Whatever happened to 'Drill Here, Drill Now' ?

[word]

And THAT is how short America's attention span is. A nation of gnats. You'll be crying, hard, a few years from now. That problem ain't goin' away.

[oklahomasuckstexas]

blame david stern.

[jack sommerset]

And THAT is how short America's attention span is. A nation of gnats. You'll be crying, hard, a few years from now. That problem ain't goin' away.

Breaking news: Obama won the election.

[CosmicCowboy]

And THAT is how short America's attention span is. A nation of gnats. You'll be crying, hard, a few years from now. That problem ain't goin' away.


And what planet do you live on? In the new Obamination they aren't only not gonna drill they are gonna tax offshore drilling in the gulf.

[Trainwreck2100]

Its not cost efficient for the oilcos to expend all those resources since the price of oil fell so much.

[AlamoSpursFan]

Cap and trade scares the living shit outta me.

If that passes, our plant here is done.

Anyone who thinks carbon dioxide is a pollutant is dumber than the plants that need it to produce the oxygen we humans seem to enjoy so much.

"THAT'S RIGHT I SAID IT!!!" -- Mark Levin

[CosmicCowboy]

Cap and trade is absolute insanity. It's nothing but an outrageous half trillion dollar sales tax that will wreck our economy.

[RandomGuy]

Conservatives, who pride themselves on "free markets", often totally fail to understand the basics of how those free markets actually work.

Even *IF* you drilled the shit out of domestic oil stocks and got all of that capacity online instantly so that you could supply 100% of our oil needs domestically, you would STILL be vulnerable to the price of oil in the rest of the world, and any disruptions that might entail.

I dare the thread starter to say why, if he even knows. I highly doubt that the OP knows enough about market economics to be able to explain why/how.

[Sportcamper]

Obama is being criticized for trying to solve too many problems at the same time... I'll tell you one thing...this never would have happened if Bush were still president.

[EricB]

Cap and trade is absolute insanity. It's nothing but an outrageous half trillion dollar sales tax that will wreck our economy.

Not to mention kill trucking companies and other businesses that rely on trucks, wich, move goods across america.

I mean, but hey, they are rich, they can afford it!!!

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Cap and trade is absolute insanity. It's nothing but a money grab by Obama and Co. to fund their liberal pet projects

fify.

[EricB]

Well fixed.

[EricB]

Well fifyed.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Whatever happened to 'Drill Here, Drill Now'

I heard Britney is about to go back on tour.

[boutons_]

the oil/gas co's have drastically cut back their drilling as the price of oil makes most of America's new wells not worth it.

America already has 500,000 oil wells. average barrels/day is way under 100, something like 5 or 10. :lol

[RandomGuy]

Conservatives, who pride themselves on "free markets", often totally fail to understand the basics of how those free markets actually work.

Even *IF* you drilled the shit out of domestic oil stocks and got all of that capacity online instantly so that you could supply 100% of our oil needs domestically, you would STILL be vulnerable to the price of oil in the rest of the world, and any disruptions that might entail.

I dare the thread starter to say why, if he even knows. I highly doubt that the OP knows enough about market economics to be able to explain why/how.

Still waitin'.

[RandomGuy]

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/energy/production.gif

The causes of this trend are not the environmental laws that the ignorant seem to love to villify.

It is simply the physical inevitability of depletion of oil fields.

"drill here, drill now" is nothing more than a large group of people demonstrating they know nothing of free market economics, or energy production.

[RandomGuy]

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/energy/hubbert-model.gif

OIL PRODUCTION MODELS - - USA - actual past production and projections

The next chart shows the model by the most recognized expert (Dr. M. King Hubbert) regarding predicting oil discovery, depletion and production looking forward into the future.

This model shows Oil Production - - for the LOWER 48 STATES - - ACTUAL PAST HISTORY data (green squares), AND PROJECTED future data (green curve for Hubbert curve and dark green curve for the Gauss or " normal " curve), and for ALASKA (blue line).

Note declining production actual production for both lines up to the year 2000 - - and declining projections beyond.
And, note the original prediction of Dr. Hubbert for the lower 48 states, which is the black dotted line just under the green.

Also note actual data departs from the model when a drastic political or economical event occurs (depression, high oil price, etc.), but quickly data return towards the curve.

Although we are primarily interested in USA data, the chart also includes a red FSU line for the Former Soviet Union.

It's interesting to note the accuracy of Dr. Hubbert's modeling approach when applied also for the Soviet Union, since actual FSU production has and is following amazingly close to his model predictions (which are the underlying red X's).

Dr.Hubbert's prediction in 1956 that U.S. oil production would peak in about 1970 and decline thereafter was scoffed at then but his analysis has since proved to be remarkably accurate. Note: The late Dr. Hubbert, American geophysicist working at the Shell Oil research laboratory in Houston, developed sophisticated models regarding world oil discovery, depletion and production - - this analyses is an amazing technical achievement.

His well-renown models, which were originally developed for U.S. and World oil as a single cycle, are widely accepted by nearly all serious technical experts in the world - - and can be applied with several cycles to all regions which are producing at full capacity. Countries of the Persian Gulf not producing to full capacity (swing producers) cannot be modeled with such a curve since actual production is not led by geology and physics, but by politics. Above Chart provided by Jean Laherrère

[RandomGuy]

One can read more here:

They are big fans of coal energy, FWIW. I think we can do a bit better, but know that coal will continue to be a large part, if not dominant part of our energy mix.

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/energy/energy-a.htm

[leemajors]

is this also a porn title?

[AlamoSpursFan]

I believe it is...starring Lefty McCain's fat ass skank daughter.

:lol

[Obstructed_View]

Conservatives, who pride themselves on "free markets", often totally fail to understand the basics of how those free markets actually work.

Even *IF* you drilled the shit out of domestic oil stocks and got all of that capacity online instantly so that you could supply 100% of our oil needs domestically, you would STILL be vulnerable to the price of oil in the rest of the world, and any disruptions that might entail.

I dare the thread starter to say why, if he even knows. I highly doubt that the OP knows enough about market economics to be able to explain why/how.

The price of oil in the rest of the world had less to do with the exploding prices last year than the speculators pushing the prices up with no way of mitigating it with domestic sources of oil. When president Bush lifted the ban on offshore drilling, the speculators suddenly lost confidence and the price of gas corrected before a single drop of oil entered the economy. If we are committed to moving away from petroleum based energy, then using what we have to keep the prices under control and prevent damage to our economy doesn't seem like a bad idea, at least until all the alage farms are in place.

[RandomGuy]

The price of oil in the rest of the world had less to do with the exploding prices last year than the speculators pushing the prices up with no way of mitigating it with domestic sources of oil. When president Bush lifted the ban on offshore drilling, the speculators suddenly lost confidence and the price of gas corrected before a single drop of oil entered the economy. If we are committed to moving away from petroleum based energy, then using what we have to keep the prices under control and prevent damage to our economy doesn't seem like a bad idea, at least until all the alage farms are in place.

F-

Fail.

You could double US domestic oil production instantly, and that would have very little effect on the price of oil in the global market.

As I said before: If we produced enough oil to supply 100% of our oil needs TODAY, we would still be vulnerable price-wise to potential dispruptions in the middle east, or venezuala.

I am STILL waiting for ANYBODY who thinks that increasing domestic drilling by getting rid of the big bad environmental laws is a good idea to explain that. All it takes is some SLIGHT knowledge of economics, and yet I will never really get anybody in the "drill here, drill now" camp to say it.

Either they don't know why, which is sadly the case 99% of the time, or they won't admit it even if they did know.

To think that "drill here, drill now" will make a spit's worth of difference in oil prices, short, medium, or long, term is to simply demonstrate a lack of even a fundamental knowledge of economics.

[CosmicCowboy]

F-

Fail.

You could double US domestic oil production instantly, and that would have very little effect on the price of oil in the global market.

As I said before: If we produced enough oil to supply 100% of our oil needs TODAY, we would still be vulnerable price-wise to potential dispruptions in the middle east, or venezuala.

I am STILL waiting for ANYBODY who thinks that increasing domestic drilling by getting rid of the big bad environmental laws is a good idea to explain that. All it takes is some SLIGHT knowledge of economics, and yet I will never really get anybody in the "drill here, drill now" camp to say it.

Either they don't know why, which is sadly the case 99% of the time, or they won't admit it even if they did know.

To think that "drill here, drill now" will make a spit's worth of difference in oil prices, short, medium, or long, term is to simply demonstrate a lack of even a fundamental knowledge of economics.

Your youth and ignorance is showing.

I'm not necessarily for drilling out and using up all the US reserves, but I AM against publicly preventing them from being explored and for political reasons (global warming) from preventing them from being produced. I don't necessarily want to drill and produce them but I want them legally AVAILABLE for production.

OPEC knows what our current production is. OPEC knows how much we use. OPEC knows that if we HAVE to make up the difference by buying from them then they can basically set the world price by increasing/reducing production.

If the US handicaps itself by making it ILLEGAL to increase US production (at any price) then we abdicate any control or influence over supply and demand pricing in the market. Just the THREAT of increased US production is enough to temper the market volatility.

[Obstructed_View]

F-

Fail.

You could double US domestic oil production instantly, and that would have very little effect on the price of oil in the global market.

Um, I wasn't making these things up. Bush lifted the ban and oil prices started to drop. Gas prices followed about a month behind. These things actually happened. There was ZERO increase in domestic production and the market suddenly stabilized. Go back and look at the timeline. OPEC sets oil prices, and our ability or inability to produce determines the amount of control they have over us, as one of the largest customers.


As I said before: If we produced enough oil to supply 100% of our oil needs TODAY, we would still be vulnerable price-wise to potential dispruptions in the middle east, or venezuala.

And you're just as wrong now as you were the first time you said it. We have enough domestic oil in reserve to sustain us long enough to ramp up production, and enough of that to give us time to migrate to new energy sources. The biggest problem with that is we only think about new energy sources when oil prices are out of control, which is why the president correctly stated during the election that high gas prices will probably be necessary to spur Americans into action. That said, when the environmentalists start riding bikes, we'll know they're not just paying lip service to their ideology.


