So when will Congress act on gas prices? Update: AOL Hot Seat Poll added
posted at 9:45 am on June 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Across the nation, gas prices have shot over $4 per gallon, and there appears to be no ceiling in sight. The economic shock continues to appear across the broad spectrum, raising retail prices on any goods coming to market, while wages cannot keep pace. As the buying power of Americans continues to erode, will Congress finally act to broaden supplies?
The average price of regular gas crept up to $4 a gallon for the first time over the weekend, passing the once-unthinkable milestone just in time for the peak summer travel season.
Prices at the pump are expected to keep climbing, especially after last week’s furious surge in oil prices, which neared $140 a barrel in a record-shattering rally Friday.
While Americans who have to drive will feel the biggest squeeze, the increased prices also translate into higher costs for consumers and businesses, who will be forced to shoulder increased costs for food and anything else that needs to be transported.
“I don’t think we’ve felt quite the full impact of $138 or $139 a barrel oil,” said Jason Toews, co-founder of fuel price research site GasBuddy.com.
Gas prices rolled past their latest threshold Sunday, increasing to $4.005 a gallon overnight from $3.988 the day before, according to AAA and the Oil Price Information Service.
Congress has put a tight hold on drilling and refining in the US for decades, and this is the inevitable result. The US sits on billions of barrels of oil within the continental shelves, billions more on the interior, and billions in ANWR. Yet we insist on going cap in hand to the Saudis for higher production rather than take some responsibility for our own energy needs, preferring to keep our landscapes while we demand that others exploit their own resources for our benefit.
We could shift some of our reliance on petroleum to nuclear power, on which Europe and Japan largely rely for their electricity. However, Congress under both parties has shown even less courage in standing up to the environmentalists on nuclear power than they have in domestic drilling. The coal industry could produce massive new sources for energy if they were less hamstrung. Yet Congress continues to look for unproven solutions while ignoring the workable solutions in front of them, and their dithering has produced an inflationary environment that resembles the 1970s.
Last week, Barbara Boxer tried to push through the Lieberman-Warner bill, claiming that it would address gas prices. It certainly would — by driving them much higher through over-regulation of the energy industry. The energy industry does not need further regulation. They need Congress to get the federal government out of its way so that it can add more supply to the market, which is the only way prices will fall.
We have asked for expanded nuclear power and domestic drilling for at least two decades. Every time the subject comes up, we get reminded that these solutions take seven years to have an effect. If we had acted seven years ago in the aftermath of 9/11, when it became clear that energy would involve national-security issues, the benefits would have started to arrive right about now — and oil speculation would have never climbed to its current state.
Drill here, drill now, and at least we can expect to pay less in a few years. In the meantime, let’s get started with nuclear and coal while researching as many possibilities for renewables as possible.
Update: NBC’s Today Show asks its two experts, Jim Cramer and Erin Burnett, about the solution, and both agree:
Cramer is exactly on point here. We need to be less selfish and start producing as much of our own oil as possible.
Update II: Jazz Shaw has a moderately dissenting opinion, and a must-read, at The Moderate Voice.
Update III: It was the Today show on NBC, not CNN. Must have had CNN on the brain today. I blame it on the Southern California air. Thanks to the readers who e-mailed me the correction.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Drill for more oil in the US : 54%
Wow. That’s amazing! So glad there are more sane people left in the US than I thought.
wise_man on June 9, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Get over Europe. Europe didn’t put a man on the moon and they don’t have a silicon valley. Great innovation in energy can and should come from the US, not Europe. Don’t look to them for leadership.
By the way, France powers 100% of its electrical grid through nuclear. No one in Europe has employed American solar thermal technology.
bayam on June 9, 2008 at 4:57 PM
When they’re no longer on the payroll of the oil producing nations and the oil companies…. probably never. We are so screwed.
Buzzy on June 9, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Heh. Dunno. Would love to see videos of the crash tests.
techno_barbarian on June 9, 2008 at 5:03 PM
If you want to go to France, would you like me to buy your ticket?
