by throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water. Only the “uneducated and the stupid” would do that.
My best interest is served by remaining true to myself and I will continue to do so, even if some take offense.
Did I miss my shot at tenure?
Ah, Tiptoe,
If only you knew what so-called “journalists” never told you.
Here’s a couple of teasers:
1) Quoting an excerpt from the July, 2004 report from Bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:
"The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably and objectively assessed in Iraqi Support for Terrorism that the most problematic area of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida were the reports of training in the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically, chemical and biological weapons"
Chapter XII, Page 346, Conclusion 94
In other words, Saddam trained al Qaeda in the use of biological and chemical WMD.
Every Democrat on that committee signed off on that finding.
2) Quoting The 9/11 Report:
“Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq”
Page 66
“Saddam Hussein wanted bin Laden in Baghdad”
Page 134
In other words Saddam wanted to give al Qaeda precisely the same state sponsorship that led to 9/11.
Now, put 1 and 2 together and tell me what you get.
A more comprehensive analysis of just how badly the world was misled by these so-called “journalists” can be found here. Each quote can be verified here.
Note: If any given quote spans 2 or more lines, the Adobe Acrobat “find” feature will not find it. If you fail to locate any given quote, select various smaller subsets of the quote until you find it (and you will).
Dr. Reich,
The l982 Congressional moratoriun on offshore drilling was supplemented by President Bush's father with an executive order in 1990... after the destuctive Exxon Valdez pollution in 1989.
President Clinton extended the offshore leasing prohibition until 2012.
So let's keep cool, objective heads until that time comes and focus on fuel efficiency/alternate green fuels. The transportation sector alone consumes over 30% of our energy supply. So significant short-term 3-4 year results are possible here, not to exclude solar for buildings.
By 2012, we'll know whether it's possible to clean coal of all pollutants for conversion ultimately to liquified gas. We have enough coal reserves for the next 150 years. On or before that time we should have debated objectively pros/cons of going the French way with safe clean nuclear energy plants which, I realize, will require heavy governmental subsidies and are long-lead time investments. But this has to be taken in relation to fact that all our earth's fossil fuels (after millions of years of existence) will be totally depleted in next 50years, if not sooner. A very few seconds in time, if you realize it will only have taken us about 200 years to deplete resources built up over millions of years.
Let's not risk our scarce natural waters yet until more alternatives near and intermediate term are carefully analyzed. I say this having been involved in advance drill ship technology 35 years ago in Holland and knowing how effective and safe such ships are in very deep, difficult waters ... as my Dutch firm built and sold a number of them in the 1970s.
Meanwhile, as data clearly shows, the oil firms have not used or explored over 75% of leased federal onshore and offshore land, primarily in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaskan waters... amounting to over 68 million areas! They have ample work here to do as well as going deeper on existing wells given high oil prices.
High oil prices are here to stay with demand now reported to be 87 mbd and supply at 85mbd. The accelerated industrialization of China and India will guarantee continued pressures on demand for some time. May I remind readers that Europe now is over $8.00 a gallon! But general fuel efficiences in transport, vehicles and lifestyle is at least 40% higher than in the States.
Frank Thomas, The Netherlands
Dr. Reich is exactly right on this, and his previous commentary.
We heard the same arguments from the oil companies and the conservatives in the 70's. If you let us drill on the north slope our energy needs will be met for a hundred years. We now import far more oil than we did when the north slope came on line.
The argument that we can solve our energy problems by going to the ends of the earth to squeeze the last drops of oil out of the ground is like believing a junky will get the monkey of his back if he can only get one more fix.
If we hadn't listened to the conservatives in the 70's and 80's the world would be well be on it's way to a sustainable energy future.
They squandered our opportunity to use remaining fossil fuels in a transitional period to a renewable energy economy. Now we are paying the price in blood in a war for oil and an economy with the oil needle deep in it's arm, and more to come.
Don't be fooled by the conservatives again!
The only thing that will help bring down the price of oil is for demand to go down. The problem is not enough oil but cars that use too much of it. I have a 70 year old car that gets better mileage than some modern cars. The American auto companies have blown it and Toyota has captured the hybrid market.
How are we going to reduce the demand for oil?
The only way I can see is by shifting our incentives in such a way that the land within a reasonable radius of our major cities gets put to good use, so that people will have shorter commutes.
Until we make that change, most of the things we do are like bailing out a leaky rowboat with a teacup. Keeps the endangered folks busy, but doesn't make much difference in the long haul.
Are we going to shift those incentives? The answer would be to shift our property tax away from taxing buildings and toward taxing land value.
Taken to its logical conclusion, we should shift our other perverse taxes -- sales taxes, wage taxes -- onto land value too. That would help the economy and help working people.
But I don't think we're that smart.
This post has been removed by the author.
Quite pathetic how the Republicans feel the need to post their dissent over and over and over. Almost like they felt the need to repeat WMD over and over and over, as if repetition makes it truth.
Everything Dr. Reich has said is correct and the present dissenters are the same who have agreed with every policy the Bush administration has pursued.
And we all know where that has led us, to the edge of a cliff.
Only a fool would believe a Republican argument these days.
Anybody who thinks we Americans can conserve our way out of this issue either hasn’t looked at the chart or isn’t paying attention.
The data used in the chart are found in this spreadsheet downloaded from this page.
If your goal is to grind the entire world economy to a halt, keep on saying “NO” to drilling here. If you think this really minor slowdown in the continued GROWTH of our own economy has been painful, just wait until you see what happens if you keep saying “NO”.
The rest of the story is found here.
tiptoe FYI, and for those others innocently reading blather:
2) Quoting The 9/11 Report:
Well, sort of:
“Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq”
Page 66
"…Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Laden or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq...." (emphasis added)
“Saddam Hussein wanted bin Laden in Baghdad”
Page 134
"…Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Laden in Baghdad.…" (emphasis added)
In other words Saddam wanted to give al Qaeda precisely the same state sponsorship that led to 9/11.
Now, put 1 and 2 together and tell me what you get.
Now if we put the full 1 and 2 together we get a bunch of he said, she said. The 9/11 Committee was not giving credence to either of these statements but merely reporting what was said at the time by persons who may or may not have had direct knowledge of what they were saying.
Now I'm sure the original poster left out those qualifiers simply in an effort to keep his postings short. Obscurity, I'm sure, never entered his mind.
1) Quoting an excerpt from the July, 2004 report from Bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:
Had he more time I'm sure he would have also referred you to the Sept, 2006 report on pre-war intelligence from the Select Senate Committee on Intelligence, also a bipartisan one, which dispelled much that was contained in the 2004 report.
Of course that would just have confused you and clarity and specificity is always garnered best by limiting the amount of information you need to see.
This post has been removed by the author.
To understand where the growth is in worldwide oil consumption, see this chart.
That chart is sourced from this spreadsheet downloaded from this page.
The rest of the story is found here.
This post has been removed by the author.
Art,
1) Intelligence is always a he said/she said game. Readers can read the entire report and reach their own conclusions. I have.
2) I read both the 2004 report and the 2006 report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
The 2004 report was a truly bi-partisan effort to uncover the truth.
The 2006 report was a partisan attack which basically boiled down to Senate Democrats saying flat out that they had more confidence in what Saddam and his cronies had to say than what worldwide intelligence operations had to say.
Additionally, in the 2006 report, Senate Democrats said flat out that they had more confidence in the recantation of information the CIA got from a known terrorist (al-Libi) than they did in either our own CIA or the 11 other corroborating sources. This, despite the fact that the entirely predictable recantation came straight out of the (written) al-Qaeda playbook. Not ONE person in the CIA has EVER indicated that they believe the recantation was truthful.
The 2004 report was uncontested by either side.
The 2006 report was roundly criticized by Senate Republicans as the purely partisan smear campaign that it clearly was.
sbvor,
Your graph of percentage changes doesn't take into account that both in terms of total share of use and in terms of use per capita, the US started from a very high level, and India and China start from a rather low level.
Are we somehow more entitled than our fellow human beings born in other countries? Are we entitled to use other countries' oil, and conserve "our own"? By what logic?
Lying with statistics. Truth, perhaps, but not the whole truth.
Our usage has gone from 27.02% of the total in 1980 to 24.45% for P2006. We're 5% of the world's population. And you're critical of China and India?? mote and beam!!
Anonymous,
1) I missed the part where I criticized anybody. To the contrary, I am quite happy to see people in the third world lifting themselves out of poverty. I am, however, very much aware that Eco-Imperialists would prefer to see them remain in misery and poverty.
2) Per your recommendation, I will don my hair shirt post haste and flog myself for being an evil American (or not).
3) The rest of the story is found here.
Dr. Reich,
Research on long-term and lasting green energy solutions reveals there are truly promising, potentially far greater prospects of creating huge amounts of electricity from nuclear FUSION, as opposed to nuclear FISSION.
As is generally known, both fusion and fission have a zero impact on global warming and acid rain caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
But fusion has some added rather significant advantages, namely:
1. Radioactive waste is considerably less and short-lived, decaying completely in 100 years ... compared to many thousands of years for highly radioactive waste from fission reactors.
2. Uranium (or plutonium) used in fission reactors is a non-renewable element ... while fusion uses deuterium and tritium which are isotopes of hydrogen. These elements can be retrieved from ordinary water -- so there is an infinite supply of fuel for fusion.
3. Fusion has the capability to produce 4 times more energy than fission when using a mass of deuterium for fusion that is equal to a certain mass of uranium for fission.
4. In event of a core meltdown in a fission reactor, due to an oversight in detecting a malfunction, deadly radioactive will escape to permeate the environment ... in contrast, fusion reactions are so extremely hard to maintain that the reaction will stop should something go wrong.
The key problem is cost and high temperatures needed for fusion where no materials have been found yet which can withstand 100 million degrees celsius.
But it's only a matter of time that the final development of nuclear fusion's obvious superiority over fission reactors will be achieved.
Maybe now is the time to speed up this development ... by joint R&D industry/government cooperation, perhaps with NASA.
Now folks!
So you all understand, whenever I feel the need for an objective analysis of a political issue, report, vote or whatever, I immediately turn to the Senate Republicans. They can always be depended upon to regurgitate a harmonious, one-voiced rendition of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
In the political annals of history it has only been the Democrats who have lied, cheated, stolen, slandered and twisted facts, slanting the real truth.
Whenever I feel a need for absolution I seek out the first Republican I can find. It is only through the prism of Republican ideology that real salvation can be attained.
Clearly the plethora of links to conservative right wing propaganda, oops, wisdom, should substantiate that we Dems are devoid of any thoughts even closely resembling facts and truth.
You will find the real validation in the hereafter when you find yourselves completely surrounded by Dems, in Hell, with nary a Republican in sight.
You should not be deluded by the fact that the Dems signed onto the 2004 report in order to get agreement to continue the research that lead to the 2006 report. That was merely political trickery. Telling the truth today to save the lies for later.
I'm sure somewhere in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus, alluded to real truth only surfacing in bipartisan renderings.
Nor should you condemn the Republicans for desiring to suppress the 2006 report until that fateful, sinful election result of 2006. Republicans strive hard to maintain their hold on real truth but an ignorant voting public occasionally throws them a curve.
We must always be thankful, even worshipful, of the conservative blogging minions, who, absent any silly voting procedures, enable us to keep truth in the forefront.
In the immortal words of Scarlett O'Hara, "Tomorrow is another day".
Art,
Just so we’re clear, are you supporting the 2006 report because:
1) You find Saddam and a tiny few of his closest cronies more credible than intelligence agencies all around the world?
2) You find the recantation from the known terrorist, al-Libi, more credible than the original information he gave our CIA?
Remember, this sort of recantation is straight out of the written al Qaeda playbook. Remember, NOBODY from the CIA has said they find the recantation more credible. Remember, there are 11 other sources corroborating al Libi’s original information. Remember, the 2006 report simply ignored the 11 other sources.
SBVOR,
Unfortunately, " Every Democrat on that committee signed off on that finding." They signed off on lots of things that they were pressured into or lied about, e.g.The War, except for Obama.
But I'm not liking Pelosi either.
Politics and politicians are all what they are.
Would you buy a used car from any of them?
You mentioned you're a scientist. Are you into oil & gas in Colorado?
Inquiring minds.
tt
Tiptoe,
Nice try.
I am not now and never have been employed by any energy company, I do not own stock in any energy company and I do not make any money in any way from any energy company.
I'm just advocating for solutions that benefit all.
Frank Thomas said....
"Fusion has the capability to produce 4 times more energy than fission when using a mass of deuterium for fusion that is equal to a certain mass of uranium for fission".
The development of fusion-generated electricity has always worried many that it will only contribute to the manufacture of even more powerful thermonuclear warheads. Let's not make things even more precarious when a potential by-product is so obviously destructive. However enticing it may be, it's the wrong way to proceed. Let's stick with the alternatives that others here have mentioned that are doable and safe.
btw: there's more than a few experts who believe that the physics and engineering of scale fusion are beyond our ability to grasp.
sbvor, thank you.
tt
we don't want this do we? lol
mb20
So, the US oil corporations increase oil output by 2 or 3 million barrels a day and the producers in the rest of the world reduce their output by the same 2 or 3 million barrels, the global market price remains unchanged and the US oil companies make a ton of more money off that high priced oil, while we citizens who own those oil reserves will get nothing but ever increasing higher prices at the local gas station. So what to do? Simple, buy stock in the oil companies and sit back to enjoy counting your growing profits.
Why would an increase in supply have no effect on the market ? If doing nothing increaed the price, being proactive alters the Marxist viewpoint.
You are mistaken because lots of oil is waiting to be tapped. It will take time, but be faster then waiting for our energy needs to be met by the wind, solar, hydrogen, corn, and bio fuels.
The existing lease argument is bogus since government regulations discourages exploration and the amount of oil under those leases is not profitable for companies.
Environmental risks decrease daily but scare tactics by dreamers with no basis in reality never cease.
Finally, as a former left winger who understood and believed in your teachings, I must say that if you talked less and listened more, you would be surprised what you would learn. Your arrogance in not allowing others to speak when on Kudlow and Company is Stalinist.
No thank you.
SilverFox sez:
“So, the US oil corporations increase oil output by 2 or 3 million barrels a day and the producers in the rest of the world reduce their output by the same 2 or 3 million barrels, the global market price remains unchanged”
Okay, let’s pretend the Saudis are more interested in harming us than in making a buck.
If they play that game, we develop our Oil Shale and kiss the Saudis goodbye. Who needs them?
Between ANWR and the OCS ALONE, we’ve got more conventionally drillable oil in than IRAQ!
The rest of the story is found here.
Mr. Reich, you used to be a well-respected man. Is your ambition so great that you now publish these silly comments, which you know well to be utterly specious, just to ingratiate yourself with Senator Obama? This isn't a college debate, where you get a pass for defending the stupid side of the argument. I feel sorry for you.
TipToe,
Back here, you allowed the worst demagogue ever (Olberman) to con you into latching onto an emotionally satisfying anti-Capitalist fantasy (that deregulation of futures trading is the reason for soaring energy costs).
Olberman himself notes that this deregulation occurred in 1992. But, it was during 2007 when gasoline prices began to really soar.
What happened in the interim? World demand exceeded world supply (in 2007). Prices then soared as a direct result of that simple fact.