I am STILL waiting for ANYBODY who thinks that increasing domestic drilling by getting rid of the big bad environmental laws is a good idea to explain that. All it takes is some SLIGHT knowledge of economics, and yet I will never really get anybody in the "drill here, drill now" camp to say it.

Probably because you don't have the slight knowledge of economics required to discuss it, nor do you have the ability to set aside your political leanings long enough to objectively analyze the situation.


To think that "drill here, drill now" will make a spit's worth of difference in oil prices, short, medium, or long, term is to simply demonstrate a lack of even a fundamental knowledge of economics.

So faced with facts, you go right back to the same song you were singing beforehand. I had forgotten why I don't bother posting in the political forum. Thanks for the reminder. :lol

[RandomGuy]

Your youth and ignorance is showing.

I'm not necessarily for drilling out and using up all the US reserves, but I AM against publicly preventing them from being explored and for political reasons (global warming) from preventing them from being produced. I don't necessarily want to drill and produce them but I want them legally AVAILABLE for production.

OPEC knows what our current production is. OPEC knows how much we use. OPEC knows that if we HAVE to make up the difference by buying from them then they can basically set the world price by increasing/reducing production.

If the US handicaps itself by making it ILLEGAL to increase US production (at any price) then we abdicate any control or influence over supply and demand pricing in the market. Just the THREAT of increased US production is enough to temper the market volatility.

Heh, I am probably older than you are.

You also seem to not be in possession of some facts needed to really consider this properly.

So, since you seem to want to take up the challenge of trying to support this stupid idea, let's begin, and see where it leads. I give you kudos for at least having the stones to try.

Riddle me this:

Currently the US produces what % of yearly global oil production?

[RandomGuy]

Still waiting on the reply there Cowboy.

Let's flesh out this idea with some actual facts, because that usually helps get a better perspective.

US % of Global oil production, please.

[Obstructed_View]

I'm not sure why you expect someone else to supply you with something you should be able to look up. Perhaps he's waiting for you to address the ass-whipping you received at the bottom of the previous page.

[Winehole23]

:lol

[RandomGuy]

I'm not sure why you expect someone else to supply you with something you should be able to look up. Perhaps he's waiting for you to address the ass-whipping you received at the bottom of the previous page.

I really didn't think your post was really worth responding to, but if you insist...

[RandomGuy]

Um, I wasn't making these things up. Bush lifted the ban and oil prices started to drop. Gas prices followed about a month behind. These things actually happened. There was ZERO increase in domestic production and the market suddenly stabilized. Go back and look at the timeline. OPEC sets oil prices, and our ability or inability to produce determines the amount of control they have over us, as one of the largest customers.

This is a rather perfect example of bad logic. The technical term for your particular mistake is "post hoc" (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html). "It rained after I washed my car, therefore washing my car caused it to rain".

"Prices dropped after Bush allowed for greater US oil exploration/drilling, therefore when Bush allowed for greater US oil exploration/drilling it caused the price of oil to drop."

Further evidence of fail is that the price of oil futures which is the price of oil you see in the news, IS ONLY FOR DELIVERIES WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS.

People who trade oil for a living know that it takes YEARS to fully develop a field and bring it online.

For you to be able to prove that Bush's decision actually caused the price drop and that it simply wasn't a coincidence, you would have to show two things:

1) You would have to give actual statements from traders, producers, and buyers that stated something to the effect of "We started selling down the futures because of Bush's decision".

and

2) That people who buy/sell/produce/refine oil don't know that any decision affecting production 5 to 10 years from now doesn't affect crude oil prices next month.

-------------

Since we all know that you can't do the first thing because you are talking out your ass, I won't even bother asking you to produce something that doesn't exist and since you are in the second part assuming that people who trade/produce/consume oil don't know how oil production works, we can reasonably assume that it is much more likely that YOU don't know how oil production works than the people who do it for a living.

[RandomGuy]

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

As I said before: If we produced enough oil to supply 100% of our oil needs TODAY, we would still be vulnerable price-wise to potential dispruptions in the middle east, or venezuala.



And you're just as wrong now as you were the first time you said it. We have enough domestic oil in reserve to sustain us long enough to ramp up production, and enough of that to give us time to migrate to new energy sources.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/oil_consumption_2008_0.html
US oil consumption 20m bbl per day
Global oil consumption 80m bbl per day.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/oil_production_2008_0.html
Global oil production 80m bbl per day
US oil production 8.3m bbl per day

75% of all oil consumption takes place outside the US.
86% of all oil production takes place outside of the US.

In a free market system, a US oil producer can either sell oil to a US refinery OR sell oil to say, a European or Chinese refinery.

If Saudi Arabia decends into a civil war, and that removes 15%+ of world supply, that would mean a shortfall of production that would raise prices globally as demand exceeded supply at the price point that it was at before the disruption.

Riddle me this:

If prices in the rest of the world double, and you are a US producer of oil, would you sell oil at $50 per bbl to a US refiner, or $100 per bbl to a European/Chinese refiner?

If you answer, "I would make some bank by selling to the Europeans/Chinese" then you have a free market answer to why you would still be vulnerable to foreign instability.

The only way you can truly insulate yourself from this is to forbid US producers from selling oil to anybody else, thereby prohibiting a free market, and eliminating the incentive for US producers to develop domestic reserves that can only be sold for half of what it could get on a true free market.

Prices are set by the intersection of the GLOBAL supply and demand curves, not the US in isolation. That is why you fail.

[RandomGuy]

Probably because you don't have the slight knowledge of economics required to discuss it, nor do you have the ability to set aside your political leanings long enough to objectively analyze the situation.

I am an accountant, and am about 3 classes shy of a masters in accounting.

I have taken micro and macro economics as an undergraduate, and about 20+ hours of finance and economics at the graduate level. All of my electives for my masters degree have gone into finance and economics (including international economics) because I really like the topics, and I have gotten very solid A's in all of those classes.

On a daily basis, I read up on energy topics, business, finance, and economics news.

I tend to evaluate environmantal laws from a truly economic perspective, and have found that, more often than many on the right realize, those laws tend to have rather beneficial effects on the economy that are completely overlooked.

Take the restrictions on close-in oil production for example.

They were put in place partly as a reaction to the Exxon Valdez disaster, which is STILL being cleaned up over a decade after the spill.

Oil spills tend to damage a lot more than just a few birds on the beaches. They destroy coastal property values, destroy fishing industries, destroy tourism industries in coastal areas. True economic damage from a catastrophic large oil spill can easily run into the hundreds of millions to billions when all the real economic impacts are tallied up.

I am not against oil production. Oil will be produced and consumed and that is how any free-market system works.

Personally, I wish we would develop ANWAR just to shut the "drill here, drill now" idiots up about it, mostly because I would then be able to point to the fact that there wasn't any real drop in the price of oil/gas afterwards.

[RandomGuy]

Your youth and ignorance is showing.

I'm not necessarily for drilling out and using up all the US reserves, but I AM against publicly preventing them from being explored and for political reasons (global warming) from preventing them from being produced. I don't necessarily want to drill and produce them but I want them legally AVAILABLE for production.

OPEC knows what our current production is. OPEC knows how much we use. OPEC knows that if we HAVE to make up the difference by buying from them then they can basically set the world price by increasing/reducing production.

If the US handicaps itself by making it ILLEGAL to increase US production (at any price) then we abdicate any control or influence over supply and demand pricing in the market. Just the THREAT of increased US production is enough to temper the market volatility.


Step up and write a response to my previous 3 or 4 posts whenever.

The invitation for you to explain to young ignorant me why I am wrong about how economics and oil markets work is open to you too.

[DarrinS]

Don't we still get most of our oil from Canada and Mexico?

[CosmicCowboy]

I tend to evaluate environmantal laws from a truly economic perspective, and have found that, more often than many on the right realize, those laws tend to have rather beneficial effects on the economy that are completely overlooked.

Take the restrictions on close-in oil production for example.

They were put in place partly as a reaction to the Exxon Valdez disaster, which is STILL being cleaned up over a decade after the spill.

Oil spills tend to damage a lot more than just a few birds on the beaches. They destroy coastal property values, destroy fishing industries, destroy tourism industries in coastal areas. True economic damage from a catastrophic large oil spill can easily run into the hundreds of millions to billions when all the real economic impacts are tallied up.


That makes a hell of a lot of sense. Good thing that the oil we import from South America and the Middle East magically teleports itself to storage tanks at the refineries and doesn't have to come in by tanker.

Go back to class junior.

[RandomGuy]

Don't we still get most of our oil from Canada and Mexico?

Yup. A good chunk from Venezuala too. Only a rather relatively small percentage of our oil actually comes directly from the Middle East.

As I have outlined above, we still take whatever global price there is for oil, so the specific percentages from any given source don't matter quite so much as overall consumption.

If you want to free yourself from having to worry about oil supply disruptions in the Middle East, the ONLY way to do that is to reduce oil consumption.

[DarrinS]

Yup. A good chunk from Venezuala too. Only a rather relatively small percentage of our oil actually comes directly from the Middle East.

As I have outlined above, we still take whatever global price there is for oil, so the specific percentages from any given source don't matter quite so much as overall consumption.

If you want to free yourself from having to worry about oil supply disruptions in the Middle East, the ONLY way to do that is to reduce oil consumption.



I don't pretend to know alot about this, but isn't this example even slightly analogous?

If I were buying water from SAWS, but I could drill my own well, wouldn't it make sense to do so? Even if it took me some time to get the return on my investment?

[RandomGuy]

That makes a hell of a lot of sense. Good thing that the oil we import from South America and the Middle East magically teleports itself to storage tanks at the refineries and doesn't have to come in by tanker.

Go back to class junior.

Not sure exactly what your point is here. I assume you are attempting to be a smart ass, but your actual point isn't made well enough for me to determine exactly what you are implying, and yes, I understand you are attempting sarcasm.