France and Germany use quite a bit of Solar… but I would rather have windmills then have to deal with huge areas of glass for a grid. And that is probably why they don’t use it.
You never said if you have been over to Europe … might want to answer the question.
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Hey Ed. 17,795 people voted in you poll. Pretty cool!
RushBaby on June 9, 2008 at 5:08 PM
France gets 75% of its electrical energy from nuclear. The US about 20%.
trs on June 9, 2008 at 5:09 PM
.
Clearly you live in a large, congested city, where this argument might make a bit of sense…
Think_b4_speaking on June 9, 2008 at 5:13 PM
if I remember right 10% is coal. The rest is some sort of alternative yes/no?
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 5:14 PM
When they’re no longer on the payroll of the oil producing nations and the oil companies…. probably never. We are so screwed.
Buzzy on June 9, 2008 at 5:02 PM
It must feel good to be so stupid.
And you are screwed, but not because of the oil companies..
TexasJew on June 9, 2008 at 5:14 PM
you crack me up. ltns
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 5:16 PM
NEW YORK (Fortune) — You’d think this would be oil shale’s moment.
You’d think with gas prices topping $4 and consumers crying uncle, Congress would be moving fast to spur development of a domestic oil resource so vast – 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming alone – it could eventually rival the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.
You’d think politicians would be tripping over themselves to arrange photo-ops with Harold Vinegar (whom I profiled in Fortune last November), the brilliant, Brooklyn-born chief scientist at Royal Dutch Shell whose research cracked the code on how to efficiently and cleanly convert oil shale – a rock-like fossil fuel known to geologists as kerogen – into light crude oil.
You’d think all of this, but you’d be wrong.
Last month, the U.S. Senate’s Appropriations Committee voted 15-14 to kill a bill that would have ended a one-year moratorium on enacting rules for oil shale development on federal lands (which is where the best oil shale is located). Most maddening of all – at least to someone like myself not steeped in the wacky ways of Washington – the swing vote on the appropriations committee, U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., voted with the majority even though she actually opposes the moratorium.
“Sen. Salazar asked me to vote no. I did so at his request,” Landrieu told The Rocky Mountain News. A Landrieu staffer contacted by Fortune doesn’t dispute this, but notes that Landrieu did propose a compromise which Republicans rejected.
Arghh!
She was speaking of U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., who has emerged as the Senate’s leading oil shale opponent. Salazar inserted the aforementioned moratorium into an omnibus spending bill last December, and in May he proposed a new bill that would extend the moratorium another year.
Salazar’s efforts have essentially pulled the rug out from under Shell (RDSA) and other oil companies which have invested many, many millions into oil shale research since the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which established the original framework for commercial leasing of oil shale lands. (Last year, oil shale represented Shell’s single biggest R&D expenditure.)
Salazar says he’s simply trying to slow things down in order to ensure environmental considerations don’t get trampled in the rush to turn western Colorado into a new Prudhoe Bay. But, ironically, his bid to extend the moratorium comes at a time when his fellow Senate Democrats have been blasting Big Oil for not reinvesting enough of their profits into developing new sources of energy.
I recently spoke with Republican U.S. Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Wayne Allard of Colorado, the two lawmakers working hardest to end the oil shale moratorium. Here are some excerpts from the interviews:
funky chicken on June 9, 2008 at 5:18 PM
I live in Corpus Christi, where a “no wind” day means it’s blowing at 10 mph. A “windy day” is usually a steady 25 mph with gusts up to 40. It’s usually windier than not.
anyway, my point is that there’s a group just south of here who want to put up a wind farm on the Kenedy Ranch (which borders the King Ranch). The Kenedy Foundation is all for it and has given its blessing. The King Ranch is hemming and hawing about how the turbines will kill migratory birds, since that area of Texas is a fly way for them. Countless studies have been done, and right now, I believe it’s at a standstill. Naturally, a lawsuit was filed.
Funny thing is that Corpus is really liberal, due to all the trial attorneys. They are the same ones who demonize the oil industry (even though we have a Flint Hills and Valero refinery here) but who don’t want us to use our natural resource (wind, and LOTS of it) to provide cheaper electricity to citizens of South Texas.
and they say they are for the “little guy.”