What you don’t seem to understand is that futures traders provide the service that economists call “price discovery”. Price discovery is the process of discovering what price is required to keep supply in balance with demand. Without this “price discovery”, the next time you go to fill up, there would, very likely, be no gasoline available at ANY price!
I guess the ever ignorant hate filled demagogue, Olberman, forgot to tell you that.
The ONLY reason airline tickets have not doubled along with fuel prices is because this deregulation allowed airlines to hedge their bets on fuel prices.
Again, I encourage you to view the PBS special “Commanding Heights”.
P.S.) Olberman was also guilty of his usual cheap demagoguery in describing the California energy issues of 2000-2001. If you want a less emotionally satisfying, but far more accurate explanation, you’ll find it here.
FYI,
I just added a new chart to my presentation.
The new chart is the second one from the top (documenting the price of crude and how it is in lock step with the price of gasoline and diesel).
sbvor,
Nice try.
KO speaks for me on most issues. But we don't agree on everything. I also like Lou Dobbs "War on the Middle Class" & his position on illegals which KO pretty much hates.
But now we need to look at the FISA deal.
tt
TipToe,
When it comes to cheap demagoguery, Lou Dobbs is a close second behind Olberman.
Dobbs was particularly off the charts last night. I wanted to send him an Oscar for his grossly exaggerated “performance” in commenting on the international aspects of the tomato scare (so typical of what passes for TV “journalism” these days).
So, now we know you prefer that which is emotionally satisfying over that which is factual (about half of the country does).
Did you ever read that three part series linked to at the bottom of this post?
TipToe,
The FISA thing is open and shut.
Did you, during the Clinton years, get even more worked up over the even more intrusive Echelon program?
Or, do you always allow so-called “journalists” to lead you around by the nose? After all, under Clinton, the Old York Times, buried deep in their “Technology” section, regarded the far more intrusive Echelon program as “a necessity” (during peacetime).
Here is everything Google can find where the Old York Times referenced Echelon, NSA and Clinton. I defy you to find even one example of The Old York Times criticizing Clinton in the least for this far more intrusive program.
By contrast, here is a “slightly” larger list of stories the Old York Times ran referencing the more narrow search for Bush, NSA and wiretapping.
Remember, Clinton engaged in a far more intrusive program during peacetime. Bush engaged in a far less intrusive program during wartime.
Is it just remotely possible that all the utterly irrational hysteria on this topic (and every other) is influenced, just a tad, by utterly biased “reporting” from so-called “journalists”?
sbvor, please stop spamming links to your blog. It's not useful to finish every comment with "the rest of the story is found on my blog".
Why cant we find a middle ground. The only reason that we are in the present situation is that both political parties are so polarized by the stances they take, they cant come to an agreement on a middle ground. Why not create a super fund for R&D into alternative forms of energy. We could pay for the fund by allowing limited drilling off the coast, limited drilling in ANWAR and Nuclear power plants. I'm a conservative that does not believe in global warming, but am ashamed of my party for keeping us dependent on oil and not doing more to invest in alternative energy. We are Americans, we have a flag on the moon, why cant we work together to take the alternative out of alternative energy. Most of the responses to Mr. Reichs blog either agree or disagree with his stance. I think we can all agree that we have a negative dependency on foreign oil, why not try to come up with some compromises.
Hmm, half the posts are by the resident troll sbvor.
All drilling will do is to delay the inevitable by a few more years. We've been playing the delaying game since the early 70's, maybe it is time to come up with some permanent solution instead of trying to cheat death one last time.
Last night on UNC-TV, William Friday interviewed Bill Johnson, CEO of Progress Energy. Mr Johnson stated he has studied global warming and considers it a threat. He had two proposals: the electric car with upgraded, more efficient batteries to store energy; and separating potable water (for drinking, handwashing, showers) from gray water in buildings. At least two separate sets of plumbing.
Blogger chris said...
"Why cant we find a middle ground. ... I'm a conservative that does not believe in global warming"
Chris, if I told you the earth was round, and you "believe" the earth is flat, should we find middle ground and conclude the earth is a half sphere? Or if I tell you the sun rises in the east and you "believe" the sun rises in the west, should we then find middle ground and conclude the sun rises in the South and sets in the North?
500 years ago you could have an opinion that the sun moved around the earth, but with the advent of the telescope and Newtonian physics, the data was in and that opinion was no longer rational.
When 99% of the people looking at the data come to one conclusion, and there are literally libraries of data to support that conclusion, and 1% come to an opposing conclusion, and at best there are a few outlier questionable data points to support that conclusion, and you choose to "believe" the 1%, well that pretty much defines irrational.
All the data now indicates we have past, or will soon be at Peak Oil. The idea that drilling will solve our energy problems when by definition Peak Oil means world production will be declining at an accelerating pace, is simply irrational.
Unfortunately, conservatives have chosen to hold irrational "beliefs" and those beliefs are now bringing disaster to our country and our planet.
When conservatives start supporting their opinions with legitimate data, then we'll be able to find middle ground. I'm not holding my breath.
tiptoe:
You're wasting your time trying to have a reasonable conversation with SBVOR.
Google SBVOR and you'll get 5360 hits. He is a well known right_wing spammer who's hit hundreds of web sites with his crazy links. Since I can't imagine posting thousands and maybe tens of thousands of posts, I'm not convinced SBVOR is one person. I don't for a moment believe he is a scientist! He's admitted to being banned from at least 2 sites, and I'm sure he's been threatened by many others.
I randomly followed 5 of his links. One led to the guy who brought us "swift boaters for truth", one led to a conservative blog site, and 3 actually led to real scientific publications. The conclusions he draws from the 3 legitimate data sources was such a bastardization of the data it was laughable, and in most cases contradicted the conclusions of the authors of the publications (I, and many others on the internet have demonstrated this).
Actually, he's pretty representative of conservatives in America, which explains the incredible mess we now face.
svbor:
I would be glad to engage you regarding the 2006 report, along with all your typical misinformation, but that is not the point of this particular blog entry so I'll pass in deference to the various regulars that visit expecting intelligent discussion of the issues at hand.
Alas, I cannot help them avoid the disappointment to all their expectations.
Americans worship the goddess of technology. If only "they" come up with "this" we can all live happily. All the noise we hear about oil is from political and environmental hacks. Where are the engineers and scientists on this issue. The rude fact is that the USA is completely dependent on black oil and will be for several generations. Doing nothing, i.e. refusing to explore and drill only extends the economic pain. Granted, those living in the upper income world don't care, they can pay the price. It is the average folks who will suffer with neither liberals or conservatives giving a damn. There is not going to be a miracle technology from the goddess on this.
Toasty,
“Peak Oil” is, demonstrably, pure propaganda.
Per this EIA page, as of 1/1/2007, current proven reserves are:
Saudi Arabia - 262 Billion Barrels
Iraq - 115 Billion Barrels
USA - 22 Billion Barrels
Per MMS, the mean estimate for our OCS is 86 Billion Barrels.
Per USGS, the mean estimate for ANWR is 10 Billion Barrels.
22 + 86 + 10 = 118 Billion Barrels (MORE THAN IRAQ!)
Per the Rand Corporation, the mean estimate for our Oil Shale is 800 Billion Barrels.
22 + 86 + 10 + 800 = 918 Billion Barrels (3.5 TIMES THE PROVEN RESERVES OF SAUDI ARABIA!)
See this chart and this chart and this post (which was updated just last night).
Toasty,
1) The majority of scientists do NOT embrace your environmental extremism. It’s just more propaganda.
2) But, even if they did, it would prove NOTHING. The majority opinion in science is proven wrong all the time
3) But, just to prove I can beat you at your own silly game, right here you will find the individual names and credentials of 31,072 American scientists who reject your extremism and your propaganda.
Can you match that number of individual signatories (nationally OR internationally)?
Don’t bother slandering the messenger. I’ve heard it all before (from those, just like yourself, who can never muster any evidence and rely entirely upon slander)
Click here and learn the facts as described by directly cited peer reviewed science, IPCC scientists and more.
Dear Notsofast cc: Dr. Reich
Regarding your comment that nuclear Fusion energy technology will stimulate more powerful Thermonuclear Weaponry ....
Your point is well-made. I couldn't agree more. But this concern has not been ignored by the scientific community and leaders of nations researching Fusion for four decades now. Most scientists see this as much less of a concern for many technical reasons I can't go into on a blog ... but will try to give an objective overview.
As noted in my first post above, we need an all-out Marshall Plan towards energy independence by efforts to :
(1) stimulate Alternate (green) Fuels and Fuel Efficiency the next 10 years
Simultaneously, we must:
(2) continue drilling existing U.S. leased acres and prospective areas worldwide
(3) finalize R&D feasibility of near-term clean coal technology enabling conversion of coal to a liquified gas and evaluate pros/cons of exploiting shale oil
(4) explore (possibly jointly with France) pros/cons of building nuclear power plants based on state-of-art Fission reactors
(5) continue more aggessively investing in R&D on feasibility of development of pure Fusion driven nuclear power plants or some advanced combination of Fusion and Fission.
Of course, there are plenty of other energy sources in the world that will help replace fossil fuels before Fusion, or green conversion of oil to a liquified gas, or exploitation of shale oil, or ocean temperature, etc. This is simply because other renewable, green energy sources can be utilized practically and sooner for a much lower capital cost (e.g., direct solar, wind, biofuels, human wastes (as Sweden has experimented with) etc.
Several Fusion reactors have been built but none have produced more thermal energy than the electrical energy consumed. The most recent Fusion reactor experiment leading the effort to commercialize Fusion power is the ITER project started in 2005 ... to be followed up by the DEMO project which is expected to produce more energy than it consumes.
A practical Fusion reactor that produces energy in scale for sale to the public is at least 25 years away. Experts believe one could probably be built within 10 years supported by sufficient investment money, but the resultant energy cost would likely make it commercially not viable (not due to the cost of the fuel deuterium, but due to the very high cost of the system's components).
However, fossil fuel prices at $200-250 a barrel could well change this economic breakeven dynamic fast. That's why it's essential to continue testing for a research breakthrough that could at least partially be used for nuclear plants brought on stream 20 years from now.
In the EU, research investment in nuclear Fusion for electrical power has been approximately $18 billion from the 90s until now. The EU is currently investing $1 billion annually compared to $1.3 billion for all Non-Nuclear energy research combined. Some feel another $50 billion R&D research investment worldwide is necessary before the technology is fully operational.
And, of course, the technology may prove not feasible ... but the price to find that answer seems trifling compared to the potential benefits to our small planet.
So the idea energy developed from nuclear Fusion will stimulate more advanced Thermonuclear weapons is not deterring the rest of the world, U.S. and Europe from plugging ahead on research for this SAFE, CLEAN, RENEWABLE, CENTURIES' lasting energy source of the not too distant future (subject to ample fresh water supplies).
Most weapon designs are already based on Fusion-Boosted Fission, and Two-Stage Thermonuclear weapons Fusion is only employed to drive or enhance Fission. In fact, unknown to the general public, a Hydrogen bomb is a two-stage thermonuclear bomb, with uranium Fission, as usual, contributing the bulk of the bomb's destructive force. Each of the three stages of producing an increasingly more powerful nuclear weapon uses Fission, Fusion, and Fission... as published literature will clarify to anyone.
Thus, an All-Fusion driven bomb is not going to occur for many technical reasons, not to exclude major reason that explosive energy is highly dependent on Fission. Even if it were possible to build an All-Fusion nuclear weapon, no country would risk certain self-annihilation by testing it, let alone using it anywhere else.
That partly explains why the constant effort to advance the healthy use of superior Fusion technology for eventual possible production of infinite quantities of electricity is steadily proceeding ... hopefully at a stronger pace. It has the potential to greatly contribute to man's survival on this fragile, limited resource intensive real estate...called Mother Earth.
Folks:
1) The majority of scientists do NOT embrace your environmental extremism. It’s just more propaganda.
2) But, even if they did, it would prove NOTHING. The majority opinion in science is proven wrong all the time (emphasis added)
3) But, just to prove I can beat you at your own silly game, right here you will find the individual names and credentials of 31,072 American scientists who reject your extremism and your propaganda.
Can you match that number of individual signatories (nationally OR internationally)?
I really have a problem with "messengers" who can't seem to understand logic.
If we follow the logic of this chain of absurdities, it appears that the majority of scientists are in agreement with the original poster. Yet, from this same poster we find that: The majority opinion in science is proven wrong all the time.
Now the logical extension of his argument is that as more and more scientists adhere to the "messenger's" message, they will soon become the majority, if they are not already, and therefore they will likely be wrong because: The majority opinion in science is proven wrong all the time.
This could be a clue as to why the "messenger" is having such a hard time selling his ideas.
0 for 6 SBVOR
Another discredited source. Virtually every link I've followed, that you've posted, has been dishonest, deceitful, or just plain weird. Aren't you absolutely embarrassed by the exposed deceptions you've tried to push on the readers of this blog?
The link about the 31,000 scientists takes you to a right_wing petition that has been circulated since 1999 by the "oregon institute of science and medicine". Anyone can sign it, and you can claim you're whatever you want to be. Many of the names couldn't be verified, and only about 1,400 claim to be PHD's.
Here's what Scientific American said about the list;
"Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community."
Here's what Todd Shelly from the Hawaiian Reporter found:
"In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?"
Arty,
That this majority opinion nonsense is a “silly game” was precisely my point.
But, it is objectively and demonstrably true that even when it comes to silly games, the environmental extremists are on the losing side of their own silly game.
Toasty,
Continuing to play your “silly game”…
The next time you quote Wikipedia (sometimes a good source, sometimes a bad source), at least acknowledge doing so.
Okay, we find your quote in Wikipedia:
“Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories…”
We follow the footnote (18), we click on the alleged link to Scientific American and, voila:
“Error--Page not found”
Did it ever exist? Beats me. I don’t care one way or the other.
Look. The skeptics have skeptics. They argue back and forth over who has the majority on their side. It’s just a silly game.
The Oregon Petition web site addresses these sorts of issues on their web site.
This is your game, not mine. Have fun.
I’ll stick to reviewing the science.
sbvor:
That this majority opinion nonsense is a “silly game” was precisely my point.
A few lessons in how to explain your point might be advisable. Currently you are failing miserably and your: The majority opinion in science is proven wrong all the time, was a perfect case in point.
So far you have exhibited the intellectual capacity of a gnat.
Toasty,
Has anybody ever even attempted to collect a list of scientists who agree with Al Gore?
If anybody did, I suspect the list would be one name long (James Hansen). And, I’m not even sure about him.
Arty,
Let’s test my assertion that “The majority opinion in science is proven wrong all the time”
1) True or false? Eleven years ago, a majority of scientists believed the known universe was continuing to expand, but that the rate of the expansion was slowing (due to gravity).
2) True or false? Today, the majority of scientists believe the known universe is continuing to expand at an ever faster rate (possibly due to “dark matter”, et al.)
The answers are:
1) True
2) True
The majority opinion was turned on its head. And, there are countless examples of this. It happens “all the time”. It is the nature of scientific inquiry.
Today, any case for any CO2 induced climate crisis is rapidly disintegrating. Twenty years from now, that theory will be the subject of as much derision as Lysenko’s theory of "acquired characteristics".