Using the principles of supply/demand economics, please explain how your statement in any way disproves anything I have outlined.

Otherwise, your statement is little more than a non-sequitur.

If you can't back up your statement with those principles, and using specific economics terms, then you are simply proving *MY* point that people like you make noises about being for "free markets" but don't really know much about actual economics.

As I said, step up or shut up. Sarcasm may make you feel better about looking like an idiot, but it won't change the fact that you still look like an idiot.

[RandomGuy]

I don't pretend to know alot about this, but isn't this example even slightly analogous?

If I were buying water from SAWS, but I could drill my own well, wouldn't it make sense to do so? Even if it took me some time to get the return on my investment?

That analogy doesn't really work though.

It would work if the US government actually owned and produced all the oil, which it doesn't.

A better analogy might be if you were to try and sell that water to other people. If the costs of your water on a per gallon basis were higher than what SAWS could sell it for, you would NEVER get a return on that, because no one would really buy from you if they could at all get SAWS water cheaper.

If you are talking about your own personal usage, you might get some satisfaction (the economic term is "utility") from not having to buy water from SAWS, even if your well water cost more than SAWS water. The difference in your cost from SAWS cost is how that utility would be measured in economic terms.

Sure you would eventually recoup your investment in not having to have had to buy water from SAWS, depending on how expensive SAWS water is.

You could also have simply purchased cheaper SAWS water and invested the difference in something else that paid money, like bonds.

[CosmicCowboy]

You must be doing your degree at one of those on line paper diploma mills.

I quote you again:


I tend to evaluate environmantal laws from a truly economic perspective, and have found that, more often than many on the right realize, those laws tend to have rather beneficial effects on the economy that are completely overlooked.

Take the restrictions on close-in oil production for example.

They were put in place partly as a reaction to the Exxon Valdez disaster, which is STILL being cleaned up over a decade after the spill.


Your economic justification for prohibiting off shore drilling is that it would increase the chances of oil tanker spills which cost a lot to clean up.

What i guess you don't know is that oil and natural gas produced offshore is not transported by tanker. It is transported by pipeline.

It is imported oil that is transported by tanker.

Your "economic" argument made absolutely no sense and in fact was based on erroneous facts and circular logic.

[johnsmith]

RG, you should just start a website dedicated to your rants. You can have graphs, photo's and links all over the place to make your point. I mean, that's basically what you've turned this forum into.

[RandomGuy]

You must be doing your degree at one of those on line paper diploma mills.

I quote you again:

Your economic justification for prohibiting off shore drilling is that it would increase the chances of oil tanker spills which cost a lot to clean up.

What i guess you don't know is that oil and natural gas produced offshore is not transported by tanker. It is transported by pipeline.

It is imported oil that is transported by tanker.

Your "economic" argument made absolutely no sense and in fact was based on erroneous facts and circular logic.

I didn't say that the prohibition against offshore drilling was entirely rationally based only on tanker spills.

It was enacted as part of a rather emotional, gut reaction to the Exxon Valdez spill.

The specter of such spills from offshore oil drilling, where you have dozens/hundreds of platforms vulnerable to hurricaines (as we saw rather clearly in the Katrian/Rita storms) allowed such bans to be lumped in. This is not altogether unreasonable in my opinion though.

More directly most single hulled tankers were prohibited from US ports, if memory serves, as well as from most European ports. That is a bit more of a rational response.

Aside from this, there are still ships involved in transport of deep water drilling to my understanding.

[RandomGuy]

RG, you should just start a website dedicated to your rants. You can have graphs, photo's and links all over the place to make your point. I mean, that's basically what you've turned this forum into.

Perhaps I shoud. Most of these arguments are done to death anyways. One good bit copied and pasted would do for most things.

[RandomGuy]

You must be doing your degree at one of those on line paper diploma mills.

I quote you again:

Your economic justification for prohibiting off shore drilling is that it would increase the chances of oil tanker spills which cost a lot to clean up.

What i guess you don't know is that oil and natural gas produced offshore is not transported by tanker. It is transported by pipeline.

It is imported oil that is transported by tanker.

Your "economic" argument made absolutely no sense and in fact was based on erroneous facts and circular logic.

Further, I never attempted to use such reasoning as an economic basis for any such ban. If you think that you are mistaken, and if you claim that is what I think/imply then you are distorting what I think/believe.

I merely noted that the true costs of any legislation should be considered.

The ONLY economic point I have made here is that even if we drilled all the oil we needed, we would still be vulnerable to outside disruption, in a true free-market system.

Can you dispute that statement?

[CosmicCowboy]

The specter of such spills from offshore oil drilling, where you have dozens/hundreds of platforms vulnerable to hurricaines (as we saw rather clearly in the Katrian/Rita storms) allowed such bans to be lumped in. This is not altogether unreasonable in my opinion though.

And the fact that there were no spills from Katrina and Rita is a good argument that offshore drilling and production can be done safely.

Besides, the drilling bans are on the East and West coasts. Where is the logic in allowing drilling in the most hurricane prone US coastline, and denying drilling off coastlines that NEVER get hurricanes?

[Winehole23]

RG, you should just start a website dedicated to your rants. You can have graphs, photo's and links all over the place to make your point. I mean, that's basically what you've turned this forum into.OV called out RG; he basically egged on the rant and deserves your annoyance too. I laughed upstream because I saw the rant coming, and suspected OV would have no substantive reply to it.

Isn't there an ignore function on the user CP? Why do you prefer to hang around and bitch, when you can just ignore the poster?

[CosmicCowboy]

BTW, only an idiot would dispute that oil is a commodity and we live in a global economy where commodity prices are set by global supply and demand mechanisms.

The point you seem to be missing is that if the USA allows 100% of supply to be determined by countries that do not have our best interests at heart then this is not only economically foolish but politically and strategically foolish.

[Yonivore]

BTW, only an idiot would dispute that oil is a commodity and we live in a global economy where commodity prices are set by global supply and demand mechanisms.

The point you seem to be missing is that if the USA allows 100% of supply to be determined by countries that do not have our best interests at heart then this is not only economically foolish but politically and strategically foolish.
Wasn't there an accusation that China was stockpiling reserves to create a shortage and drive up prices?

[RandomGuy]

And the fact that there were no spills from Katrina and Rita is a good argument that offshore drilling and production can be done safely.



That bit has been debunked, and it does not surprise me that you would believe something like that. I think the proper term is "cool-aid".

It is provably false.

We can start here:
http://www.katrinadestruction.com/images/v/damaged+energy+facilities/
http://www.katrinadestruction.com/images/d/5575-4/Bass+Enterprises2w.jpg

Or even better:

http://skytruth.mediatools.org/sites/default/files/photo_import/1904/935/11938-lg.jpg

http://blog.skytruth.org/2007/12/hurricane-katrina-gulf-of-mexico-oil.html

Here is an interesting summary with a quote from the "U.S. Minerals Management Service [who] commissioned a study of this very issue,"


"As a result of both storms, 124 spills were reported with a total volume of roughly 17,700 barrels of total petroleum products, of which about 13,200 barrels were crude oil and condensate from platforms, rigs and pipelines, and 4,500 barrels were refined products from platforms and rigs. Pipelines were accountable for 72 spills totaling about 7,300 barrels of crude oil and condensate spilled into the [Gulf of Mexico]. Response and recovery efforts kept the impacts to a minimum with no onshore impacts from these spill events."
(note: paragraph after this is blog poster's analysis, not quoted from USMS report--RG)
How can we evaluate whether this amount spilled was truly “minor”? The criteria I think it’s best to focus on are the guidelines are spelled out in the Code of Federal Regulations and used by the EPA and Coast Guard to evaluate oil spills:


(1) Minor discharge means a discharge to the inland waters of less than 1,000 gallons of oil or a discharge to the coastal waters of less than 10,000 gallons of oil.

(2) Medium discharge means a discharge of 1,000 to 10,000 gallons of oil to the inland waters or a discharge of 10,000 to 100,000 gallons of oil to the coastal waters.

(3) Major discharge means a discharge of more than 10,000 gallons of oil to the inland waters or more than 100,000 gallons of oil to the coastal waters.

17,700 barrels of oil corresponds to 743,400 gallons, which is more than sufficient to qualify as a “major discharge” under Federal guidelines. Now, that 743,400 gallons is certainly small potatoes compared to the over 8 million gallons of oil which spilled inland along the Mississippi River and other locations in Louisiana. Still, if it’s over seven times what the EPA considers a “major discharge”, I have to take issue with the MMS’s report characterization of the spill as “minor.” While it appears that no individual leak appears to have been a major discharge, the sum total of oil spilled from oil platforms after Katrina and Rita is more than enough to qualify as one.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/were-there-no-oil-spills-from-katrina/


I think it is fairly safe to assume that increased offshore drilling MUST equal increased risk of spills of all kinds. Is this a fair statement?

(note I didn't ask whether they are likely or not, so don't try that dodge)

[Yonivore]

That bit has been debunked, and it does not surprise me that you would believe something like that. I think the proper term is "cool-aid".

It is provably false.

We can start here:
http://www.katrinadestruction.com/images/v/damaged+energy+facilities/
http://www.katrinadestruction.com/images/d/5575-4/Bass+Enterprises2w.jpg
Not related to off-shore drilling.


Or even better:

http://skytruth.mediatools.org/sites/default/files/photo_import/1904/935/11938-lg.jpg

http://blog.skytruth.org/2007/12/hurricane-katrina-gulf-of-mexico-oil.html

Here is an interesting summary with a quote from the "U.S. Minerals Management Service [who] commissioned a study of this very issue,"



http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/were-there-no-oil-spills-from-katrina/


I think it is fairly safe to assume that increased offshore drilling MUST equal increased risk of spills of all kinds. Is this a fair statement?

(note I didn't ask whether they are likely or not, so don't try that dodge)
Where is all the environmental fallout? Where is Greenpeace? I haven't heard an outcry.

In fact, the cumulative of all spills was 3/4 of a million gallons or, approximately 6,000 gallons per source or, in the medium discharge range.