YEAH RIGHT.
pullingmyhairout on June 9, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Fortune: Why do you consider developing oil shale such a high priority?
Sen. Hatch: We have as much oil in oil shale in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado as the rest of the world’s oil combined. Liberals and environmentalists can talk all they want about wind, solar and geothermal – all of which I’m for – but last time I checked, planes, trains, trucks, ships and cars don’t run on electricity. 98% of transportation fuel right now is oil. Ethanol is the only real alternative, and we’re seeing that ethanol has major limitations.
It’s pathetic. Environmentalists are very happy having us dependent on foreign oil. They’re unhappy with us developing our own. What they forget to say is that shipping fuel all the way from the middle east has a big greenhouse gas footprint too.
Fortune: Any hope of changing Sen. Salazar’s mind? After all, he says he’s not opposed to oil shale production in principle.
Sen. Allard: His mind seems pretty set. His argument is, if we delay this, it gives us an opportunity to phase it in gradually. But he’s got it turned around. We need the rules and regulations in place first. When the oil companies go to bid on their leases, they need have some idea what their royalties might be and what their remediation requirements might be [for restoring the land at spent drilling sites].
Fortune: Have you talked to Shell about this?
Sen. Allard: We have, and they’ve indicated a great deal of frustration. They’ve put it this way: Look, we can’t continue to invest millions and millions of dollars in this kind of research without seeing some light at the end of the tunnel.
Fortune: Sen. Salazar insists he just wants to take things more slowly.
Sen. Hatch: Sen. Salazar and the Colorado governor [Democrat Bill Ritter] say they don’t want it to happen too fast. Well, the existing law that I sponsored [which became part of the 2005 energy act] makes it abundantly clear that each governor gets to decide how quickly developments should move forward in their respective states. [Salazar and Ritter] know that. What they’re really doing is making sure that the governor of Utah and the governor of Wyoming never gets to make that decision for themselves.
Fortune: One of Sen. Salazar’s environmental concerns involves water and the big draw on local water supplies required for oil shale production. Based on my reporting in western Colorado last year, this seems like a legitimate concern. What’s your take on this?
Sen. Hatch: Let’s compare it to ethanol. Corn needs about 1,000 barrels of water for the energy equivalent of a barrel of oil. That’s a crazy amount of water, but it’s worked out alright so far because corn is grown in rainy areas, for the most part. But if you want to increase the amount of ethanol, you’re going to have to go to irrigation, and then there will be major water limits on how much we can afford to grow.
On the other hand, the Department of Energy estimates that oil shale will require three barrels of water for every barrel of oil.
Fortune: Of course, water is a lot scarcer in western Colorado than it is in Iowa.
Sen Hatch: It is, but remember the oil companies are going to use and recycle the water. And while we’re on the environmental impact, let’s talk about land use and wildlife habitat. One acre of corn produces the equivalent of 5 to 7 barrels of oil. One acre of oil shale produces 100,000 to 1 million barrels.
Fortune: With gasoline at $4, why this isn’t this more of a front-and-center issue for consumers and voters?
Sen. Hatch: I’m generally the last guy to lambaste the media, but generally you do not hear these facts. We’re sending $600 billion annually to enemies of our country. If one acre of oil shale produces 1 million barrels of oil, that’s 1 million barrels that we would not be importing from Russia and the Middle East. People are going to go berserk when they find out that all along we had the capacity, within our own borders, to alleviate our dependency in an environmentally friendly way.
Ironically, the local governments in Colorado’s oil shale areas do support oil shale development, but it’s being stopped by the ski-resort elites. A couple months ago, an article came out about how the city of Aspen was being besieged with building applications equating to about $2 million in development a day. Now if those nice, rich people in Aspen really cared about the environment, they might save an acre or two of those beautiful forests they’re building on and support some oil-shale development in the not-so-nearby and not-so-beautiful oil shale areas of Colorado.
Fortune: Has oil shale development always been a partisan issue or is this something new?