The case for any CO2 induced climate crisis is on its death bed and it will never be resurrected.
sbvor, I think you'll appreciate the June 21 post.
http://patterns2.blogspot.com/
There maybe a God and is this proof?
tt
sbvor:
Does dense ring a bell?
If your premise of: The majority opinion in science is proven wrong all the time, is correct, then anytime a majority of scientists agree, by virtue of your premise they are severely at risk for being proven wrong. And I'm not even bothering with your use of "all".
You have trapped yourself in a circular argument.
Your scant two examples might seem sufficient to you but in the entire universe of time sequenced scientific knowledge two examples falls far short of conclusive evidence that: The majority opinion in science is proven wrong all the time.
Arty,
Scientific knowledge tends to more forward with increasing precision.
Once a theory is proven wrong, it is usually dead and gone. And, the theory of a CO2 induced climate crisis is pretty much dead and gone.
If you are being an absolutist in assessing my use of the word “all”, don’t. It was not intended as an absolute, 100%, all the time alternating current type of “all”. Science doesn’t work that way. The phrase “all the time” is generally interpreted to be synonymous with “quite frequently”.
While most are right that the offshore and ANWR drilling will have no short term effect on price, they miss the real issue. We need to do 90 MPH on alternative energy. We need to reduce the need for fossil fuel so that it will be 10 cents a gallon. The failure of Congress to get this on the fast track has left us very vulnerable.All the drilling will help us in this way. When we have reduced our dependence to unheard of levels, the demand world wide will grow. If we have it we can sell it instead of making everone else rich. We are blocking exploration off our shores while the Venezualans are exploring them 60 miles away. Do you get it?If you do not see that the petro dollars rule the whole world, what can I do to convince you. We won't have a beach left if we can't get to work to get paid. We will be paying so much for gas that we will be selling SUV's to China for scrap metal because we can't affod to drive them and no one will buy it. If it takes 10 years to get that oil on line, that is ten years we will be very vulnerable economically speaking. We have put this off for twenty years and look where it has gotten us. Drill, go solar,go hydrogen, go hybrid, BUT GO GO GO!
sbvor,
"Stratospheric Ozone Depletion"
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/Ozone/ozone.html
"Ozone Depletion, History and politics"
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/Ozone/history.html
There are charts & graphs.
tt
svbor:
That is why I didn't attack the use of "all" but precision, when making argument, is the better mechanism.
As you know I am not a scientist, but my take is that nothing has been proven "wrong". There is merely a dispute on interpreting the science. I doubt the issue goes away anytime soon. Especially with the weak evidence you have,so far, presented.
Best if you go practice somewhere before continuing your quest.
we_are_toast
"When 99% of the people looking at the data come to one conclusion, and there are literally libraries of data to support that conclusion, and 1% come to an opposing conclusion, and at best there are a few outlier questionable data points to support that conclusion, and you choose to "believe" the 1%, well that pretty much defines irrational."
You make a great point but Its the same case made by people who thought the sun revolved around the earth and the world is flat.
While I disagree with you on man caused global warming I do agree that we need to get off oil. My comment is where is the middle ground? If you don't agree with my idea of allowing drilling to pay for R&D how about tax cuts for corporations who choose to do research into alternative forms of energy? I would even be willing to consider a windfall profits tax if the money was used for R&D on new forms of energy. Do you have any ideas other then Conservatives are irrational so there can be no solutions?
Art,
At present, there is a dispute.
But, the only leg the alarmists are standing on is a fantasy about a water vapor feedback mechanism which recent peer reviewed science is now proving not only incorrect, but upside down.
Twenty years from now, the theory of a CO2 induced climate crisis will be dead and long since buried.
Get off the hysteria train while your dignity is still more or less intact!
Ok Let's look at it this way, the Government has a giant Milk Shake. Standard Oil (Exxon/Mobile/Phillips/Shell/Etc) wants the rights to stick straws in that giant Milk Shake. So the government rents them 21 stools at the counter where the Giant Milk Shake is sitting. But the government makes sure that a few of those stools remain vacant.
The CEO's from Standard Oil show up and sit on the 21 stools rented to them by the government. Now a third of those CEO's take out long straws that reach over to a bunch of tables where all the consumers sit. But there are many more consumers than there are straws. So the consumers have to pay to drink from these straws.
Over the next 7 years, the consumers watch the price of the Milk Shake triple. They start complaining. Now Standard Oil says, don't blame us, it's the government's fault for not giving us all of the seats at the counter. Many of the consumers, blinded by their frustrations over the expensive Milk Shakes, buy into what Standard Oil is telling them and start complaining to the government. The government then rents three more stools to Standard Oil. After that one more of Standard Oil's CEO's reaches in his front pocket and takes out a long straw that reaches back to the tables were all the consumers are.
Moral of the story, he who controls the straws controls the price of the Milk Shake.
-politicallyanonymous.com
Mr. Anonymous,
Your parable is an interpretation of the phony baloney “Use it or Lose it” Democratic talking point.
The following article exposed the mythology behind that phony talking point before Mr. Reich repeated it.
Quoting the “non-partisan” Congressional Quarterly:
“When federal land or waters are leased to oil companies in parcels of about 1,000 to 3,000 acres, usually for 10 years, there is typically just ‘a very general sense of the value of the land,’ said Larry Nation, a spokesman for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Only some portions of leased land may hold accessible oil, while other portions do not, Nation said, but companies must continue to lease the entire parcel.
‘There’s the misconception that every lease has oil,’ added David Curtiss, director of the association’s Washington office. ‘A lease is a line on a map. It has nothing to do with the geology of where oil is.’
Young, meanwhile, called it ‘most ironic’ that Markey, Hinchey and Emanuel were ‘even attempting to talk about increasing America’s energy production.’
‘That they are attempting to make it appear as if they are for domestic energy production is baffling to me,’ Young said. ‘Barely one month ago, Mr. Markey and Mr. Hinchey voted against my provision to open [the Arctic Refuge] for production.’ ”
You can find an objective, quantitatively accurate and fully substantiated analysis of the facts here.
This post has been removed by the author.
Okay, I’m going to make a prediction here.
“Drill Here, Drill Now” is THE single issue which WILL defeat Obama. And, I predict the predicted gains for Dems in Congress will turn into losses.
The Dems are seriously out of touch on this issue. And, in the age of the internet, their monopoly over the MSM cannot save them.
Quoting IBD:
“It seems Americans are well aware that members of Congress, not the oil executives they've demonized for decades, are to blame for the punitive prices we are having to pay at the gas pump. They want lawmakers to do something about it.
But as long as Democrats remain in the congressional majority, it's unlikely that prices will fall even modestly. The solutions the party is offering are, at best, useless. Actually, we're being overly generous, because the Democrats' answers to the oil issue are childish responses that would do more harm than good.”
Be sure to read the rest of that obituary for the 2008 Dems!
Get ready Dems! You might as well sing goodbye to your candidate(s) now. You’re fixin’ to shoot yourselves in the foot AGAIN! You just can’t help yourselves, can you?
P.S.) What I really love about them lyrics (in the last link of my previous comment) is:
“He might be thrillin’, but my love so dog gone willin’ [to be drillin’]”
Buh Bye Bama [and pals]! You BLEW IT!
sbvor: "Per USGS, the mean estimate for ANWR is 10 Billion Barrels."
But according to the EIA, worldwide oil consumption is over 30 Billion Barrels per year. So ANWR holds less than four months of oil?
sbvor, I predict that the severely failing economy under the Spend, Spend, Spend Repubs + the "100 years" in Iraq will usher in Obama.
tt
Sbvor
How many hours do you spend blogging?
I guess you are unemployed. No wonder.
sbvor:
LOL.....
So far we have seen from your posts what you are not good at. Now you add political prognosticator to the mix and exhibit no expertise in that arena either.
Much like your global warming stance, your recession stance, and God knows how many other stances, your predictions of an Obama loss are a great deal about wishful thinking. Dennis Kucinich could probably win this election against McCain.
About the only skill I've seen from you is the ability to add links to your posts. You have shown us that ad nauseum.
In those memorable words, "You just keep thinkin Butch".
chris said:
"While I disagree with you on man caused global warming"
1) Chris, you've moved your position from global warming, to man caused global warming. Congratulations, this is the 1st step where people who thought they were conservative begin to realize how they've been misled by the conservative propaganda. I've worked in the Atmospheric and climate science fields for the past 17 years and the evidence for man made global warming is truly overwhelming, and 99% of the scientists know it.
" If you don't agree with my idea of allowing drilling to pay for R&D how about tax cuts for corporations who choose to do research into alternative forms of energy? I would even be willing to consider a windfall profits tax if the money was used for R&D on new forms of energy. Do you have any ideas other then Conservatives are irrational so there can be no solutions?"
2) I never said "there can be no solutions". A conservative going along with a tax?! Someone who actually understands you need to pay for government services?! Your conservative credentials may have taken a hit, but your reasoning credentials have been enhanced!
3) We are in agreement! Tax incentives for Alternative energy research and production (and nuclear is not an alternative), paid for by taxes on fossil fuel usage.
4) You want solutions? Here's how we're going to get out of this mess.
We can break down our energy usage into 2 main categories, Electricity usage, and liquid and gas fuel usage for transportation and home heating. We WILL shift from the later to the former.
Conservation is not an answer, but it is absolutely necessary to get through the transitional period.
Solar and wind are economically viable options NOW! The problem with alternative energy is storage.
Lots of government and industry R&D in energy storage is a must. Double the W/volume battery capacity and you'll be driving an electric car in 2-3 years.
Hydrogen production and storage is a solution for the centralized electric grid, but I'm not a fan of centralized electricity production.
The government announces tomorrow:
A) Every government building that is viable will have it's roof filled with photovoltaic AND solar thermal panels (in cold climates) in 5 years. Every government parking lot will be fitted with an electric outlet at every parking meter.
B) New Building codes:
Where you live and where you shop and work are close together (someone mentioned this above and is absolutely right). Every new building is designed to take maximum advantage of the sun. A VERY VERY easy way to reduce fossil fuel usage.
The transportation problem will be solved in a serious of steps.
1) Hybrids are already substituting some electricity for gasoline.
2) Requirements that all new cars in 5 years be pluggable hybrids.
3) In ten years, requirements for 50% of the fleet be 200 mile all electric vehicles.
4) In 15 years, all consumer vehicles are electric. Biofuels will be reserved for commercial vehicles, but the price will be so high, that big gains in commercial transportation efficiency will be developed over the next 15 years (electric trains, buses, aerodynamic semi's ...).
I disagree with Dr. Reich over cap and trade. I prefer tax and offset. Industry should know that taxes on fossil fuels will be adjusted annually to assure at least a 15% annual increase in the cost of those fuels. But 10 year offsets should be available for industries who might have difficulty transitioning to non fossil energy (you pay for solar or wind for someone else to offset your fossil fuel usage).
To commit to a non fossil fuel energy economy over the next 20 years is not only technically possible, it would be the biggest economic boom the U.S. has ever seen. We would reverse the path to economic depression the conservatives have us on, and once again we would be the worlds leading economy.
If you want more information, get any of Amory Lovins great books he's written over the past 30 years. Much of the technology to do this already exists, and the additional technology needed is within our grasp.
Art:
"You just keep thinkin Butch"
:)
Dr. Reich,
Assuming the 68 million acres of federal onshore-offshore land now under lease to oil firms have little near-term production possibilities (although highly unlikely), may I suggest an idea to meet the oil firms half-way to encourage more near-term U.S. drilling.
This compromise approach will also help fund government tax incentives for speeding development of Alternate (green) Fuels and Fuel Efficiency.
The concept Ownership and Development structures are as follows and, of course, they must be refined:
1. Allow oil firms to lease a few selected offshore land areas that are at least 250 miles offshore and where geological studies point to high probability of oil reserves.
2. Conditions are that: (a) government leases must be developed and producing oil within four years or leases lapse with all land rights reverting to the government; (b) government has right to convert leases into a 50% Ownership position once oil is discovered with the particular land leased being the government´s equity investment -- with the oil firm having option to convert its lease into a 50% Ownership at a pre-negotiated price formula (minus the firm´s Capital Investment) or pay a higher pre-negotiated lease for its 50% share of Ownership interest; (c) oil firms will develop offshore prospects using DRILL SHIPS with eventual production offloaded into state-of-art storage tanker with subsequent offloading to new smaller, powerfully constructed tankers which transport oil to onshore storage facility ... so no offshore lengthy pipelines and gigantic platforms are necessary ... this technique is well known, used in offshore developments worldwide and is called a Floating Production System ... it results in a much faster development of an offshore oil field and generally much less upfront capital investment; (d) oil firms will take out adequate insurance and provide escrow funds against a possible pollution incident far from a coastline; (e) government has no liability , as a lessor, or 50% shareholder, for any pollution cleanup and damage costs; (f) government´s 50% share of pre-tax profits from monthly oil flows would be deposited into a separate transparent fund and used to stimulate new energy technologies, including Alternate (green) fuels and Fuel Efficiency.
3. If this approach to Ownership and Development structures works out well (it´s a variation of Norway´s highly acclaimed Ownership structure for its offshore oil-gas developments), it can be expanded step-by-step under strict engineering criteria for protection of the environment.
Our energy independence struggle is so important, Dr. Reich, I am compromising a bit on my earlier posts advising not to offer any more leases to oil firms for 4-5 years during which they can focus on existing leases, a technical evaluation of other fuel options and progress in greater fuel efficiency can take root.
Offshore drilling with Drill Ships has an excellent safety record in very deep calm waters and very difficult waters, sometimes at distances over 300 miles from a coastline. This makes it easier to vastly minimize a pollution incident causing serious damage to valuable coastal regions and to nature´s habitats.
I offer above simply as some food for thought.
We don´t have the luxory of being "creative dead" on interim solutions to being ultimately dependent from fossil fuel imports ... solutions that also protect the environment as well.
Frank Thomas, The Netherlands
Dr. Reich,
Assuming the 68 million acres of federal onshore-offshore land now under lease to oil firms have little near-term production possibilities (although highly unlikely), may I suggest an idea to meet the oil firms half-way to encourage more near-term U.S. drilling for oil.
This compromise approach will also help fund government tax incentives for speeding development of Alternate (green) Fuels and Fuel Efficiency.
The concept Ownership and Development structures are as follows and, of course, they must be refined:
1. Allow oil firms to lease a few selected offshore land areas that are at least 250 miles offshore and where geological studies point to high probability of oil reserves.
2. Conditions are that: (a) government leases must be developed and producing oil within four years or leases lapse with all land rights reverting to the government; (b) government has right to convert leases into a 50% Ownership position once oil is discovered with the particular land leased being the government´s equity investment -- with the oil firm having option to convert its lease into a 50% Ownership at a pre-negotiated price formula (minus the firm´s Capital Investment) or pay a higher pre-negotiated long-term lease for its 50% Ownership interest; (c) oil firms will develop offshore prospects using DRILL SHIPS with eventual production offloaded into state-of-art storage tanker with subsequent offloading to new smaller, powerfully constructed tankers which transport oil to onshore storage facility ... so no offshore lengthy pipelines and gigantic platforms long-lead time investments are necessary ... this technique is well known, used in offshore developments worldwide and is called a Floating Production System ... it results in a much faster development of an offshore oil field and generally much less upfront capital investment; (d) oil firms will take out adequate insurance and provide escrow funds against a possible pollution incident far from a coastline; (e) government has no liability , as a lessor, or 50% shareholder, for any pollution cleanup and damage costs; (f) government´s 50% share of pre-tax profits from monthly oil flows would be deposited into a separate transparent fund and used to stimulate new energy technologies, including Alternate (green) fuels and Fuel Efficiency.