Have there been residual effects? And, if so, why isn't there any outrage?

Just asking.

Seems to me the claims are just overblown or, the anti-drilling crowd -- championed by Democrats in Washington -- would have made sure this was the topic of at least 5 or 6 "60 Minutes" or "20/20"s, et. al.

Sorry, I call bullshit.

[CosmicCowboy]

Oil spills tend to damage a lot more than just a few birds on the beaches. They destroy coastal property values, destroy fishing industries, destroy tourism industries in coastal areas.

Yeah, those offshore spills from Katrina and Rita really had a huge economic impact.

[RandomGuy]

Not related to off-shore drilling.


Where is all the environmental fallout? Where is Greenpeace? I haven't heard an outcry.

In fact, the cumulative of all spills was 3/4 of a million gallons or, approximately 6,000 gallons per source or, in the medium discharge range.

Have there been residual effects? And, if so, why isn't there any outrage?

Just asking.

Seems to me the claims are just overblown or, the anti-drilling crowd -- championed by Democrats in Washington -- would have made sure this was the topic of at least 5 or 6 "60 Minutes" or "20/20"s, et. al.

Sorry, I call bullshit.

Cumulatively the damage was rather minor.

It also is misleading to say it didn't happen.

I am not against off-shore drilling. Don't mistake me here.

It has its benefits and costs just like anything else.

But there are two things I WILL say about it:

1) You will never be able to supply all or even most of US demand with any economically feasible amount of offshore drilling, even if the bans were completely lifted.

2) Even if you could, it still would make you vulnerable to production/supply issues in the rest of the word.

[DarrinS]

To be fair, RG, natural seepage accounts for a SUBSTANTIAL amount of oil in our oceans. NASA has been tracking natural oil slicks with satellites.


http://e360.yale.edu/content/digest.msp?id=1652

[Winehole23]

BTW, only an idiot would dispute that oil is a commodity and we live in a global economy where commodity prices are set by global supply and demand mechanisms.I disagree. The legal, cultural and political contexts of energy production can also affect the price. Only an idiot or a Doctor of Economics thinks that when everything is boiled down to an abstract truism -- supply and demand -- that everything survives the boiling down. On the contrary, economics defines everything hard out of the context to begin with. Rational actors, rational self interest, a level playing field and rational calculation are all assumed.

In the face of a federally-funded US financial sector and an ongoing, sector-wide, multi-trillion dollar bailout, how much sense does it make to continue to insist dogmatically on the existence of a rational and orderly free market?


IThe point you seem to be missing is that if the USA allows 100% of supply to be determined by countries that do not have our best interests at heart then this is not only economically foolish but politically and strategically foolish.I think I see what you mean, but the scope of the damage of is probably overstated in your post.

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, those offshore spills from Katrina and Rita really had a huge economic impact.

That depends on the locale.

You are indeed correct though, the overall economic impact from the spills was minor.

The evidence does NOT support the statement:


there were no spills from Katrina and Rita

Does it?

Helpful hint: Backpedaling is best done on unicycles.

[RandomGuy]

Wasn't there an accusation that China was stockpiling reserves to create a shortage and drive up prices?

There was a great deal of stockpiling actually. From what I have read there is a massive amount of oil being stored in ships.

I have begun to believe the recent run up was highly speculative in nature, but I don't think it was specifically driven by "the Chinese".

[RandomGuy]

To be fair, RG, natural seepage accounts for a SUBSTANTIAL amount of oil in our oceans. NASA has been tracking natural oil slicks with satellites.


http://e360.yale.edu/content/digest.msp?id=1652

Also true.

This amount of seepage doesn't destroy fishing/tourism industries though.

(shrugs)

The possibility , however remote, of a catastrophic failure/leak on the part of some platform or tanker has caused a lot of people with coastal real estate, fishing industries, and tourism industries to fight drilling tooth and nail.

That is NOT pure environmentalism. That is one business interest against another.

[RandomGuy]

OV called out RG; he basically egged on the rant and deserves your annoyance too. I laughed upstream because I saw the rant coming, and suspected OV would have no substantive reply to it.

Isn't there an ignore function on the user CP? Why do you prefer to hang around and bitch, when you can just ignore the poster?

I was going to ignore him because he was a dumbass, but he specifically asked to be spanked.

[DarrinS]

Slightly off topic, but about 20 years ago I lived near Los Angeles, and I seem to recall there being an absolute shitload of oil drilling going on. There was even an active oil pump in the parking lot of the Del Amo Mall in Torrance. It just strikes me as odd that they seemingly had tons of oil and yet now have energy problems. Is it because of all the environmental activism over the last few decades?


I remember what a pain in the ass it was to get my smog inspection done every year. I had a 74 VW Beetle and I had to put on the OEM carburetor and exhaust back on ever year. After I got my sticker, I would put the aftermarket parts back on. I believe that today such a vehicle would be exempt.

[RandomGuy]

BTW, only an idiot would dispute that oil is a commodity and we live in a global economy where commodity prices are set by global supply and demand mechanisms.

The point you seem to be missing is that if the USA allows 100% of supply to be determined by countries that do not have our best interests at heart then this is not only economically foolish but politically and strategically foolish.

:lmao

So we should attempt to control 100% of the global oil supply?

That is what your statement "100% of supply" suggests.

The ONLY way you can support what you are so ham-handedly trying to say is if you pass a socialistic law that prohibits domestic oil companies from selling to anybody else.

Is that what you are trying to say? Socialism is good?

More FAIL.

YOU CANNOT DE-COUPLE US SUPPLY/DEMAND FROM GLOBAL SUPPLY AND DEMAND IN A FREE MARKET.

[RandomGuy]

Assume prices are determined by global supply/demand.

The US is part of the global supply/demand.

Assume further that at current prices, the US produces and consumes 100% of all of its needs.

Now assume that there is a civil war in Saudi Arabia.

What happens to the price of oil globally, ceteris paribus?

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao

So we should attempt to control 100% of the global oil supply?

That is what your statement "100% of supply" suggests.

The ONLY way you can support what you are so ham-handedly trying to say is if you pass a socialistic law that prohibits domestic oil companies from selling to anybody else.

Is that what you are trying to say? Socialism is good?

More FAIL.

YOU CANNOT DE-COUPLE US SUPPLY/DEMAND FROM GLOBAL SUPPLY AND DEMAND IN A FREE MARKET.

I said no such thing. Get a grip, dude.

[RandomGuy]

Assume prices are determined by global supply/demand.

The US is part of the global supply/demand.

Assume further that at current prices, the US produces and consumes 100% of all of its needs.

Now assume that there is a civil war in Saudi Arabia.

What happens to the price of oil globally, ceteris paribus?

Since CC won't really have the stones to answer:

It goes up.

Now if you are a US domestic producer and you can sell oil to Europe for $100/bbl or domestically, you will sell to the Europeans.

Therefore the total available supply to the US will DECREASE accordingly, driving up the price point if the demand curve does not change.

THEREFORE, the disruption in Saudi will STILL cause hikes in US gas/oil prices, UNLESS you prohibit the US producer from selling overseas.

The only way for CC to be right is if he prohibits those producers from selling their oil to maximize their microeconomic profit.

[Winehole23]

ceteris paribus (http://www.auburn.edu/%7Ejohnspm/gloss/ceteris_paribus)

[RandomGuy]

I said no such thing. Get a grip, dude.

You seem to think that if we produced 100% of all the oil we consume that will somehow insulate us from foreign oil production disruptions.

There is only one way that will happen.

That is the direct implication of your statement.

You have yet to demonstrate anything more than a passing grasp of economics.

[CosmicCowboy]

You are like a brain damaged fucking pit bull. All you want to do is attack. I already AGREED that oil is a commodity on a global market and as such the price can be influenced by global events.

[RandomGuy]

Since CC won't really have the stones to answer:

It goes up.

Now if you are a US domestic producer and you can sell oil to Europe for $100/bbl or domestically, you will sell to the Europeans.

Therefore the total available supply to the US will DECREASE accordingly, driving up the price point if the demand curve does not change.

THEREFORE, the disruption in Saudi will STILL cause hikes in US gas/oil prices, UNLESS you prohibit the US producer from selling overseas.

The only way for CC to be right is if he prohibits those producers from selling their oil to maximize their microeconomic profit.

Implict it in this is that you CAN keep the price point in the US at the same place with a decrease in supply.

Now Cosmic Cowboy, how would that be accomplished?

This is a VERY basic economics question.

[RandomGuy]

You are like a brain damaged fucking pit bull. All you want to do is attack. I already AGREED that oil is a commodity on a global market and as such the price can be influenced by global events.

Because the idea that if we drilled all of our oil, everything would be happiness and roses, and that we could tell the sheikhs and Chavez to go fuck themselves is not only wrong, but dangerously wrong.

We can do better than bad ideas.

[CosmicCowboy]

You seem to think that if we produced 100% of all the oil we consume that will somehow insulate us from foreign oil production disruptions.

There is only one way that will happen.

That is the direct implication of your statement.

You have yet to demonstrate anything more than a passing grasp of economics.

There was no such implication dumbass. I never said anything about us producing 100% of the oil that we consume.

I DID say that if we voluntarily handicap ourselves and put ourselves in a position of having to buy 100% of an essential commodity like oil that we consume from potentially hostile foreign governments that is not very smart.

How can you POSSIBLY dispute this point?

[RandomGuy]

You are like a brain damaged fucking pit bull. All you want to do is attack. I already AGREED that oil is a commodity on a global market and as such the price can be influenced by global events.


The point you seem to be missing is that if the USA allows 100% of supply to be determined by countries that do not have our best interests at heart then this is not only economically foolish but politically and strategically foolish.

If you want to talk purely strategically, yes we should drill and store as much oil as we need to.

Why bother drilling $200+ barrels of oil when it would be simply easier to simply not use as much oil in the first place?

If you want energy independence/security, drilling more oil will NOT get you there. It merely prolongs your vulnerability to the rest of the world's problems.

You MUST reduce consumption and underlying demand.

If you want to, by fiat insist that our $100-200/bbl oil must be dilled when $50/bbl can be purchased globally, you are doing something counter to free markets.

[Winehole23]

You're basically saying you attempted to derail RG with a bs counterfactual, CosmicCowboy.

I'd say that's a fair point. You did not say it is the case, or directly state its desirability, but instead raised it as a possibility.


The point you seem to be missing is that if the USA allows 100% of supply to be determined by countries that do not have our best interests at heart then this is not only economically foolish but politically and strategically foolish.

[RandomGuy]

There was no such implication dumbass. I never said anything about us producing 100% of the oil that we consume.

I DID say that if we voluntarily handicap ourselves and put ourselves in a position of having to buy 100% of an essential commodity like oil that we consume from potentially hostile foreign governments that is not very smart.

How can you POSSIBLY dispute this point?

The answer is: I don't dispute it.

My point is that no matter WHERE we get the oil, we are still vulnerable, as you yourself admitted.

Since WHERE we get the oil is irrelevant, we can ONLY make ourselves less dependent on hostile foreign governments by reducing how much we consume/demand.

[CosmicCowboy]

So what the fuck are you arguing with ME for? I never said we shouldn't reduce energy use and shouldn't be looking for economically feasible alternative renewable energy resources.

[RandomGuy]

Energy is energy.

We consume a lot of oil because we use a lot of it in transportation.

We CAN produce a lot of coal and renewables.

If we shifted our transportation energy usage from oil to coal/renewables we could acheive the kind of security you want without drilling pointlessly for oil.

Think either liquid distillates from coal/algae/whatever (NOT alchohol, that doesn't work economically), or simple electrical cars.

We can do the research to make the price of transporting people/cargo from these types of transportation quite cost competitive with oil based energy.

Simple depletion will force this to happen fairly soon anyways, but we can do some solid research and provide a technological shortcut.

[RandomGuy]

So what the fuck are you arguing with ME for? I never said we shouldn't reduce energy use and shouldn't be looking for economically feasible alternative renewable energy resources.

Because you seemed to be going in for this whole "drill here, drill now" bit, as if that would somehow make us safer.

You implied as much with a few of your posts, as WH pointed out.

Maybe you didn't mean to imply that, but I think it is a fair reading of what you were saying.

Either way, telling me to "go back to class, junior" or whatever as if I don't know enough about economics to have though this through logically or correctly is going to piss me off. I might be an asshole sometimes, but I am NOT stupid.

[CosmicCowboy]

Considering that our current administration has a hard on for both coal and nuclear power we might have to wait 4 more years for that to happen.

[RandomGuy]

If the US handicaps itself by making it ILLEGAL to increase US production (at any price) then we abdicate any control or influence over supply and demand pricing in the market.

Here is what I am talking about.

Yes, you are right that we might not have any control.

I would say: that even with SOME control, you would STILL be vulnerable.

The US simply couldn't produce enough oil, even with immediately drilling all the oil we could physically be capable of, to make a dent in such a large global market.

It is easier, cheaper, and more reliable to go the other route of simply reducing demand, than it is to put our efforts behind increasing supply.

Go ahead and do all the offshore drilling you want. I don't mind.

It will happen eventually anyway, as the price of oil goes up.

[Winehole23]

We can do the research to make the price of transporting people/cargo from these types of transportation quite cost competitive with oil based energy.

Simple depletion will force this to happen fairly soon anyways, but we can do some solid research and provide a technological shortcut.We can't afford to hit the snooze bar again on energy R&D. The peak oil scenario exposes our technical base.

We started pretending peak oil matters in the early 1970's. Now, the peak may already have passed. Time's a wastin'

[RandomGuy]

Considering that our current administration has a hard on for both coal and nuclear power we might have to wait 4 more years for that to happen.

The problem with coal is that it has a lot of nasty ecological damage in just about all stages of its usage.

Coal will be part of the mix, but again, we can do better.

Nuclear just means more waste/fuel shipments for terrorist targets. The odds of a successful attack might be low, but I would rather not lose a city for 26,000 years on even such a low possibility, when other options are available, even IF you could overcome the irrational NIMBY effect.

I don't really mind either per se, I just see better alternatives.

Renewables will NOT in any way in my life time fully replace fossil fuels, but we can insulate ourselves from the nastiness and price swings involved in our current energy usage mix.

[CosmicCowboy]

Life was just so much fucking simpler when we just went out and killed whales for oil.

[johnsmith]

OV called out RG; he basically egged on the rant and deserves your annoyance too. I laughed upstream because I saw the rant coming, and suspected OV would have no substantive reply to it.

Isn't there an ignore function on the user CP? Why do you prefer to hang around and bitch, when you can just ignore the poster?

Alright, I guess I'll ignore you from here on out.


I was going to ignore him because he was a dumbass, but he specifically asked to be spanked.

:rolleyesSpanked me? Really? That's quite an imagination you have there.

[SnakeBoy]

I have taken micro and macro economics as an undergraduate, and about 20+ hours of finance and economics at the graduate level. All of my electives for my masters degree have gone into finance and economics (including international economics) because I really like the topics, and I have gotten very solid A's in all of those classes.


So you're almost an economist, impressive. I have a lot of confidence in the predictions of economists and almost economists. :toast

[RandomGuy]

Either way, telling me to "go back to class, junior" or whatever as if I don't know enough about economics to have though this through logically or correctly is going to piss me off. I might be an asshole sometimes, but I am NOT stupid.

This said, I was being a bit of a baiting dickhead trying to get someone to step up and defend the OP, even marginally. I would be less than honest if I said it wasn't entirely accidental. CC is entirely right to be a bit cheesed at me for being a bit of a dick.

FWIW: Sorry. I know you are a bit smarter than that. I got carried away.

[johnsmith]

LOL, quoting yourself.

[RandomGuy]

Alright, I guess I'll ignore you from here on out.



:rolleyesSpanked me? Really? That's quite an imagination you have there.

OV = Johnsmith ??

Regards,

Captain Google and his arrogant punk-ass rag time band.

[Winehole23]

Considering that our current administration has a hard on for both coal and nuclear power we might have to wait 4 more years for that to happen.There's no rule against doing a little of everything at once.

It's not my impression that Obama has excluded renewables from his energy policy -- it it yours?

[RandomGuy]

So you're almost an economist, impressive. I have a lot of confidence in the predictions of economists and almost economists. :toast

Don't confuse being able to tell you what will happen to the price of oil if Saudi Arabia gets into a civil war with being able to tell you where exactly the economy will be in 2 years.

I will happily do the first and it doesn't even take an economist to do so, but the second: I have no idea.

[CosmicCowboy]

There's no rule against doing a little of everything at once.

It's not my impression that Obama has excluded renewables from his energy policy -- it it yours?

Of course not. Obama has specifically stated that he supports wind and solar and believes in magical and hypothetical future sources of clean renewable energy to be named later. He has also stated he intends to put the coal industry out of business, doesn't support nuclear energy, and wants to put a draconian tax on Co2 emissions that will knock our economy back into the stone age.

Thats change you can believe in.

[Winehole23]

Of course not. Obama has specifically stated that he supports wind and solar and believes in magical and hypothetical future sources of clean renewable energy to be named later. He has also stated he intends to put the coal industry out of business, doesn't support nuclear energy, and wants to put a draconian tax on Co2 emissions that will knock our economy back into the stone age.

Thats change you can believe in.Obama plans to wreck the energy sector and our whole economy, then somehow get reelected. Have I got that right?

[RandomGuy]

Of course not. Obama has specifically stated that he supports wind and solar and believes in magical and hypothetical future sources of clean renewable energy to be named later. He has also stated he intends to put the coal industry out of business, doesn't support nuclear energy, and wants to put a draconian tax on Co2 emissions that will knock our economy back into the stone age.

Thats change you can believe in.

A bit of a sarcastic distortion/exaggeration, but I don't exactly disagree with his stated policy goals.

Eat that.

Coal is nasty. Really, really, nasty.

Arsenic, cyanide, mercury, and a host of other nasty heavy metals get dredged up just mining and transporting the stuff.

Burning it makes it altogether nastier.

The problem with the pollution is that we haven't forced some of the true costs of that pollution onto the producers.

It's useful though, and a major source of energy. I would put it out of business tomorrow if I could wave a magic wand and do so without much disruption.

Is there anything wrong with replacing coal usage with something just as, if not more, economical?

[RandomGuy]

Here comes another problem with coal:

The Chinese have been building, and still are to my knowledge, one or two new coal power plants EVERY WEEK FOR YEARS.

If you want to rely on coal to meet your energy needs, you will be competing for every little black rock on the world market with those Chinese consumers, just like you are for oil.

Coal, from what I undestand has a much larger known reserve base, and the US has a LOT of coal, but do we really want to strip-mine half the continent to get it?

Again, we could do better.

[RandomGuy]

As for nuclear energy:

I don't support it either.

No nuclear power plant has EVER, EVER been built without massive government subsidies.

If it were really economically viable, we would see it everywhere already.

Can ANY supporter of nuclear power tell me how to get over the NIMBY effect, without socialistic government mandates that sweep aside all local concerns and lawsuits?

Hmm?

[Winehole23]

Coal, from what I undestand has a much larger known reserve base, and the US has a LOT of coal, but do we really want to strip-mine half the continent to get it?Coy in the interrogative. I think we do, regardless of whether it's a good idea. We're the Saudi Arabia of coal, aren't we?

[Winehole23]

As for nuclear energy:

I don't support it either.

No nuclear power plant has EVER, EVER been built without massive government subsidies.

If it were really economically viable, we would see it everywhere already.

Can ANY supporter of nuclear power tell me how to get over the NIMBY effect, without socialistic government mandates that sweep aside all local concerns and lawsuits?

Hmm?Good points. There is also the security angle you mentioned upstream. A nuclear plant is another target for evildoers.

[RandomGuy]

Once again, we are left with "green" alternatives:

Conservation, and research into "magic" renewables, as CC wants to call them.