3. If this approach to Ownership and Development structures works out well (it´s a variation of Norway´s highly acclaimed Ownership structure for its offshore oil-gas developments), it can be expanded step-by-step under strict engineering criteria for protection of the environment.
Our energy independence struggle is so important, Dr. Reich, I am compromising a bit on my earlier posts advising not to offer any more leases to oil firms for 4-5 years during which they can focus on existing leases, a technical evaluation of other fuel options and progress in greater fuel efficiency can take root.
Offshore drilling with Drill Ships has an excellent safety record in very deep calm waters and very difficult waters, sometimes at distances over 300 miles from a coastline. This makes it easier to vastly minimize a pollution incident causing serious damage to valuable coastal regions and to nature´s habitats.
I offer above simply as some food for thought.
We don´t have the luxory of being "creative dead" on interim solutions to being ultimately dependent from fossil fuel imports ... solutions that also protect the environment as well.
Frank Thomas, The Netherlands
frank:
I hope that "food for thought" was lo-cal cause, if not, posting it twice could cause obesity.
Dr. Riech,
Sorry for inadvertent repeat of my post ... probably result of a mild mental lapse from Holland's defeat in Euro 2008 championship quarter finals last night.
Anonymous,
Dims have long sought to minimize the value of the reserves in ANWR.
But, at 10.4 Billion Barrels, ANWR is roughly equivalent to the entire proven reserves of all of Brazil (click the image).
So, by your “logic”, Brazil should not bother extracting any of their oil, least of all the oil they recently discovered “beneath a swath of the Santos Basin”.
We absolutely should develop the 1/100th of 1% of ANWR proposed for development. But, even more important is the 86 Billion Barrels in the OCS and the 800 Billion Barrels in Oil Shale.
The Dims are desperately out of touch. This is THE issue which will cause Obama to lose!
Frank proposes:
“government has [the] right to convert [OCS] leases into a 50% Ownership position”
Oh hell, why not just nationalize the entire oil industry? After all the Dims have already proposed nationalizing refineries! Why stop there? In fact, why stop with the oil industry. Why not go the whole 9 yards? Viva Che!
Oh, wait! Maybe somebody should call Mikhail Gorbachev and ask him how that one worked out for his country.
The LAST thing we need to do is to emulate the Socialist model of the Netherlands! But, that is EXACTLY the direction we will go in if Obama is elected. The Dims have already given us a warning shot!
Oh, by the way, the objective, quantitative facts prove that Mother Nature contributes orders of magnitude more petroleum products into the world oceans than offshore drilling AND pipelines combined!
These Dims are UN-FREAKING-BELIEVABLE!
sbvor: "Brazil should not bother extracting any of their oil, least of all the oil they recently discovered 'beneath a swath of the Santos Basin'."
Since you didn't disagree, I assume it's true that ANWR only holds four months worth of oil?
Then, naturally, Brazil extracts its oil for profit. And it's natural for the oil companies to want to develop ANWR for profit.
But unless the oil companies are willing to split the profits with the rest of us, why should I support their desire to make a little more money off the four months worth of oil in ANWR?
I'll support development in ANWR when the oil companies agree to give a share of that profit to me. Though it would only be a few dollars per person...
Maybe it isn't worth it even then.
sbvor:
You might want to quit referencing the oil shale crap. Even your own link to the Rand study suggests any commencing of production is 20 to 30 years away. If we're still heavily reliant on oil 20 or 30 years from now we've got huge problems.
In the interim, it is highly unlikely that progress will make it past all the environmental studies, not to mention the huge water usage requirements and the risk of damage to water supplies after shutdown.
Better you should devote your scientific(?) knowledge to developing a system of transporting water from flood spots to drought spots, in the US. Think of the increase in the food supply if we could avoid flood damage to crops and increase crops in those areas suffering droughts.
It is fascinating that Reagan rode in on an aura of "can do" and thirty years later, conservatives have segued to the "can't do" party.
The real proof of your disingenuousness is that you don't make a plea for a balancing of resources and investment but rather you take questionable issues and use them to condemn a differing viewpoint. Further, you wean them down to a condemnation of a particular political viewpoint when in fact, that disagreement is mostly bipartisan.
I always marvel at Newt. When he takes off his conservative hat he can be a reasonable and very bright guy. When he dons that hat he becomes just one more blithering idiot.
Oh, by the way, I have nothing against profits, or greed.
I like greed. I especially like profits for myself. So if the oil companies want me to support development in ANWR, they should pay me a share of the potential profit.
Though, again, if my calculations are right, it would only round out to a few dollars each, and my support costs more than that.
Even for the oil companies, I suppose, it's only worth fighting over because the oil companies hope the government will give them 100% of the profit, and they won't share with the rest of us.
Roger Fox has continuing updates on the below at his Daily Kos diary. Here is an MSNBC blog link.
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/12/1136887.aspx
It’s probably nothing. But if it does work, it will ‘ffect coal first – not oil. The Navy has been funding this at a very small level. Maybe we will find out something by the end of the summer.
-rj40
Whoops! It got cut off.
Here is the whole thing.
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/
archive/2008/06/12/1136887.aspx
Sbvor:
I never answer blog nut cases, but there's always an exception. What Frank is saying is rather basic: if one owns a home and leases it, one still has the right to sell the home. Federal land is owned by all American citizens who have an inherent right to allow their government to act as a fiduciary to lease it or to sell it wholly or partly. That's what a country like Norway does with its offshore properties in the interest of all its citizens and the oil companies. Apparently, all parties are content with this business arrangement. The property owner, the U.S. government, can participate in a project the Ownership way or by a Lease arrangement that reflects an equitable share in the property's inherent development value.
So it´s just business as usual, nothing more... and certainly nothing to do with Socialism, but everything to do with simple, property rights exercised by the legal property owner, the U.S. Government.
But reasoning with someone brainwashed into the ideological purity game of dumb steriotyping, banal sloganizing, and an inflated notion of his intelligence is a waste of time. So blabber on!
sbvor:
Can understand, with your busy blogging schedule, that you don't stay current. As regards nationalizing the oil industry one does not need to go back to Gorbachev; let's just ask Putin.
anonymous:
Right now the State of Alaska is sitting on a fortune in royalites from oil leases due to the current pricing. Their legislature is proposing a rebate of $500 per resident due to high energy prices. This would be over and above the annual stipend each resident receives annually, in 2007 it was $1,654 each.
This is great for Alaskan residents but I don't remember that Seward paid for Alaska with funds from the Native Americans of that area so one might wonder why all Americans are not getting some kickbacks. No doubt it would not be economical to issue that many checks for what would be a paltry amount but then, 49 checks to each state would be cheaper than processing checks to each Alaska resident.
11:29:
Extremely, EXTREMELY, well said!!!!!
Art,
Our need for oil goes way beyond gasoline.
If we don’t start now to develop our 800 billion barrels of Oil Shale, you can wave goodbye (in whole or in part) to every product on this list.
Your Democratic Congress, however, has made it ILLEGAL to develop it!
Anonymous,
I never waste much time on Marxists posing as pseudo-sophisticated pseudo-intellectuals.
So, I will merely give the readers a small primer on Marxism (and the ownership of the means of production).
sbvor:
If ignorance is bliss you must feel like you're in heaven.
We are all well aware that oil is used to create many of the everyday products we use. We do have this interesting process called capitalism, albeit commencing to fail us severely, but for the last couple of centuries it has developed innovative ideas for those everyday products and no doubt will again if necessary.
Further if we can, through a myriad of conservation and alternative energy innovations, reduce our demand for gasoline and heating oil, etc., the remaining worldwide supply of oil can still be used for all those other products.
Your viewing prism seems to be only made up of bifocals.
To the extent that we can develop patentable products or processes, China and India and the rest of the world will be clamoring for a piece of the action.
Chicken Little appears a rank amateur next to you.
There are too many anonymous users right now. I was the one who'd like a cut of the profit from ANWR, if it's worth it.
BTW: how much would that be? Not very much, if I'm calculating correctly.
I'm not the one you just responded to, but after reading the first result from your link, I think you have "means of production" confused with the "subject of labor". Quote:
Means of labor include machines, tools, plant and equipment, infrastructure, and so on: "all those things with the aid of which man acts upon the subject of labor, and transforms it."
Subject of labor is the material worked on.
You should be more careful, you sounded like a "pseudo-sophisticated pseudo-intellectual".
LOL....
Would be absolutely humorous if not so pathetic.
Conservatives always start with the Socialism fear tactic. When they fear they are failing they shift into high gear and throw out that epitomy of fear; MARXISM!
Those that cannot engage an intellectual discussion on viable subject matter always end up making their use of the term "pseudo" look like it belongs in the Ten Commandments or the US Constitution.
Argument such as sbvor's reminds one of, "my daddy can beat up your daddy".
It sounds like sbvor thinks the oil companies already own all the land in the world, and saying that they don't is somehow Marxist.
Personally I like private property, and I wouldn't mind selling more land to the oil companies, if the price is right.
That price would have to be pretty high to compensate for damage to the planet I live on, but it sounds like their offer is pretty low.
Maybe their offer is high enough to tempt the third world, but this is America.
The other major fallacy in sbvor's whining is that Marxism, as presented with the Communist Manifesto is considered an intellectual treatise.
Whether you find the conclusions abhorrent or not it was an intellectual excercise. sbvor does not exhibit the ability to comprehend that.
we are toast
"To commit to a non fossil fuel energy economy over the next 20 years is not only technically possible, it would be the biggest economic boom the U.S. has ever seen. We would reverse the path to economic depression the conservatives have us on, and once again we would be the worlds leading economy."
Great post, Coservatives and Liberals both know our dependency on oil is a major problem and you provided what I feel are great solutions. I wish we could just figure out how to get our politicians to work out solutions. I truly hope that both sides of the political spectrum can start having discussions like the one we just had.
It is interesting that the Saudi's are now looking at taking actions to increase oil supplies to reduce prices. I would guess that they may have some influence on other oil producers as well.
I doubt they are doing this out of disdain for the money they are making at current prices. The Saudi's and to a lesser extent, OPEC has always been cognizant of two realities: It does not bode well, for oil producers, for the price of oil to cause a worldwide recession, nor is it a good idea to let the price get so out of control that significant demand habits are altered and the marketplace begins to pursue alternatives impacting oil fortunes in the long term.
It is a teeter-totter they have managed fairly well for the last 30 years and even though there are other major players today, the Saudi's and OPEC can have a significant impact on oil prices and they need the profits far less than some of the other emerging producers.
toast:
BTW, I was remiss. Your post truly was great!
Art, et al:
Let’s review the quantitative facts:
1) In 2007, World Demand exceeded World Supply by about 1 million barrels per day.
2) By 2009, the Saudis plan to increase their production capacity by 1 million barrels per day (an amount roughly equivalent to what we would now be getting from ANWR had Clinton not vetoed that plan in 1995).
3) So, by 2009, the Saudis, running at full capacity, will just about make up the difference between supply and demand that existed in 2007.
4) Given all that, if we don’t start producing some of our own enormous reserves, where do you think the price of gasoline is heading?
Hell, where do you think the WORLD ECONOMY is heading (over the next set of DECADES required to replace gasoline)? If the world economy grinds to a halt in the near term (over “the next 20 years”), the venture capital required to move beyond gasoline will vanish and WE WILL NEVER GET THERE!
Like it or not, for at LEAST the next 20 years, the WORLD ECONOMY is dependent upon hydrocarbons. Beyond that point, we will still need and want a healthy supply of oil.
5) P.S.) According to this recent report from the EIA:
“The opening of ANWR to oil and gas development includes the following impacts:
• reducing world oil prices,
• reducing the U.S. dependence on imported foreign oil,
• improving the U.S. balance of trade,
• extending the life of TAPS for oil, and
• increasing U.S. jobs.”
Voters can run down that list and see everything the Dims OPPOSE!
Is that the platform (pun intended) which the Dims are running on this year? This will be fun!
P.S.) Toasty’s 20 year fantasy is all about investment of capital, not production of capital.
Without striking a balance between production of capital through the hydrocarbon economy and investment of capital INTO the alternative energy economy, alternative energy will FOREVER remain the “Wishful Thinking” described by Matthew Wald of the New York Times.
Furthermore, if we rely on government to “lead” the way, we will only get more catastrophes like Ethanol.
WAKE UP DIMS!
sbvor, pour vous.
brew your own.
In the news, could be good news.
Obama vows crackdown on energy speculators
Saudi Arabia to produce more oil
tt
Folks:
A few brief notes on sbvor's latest, running out of time right now - please no tears - but will review further.
EIA stipulates at the outset that their report is not what will happen, but what might happen.
They state, "This analysis assumes that the authorization for Federal oil and natural gas leasing occurs during 2008". Now we are almost into July; think that's going to happen? If so, then production would not yield results until 2018. It would be 2027 before mean estimates suggest 780,000 barrels produced per day - not exactly a million but then when have we known sbvor to be precise.
EIA forecasts that ANWR production would result in cumulative savings from reduced purchases of foreign oil and liquid fuels of $202 billion for the twelve year period from 2018 to 2030, or $16.8 billion a year on average. Not exactly a whopping sum but might be a good start for Lee's rebate program.
They further predict that by 2025 the mean probability of a per barrel price drop, on world market's would be $.75 per barrel.
I have never figured out whether sbvor doesn't read the links he posts or just assumes he can spew whatever lies he wants because no one else will bother to read them.
Maybe more later.
P.S. Latest on the news is that Saudi Arabia will increase daily production in 2009 to 12.5 million barrels a day. Currently they do 9 million barrels a day. I was never great at math but 12.5 minus 9, I think, is a tad more than a million a day.
TipToe,
Thank you. I’ve seen that before. It’s very interesting, maybe even promising.
But…
Most, maybe all, biofuels have a common problem. They all compete with food products for land use. Thus, all biofuels are likely to create problems very similar to the problems we’ve seen with Corn Ethanol.
I’m not saying I am opposed to this venture. But, when one becomes blind to “unintended consequences”, significant problems can develop.
The tens of millions of Africans (and counting) who died needlessly when we banned DDT is a classic example of unscientific hysteria blinding people to the unintended consequences of their Environmental Extremism.
One last thing....
We can't accept the opinions of a majority of scientists because they are wrong "all the time". We can' trust "unscientific evidence", because "people die" - sounds like something from a Jack Nicholson movie.
It would seem we have no other choice but to elect sbvor POTUS and let him tell us the right answers.
Arty,
1) Which part of “roughly equivalent” did you not understand?
I used that terminology because I DID read the report.
780,000 barrels per day is 78% of 1,000,000. I’d say that qualifies as “roughly equivalent”. But, the high end of the estimate is “1.45 million barrels per day” (also “roughly equivalent” to 1,000,000).
So, who’s the liar now?
2) EIA asserts Saudi production capacity is “around 10.5-11.0 million” barrels per day.
Subtracting the upper end of that range from the “12 million” barrels per day which the Saudis hope to produce by 2009, gives us (wait for it…) EXACTLY the “1 million barrels per day” boost which I quoted.
By the way, in 2007, the Saudis produced at a rate of 10.2 million barrels per day (right up against their ever fluctuating production capacity).
If, as you implied, the Saudis need only open the spigot a little more in order to ease global pain, why the HECK would they spend “$18-billion” to add another million barrels per day to their production capacity?
Again, who is the REAL LIAR? Sorry, that was a second obviously rhetorical question.
Readers are advised to review my prior comment and think about what is best for our country and the world.
P.S.) The USA currently produces about 5.1 million barrels per day.
Ergo, ANWR alone using the mean estimate of 780,000, would increase our domestic production by 15% in one fell swoop. That is NOT chump change! But, it pales compared to what we could do if we got these stinking Dims out of the way!
I think we WILL!
How much would opening ANWR increase total worldwide production? 1%?
Sounds like ANWR has a trivial amount of oil, whether you measure it as four months worth, or 1%.
Even so, shouldn't we save every drop of oil under US soil for last, and consume oil from other nations while they're still willing to sell it?
About the Saudi oil increase.
I'm not buying it for a second, and will believe it when I see it. This news is old and the markets don't seem to be buying it either.
The 12.5 million figure is simply the pumping capacity that the Saudi's will claim to have in 2009, it does not mean they will (and I don't believe they can) pump this much. They have a couple smaller fields that are now coming on line and they probably can reach 10 million/day for a few months.
It's probably going to be heavy-sour, and the world needs light-sweet. I view it as another indicator that the major oil fields in the kingdom have peaked out and are in decline.
Anonymous,
1) At a mean estimate of 780,000 barrels per day, ANWR alone would increase current world production by 1% (not a trivial amount).
More importantly, ANWR alone would increase our domestic production by 15%.
Most importantly, ANWR alone would almost close the gap between World Demand and World Supply. Applying Economics 101, which would you prefer?
A) Prices continue to soar until demand gets back in balance with supply?
B) We increase supply in order to, at a minimum, prevent even HIGHER prices?
2) But, as you continually choose to ignore, ANWR is trivial compared to the bigger picture of what we could accomplish if we got these stinking Dims out of the way!
3) Unless you Dims plan to nationalize our oil industry, oil will remain a global commodity. Ergo, it is disingenuous to suggest we save our domestic resources for our domestic use. If you do plan to nationalize our oil industry, you should chat with Mikhail Gorbachev before imposing that folly on us.
4) Despite the best efforts of your team to talk us into a recession, we ain’t there yet. But, most of the world economy IS experiencing slower growth. And, the price of crude has a lot to do with that.
IF you want to grind the growth of the world economies to a dead stop, dry up the venture capital which would otherwise allow the world to develop the technologies which will move us beyond gasoline just keep on saying “NO”.
In the process, you will hand Bin Laden the victory via economic destruction which has always been his goal.
The real “change” which will move the world forward is found right here.
Your “ideas” are counterproductive, old, tired, worn out and just plain wrong! It’s time to sing goodbye to your tired old destructive dogma of the past.
Toasty,
There is no “Peak Oil” issue in Saudi Arabia. Their problem is a socio-political structure which prevents them from maximizing their potential.
Come to think of it, with Dims holding power in Congress, our current socio-political structure is even more backwards than the freaking Saudis!
At LEAST the Saudis are willing to attempt to expand their production capacity! The only energy “strategy” our stinking Dims have is the word “NO”!
Hell, just look at the title of this blog entry.
SBVOR said...
Toasty,
There is no “Peak Oil” issue in Saudi Arabia. ...
Come to think of it, with Dims holding power in Congress, our current socio-political structure is even more backwards than the freaking Saudis!...
The only energy “strategy” our stinking Dims have is the word “NO”!
Hell, just look at the title of this blog entry."
Hey SBVOR!
Are you sitting in a dimly lit mountain cabin right now with the faint light of your computer monitor reflecting the rage in your face on a half empty bottle of Jim Beam and an ash tray full of cigarette butts next your keyboard?
John McCain=3rd Bush term!
Nuff said!
Sbvor,
Don't you know you're posting on a progressive Dem blog? You must have lost your way.
First requirement to post here: rational thinking. You might do better to listen to talk radio.
But...please read more, here and elsewhere. Learn. That's the key.
Obama '08 & '12
Con,
What better place to wage intellectual war than in the heart of darkness?
Obama is nothing but Jimmy Carter warmed over with a little more charisma and even less substance.
In the unlikely event that Obama wins, he will absolutely be a one term President.
The socio-economic & socio-political international disaster that would result from Dims controlling both the Executive and the Legislative branch would drive the public away in way less than four years.
Every so often, the country has to be reminded how bad things can get under the Dims. New voters will have to learn for the first time (since they’ve been indoctrinated in our “schools” with a load of propaganda).
No matter who wins in ‘08, it will be Gingrich in ‘12. He’s the one showing the most leadership this year.
So ANWR holds about 4 months supply for the world. Or 1% of worldwide production - enough to support about 4 months of economic growth (at a 3% annual growth rate).
However you measure it, ANWR = 4 months of oil.
And that's completely ignoring the amount of oil used to fetch and transport ANWR's oil out of the wilderness.
I guess ANWR = 3 months of oil.
AnonMoron,
Well, if some catastrophe disables ALL the production sites ALL around the entire WORLD, then ANWR ALONE could supply the ENTIRE WORLD for four months (if we could pump it fast enough).
In my book, that's pretty darn impressive (and, you're not).
Yours is exactly the sort of tired old “can’t do” rhetoric that will find our country singing goodbye to your worn out Dim culture of “NO [Solutions]” and embracing REAL CHANGE that will produce a more hopeful future for the entire world.
Heh, any fool can play stupid word games. For example, I could call you sbBORE.
But I'm not interested in your partisan bickering and name-calling. I just wanted to know how much oil would be gained from drilling in ANWR.
Now I know: enough to support 3 months of continued economic growth. After that, we'd be right back where we are now.
Thanks for helping me understand that.
I do think 3 months is trivial. We need longer term solutions.
Anonymous,
Those who prefer a more reasoned and more comprehensive examination of the quantitative facts can find it here (updated just minutes ago).
Thanks for the research, we_are_toast.
Oil from algae
A guy from a tech board posted, "I DO have a photo bioreactor (PBR) in the backyard and you CAN run a small diesel on RME from algae oil.".
tt
Dr. Reich,
For some time, I've been saying Republicans, Democrats and Independents must for once get control of our politically myopic views on critical issues facing us, among the most serious being, perhaps, INDEPENDENCE from fossil fuels.
This requires putting Country before Party in coming to a short/long term Marshall Plan approach to Energy Policies that meets this goal ... integrated Policies that are cleverly and largely self-paying in some of the ways I and others have tried to clarify.
It's about achieving such social ends with creative financial tactics (tax incentives, tax credits, tax-free status, offsetting added taxes, budget cuts) that help avoid further exploding our Deficits ... causing the vicious circle of a declining Dollar and rising oil prices leading to new levels of IMPORTED INFLATION.
For a further Common-Sense discussion about the need to come together on our potentially catastrophic strategic vulnerability to fossil fuel pollution/higher prices/dependency addiction, I suggest everyone who has not done so read following articles in NYT and IHT published just recently:
1. THREE STRIKES AND WE'RE OUT by Anatol Lieven and Alexis Rowell
2. ADDICTED TO OIL by Thomas Friedman
All solutions are long term. More supply is part of these long term solutions. We are doomed because anything that takes longer than the 2 year election cycle can't pass muster. Turn the lights out when you are done.
"All solutions are long term"
Something that at best delays the oil crisis by just a few months (like drilling in ANWR) isn't a long term solution.
Or do you mean to say that it's not a solution at all, because it's not long term? I'm not good at semantic word games.
Frank Thomas said...
"continue more aggessively investing in R&D on feasibility of development of pure Fusion driven nuclear power plants or some advanced combination of Fusion and Fission"
No thank you kind sir to Nuclear Age 3.0 although many will find your argument persuasive as you present it well.
Theodore B. Taylor (physicist/ nuclear engineer-bomb designer late 1940’s Los Alamos):
“In short, the connections between nuclear technology for constructive use and for destructive use are so closely tied together that the benefits of the one are not accessible without greatly increasing the hazards of the other”.
Notsofast -
Have you seen this?
http://www.dailykos.com/
story/2007/12/24/01048/
939/153/425980
or
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/
If it works, you may change your mind re: fusion.
Much more if you search google for:
Polywell Fusion
A Guide For The (Many) Confused: How To Kick Oil Addiction, by Simple Plan.
Of all the oil we import, two-thirds is used for personal transporation (our personal cars)!
Solution:
1) Rebuild intercity passenger rail for trips under 300 miles (connect large parts of the country for short trips). The federal and state governments build out the tracks and private companies own and manage the trains.
2) Build communter rail in top 25 metro markets.
3) Build comprehensive light rail/trolley cars in top 50 metro areas.
4) Set national goal to reduce car dependency 80% in 8 years.
5)Rail and mass transit would run on electricity when and where possible.
6) Funding commuter rail: fed/state/local tax mechanism, advertising, ticket sales, etc.
7) For those who don't want to ride-please don't. Thank you.
sbvorie:
“Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination.” Quote from Ben Franklin.
If you were consistent in your application of terms then, 1) In 2007, World Demand exceeded World Supply by about 1 million barrels per day. Might have read, In 2007, World Demand was roughly equivalent to World Supply. Note to all: Supply here is actually production, not necessarily capacity supply.
In the interest of full disclosure you forgot to mention the low estimate of 2027 ANWR production, which was 510,000 bpd. "Roughly equivalent" is getting a workout.
2) By 2009, the Saudis plan to increase their production capacity by 1 million barrels per day (an amount roughly equivalent to what we would now be getting from ANWR had Clinton not vetoed that plan in 1995).
First of all, in your reply to me you claim that "EIA asserts" that Saudi production capacity is 10.5 to 11.0 million bpd. What they actually "asserted" is that "estimates" are.
Notwithstanding toast's concerns, which may be very valid, the Saudi's have said they expect to produce 12.5 million bpd in 2009. Now the math would get you to 1.5 -2.0 million bdp increase, using those "estimates". I suppose in your world of closes and maybes and "roughly equivalents" that would be around an increase of 1 million bpd.
EIA is projecting that the 780,000 million bpd production would not occur until 2027, assuming legislation passes in 2008. That is a 19 year span to peak production. If Clinton had signed the bill in 1995 we would only be in year 13, a long way from your "roughly equivalent" million bpd.
All in all, the EIA report, while impressive, is full of estimates, assumptions, reliance on other studies full of estimates and assumptions, and numerous ifs and buts, with a net result of:
1)"Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices."
2)"The mean oil resource case reduces this import expenditure by $202 billion dollars, or about 7 percent." This is over a 12 year period, not a staggering rate of return.
3)"There is little direct knowledge regarding the petroleum geology of the ANWR region." The 10.4 billion estimate is, "The USGS oil resource estimates are based largely on the oil productivity of geologic formations that exist in the neighboring State lands and which continue into ANWR. Consequently, there is considerable uncertainty regarding both the size and quality of the oil resources that exist in ANWR."
4)"The size of the oil fields found in ANWR is one factor that will determine the rate at which ANWR oil resources are developed and produced."
5)"Oil field production rates are also determined by the quality of oil found, e.g., viscosity and paraffin content, and the field’s reservoir characteristics, i.e., its depth, permeability, faulting, and water saturation. This analysis assumes oil quality and reservoir characteristics similar to those associated with the Prudhoe Bay field."
6)"Environmental restrictions could affect access for exploration and development. Also, legal challenges to the BLM’s leasing program and to its approval of seismic data collection and of specific oil field projects could significantly delay ANWR oil development and production." Wanna put a probability number on that one?
In science and finance it is not customary to represent "quanitative facts" as "roughly equivalent". It is a common occurrence in political parlance.
William Penn said: “Equivocation is half-way to lying, and lying the whole way to hell."
Other factors that should influence prices: China reducing or eliminating fuel subsidies; Iraq getting production to their stated goal of 6 billion bpd over the time period covered by the EIA report; intensified conservation and innovation efforts around the world, mainly in the US; better oversight of the oil futures commodity market and on and on.
There are two solution sets to supply and demand pricing. One is increasing supply the other is decreasing demand. Of the two, decreasing demand is far more impactive because it changes the future dynamic.
Should all of these anticipated actions take place it could drive the price of oil to a point where smaller oil wells in ANWR would not be economically viable, making, potentially a huge dent in the estimated total reserves existing there.
The outer bound of the EIA report is 2030. They do not paint a pretty picture beyond that time frame. Since available capital is limited, you raise a constant concern over venture capital, the better long term goal with the greater returns would be in alternatives, quickly.
Your cute abbreviation of Democrats (Dims) tends to overlook a similar but more precise abbreviation of your ilk, Cons. Certainly appears more apt.
Those who (incorrectly) think we are on the cusp of running out of oil love to think of ANWR as only adding another 4 months to the clock before the world runs out of oil.
But, the mean estimate for ANWR alone increases our domestic proven reserves by 15%. ANWR alone is roughly equivalent to all the proven reserves in all of Brazil.
Add the mean estimates for ANWR and the OCS to our proven reserves and we have more oil than Iraq!
Add the mean estimate for our Oil Shale, ANWR and the OCS to our proven reserves and we have 3.5 TIMES the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia!
All of the above figures can be verified here.
Do we need to find the alternatives which will allow us to move beyond gasoline? Emphatically, yes.
Will that take at least 20-30 years to accomplish? Emphatically, yes.
Do we, in the interim, need more oil and other hydrocarbons? Emphatically, yes.
Does the world have enough hydrocarbons to allow us to do that? MOST emphatically, yes.
Without addition hydrocarbons, the world economies will grind to a halt, venture capital will vanish and we will NEVER get to that next generation of energy sources.
Review the more comprehensive analysis here.
Yet even if all goes well - the Saudis increase production by 2 million bpd, and we get 1 million bpd from ANWR, and other nations increase production by a few million bpd - the increase is only a tiny fraction of the 85 million bpd we use. And if prices fall, demand will increase even more.
We'll soon be right back where we are now.
Unless we can get huge quantities of oil from shale, coal, and tar sands (quickly), consumption must and will fall to meet supply, whether through higher prices, rationing, conservation, or alternative fuels.
Anonymous,
The Party of “NO” is what got us where we are.
If the Party of “NO” continues to prevail, things will only get worse (much, much worse).
Yikes! lol
td
svborie:
America did not attain its exalted economic status by being the "me too" country. Let the rest of the world search, find and sell those hydrocarbon reserves while we focus on our talents, innovation.
The oil issue is a problem for all the industrial world, the budding, the burgeoning, and the maturing. If we lead the charge in creating alternatives we will likely end up with the bulk of the profits. If we don't then China or India or Japan or some other player will and they will reap the rewards. It has been the history of our economic existence.