People once thought it would take "magic" to get to the moon. "Silly Americans, you can't do that."

Wait for it....


Yes

We

Can.

[RandomGuy]

Good points. There is also the security angle you mentioned upstream. A nuclear plant is another target for evildoers.

It isn't the plants themselves that are in danger. It is the waste/fuel shipments and storage facilities.

The containers used to ship the waste/fuel stay intact after getting hit with trains, but imagine someone driving alongside a shipment with a semi-tractor trailor full of explosives, and who isn't afraid to die.

The resulting explosion would scatter a type of radioactive nastiness over a large area. Plutonium is lethal in microscopic doses, BTW.

Take 15-20 highly motivated idiots who aren't afraid to die, and apply them to ANY security regimen, and you see the problem.

By the time you add in enough security to minimize the threat, you have raised the costs to where it suddenly becomes a LOT less economical.

Why bother?

[Winehole23]

Can ANY supporter of nuclear power tell me how to get over the NIMBY effect, without socialistic government mandates that sweep aside all local concerns and lawsuits?

Hmm?Coal ash spill (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/12/26/TVA_Coal_ash_spill_larger_than_thought/UPI-73761230349669/), December 2008.

[DarrinS]

Once again, we are left with "green" alternatives:

Conservation, and research into "magic" renewables, as CC wants to call them.

People once thought it would take "magic" to get to the moon. "Silly Americans, you can't do that."

Wait for it....


Yes

We

Can.



Here's an instructable to convert a Honda Accord to run on garbage.

http://www.instructables.com/id/Convert_your_Honda_Accord_to_run_on_trash/


EDIT> I'm sure everyone has a CNC plasma cutter laying around.

[CosmicCowboy]

Once again, we are left with "green" alternatives:

Conservation, and research into "magic" renewables, as CC wants to call them.

People once thought it would take "magic" to get to the moon. "Silly Americans, you can't do that."

Wait for it....


Yes

We

Can.

OK, your background is liberal arts. Mine is Science and Engineering. I actually make a living doing stuff in the energy field. I've actually got a pretty darn good handle on whats doable and what isn't.

[DarrinS]

But you may get pulled over by cops that think you're carrying around a meth lab in your trunk.

8JyazgRBtq8

[CosmicCowboy]

EDIT> I'm sure everyone has a CNC plasma cutter laying around.

Actually, I do...:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Coy in the interrogative. I think we do, regardless of whether it's a good idea. We're the Saudi Arabia of coal, aren't we?

We are indeed.

Read up on the damage caused by coal mining, and I'm not talking about just the century old fires either.

The worst of it:
http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/Environment/article/306165

Even the underground conventional mining will put nasty things into water tables.

Given the fights over water going on today, I can't imagine why we would want to sacrifice sources of clean water for coal.

The ironic thing is that taking contaminated water and making it clean enough to drink or large scale desalinization both require: energy.

So if you fuck up your water sources from coal mining for coal energy, you end up needing more: energy.

The whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

It has to be galling to a lot of those on the right that the future of our energy supply will be "green". The narrative on the right is that all environmentalism is silly, alarmist, and costs jobs. I will suck for them to have to admit that maybe, just maybe, those crazy environmentalists might have been right about something.

[RandomGuy]

OK, your background is liberal arts. Mine is Science and Engineering. I actually make a living doing stuff in the energy field. I've actually got a pretty darn good handle on whats doable and what isn't.

And I am always willing to learn more than I do now. I may be a liberal arts guy, but I am very scientifically literate, because being so helps evaluate energy policy.

I don't have to tell you, as I am sure you already know, how handy knowledge of physics and chemistry is when it comes to thinking about this topic. I can tell you why shale and tar sands are pipe dreams, simply because they just aren't chemically/energetically efficient.

What do you think we should do for energy independence?

[CosmicCowboy]

We are indeed.

Read up on the damage caused by coal mining, and I'm not talking about just the century old fires either.

The worst of it:
http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/Environment/article/306165

Even the underground conventional mining will put nasty things into water tables.

Given the fights over water going on today, I can't imagine why we would want to sacrifice sources of clean water for coal.

The ironic thing is that taking contaminated water and making it clean enough to drink or large scale desalinization both require: energy.

So if you fuck up your water sources from coal mining for coal energy, you end up needing more: energy.

The whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

It has to be galling to a lot of those on the right that the future of our energy supply will be "green". The narrative on the right is that all environmentalism is silly, alarmist, and costs jobs. I will suck for them to have to admit that maybe, just maybe, those crazy environmentalists might have been right about something.

Actually, it's not galling to me at all (if I am one of those hated "rights" that you speak of ) but it IS the end of life as we know it. True "Green" living is more of a local solution than something you can just put on a power grid and keep on with life as usual.

I will actually be set up for my green future with orchards, gardens, an energy efficient home, acreage (and the knowledge) to farm and ranch and raise animals and crops, etc. I will have ponds for raising fish and freshwater shrimp and barring a complete meltdown of the social structure, power grid and collapse into total anarchy I will be set.

It's you urban weenies that don't know how to do a fucking thing except talk and play video games that are gonna be screwed.

[clambake]

Actually, it's not galling to me at all (if I am one of those hated "rights" that you speak of ) but it IS the end of life as we know it. True "Green" living is more of a local solution than something you can just put on a power grid and keep on with life as usual.

I will actually be set up for my green future with orchards, gardens, an energy efficient home, acreage (and the knowledge) to farm and ranch and raise animals and crops, etc. I will have ponds for raising fish and freshwater shrimp and barring a complete meltdown of the social structure, power grid and collapse into total anarchy I will be set.

It's you urban weenies that don't know how to do a fucking thing except talk and play video games that are gonna be screwed.

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Actually, it's not galling to me at all (if I am one of those hated "rights" that you speak of ) but it IS the end of life as we know it. True "Green" living is more of a local solution than something you can just put on a power grid and keep on with life as usual.

I will actually be set up for my green future with orchards, gardens, an energy efficient home, acreage (and the knowledge) to farm and ranch and raise animals and crops, etc. I will have ponds for raising fish and freshwater shrimp and barring a complete meltdown of the social structure, power grid and collapse into total anarchy I will be set.

It's you urban weenies that don't know how to do a fucking thing except talk and play video games that are gonna be screwed.

Oddly enough that is exactly what I plan on doing for my retirement. :lol

I have read a LOT on green/efficient house building, gardening and so forth as well. I have years before I will have the money to get started tho', so I have time to learn the farming/ranching bits.

[LnGrrrR]

Oddly enough that is exactly what I plan on doing for my retirement. :lol

I have read a LOT on green/efficient house building, gardening and so forth as well. I have years before I will have the money to get started tho', so I have time to learn the farming/ranching bits.

F that. I'll just make sure to gather enough friends to be in the ruling party of whatever gang takes over the anarchic city. :D

[RandomGuy]

One of the good things about having some accounting/finance knowledge is that it helps one pick through the costs/benefits of a lot of the green building stuff.

Here is one that I really like:
Rainwater harvesting.
(sample google search here) (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rainwater+harvesting&btnG=Search)

As energy and fresh ground water both get more expensive, you can expect to see this take off.

There is even a handy guide to it put out by the Great State of Texas.
(click here for the pdf file) (http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/RainwaterHarvestingManual_3rdedition.pdf)

Not cost-effective overall compared to municipal water at the moment, but I will estimate that will change at some point in the medium term.

[RandomGuy]

F that. I'll just make sure to gather enough friends to be in the ruling party of whatever gang takes over the anarchic city. :D

I take it your social club will look somethign like this?

http://www.granitegrok.com/pix/road%20warrior.jpg

[CosmicCowboy]

And I am always willing to learn more than I do now. I may be a liberal arts guy, but I am very scientifically literate, because being so helps evaluate energy policy.

I don't have to tell you, as I am sure you already know, how handy knowledge of physics and chemistry is when it comes to thinking about this topic. I can tell you why shale and tar sands are pipe dreams, simply because they just aren't chemically/energetically efficient.

What do you think we should do for energy independence?

OK, I am going to assume this is a straight question and answer it accordingly.

Conventional renewable energy (wind/solar) works best at a local level. By that, I mean a home or cluster of homes that has it's own wind/solar source and own storage. It especially works well if the homes are designed for maximum efficiency.

The problem with conventional wind/solar as a power grid energy solution is the unreliability and subsequent huge storage requirements.

I really think that for a conventional power grid that nuclear is the way to go. Part of the problem with the expense of nuclear power plants is they reinvented the wheel every time they built one. It took years of wading through tons of paperwork to get one approved and then every single component was custom built. If we came up with one "standard" plant plan, got it approved, and mass produced it we could cut years and illions of dollars out of the cost.

Obviously nuclear can't be 100% of the solution because by nature it is unsuited to handle the variations of "peak" load conditions but it could certainly handle 80% of the total load. 98% efficient natural gas turbines could handle the rest, at least in our part of the country...

As far as transportation, we have come a long way with battery technology and electric cars (that can be recharged from the power grid) are getting more feasible all the time.

Bio-diesel is a good renewable alternative for transportable fuel as well is butanol. Butanol makes a LOT more sense than ethanol from a technical standpoint , but the big agri businesses bribed congress to make ethanol the big winner..

[CosmicCowboy]

One of the good things about having some accounting/finance knowledge is that it helps one pick through the costs/benefits of a lot of the green building stuff.

Here is one that I really like:
Rainwater harvesting.
(sample google search here) (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rainwater+harvesting&btnG=Search)

As energy and fresh ground water both get more expensive, you can expect to see this take off.

There is even a handy guide to it put out by the Great State of Texas.
(click here for the pdf file) (http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/RainwaterHarvestingManual_3rdedition.pdf)

Not cost-effective overall compared to municipal water at the moment, but I will estimate that will change at some point in the medium term.

I have a 20,000 gallon rainwater collection system already installed as a fallback system if necessary. I have a conventional well for irrigation and house water as well but it's always nice to have an armageddon backup.

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/2647/1020514edited.jpg (http://img15.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1020514edited.jpg)

[RandomGuy]

OK, I am going to assume this is a straight question and answer it accordingly.

Conventional renewable energy (wind/solar) works best at a local level. By that, I mean a home or cluster of homes that has it's own wind/solar source and own storage. It especially works well if the homes are designed for maximum efficiency.

The problem with conventional wind/solar as a power grid energy solution is the unreliability and subsequent huge storage requirements.

I really think that for a conventional power grid that nuclear is the way to go. Part of the problem with the expense of nuclear power plants is they reinvented the wheel every time they built one. It took years of wading through tons of paperwork to get one approved and then every single component was custom built. If we came up with one "standard" plant plan, got it approved, and mass produced it we could cut years and illions of dollars out of the cost.

Obviously nuclear can't be 100% of the solution because by nature it is unsuited to handle the variations of "peak" load conditions but it could certainly handle 80% of the total load. 98% efficient natural gas turbines could handle the rest, at least in our part of the country...

As far as transportation, we have come a long way with battery technology and electric cars (that can be recharged from the power grid) are getting more feasible all the time.

Bio-diesel is a good renewable alternative for transportable fuel as well is butanol. Butanol makes a LOT more sense than ethanol from a technical standpoint , but the big agri businesses bribed congress to make ethanol the big winner..

It was a straight question.

I have come to virtually the exact same conclusions, and have stated them here on numerous occasions.

You are exactly right that a lot of the problem for nuclear in the US has been a lack of standardization. There are a few new generation designs that show a lot of promise. The biggest part of the cost-overruns are delays caused by litigation though. THAT cannot be easily overcome, nor can the security of waste/fuel shipments really be addressed to my satisfaction.

Nuclear WILL form part of the ultimate solution, but we should not think it will be a panacea.

I think that a more distributed power generation system would work, along with a few large scale renewable projects.

Some solid research into fuel cells will produce some solutions to bring storage costs down. I think retro-fitting all large buildings or clusters of buildings (think shopping malls, skyscrapers, large industrial buildings, etc) with some solar/wind and the storage needed would work wonders.

The primary advantage to this is that it makes the grid VERY robust, cuts down on transmission loss, and provides a good number of non-outsource-able jobs.

[RandomGuy]

The more I read on distributed power generation, the more I think that some version of this is the way to go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_generation

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002152.html

Integrating Distributed EnergybResources into Emerging Electricity Markets: Scoping Study (pdf 74 pages) (http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/public/000000000001011030.pdf)

I think if we can throw a few trillion at the banks, we can *probably* come up with some spare change for storage research to really make this doable and economical.

[RandomGuy]

Interesting fact I heard recently:

One US Heavy Division uses more fuel than the entire US Army did at its peak in WW2.

Think about the implications of THAT.

The US military has begun to realize it's vulnerability in that regard, and has started researching on how to make its units more self sufficient. Cut's down on vulnerable fuel convoys.

There is a HUGE potential for synergy here on a lot of levels in economic terms. Hell, we might even get back to actually MAKING things, rather than buying them from the Chinese.

[johnsmith]

53 out of 116 posts in this thread have been RG.

I know people that like to hear themselves speak, but I've never known anyone that likes to see themselves post.

[RandomGuy]

I have a 20,000 gallon rainwater collection system already installed as a fallback system if necessary. I have a conventional well for irrigation and house water as well but it's always nice to have an armageddon backup.

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/2647/1020514edited.jpg (http://img15.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1020514edited.jpg)

Very cool. If you can get over being irritated at me at some point, I would love to see how much it cost.

I did a paper for my cost accounting class once on the economics of installing solar power in the Austin area for small businesses and data on the costs of these projects is always something I try to get a handle on.

[RandomGuy]

53 out of 116 posts in this thread have been RG.

I know people that like to hear themselves speak, but I've never known anyone that likes to see themselves post.

Did I mention that I like the topic of energy? :reading

[CosmicCowboy]

The collection system itself could probably be put in for about 10-15K if you hired all the work done. The rain water source is PVC gutters on a 2000sf metal building (obviously not included in the 10-15K cost) I do a lot of stuff myself or act as my own contractor hiring manual labor so it didn't cost me as much. I'm also in the process of putting in the shrimp farm and another "fish" tank this year and have already started planting the orchard this year...going to have pecans, peaches, pears, apples, figs, pomegranates, cherries, almonds, blueberries, blackberrys, and grapes. Also about 100 olive trees.

You need to get rich and famous so you can buy it from my kids when I die.

[SnakeBoy]

I have a 20,000 gallon rainwater collection system already installed as a fallback system if necessary. I have a conventional well for irrigation and house water as well but it's always nice to have an armageddon backup.


Why did you go with a rainwater system instead of converting your well to solar?

[CosmicCowboy]

Why did you go with a rainwater system instead of converting your well to solar?

My wells too big to go solar. I use it for irrigation too.

[RandomGuy]

The collection system itself could probably be put in for about 10-15K if you hired all the work done. The rain water source is PVC gutters on a 2000sf metal building (obviously not included in the 10-15K cost) I do a lot of stuff myself or act as my own contractor hiring manual labor so it didn't cost me as much. I'm also in the process of putting in the shrimp farm and another "fish" tank this year and have already started planting the orchard this year...going to have pecans, peaches, pears, apples, figs, pomegranates, cherries, almonds, blueberries, blackberrys, and grapes. Also about 100 olive trees.

You need to get rich and famous so you can buy it from my kids when I die.

Sounds about right. From what I could see from the Texas Rainwater Guide, the overall costs for larger systems, labor included, is around 50 to 75 cents per gallon. (there is actually a table at the back of the guide at pg51 that shows various storage tank costs)

That guide also has some good guides as to how much water one ends up using, btw.

How much does water cost in your area from the local utility?

[SnakeBoy]

My wells too big to go solar. I use it for irrigation too.

That makes sense. I'm planning on converting my well to solar so that's why I was asking.

[CosmicCowboy]

Sounds about right. From what I could see from the Texas Rainwater Guide, the overall costs for larger systems, labor included, is around 50 to 75 cents per gallon. (there is actually a table at the back of the guide at pg51 that shows various storage tank costs)

That guide also has some good guides as to how much water one ends up using, btw.

How much does water cost in your area from the local utility?

I live in SA and water costs way too damn much, but the system I am showing you is at the ranchito (80 acres south of town) I don't actually "pay" for water...have a 2hp submersible at about 300ft...I don't have a clue what it costs per gallon, but not much.

[RandomGuy]

I live in SA and water costs way too damn much, but the system I am showing you is at the ranchito (80 acres south of town) I don't actually "pay" for water...have a 2hp submersible at about 300ft...I don't have a clue what it costs per gallon, but not much.

Ah.

Is the 2000sq ft collection surface area enough to keep the tanks full by itself?

Some of the sample calculations in the handbook show inflows/outflows on a 2500 sq ft area under a rough approximation of one household usage can only support a 10,000 gallon tank under the best conditions in central texas.

I take it that you don't draw it down much if you don't actively live there.

Do you take any data on how much you use in any given month?

[Winehole23]

It's you urban weenies that don't know how to do a fucking thing except talk and play video games that are gonna be screwed.Being a lifelong urban weenie myself, the ominous portents of material scarcity and social chaos of late have caused your point to play upon my imagination and not in a pleasant way.

Best I could come up with so far was a backyard garden and pickle buckets, plus an emergency cache. Of course, that won't do me much good where I am if cities become free-fire kill zones.

There is much to be said for the advantages of the ranchito, during the big social breakdown.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yeah, a 1" rain on 2000 sq ft. will give you about 1500 gallons. Thats why I went with 20K of storage...when you get those aberrant 5"-10" rains you gotta be able to store it.

as I said...this is kind of an armegeddon system and I'm currently just using it for watering plants/yard around the house...the house is actually run off the well.

[CosmicCowboy]

Being a lifelong urban weenie myself, the ominous portents of material scarcity and social chaos of late have caused your point to play upon my imagination and not in a pleasant way.

Best I could come up with so far was a backyard garden and pickle buckets, plus an emergency cache. Of course, that won't do me much good where I am if cities become free-fire kill zones.

There is much to be said for the advantages of the ranchito, during the big social breakdown.

and guns. lots of guns and bullets.

[RandomGuy]

Being a lifelong urban weenie myself, the ominous portents of material scarcity and social chaos of late have caused your point to play upon my imagination and not in a pleasant way.

Best I could come up with so far was a backyard garden and pickle buckets, plus an emergency cache. Of course, that won't do me much good where I am if cities become free-fire kill zones.

There is much to be said for the advantages of the ranchito, during the big social breakdown.

Except for the fact that millions of starving weenies can easily walk 20 or 30 miles per day, if not drive that far in an hour.

You would need to quite literally either be totally hidden or a fortress capable of fending off hundreds of attackers armed with small arms and/or some kind of simple explosives.

If you are within 120 miles of a major city in such a situation, you will be overrun.

Best to find a VERY isolated area far from main roads and major cities. The dakotas, south central canada, wyoming and montana would do it.

The only good thing to come out of such a scenario would be an end to the deer populations that have become total pests. Those little tasty treats would be the first to go. yummy.

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, a 1" rain on 2000 sq ft. will give you about 1500 gallons. Thats why I went with 20K of storage...when you get those aberrant 5"-10" rains you gotta be able to store it.

as I said...this is kind of an armegeddon system and I'm currently just using it for watering plants/yard around the house...the house is actually run off the well.

Well thought-out redundency, exactly what I would do. :toast

[RandomGuy]

If the big social meltdown does come, my army training would come in very handy, as would my good sense of economics/accounting (barter woudl still be within that realm). I would plan to be very useful to people like CC if I didn't already have my own farm.

[Obstructed_View]

This is a rather perfect example of bad logic. The technical term for your particular mistake is "post hoc" (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html). "It rained after I washed my car, therefore washing my car caused it to rain".

"Prices dropped after Bush allowed for greater US oil exploration/drilling, therefore when Bush allowed for greater US oil exploration/drilling it caused the price of oil to drop."