Your constant refrain that it will take 20 or 30 or whatever years to make a huge dent in creating alternatives may or may not be true. There is no empirical evidence that substantiates that fast progress is impossible on all fronts.
Granted there are limitations on some fronts that will take a few years to overcome but there are average joe's popping up everyday with valid ideas, complete with examples, that could cause a drastic turnaround. If the American auto industry gets a little patriotic fervor they can beat hell out of the new CAFE standards in a few years. Motivational theory has it that you achieve great things by setting great goals. If we attempt to assuage our oil problems by more drilling we will merely drop back to a false sense of security and follow Scarlett's adage. It happened when oil prices dropped in the late 70s, 80s.
No doubt the current situation is perilous. The US has a pretty fair history of meeting and overcoming perilous times.
Your time would be better spent if you quit propagating your political propaganda and began focusing on "the fierce urgency of NOW!"
Meanwhile the oil companies will be spending their time and resources running around buying up patents right and left.
Lifting the federal ban on OCS drilling is just the tip of the iceberg. You then have to contend with all of the states involved. Talk about litigation.
sbvor, make a chart of this.
My electricity, in the great oil & gas state of Texas, just went from .125 to .159 kWh. And that's the lower fixed rate.
Add that to the increased cost of car gas and food, and I'm sensing a depression. Maybe one worse than the 1930's.
I just listened to CSPAN's coverage of the House Energy Commerce Committee. It wasn't encouraging other than that they actually HAD hearings, suddenly.
It's grim.
tt
sbvorie:
Could this be an example of the party of NO?
In addition, policy changes accompanying new administrations removed the subsidies for synthetic fuels. Witness the demise of the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, which was chartered during the Carter Administration but allowed to expire during the Reagan Administration. The oil price collapse of 1986 assured the end of the U.S. synthetic fuels industry.
So much for the soothsaying powers of the party of YES.
McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years and stay dependent on oil for another 100 years. Big thinker !!!
Why don't we get off oil dependency, which will lead us out of the middle east.
The next thing you know is McCain will be pushing for tax breaks to beer distributors, so he and his rich wife can make more money on the sly.
He marries for money and will be politicing for money.
TipToe,
Check your fuel surcharge and then tell me how the Party of “NO” will fix that.
I’m guessing your fuel is Natural Gas.
Have you checked the mean estimates for Natural Gas in the Outer Continental Shelf?
Anonymous,
Actually, regrettably, McCain has been conned into believing in a climate crisis which government must “solve”.
I wish McCain had half the common sense of the Czech President.
sbvorie:
More info to mull over:
...About a third of the total area of the OCS is off-limits to drilling. But the area off-limits accounts for only 21 percent of the total oil reserves in the OCS, according to a recent Interior Department report.
Bush said Wednesday he wants to remove his father's executive restriction, but dared Congress to act first to end the legislative limits.....
What's happening with the other 79%? Was George H. W. Bush of the party of NO?
tiptoe:
Have you checked the mean estimates for Natural Gas in the Outer Continental Shelf?
Have you even checked out the "nice" estimates?
How did sbvorie get to Natural Gas when you told him electricity and KwH rates?
art, the devil's in the details, always, and sbvor doesn't seem to be a detail person.
Electricity is the only energy utility I have. Since I moved from NY I've lost tract of heating oil or gas rates.
I checked with my previous NY electric company and the rates are .09 kWh. It takes my breath away.
tt
tiptoe:
He might have been referencing the fuel source of your electricity provider.
My understanding is that in Texas you can choose providers so I would think prices would have to be competitive no matter what the generation fuel source.
This entire discussion on additional drilling in the US is of no value whatsoever until you can pin down the oil companies with a guaranteed amount of oil per year they will produce and a guaranteed maximum price they will sell it exclusively into the US market, regardless of what the international marketprice may be.
Oil corporation are primarily in business to maximize profit for their stockholders, so if they can make lots of money by producing a limited amount of oil and selling it to international speculators for the highest price, we US folks don't get any benefit at all!!! And if they don't do that they can be subject to stockholder lawsuits. And no oil executive to date has offered to make such a binding commitment.
“In a USA Today-Gallup Poll released Monday (6-23), nine in 10 people said energy, including gas prices, would be very or extremely important in deciding their presidential vote in November, tying it with the economy as the top issue. People said Obama would do a better job than McCain on energy issues by 19 percentage points".
Interesting how this election could turn on who can best bribe voters with promises of immediate and meaningful gas price relief. If prices stay above the $4 level, who provides the most instant and tangible relief might turn into the winner. Obama and his campaign showed us good creativity in handling billary and her campaign during the primary. McCain and his group so far haven’t equaled this; but they really haven't been pressed so let's wait and see as it's still very early.
Obviously, TipToe has no idea where her electricity comes from:
“In the 1990s, cheap natural gas replaced coal as the favorite choice of Texas utilities.”
Now, thanks to the party of “NO” and their eco-nuts, coal is cheaper than clean burning Natural Gas. My bet is her NY electric company uses either coal or nuclear. Around here, we use coal.
Her electric bill would be lower if the Party of “NO” would allow us to use the Natural Gas sitting in the Outer Continental Shelf.
Art,
I presume this is the source of your quote.
Could your so-called “journalist” have been any MORE vague in citing his alleged source (“a recent Interior Department report”)?
IF you find this alleged “recent Interior Department report”, let me know. Until then, all you’ve got is another moronic so-called “journalist” talking smack.
P.S.) In 1990, “Bush 41” was wrong to issue his Executive Order. But, for over thirty years, the Party of “NO” has overwhelmingly been the Dims.
Zogby Poll: 74% Support Off-Shore Oil Drilling in U.S. Coastal Waters
Like I said, this is THE issue which WILL defeat Obama AND lead to losses for the Dims in Congress.
Just remember, you heard it here first!
Poor Dims…
They have become slaves to the Environmental Extremist lobby.
You might as well sing goodbye to your candidate(s) now.
AHAHAHAHAH.
You make me laugh, sbvor.
You may truly believe that, after running the country into the ground, the Ripoff-licans will save our economy if we just...please...let the oil companies make a little more money.
But anyone who hasn't been subjected to conservative brainwashing in secret CIA prisons can see more clearly.
Quoting an excerpt from another sensible commentary advocating for a more balanced energy policy:
“These either/or arguments, we think, are no longer how we should approach shaping our energy policy.
We can drill more domestically, and we can do it in an environmentally safe manner.
We can drill more domestically, and still put billions toward alternative energy source development.
We can drill more domestically and still conserve.
We can drill more domestically and also rethink our nuclear energy policy.
We're perfectly capable of drilling more domestically - thereby cutting our reliance on foreign oil - and still paving a new way toward other energy sources besides petroleum.”
This is the kind of stuff (bull) you'll get if you vote for McCain.
It's the most hair brained idea I've heard in a long time. Raise your hand if you think he'd actually pay off. Bush's switch grass idea was better than this, even.
"McCain Proposes a $300 Million Prize for a Next-Generation Car Battery"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/us/politics/24campaign.html
tt
The Ripoff-licans had their chance to "drill more domestically in an environmentally safe manner, put billions toward alternative energy source development, conserve, rethink our nuclear energy policy, and pave a new way toward other energy sources besides petroleum.”
They didn't.
$4/gallon gas is their legacy.
(Along with innocent people in secret prisons, an endless war in Iraq, failing to catch Bin Laden, the housing bubble, Katrina...)
Anonymous,
Who, today, is saying “NO”?
Here’s a hint - Look at the subject line of this blog entry.
Canada has the “Can Do” spirit that the “Won’t Do” Dems robbed us of.
This chart, from this source, shows the proven reserves of Canada before and after they developed their Oil Sands.
The USA, according to The Wall Street Journal (emphasis mine):
“remains the only nation in the world that has curtailed access to its own energy supplies”
This chart shows proven reserves for the USA along with what our proven reserves likely would be if we ditched the “Won’t Do” Dems and merely developed the conventional drilling opportunities of ANWR and the OCS.
This chart shows the proven reserves of the USA along with what our proven reserves likely would be if we ditched the “Won’t Do” Dems and applied our innovative spirit to the development of our Oil Shale along with the conventional drilling opportunities of ANWR and the OCS.
It’s time to sing goodbye to the “Won’t do” Dems and embraced the concept of “Drill Here, Drill Now”.
sbvorie:
The Hattiesburg article was a reasonable, sensible statement. Far more reasonable than all the hair-raising, name calling, condemning spectacles you post here and everywhere.
The biggest problem is limited resources of production and investment. If the oil companies rachet up drilling and exploration they will have less resources to direct at alternative sources. Attempting a massive multiple site exploration in ANWR or the OCS, will require a large investment in more drilling and exploration equipment, to say nothing of the logistical costs of getting any new equipment into position at a variety of far separated sites. From the oil companies perspective it makes sense to focus in a general geographic area which requires minimal moving around of equipment. Even the EIA suggests that additional fields in ANWR would not be drilled until the point of diminishing marginal returns on any wells they initially begin.
Chances are they will drag their feet once they have the leases in hand. If there are time limit restrictions on commencing exploration and drilling, you can bet they'll be back at the government suggesting they need subsidies to acquire all the equipment needed to comply. When entering into leases you can bet they will bargain hard for the scenario that best suits them and their profits. From their perspective vague, obscure language will afford them a litigation threat should the government ever decide to cancel the leases over inaction.
The question that remains begged is, whether OCS off-limit reserves represent 21% or 75% of the total, there are existing leases which the oil industry does not appear interested in exploring. That brings into question the motivation of oil companies.
One can hardly argue that extremely high oil prices do not benefit them, and therefore makes increased drilling, beyond replacing decline in existing wells, of little profitable interest to them. This would be especially true if the additional capacity was to result in a significant reduction in oil prices, which few, including the EIA believe will occur.
Easily we can see from their pricing habits that the general welfare of the US is not primary for them. Profits trump everything.
Further, your oft referenced experts, the EIA, at this site:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html, suggest that if the OCS restrictions are removed in 2012, by 2030 oil production will only be increased to 2.4 milliom bpd versus 2.2 million bpd if the restrictions are not removed. This is only for lower-48 OCS. For some reason they did not include Alaska in the report.
The EIA report on ANWR also projects that oil production in the lower-48 states, onshore, will increase from 4.4 bpd in 2006 to 5.5 bpd by 2020, then declining to 5.3 bpd by 2030. This forecast is predicated on their expectations of oil prices which aren't even close to today's prices. Today's prices could, and are, spur even greater growth in onshore, lower-48, oil production. Is this not a balanced oil/alternative paradigm?
EIA also frequently refers to OPEC actions in the face of increased US supply. They suggest that OPEC, and I'm sure the others, might reduce production if US drilling activity should begin to impact prices too much.
There are two comingled issues here. One is economic/profits and the other is energy resources. The energy resource problem, as regards oil, bodes ill within the next 30 to 50 years so attempts to fix that issue become nothing more than passing off the problem to later generations. The economic/profits issue is more immediate and offers a variety of solutions, most of which are anathema to our capitalistic system. Windfall taxes is one approach. Nationalization is another. Price controls is another. Increased drilling is an approach to attack both issues but is subject to that limited window with no immediate relief to either issue.
Windfall taxes and price controls could produce some results, except that the oil industry will react, not in the best interest of the country, nor even worldwide economic growth, by taking measures intended to be punitive to our dastardly government, even as they would be being punitive to their US employees and the US market as well.
Nationalizing could have the most immediate impact but it is fraught with all kinds of problems with the worldwide markets and most of the governments around the world, to say nothing of the brouhaha it would create here, so really doesn't create a viable solution. Maybe as a threat?
Price subsidies would be another alternative but our government is close enough to bankruptcy now and that would just return us to increased demand which would exponentially produce our financial demise.
Because oil prices are an international phenomena and our production capabilities are severly limited we can't affect prices from the supply side.
It follows then that the only real impact we can have currently or in the near future is to attack the demand side. Conservation, innovation, increased government support for alternative options, personal energy saving actions, are about the only ways out of this dilemma. You can whine and cry all you want about, coulda, woulda, shoulda, that ain't fixing the problem.
Had King George and General Cornwallis been wiser we would still be a British colony. Your vaunted conservatives, controlling the government more often than not in the last 28 years, have not exhibited any great braintrust in this arena either.
Problem solving, I believe in science, but I know in finance, requires eliminating variables that might be blurring solutions. It seems to me then, that the first actions to be taken are to minimize, or eliminate, if necessary, the speculation effect on prices. Truly no one knows the true impact of speculation and the guesstimates are all over the place so let's try and get it out of the equation and then review soluton options from there.
More and more and more drilling is akin to solving our trash problem, another looming 21st century issue, by forcing everyone to have a landfill in their backyard. Trash, by the way, may be an important cog in the energy wheel.
Given that investment capital is not an infinite pie, it suggests that dollars spent should offer the best return on investment and given the prognostications of the EIA, among many others, new leases and drilling and exploration do not appear the best payback, short term or long term.
It’s time to recall one of the best posts in this thread.
That post completely misses the point.
We shouldn't be concerned with giving oil companies more profits from drilling for a tiny bit more oil that would delay the crisis by a few months, at most.
We should invest heavily, now, in real solutions. Sustainable solutions.
And who's been saying "NO" to real solutions for years? The oil companies and their Ripoff-lican representatives.
They are the real "party of NO".
$4/gallon gas is their legacy. And why wouldn't they want it continue? They're making record profits.
sbvorie:
That was a cute one but my choice for best would be, and there were a few of them:
SBVOR said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Art,
What do you find outstanding about me removing my own comments in order to correct typos, etc.?
Are you unaware of that feature?
sbvorie:
Not surprisingly you miss the point.
What I find outstanding about it is that your post is gone. Please God it should happen to all your posts.
Art,
I’ve done your homework for you.
Your journalist was not entirely precise, but he was in the ballpark. The 21% he quoted is 22%. His “about a third” is actually 35%.
What he conveniently omitted is that “about 85 percent of OCS acreage offshore the lower 48 states [is off limits]”
Quoting your journalist:
“About a third of the total area of the OCS is off-limits to drilling. But the area off-limits accounts for only 21 percent of the total oil reserves in the OCS, according to a recent Interior Department report.”
Quoting this MMS Report (an agency within the Interior Department):
“The Federal OCS generally extends from 3 to 200 miles offshore and covers an area of about 1.76 billion acres.”
“A total of about 611 million acres of the OCS, some of which contain large amounts of recoverable oil and gas resources are off-limits to leasing and development. The moratoria and presidential withdrawal cover about 85 percent of OCS acreage offshore the lower 48 states and 3 percent of the OCS offshore Alaska. The acreage and resource potential associated with the planning areas withdrawn from leasing is shown table 4. The MMS estimates that the resources in OCS areas currently off limits to leasing and development total 18.9 Bbo and 85.8 Tcfg (mean estimates).”
Table 4 is found here as well as here.
I should note that the accurate assertions on this page are what lead me to this MMS document.
sbvorie:
Was never good at homework. Always resisted someone else suggesting what work I should do.
Am pleased with your move to precision away from "roughly equivalent". Otherwise your criticisms would have appeared disingeuous.