Further evidence of fail is that the price of oil futures which is the price of oil you see in the news, IS ONLY FOR DELIVERIES WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS.

People who trade oil for a living know that it takes YEARS to fully develop a field and bring it online.

Oil futures were pushing up the prices until it wasn't certain that the prices were going to go up. As you mentioned, people who trade oil for a living don't care how long it takes to develop a field, they just care about what the price is going to be over the short term, and they can affect the prices immediately, as they did when the ban was lifted, so all your other information is completely irrelevant. Again, the facts are there. If this were a case of post hoc/propter hoc on my part, then you should have no trouble proving it wrong. You have 20/20 hindsight, so explain this:


http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-Gasoline-Price.png

The ban was lifted on July 14.

[RandomGuy]

Oil futures were pushing up the prices until it wasn't certain that the prices were going to go up. As you mentioned, people who trade oil for a living don't care how long it takes to develop a field, they just care about what the price is going to be over the short term, and they can affect the prices immediately, as they did when the ban was lifted, so all your other information is completely irrelevant. Again, the facts are there. If this were a case of post hoc/propter hoc on my part, then you should have no trouble proving it wrong. You have 20/20 hindsight, so explain this:


http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-Gasoline-Price.png

The ban was lifted on July 14.

The burden of proof is not on me to show that it isn't.

This is YOUR claim, YOUR burden of proof.

Logically, we can only assume the opposite, until you can prove that the collapse in oil prices was, as you say, directly caused by the decision.

The only thing you have is coincidental timing, and that is the same level of proof as washing my car causing it to rain. I can find a graph showing a rapid uptick in pirate attacks at that time. Should we then assume pirates were waiting on that decision as well?

I have even outlined what you needed to prove your assertion. Get cracking.

[RandomGuy]

The US produces approximately 10% of global oil supplies.

If we announce a decision that *might*, 4 to 5 years down the road, bump our production up by 10%, adding perhaps 1% to the global supply, again 4 to 5 years down the road, is it logical that traders who are speculating about the global price of oil 30-60 days from now, would really give a flying shit about that announcement?

Sorry charlie, but you can't even assume a fairly reasonable chunk of support for that assertion.

Which would be more likely to influence 30-60 day futures:

OPEC announces commitment to keep pumping, or increase production with the capacity to do so immediately

or

The US announces that it *might* ramp up production slightly in 4 to 5 years?

[CosmicCowboy]

Took a picture of one of the "green" (electric) ranch vehicles this weekend.

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/2696/1001126q.jpg (http://img21.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1001126q.jpg)

[LnGrrrR]

I take it your social club will look somethign like this?

http://www.granitegrok.com/pix/road%20warrior.jpg

Yes. Although I doubt there'll be much of a need for communications in that world... I better learn a better trade skill for the Mad Max days to come :D

[CosmicCowboy]

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/2696/1001126q.jpg

I will be communicating with that little black thing in the gun rack...:lol

[word]

l
0
l

[RandomGuy]

l
0
l

Your thread=

f
a
i
l

:lol

[RandomGuy]

The burden of proof is not on me to show that it isn't.

This is YOUR claim, YOUR burden of proof.

Logically, we can only assume the opposite, until you can prove that the collapse in oil prices was, as you say, directly caused by the decision.

The only thing you have is coincidental timing, and that is the same level of proof as washing my car causing it to rain. I can find a graph showing a rapid uptick in pirate attacks at that time. Should we then assume pirates were waiting on that decision as well?

I have even outlined what you needed to prove your assertion. Get cracking.

Still waiting on OV to prove his assertion.

I want to see verifiable quotes from oil futures traders that outline the reasons why they sold out of oil.

There was a massive, probably speculative, run-up in oil futures, and it had to come crashing back sooner or later. Personally I would guess that the thing that really tipped it was the first indications that the US economy was slowing.

Variances US oil production 4 years+ down the road means much less to the price point of oil 30-60 days out than variances in US oil consumption 90 days out.

Remember US oil production =10% of market
US oil consumption 25% of market (might want to double check on that%).

[RandomGuy]

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/2696/1001126q.jpg

I will be communicating with that little black thing in the gun rack...:lol

Heh, a Mark 1 Combat Golf Cart, mobile crewed weapons deployment system?

M-1 CGC.

[word]

Your thread=

f
a
i
l

:lol

loller, how so ?

[RandomGuy]

loller, how so ?

Because domestic drilling is stupid and pointless.

[Epic Fail Guy]

This thread fails to pay attention to the price of oil!

[RandomGuy]

this thread fails to pay attention to the price of oil!

4-9-31-35-40 / 9

[Wild Cobra]

loller, how so ?
Half the time I don't understand why someone says someone else failed. Since they explain why, and expect me to be psychic.

I say they fail instead.

[RandomGuy]

Half the time I don't understand why someone says someone else failed. Since they explain why, and expect me to be psychic, I say they fail instead.

Note:

I spent quite a few rather detailed posts in the intervening pages explaining precisely how I think "drill here, drill now" is a rallying cry for idiots.

[Epic Fail Guy]

4-9-31-35-40 / 9

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/131/319047856_dbf1ef3e92.jpg?v=0

[RandomGuy]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/131/319047856_dbf1ef3e92.jpg?v=0

:lol

Heh, since "Epic fail guy" posted why he thinks this thread is epic fail, I thought I would resort to character (Random Guy, GET IT?! HA!) and post a random lottery pick number from random.org (no affiliation)

Personally though, I don't see what exactly you where trying to say with your previous post.

[Wild Cobra]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/131/319047856_dbf1ef3e92.jpg?v=0
Is that the shot when he's professing his love to Mrs. Troy to get her back from the Feringi?

[Epic Fail Guy]

:lol

Heh, since "Epic fail guy" posted why he thinks this thread is epic fail, I thought I would resort to character (Random Guy, GET IT?! HA!) and post a random lottery pick number from random.org (no affiliation)

Personally though, I don't see what exactly you where trying to say with your previous post.

protip: oil prices are low

[RandomGuy]

protip: oil prices are low

Ah. I see.

Still fairly high by historical standards, but not so sky high as to be able to spur a massive investment in new drilling.

Prices won't stay there this low for much longer than another few years. Expect them to get much, much higher over the next 20 yrs.

[Epic Fail Guy]

Ah. I see.

Still fairly high by historical standards, but not so sky high as to be able to spur a massive investment in new drilling.

Prices won't stay there this low for much longer than another few years. Expect them to get much, much higher over the next 20 yrs.

significantly lower than they were. hence we don't need to drill anymore. hence this thread fails!

[RandomGuy]

significantly lower than they were. hence we don't need to drill anymore. hence this thread fails!

The failure goes even deeper:

Even if we did drill as much as they wanted, it wouldn't do anything substantial to the price of oil.

We consume 25% of the global supply, and supply 10%.

Add 20% to our domestic oil production (a wildly optimistic figure) and we then supply roughly 12% of global total, and would be unlikely to affect the price of a barrel of oil by much, even if the idiots got their way.

[Nbadan]

Personally, I like Drill Here, Drill Deeper better.....why drill?

Pipelineistan (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/KC26Ag01.html)

[RandomGuy]

Personally, I like Drill Here, Drill Deeper better.....why drill?

Pipelineistan (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/KC26Ag01.html)

Fascinating article.

Thanks.

[RandomGuy]

And what planet do you live on? In the new Obamination they aren't only not gonna drill they are gonna tax offshore drilling in the gulf.

There is a prediction that pretty much failed.

[RandomGuy]

I am an accountant, and am about 3 classes shy of a masters in accounting.

I have taken micro and macro economics as an undergraduate, and about 20+ hours of finance and economics at the graduate level. All of my electives for my masters degree have gone into finance and economics (including international economics) because I really like the topics, and I have gotten very solid A's in all of those classes.

On a daily basis, I read up on energy topics, business, finance, and economics news.

I tend to evaluate environmantal laws from a truly economic perspective, and have found that, more often than many on the right realize, those laws tend to have rather beneficial effects on the economy that are completely overlooked.

Take the restrictions on close-in oil production for example.

They were put in place partly as a reaction to the Exxon Valdez disaster, which is STILL being cleaned up over a decade after the spill.

Oil spills tend to damage a lot more than just a few birds on the beaches. They destroy coastal property values, destroy fishing industries, destroy tourism industries in coastal areas. True economic damage from a catastrophic large oil spill can easily run into the hundreds of millions to billions when all the real economic impacts are tallied up.
I am not against oil production. Oil will be produced and consumed and that is how any free-market system works.

Personally, I wish we would develop ANWAR just to shut the "drill here, drill now" idiots up about it, mostly because I would then be able to point to the fact that there wasn't any real drop in the price of oil/gas afterwards.

My quote from 2009.

I guess we get to see just how much it is going to cost.

How many jobs did we end up sacrificing for that oil?

[RandomGuy]

Also true.

This amount of seepage doesn't destroy fishing/tourism industries though.

(shrugs)

The possibility , however remote, of a catastrophic failure/leak on the part of some platform or tanker has caused a lot of people with coastal real estate, fishing industries, and tourism industries to fight drilling tooth and nail.

That is NOT pure environmentalism. That is one business interest against another.

Once again this argument made in 2009 is borne out on a grand scale.

[Nbadan]

...Oil fungability...


c0--Q9_KmAY

[RandomGuy]

...Oil fungability...


c0--Q9_KmAY

There you go again, using multi-syllable words. You will confuse jack if you keep doing that...

[word]

The issue is our trade imbalance. Not energy independence. Oil is a source of revenue.

[RandomGuy]

The issue is our trade imbalance. Not energy independence. Oil is a source of revenue.

It is physically not possible to supply the US with enough oil it currently needs, even if you suddenly threw a few hundred billion at the problem now, we are using oil faster than we are finding it.

[ChumpDumper]

The issue is our trade imbalance. Not energy independence. Oil is a source of revenue.Then why are all the politicians talking about independence and why aren't all the current leases being drilled?

[RandomGuy]

Drilling bad for Mar-a-Lago reasons.