All in all, it doesn't look like the OCS is any Valhalla.
Art,
I don’t know about Valhalla, but mean estimates from ANWR and OCS alone indicate we are sitting on more conventionally accessible oil than Iraq!
Dr. Reich,
REDUCING FOSSIL FUEL DEPENDENCE
Everyone is rightly concerned what can be done NOW to reduce near-term pressures on rising fossil fuel prices, electricity charges, and fossil fuel addition.
Without any pretensions of covering the detailed possibilites, here is my summary of a few priority near and long term actions of an ENERGY MARSHALL PLAN for achieving (1) Alternate (green) Fuels, (2) Energy Efficiency, and (3) Energy Conservation.
Bipartisan government leadership is critical to come to a balanced framework of
incentives/investments that will stir progress towards these goals ... then leave the rest to market forces.
I. NEAR-TERM RESULTS: 1-4 Years
1. Insure that an electric/hydrogen/biofuel green fuel is in every new Hybrid car and light truck by 2012 and in all new cars in pure form by 2016; establish refueling facilities; provide appropriate tax credit incentives to achieve these goals, also for converting existing car fleet to Hybrid use, perhaps limited to cars less than 8 years old.
2. Improve engine design for greater fuel efficiency in new cars by at least 25% by 2012, increased to 40% by 2016; provide appropriate tax credit (and/or penalties) on new cars according to their fuel efficiency ratings.
3. Install an Energy Labeling system -- A to F indicating high efficiency to low efficiency - for all household items (electric/gas stoves, washing machines refrigerators, light bulbs CARS etc.) -- if and where this is not already done.
A simple product illustration with an enormous scale impact on electricity savings is the LIGHT BULB. Australia has a regulation that high efficiency bulbs must be used for a broad range of applications with the traditional bulb being eliminated. Holland is thinking of doing the same for a high efficiency bulb called the "Spaar Lamp" (Saving Bulb). The energy efficiency dynamics are as follows:
NORMAL BULB "SPAAR LAMP"
1000 hours 6000 hours
75watts 14 watts
same illumination intensity
Cost: 1 Euro($1.50) 7 Euro($10.50)
The `Spaar Lamp´ lasts 6 times longer and uses 80% less electricity, so the effective cost is only slightly higher than a normal bulb -- not counting less electricity used. With high sales volume, the bulb price will come down considerably.
We should promote this idea and have a deadline, say 2015, that all lighting fixtures must use a `Spaar Lamp´ technology. Tremendous electical energy can be conserved here but it takes creative leadership to make it happen as well as for other small innovations having similar energy savings and large scale production possibilities.
4. Insure that solar panels are more broadly installed in new homes and commercial buildings as well as existing homes where technically feasible; offer appropriate tax incentives to achieve these goals.
II. INTERMEDIATE TERM
RESULTS: 5-8 Years
5. Decrease average Car Weight by at least 15-20% by 2015 which will also help increase fuel efficiency and reduce road wear and tear over long term; stimulate this goal by implementing a Road Tax based on vehicle weight (excluding trucks).
Market a compact, small very easily maneuverable car for fastly growing aging population above 60; introduce such a car by 2013, if not sooner (look to Europe for indication of smart, sensational
model designs); a Road Tax based on weight for such a car (also using a green fuel) would be very low, perhaps zero.
6. Expand Wind Mill energy aggressively to supply 30% or more of all electricity needs of people living in strong wind current areas; provide appropriate tax incentives to make measurable progress on this goal by 2016.
7. Start producing liquified gas from coal by 2017 assuming feasibility studies now going on confirm technical ability to safely and economically remove/store/neutralize all greenhouse gas emissions; take same approach and timing concerning shale oil. Provide appropriate tax incentives to achieve these goals.
8. Increase offshore drilling selectively (based on promising geological studies) on new acreage with Lease or Ownership and Development structures along lines suggested in my earlier post above. If successful finds are made, oil could be flowing as early as 2014 under this concept with funds from government´s Owenership share (or Leasing revenues) redeployed to separate fund to finance various tax incentives noted above; this is an interim strategy to support the Treasury during costly transition to Alternate (green) Fuels, Fuel Efficiency, and Conservation.
II. LONG-TERM RESULTS: 9-25 Years
9. In 2010, begin stepped up infrastructure investments in Transportation/Inner-City-Suburb Transit systems and bicycle paths; increase freight transport by trains to offloading centers where shorter truck routes are possible to final inner-city/town delivery points; improve train connections to outer suburbs where feasible to sharply reduce need of automobile for 30-45 mile one-way trips to work.
This nation-wide program on a much stepped-up basis is at least a 40 year investment project and requires massively effective coordination between Federal agencies and State agencies.
A doubling of the already very low federal gasoline tax in combination with State taxes will be crucial to help finance this program without exploding Deficits. But these taxes will eventually be supplemented by added revenues from expected significant expansion in jobs.
10. After appropriate 2-3 year feasibility studies on design options, operational, safety and economic criteria, consider starting construction on new state-of-the-art Fission driven nuclear power plants by 2013, perhaps in close technical cooperation with the French who get 50% of their energy from nuclear power and are considered to be world leaders in this technology (as well as Fusion technology); bring on-line an increasing number of plants each year with objective nuclear power is supplying at least 40% of electrical power needs by 2030 (vs. 20% today).
Stay on the edge of Fusion reactor R&D and prototype developments, pooling efforts with Europeans, if possible. Of course, while the advantages of Fusion technology are impressive, final design acceptance criteria (other than technical performance/economic factors) should be that the technology cannot be used or adapted for more powerful nuclear weaponry.
SUMMARY
As stated in the beginning, this strategic action plan list and timing is but one suggestion of an integrated framework of an Energy Marshall Plan for achieving complete independence from Fossil Fuels by 2050, including reducing dependency by 50% by 2025. It can be greatly expanded on and improved. But it´s essential get together on this monstrous challenge.
QUITE A TASK! But achievable if we put our best minds to it and put aside myopic political egotism and dogma ... something we seem able to do to land a Multi-billion dollar Surveyor Instrument precisely at the bus stop on Mars, millions of miles away.
The tragic irony is unless we take the LEAD and innovative, bipartisan committment on a similar BIG PLAN
regarding Energy Use, we will unlikely survive on this planet Earth. So c´est la vie to the Mars trip reservation.
For the demand for energy is going to grow spectacularly over the next 50 years as China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc. 75% poor polulations advance to our present day energy-intensive Consumption spending habits. Meanwhile, there will be temporary pauses in fossil fuel prices with the usual gimmicks to assuage the innocent addicted to a scarce, polluting fuel diet.
But we mustn´t be fooled about short-mechanizations ... the Death Knell of fossil fuels both in terms of pollution and ability to meet demand is relatively hours away ... taken in context of the millions of years it has lied buried in nature´s deeps.
Frank Thomas, The Netherlands
sbvorie:
No doubt if the estimates are correct, and that's a big if.
However, right now and over the next 15 or so years, that fact and a couple of bucks will get you a latte at Starbucks.
This post has been removed by the author.
Art,
I’m working on verifying this (and it could take some time), but I hear tell that, in 1980, Exxon projected that they would be producing commercial quantities of petroleum from Oil Shale by 1985.
If, today, it might take 20 years (per the Rand Corporation), my guess is that what has changed between then and now is the amount of litigation “Big Oil” would face from today’s Environmental Extremists (who, today, are only in it for the money and the power).
Ultimately, “Big Oil” would, correctly, prevail in court. But, in the meantime, the Eco-Nuts would have gotten the headlines they crave (and the additional donations from the terminally gullible that come with it).
This post has been removed by the author.
To suggest we should continue to do nothing because we cannot get any instant gratification from doing something is both absurd and false.
1) The absurdity of continuing to do nothing is laid bare in this comment.
2) The falsity lies in the fact that futures traders in oil would react immediately to the news that we were going to open ANWR and the currently off limits “85 percent of OCS acreage offshore the lower 48 states”
The latest information from the EIA indicates World Demand for oil is higher than World Supply for Oil. As long as that condition prevails and Congressional Dims continue to say “NO”, futures traders will continue to bid the price of oil higher.
We need a more balanced energy policy! For FAR too long, we have been held captive by Environmental Extremists and their litigation crazy lawyers!
Drill Here, Drill Now is one critical component of a more balanced energy policy which has been missing for far too long!
sbvor:
You would guess wrong. The Rand Corp estimates 20 to 30 years, depending on the methodology without considering leadtimes for litigation. I think, if I remember, they do mention the possibility but it wasn't built into their forecast. Believe it was an add-on, meaning more years.
Methinks I'll stick with Rand over your "I hear tell". But thanks anyway.
sbvor:
Oops, forgot:
Ultimately, “Big Oil” would, correctly, prevail in court.
If I were keeping a resume on the many areas of your expertise, should I be adding "lawyer" to that resume?
sbvor:
And now comes the addition of futures trader. Wow! Is there no end to your wordly wisdom?
Now if you were, indeed, worldy you would know that futures traders are not dummies. These are very, very bright folks. I don't know that they even have futures contracts that go out 20 years but it wouldn't matter.
Futures traders deal with time frames with which they can have some degree of surety. My understanding is that most of the trading activity is with 6 month contracts. These guys know that there are too many ifs, and buts, and hiccups that can occur if you go beyond a reasonably secure time window. They might play a little, out a couple of years, but understand the price movements as you move outward in time are minimal and slow. These guys aren't looking to tie up capital for long periods of time waiting to see what happens.
These guys are experts at turning a buck today, worst case, tomorrow. They are the farthest thing you will ever see from long term investors. And they can turn a buck on the long side or the short side. This is not a game for amateurs.
To suggest we should continue to do nothing because we cannot get any instant gratification from doing something is both absurd and false.
"Instant gratification" has nothing to do with it. I realize you are, supposedly, a scientist, which might leave your financial skills wanting, but it's an investment and returns issue. Given that most of the world is now on a trajectory to minimize demand, investing in greater supply, 8, 10, or 20 years out, makes for very poor investment strategy.
Those countries that have nothing else to sell (the Mideast) have to continue pursuing greater supply. They, and you, are right, in that there will be a market for oil products for a very long time. That market will shrink, and shrink, and shrink, as the rest of the world moves on. But they have no choice. They produce nothing but oil so they have to stay in the game to make whatever dollars will be available. They do not manufacture cars or Plasma TVs or widgets of any kind. Their lands are not amenable to scads of farming and food production, so they will continue to milk the cow as long as there are teets left.
Once again, in the near term, supply will be the driver. Hell, to your point, the Saudis have spent $18 billion dollars to increase their supply capability. They are not dummies either. They know that this ship sails only as long as the winds blow and the winds are dying down with increased emphasis on reducing demand. With no other options they will ride the wind as long as there is even a slight breeze.
Long term this is all about return on investment. Explain to me why, with skyrocketing oil prices, the oil companies are not overturning every rock in their currently leased properties to find more oil. If they already hold leases, why would they be waiting to acquire more before maximizing what they already have. Could it be an assumption that if they wait, the price of oil can only go up?
Chances are prices will go up in the near term. No doubt there is a tipping point when the Walls of Jericho will come down. Most of the players are betting on the Walls holding, at least a little longer. Clearly, you can see some panic setting in with the Saudis. Next will be all of OPEC. Like dominoes, the others will follow, reluctantly.
Like Tom Friedman, and many others, have said, there is a price point where alternatives become far more valuable than the current standard. Once you reach that tipping point, an inertia takes hold that negates the idea of ever reversing course.
You, as is the conserative bent, are always tilting at windmills, searching for the elusive villain. It's the Dims; no it's the Eco-nuts; no, it's the Arabs or Chavez or Putin or Iran or the dimwitted Iraqis. Damn! The only thing we know for sure is that it ain't the Cons. The Cons are the only guys with all the "right" answers. The question has always been; is that "right" politically or is that "right" as in correct? The last 30 years would suggest the former.
Join up with Newt, whose still trying to figure out how he could run for president before he dies, and all your other conservative nonsensical radicals and ballyhoo your propaganda, while the rest of the world moves on, progressing.
One day, off in the far future, you will all look back and marvel at how well things turned out and you will happily mount the podium to take credit.
P.S., it is all really the fault of Moses, who lead the Jews around the desert for forty years and finally settled them in the only spot in the whole damn Mideast with no oil!
Art sez:
“most of the world is now on a trajectory to minimize demand”
Is that why world consumption is rising so much faster than American consumption?
Who says so-called “Liberals” don’t live in a fantasy world?
Dr. Reich,
In my summary above of some priority actions/timing to reduce fossil fuel dependence, increase fuel efficiency and conservation, I neglected two other favorable future Intermediate Term developments:
1. In addition to need for increased investments in Transit and Commuter-Rail networks in urban core areas 10-15 miles from city centers -- that will draw many more people downtown without cars, there's a marked exodus or preference of people moving to live and work in urban core areas to as opposed to living in the distant suburbs.
Sharply escalating cost burden of heating, cooling and reaching homes is driving this recent trend ... as people begin to accept that the rise in oil prices is a lasting phenomenon with serious consequences.
Urban centers like Denver, Chicago, Boston and others are becoming attractive as living/working areas ... confirmed by rather stable real estate prices compared to declining prices in many of the more distant suburbs.
2. Over next 5-10 years, innovative and environmentally friendly applications using Nanotechnology have very promising prospects next 5-8 years (perhaps much sooner) to help:
(a) reduce the Weight of cars/trucks with resultant added favorable impact on fuel-efficiency in combination with more efficient engine design based on green fuels
(b) retrieve greater amounts of renewable energy sunlight for conversion into electricity, i.e., solar cells become far more efficient as do fuel cells using Nanomaterials.
Extensive testing is still necessary as some scientists and environmentalists say certain applications, particularly for health products, may have harmful biological effects. However, Friends of the Earth Europe, a respected group, has spoken positively about the potential environmental benefits of Nanotechnology.
Fortunately, the U.S. and Europe are on the cutting edge of this technology. An Energy Marshall Plan should also take these two developments into consideration.
Dr. Reich,
Sorry for correction:
Point 2. last two lines should read:
... Nanotechnology have very promising prospects (perhaps Near Term) to help:
sbvor:
You may not be old enough to know it but they wrote a song about you:
Poor Johnny one-note
sang out with "gusto"
And just overlorded the place
Poor Johnny one-note
yelled willy nilly
Until he was bleu in the face
For holding one note was his ace
Could my trajectory statement have been slightly premature? Possibly. The point was that actions have been and are taking place around the world to slow demand. China just this month altered their gas subsidies; Indonesia has done that; Iran has been rationing gas.
The whole world knows that at current oil prices, and with a future that likely sees them increasing, we are all in deep do-do. The world also knows that there are no miracle wells out there just waiting for someone to stick a straw in the ground and commence to pump 200 billion bpd.
As opposed to you and your ilk they realize that supply is not the answer. The only answer is reduced demand, hopefully managed until alternatives can be developed. The long term picture, 30 to 40 years, is very bleak at current demand levels.
For the oil industry to explore and develop much of the OCS area and to some extent ANWR, feasibility is predicated on the price of oil. If oil should somehow drop back to mid-2007 levels, it would render much of the OCS area uneconomical for the oil industry and could make other options such as ANWR borderline as to investment return. It is estimated that a well like Chevron's Jack 2 would require $1.5 billion to explore, drill and start production. And that estimate is two years old.
You conservative nut cases will get some political mileage out of your OCS/ANWR railing, it won't be enough but you'll get more of a boost than any impact on oil prices from an announcement that we are opening OCS and ANWR.
Art sez:
“If oil should somehow drop back to mid-2007 levels, it would render much of the OCS area uneconomical for the oil industry and could make other options such as ANWR borderline as to investment return.”
But, what to the facts say?
Here is the price history for oil.
The price-supply curve charts quantifying how much OCS oil (and gas) can be economically recovered at what market price are found here.
Note that the most economically recoverable resources are located offshore the lower 48 states (where the Party of “NO” has rendered “85 percent of OCS acreage” off limits).
The price-supply curves for ANWR (as of 1998) are found in Figure 6 of this document as well as here.
sbvor:
Facts and estimates and hypotheses are not exactly the same thing. I would guess that USGS studies are fairly reliable but if they were absolute fact we would never see "dry holes".
All the assumptions in your reports are at 1998 constant dollars; the assumed rate of return on capital is 12% and Exxon for the last three years has averaged an 18% RONA.
You can harangue all you want with your facts and figures but until you, and the oil companies, can answer the questions that result from this report, your arguments are full of more hot air than a hot air ballon:
http://courtney.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Natural%20Resources%20energy%20report.pdf
Examples:
_ On the Outer Continental Shelf, 82% of federal natural gas and 79% of
federal oil is located in areas that are currently open for leasing.
_ Onshore, 72% of oil and 84% of natural gas resources are either fully
accessible under standard lease stipulations designed to protect lands
and wildlife, or will be accessible pending the completion of land-use
planning or environmental reviews.
_ Between 1999 and 2007, drilling permits for oil and gas development on
public lands increased more than 361%.
_ Since 2004, the Bureau of Land Management has issued 28,776 permits
to drill on public land; in that same time, only 18,954 wells were actually
drilled.
_ Oil and gas companies have stockpiled nearly 10,000 extra permits to
drill that they are not using to increase domestic production.
_ Onshore, of the 47.5 million acres of federal lands leased by oil and
gas companies, only about 13 million acres are actually producing oil
and gas.
_ Offshore, only 10.5 million of the 44 million leased acres are currently
producing oil or gas.
_ Combined, oil and gas companies hold leases to nearly 68 million acres
of federal land that are not producing oil and gas.
_ The 68 million acres of leased, inactive federal land could produce an
additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural
gas each day.
_ That would nearly double total U.S. oil production, and increase natural
gas production by 75%.
_ 4.8 million barrels of oil equals more than six times the estimated peak
production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
_ Development of and production from the 68 million acres currently
under lease but not in production would cut US imports of oil by one third.
More:
Even if increased domestic drilling activity could affect the price of
gasoline, there is yet no justification to open additional federal lands because
oil and gas companies have shown that they cannot keep pace with the rate of
drilling permits that the federal government is handing out.
Proponents of opening additional lands to oil and gas leasing assert
that vast quantities of oil and gas are closed to energy development. In fact,
according to the Minerals Management Service, of all the oil and gas believed
to exist on the Outer Continental Shelf, 82% of the natural gas and 79% of the
oil is located in areas that are currently open for leasing.
Now compare that to your oft quoted fact:
currently off limits “85 percent of OCS acreage offshore the lower 48 states”
Your number is bigger but says nothing compared to the statement from the report. You have even admitted to the accuracy of the report numbers.
The Department of the Interior recently released a report that the
Administration is using to delude Americans into believing that vast tracts of
federal land with large concentrations of oil and gas are off-limits to oil and
gas development. In actuality, the report shows that only 38% of the oil and
16% of the natural gas are excluded from leasing B largely because those
resources are underneath National Parks and wilderness areas that have significant scenic, recreational, and wildlife values. The rest is either fully
accessible under standard lease stipulations designed to protect lands and
wildlife, or will be accessible pending the completion of land-use planning or
environmental reviews.
Combined, oil and gas companies hold leases to nearly 68 million acres
of federal land and waters that they are not producing oil and gas (Figure 4).
Oil and gas companies would not buy leases to this land without believing oil
and gas can be produced there, yet these same companies are not producing
oil or gas from these areas already under their control.
However, in addition to ANWR, there are another nearly 91 million acres
currently open to leasing in the Arctic region of Alaska, including onshore and
offshore lands. Oil and gas companies have leased only 11.8 million of the 91
million acres.
Within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), oil companies
have leased 3 million acres of 22.6 million acres available to lease. No
production has occurred on any of those lands and industry has drilled only
25 exploratory wells there since 2000.
When you were young your parents told you NO many times and you learned from that and are all the better for the experience.
Harrowing times tend to bring out all the crazies and you are living proof.
Put it to bed until you can explain the above.
Art,
The funny thing about reading entire reports from non-partisan government agencies is that you can easily spot the distortions highlighted by partisan politicians (which you cited).
Case in point, your partisan source, while only ambiguously citing their source, asserts (incorrectly) that:
“according to the Minerals Management Service, of all the oil and gas believed to exist on the Outer Continental Shelf, 82% of the natural gas and 79% of the oil is located in areas that are currently open for leasing.”
It’s no wonder your politicos did not cite their source:
We start at Table 1a on page 9 (as Adobe Acrobat sees it) of this link and find the mean estimates for natural gas and oil are 419.88 and 85.88 respectively.
Table 4 of the same link (on page 90, as Adobe Acrobat sees it) reveals that the amount which is open for leasing amounts to 78% of the oil and 80% of the natural gas (not the 82% and 79% they allege). But, the real cover-up, as I have previously noted, is that, citing the very same source:
“The moratoria and presidential withdrawal cover about 85 percent of OCS acreage offshore the lower 48 states and 3 percent of the OCS offshore Alaska.”
Now, right here, examine the price-supply curve charts for Alaska OCS vs. the lower 48 OCS and discover that what the party of “NO” has done is put the more cost effective resources off limits while leaving open only the less cost effective resources.
In other words, the party of “NO” has placed off limits the very resources which would be the most likely to reduce the pain at the pump! And, the Party of “NO” has done so solely for the purpose of appeasing the ignorant Environmental Extremist lobby.
Art,
Very good documentation on 68 million acres leased where there is no production and 91 million open to leases in Artic region where only 13% are now under lease!
Maybe my concept to offer more offshore leasing under certain conditions (and assuming 68 million acres offer no prospects) should be put to rest for a while with a resounding...NO.
Frank,
When will you understand that all acres are not created equal?
This is like offering 78,000 acres of desert to a bunch of farmers, keeping 22,000 acres of the most fertile land in the world off limits and then accusing the farmers of not wanting to farm!
In some cases, it’s more like offering 78,000 acres of land where the costs of farming are so high that making a profit is questionable, keeping 22,000 acres of easy to farm and equally productive land off limits and then accusing the farmers of not wanting to farm!
Sbvor,
If there were some preliminary testing results confirming your assumption that all 159 million government owned onshore and offshore arces
(91 plus 68 million acres) currently under lease to oil firms have no oil/gas development prospects, you'd have some credibilty with me.
Having been in the international offshore drilling design, contracting and manufacturing business, I know that oil firms do not enter expensive long-term offshore Leases or 50-50 Ownership arangements outside U.S. without a good technical comfort level of discovery possibilities from initial exploration testing.
Maybe our government got suckered into such cheap leases agreements that the oil firms just took all they could get and inventoried it with miniscule preliminary testing of offshore potential finds.
Frank,
1) Take it up with Larry Nation.
2) What is your rationale for placing off limits“about 85 percent of OCS acreage offshore the lower 48 states”? How does that benefit anybody?
sbvor:
Where's the beef?
From my post, from my reference;
“according to the Minerals Management Service, of all the oil and gas believed to exist on the Outer Continental Shelf, 82% of the natural gas and 79% of the oil is located in areas that are currently open for leasing.”
From your post;
Table 4 of the same link (on page 90, as Adobe Acrobat sees it) reveals that the amount which is open for leasing amounts to 78% of the oil and 80% of the natural gas (not the 82% and 79% they allege). But, the real cover-up, as I have previously noted, is that, citing the very same source:
“The moratoria and presidential withdrawal cover about 85 percent of OCS acreage offshore the lower 48 states and 3 percent of the OCS offshore Alaska.”
Now we know that many of us here educated you on precision in numbers, but making an implied big deal about 82% versus 80% and 79% versus 78%? Shakespeare wrote a play describing that kind of difference.
You keep harping on the 85% of OCS that is off limits. Looking at your figures; if the mean estimate of all OCS oil is 85.9 bbo and the open to lease represents 78% of that, this calculates to 19.9 bbo available in the off limits portion of the OCS. Nowhere in the analysis is there any clear delineation that the 19.9 bbo area is more readily accessible to production that the remaining 66 bbo in open to lease areas.
Leads to:
Now, right here, examine the price-supply curve charts for Alaska OCS vs. the lower 48 OCS and discover that what the party of “NO” has done is put the more cost effective resources off limits while leaving open only the less cost effective resources.
In other words, the party of “NO” has placed off limits the very resources which would be the most likely to reduce the pain at the pump! And, the Party of “NO” has done so solely for the purpose of appeasing the ignorant Environmental Extremist lobby.
The charts do not support your implication (conclusion). No matter where the oil there will always be differentials in the cost of recovery among options. The charts merely represent that as the price of oil increases the economic recovery viability rises as well in relation to the technically recovery level. This shouldn't be news to most.
MMS further states: "These curves represent
resources available with sufficient exploration and development
efforts and do not imply an immediate response to price
changes."
Therein lies the crux of the problem and leads back to the question posed by Rep. Rahall's report: What is the extent of oil company resources for exploration and drilling? What portion of those resources are currently employed? Why are there 10,000 issued permits not being acted upon? Is it lack of capacity?
What you begin to unveil, although I'm not sure you recognize it, is that since oil companies are driven by profits and rates of return, they will only increase resources where it appears there is sufficient profit to be gleaned, coupled with a concern for the manageability of the increased resources. In the business world this is axiomatic and makes perfect sense.
You argue for opening OCS and ANWR for possible price reductions and due to the vital nature of oil to our economic wellbeing.
Price reductions and oil availability are clearly important to US citizens and our economic security. To the oil companies increased supply, delivered, not planned in 10 or 20 years, will drive down prices as well as profits or profit margins which is not in their best interests.
Oil companies work within a paradigm that considers worldwide demand growth and as long as they can maintain supply within a given range of that demand growth, prices will remain relatively stable and at current levels deliver hellacious profits.
The recent astronomic rise in oil prices has to be puzzling the oil company execs as they laugh all the way to the bank. They likely know more than most of us but I'm sure it has them in a quandry. On the one hand it would suggest that they increase spending on exploration and drilling to produce more oil at current prices, even if prices drop somewhat. On the other hand if there is an oil bubble then prices could come down at a rate even faster than they went up. In the latter event they would not want to be seen as squandering all those shareholder profits.
The point of this diatribe is that US economic welfare and oil company interests are not totally in sync, in fact, they might be diametrically opposed. There is a point at which oil prices cause a worldwide economic downturn and the oil companies will suffer along with everyone else. Presently it doesn't appear that they feel we are there. They also are aware that their basic product can be inventoried in the ground, where it has been for millions of years, awaiting a return to the heydays. They don't need to be concerned with millions invested in decaying inventory or inventories which may become obsolete as they wait.
This difference in goals argues loudly for nationalization of the industry as pertains to US resources but I do accept that that solution is not optimal. The only seemingly viable option would be for the oil companies, most of which, the big players, are not US companies, to increase drilling and exploration activities in currently leased lands and the OCS, to enable a lowering of international prices and US imports.
Alas, this would be an imperfect solution as well, since it would tend to increase demand even more. US demand might not increase more than pre-current price levels but emerging economies in Asia and around the world could put energy conservation on a backburner again and redirect their emphasis to overall economic growth.
Anticipating a recurrence could cause other countries to start their own Strategic Petroleum Reserves increasing demand considerably in the short term creating upward price pressures.
The limits on exploration and drilling resources will always slow down a supply response to increasing oil prices. Granted regulations exacerbate the problem. Like it or not there are good reasons for many of our environmental regs. We can expound on the safety and security of new technology minimizing risks of oil spills. The facts are though, that in certain states and areas, there is a great reliance on fishing and tourism for economic welfare and one incident of an oil fiasco can cause billions of dollars of damage to those communities, in addition to economic stagnation for years.
sbvor:
Your constant linking to Mr. Nation's startling revelation borders on the absurd. It is not considered logical argument, let alone good science to state the obvious. Any idiot knows that generally a leased tract of acreage would not mean oil exists in every square inch of the tract. The statement means nothing and proves nothing.
If Mr. Nation wants to dispute or answer Congressional inquiries into the subject, let him present examples and statistics that give quantifiable support to his premise. He doesn't do that.
Oil lease packages offered come with geological data regarding the probability of oil deposits. As the MMS, the EIA, the USGS, the BLM, the DOI, will all tell you, these data are estimates with varying degress of probability and no absolute assurances. In many instances the purchasing entities do their own research on the tracts to determine value, based on expected returns. They all agree that the real proof comes from drilling, admittedly an expensive way to disprove a contention.
A simple addition to oil leases that requires the leasees to notify BLM or DOI when they feel they have extracted all economically available oil and gas from a lease might lead to improving some of the initial estimates.
I will agree that Rep. Rahall's exposition contains some exaggerated and assumed data. That is what politicians do, all of them. If you consider those as flat out lies, let me suggest to you that there are no Con politicians going to heaven either.
What Rep. Rahall's report does do is propose questions that beg for answers.
There is a simple answer to these issues, assuming we can rely on integrity and that's a big assumption. Congressional hearings with representatives of leaseholders merely explaining why there has not been further exploration in the currently leased tracts.
The answers could lead to improved, more economically viable leases. They could lead to tax incentives or even low cost loans for exploration and drilling equipment if shortages of those resources is the problem. It could lead to government/private enterprise partnerships to mitigate some of the risks of private investors. There are many good things that could come out of that kind of hearing. A whole hell of a lot more than Mr. Nation's astute(?) observation that every lottery ticket is not a winner.
You pose a lot of links to reasonable information. The problem is that you assert that those links lead to absolute statements that prove your arguments and generally they do not.
NPRA is a whole lot more expansive than ANWR, the federal portion, yet we don't see a lot of activity going on for exploring and drilling for oil there. Maybe that's because there isn't as much oil there as surveys suggested. If that is the case does it not raise the specter that perhaps estimates of ANWR supplies are equally suspect?
What about the recent Bakken data? Since there is drilling, even production going on there currently, I would guess that there are no major obstacles to pursuing those options and the latest data compares favorably to ANWR, the federal portion, with likely easier drilling and fewer environmental concerns.
There is no pill that will make the current pain go away, soon. Given that almost all solution options are long term it makes good "scientific" sense to review all the data before commencing a kneejerk reaction. To your constant complaining, we don't need another Ethanol solution.
Never forget, in the long run we are all dead.
Of course if opening up ANWR and the rest of OCS is merely to gain political mileage that's a different argument.
Post a Comment
<< Home