Sen. Allard: It is something new. The issue with the Democrats now is they want to cut off any source of carbon. And there are those in the Senate who believe the more expensive you make gasoline, the less driving people do and you force conservation by making driving so expensive people can’t afford it.
First Published: June 6, 2008: 2:14 PM EDT
funky chicken on June 9, 2008 at 5:19 PM
Hey Upinak, I meant East Overshoe Alaska.
Did you notice the first statement of my post? When are you going to fire your worthless congressman and senators? You got a senator that has single handidly set the conservative cause back 200 years. My senator can whip your senator!
To bayam: Are you supposed to be conservative or moderate? Whats with the wanting to use taxpayer funds to do energy research? All these engineers need is funds? Why not put them on the public payroll? They can easily out perform the Government engineers. The only problem is that they are employed by profit making enterprises and they have to and do perform. Sending men to the moon is a non sequetor to the arguement. If we can send men to the moon why can’t we (insert stupid goal here).
Being on this planet for a few years, I have observed that solutions change when your own money is involved.
Old Country Boy on June 9, 2008 at 5:21 PM
They are going to force us into a 3rd world country, except I don’t want to go to Antarctica for the “new” wild west. What would you call that, the Wild South? The Sublime Cold?
I guess that is when you say -20 is just a bit nippy.
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Prices here tend to be about $0.10 lower than what the the national news reports. I just got back from the station and it was up 6 cents from when I drove by yesterday. But our car use 89 octane and the price is now $4.15.
All congressman that have voted no to allowing more drilling of any or all kinds should be $%@#$%^ and @#$%^&&^% and if anything is hate speech, that just was.
BTW, I don’t see why we can’t do all, particularly the oil drilling and nuclear. We need energy and ought to do both. But to hell with renewables. If they come on line all the better but I don’t want another thin government penny going to renewables, particularly biofuels — it’s nothing more than a vast scamlike sucking sound on the public’s wallet, which means my wallet.
Dusty on June 9, 2008 at 5:24 PM
If Murkowski, Stevens and Young happened to get Congress and the Senate to vote on drilling in ANWR tomorrow and it was approved, would you back them or sit there?
As for the who’s Seantor/Congressman is better then who’s… I honestly don’t care anymore. Young looks as though he may be getting pushed out of Congress by out LT Gov here, who is running.
And you haven’t seen who is running for Senate over Stevens job. And lets just say, you think you hate Stevens? You haven’t seen the democratic idiots who are going up against him. Berkowitz will screw it up even more.
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 5:29 PM
If we can send men to the moon why can’t we (insert stupid goal here).
Old Country Boy on June 9, 2008 at 5:21 PM
How about “if we can send men to the moon why can’t we send all the crooked jerkoffs in Congress to the moon (without oxygen, of course – since we need that to offset global warming)?”
TexasJew on June 9, 2008 at 5:29 PM
That article I pasted in is from money . cnn . com, instapundit linked it today.
is there a policy against posts that link to cnn?
funky chicken on June 9, 2008 at 5:31 PM
upinak, I read the article Toomey at the Club for Growth put out about Young and his primary challenger. I really hope the challenger wins! Hopefully the RNC isn’t pumping huge money into Young’s primary campaign
funky chicken on June 9, 2008 at 5:32 PM
don’t want us to use our natural resource (wind, and LOTS of it) to provide cheaper electricity to citizens of South Texas.
and they say they are for the “little guy.”
YEAH RIGHT.
pullingmyhairout on June 9, 2008 at 5:18 PM
The trouble is, it’s NOT going to be cheaper for the citizens of South Texas.
You want cheaper?
Build more lignite plants like Big Brown. Lignite is LOTS cheaper, and the Tertiary formations of south Texas have lots and lots of shalloow lignite. Of course, there’s the uranium in Karnes County, but that’s a bit more expensive..
TexasJew on June 9, 2008 at 5:33 PM
I am not familiar with lignite. Can you point me to a site where I can learn more?
pullingmyhairout on June 9, 2008 at 5:37 PM
[bayam on June 9, 2008 at 4:57 PM]
Actually, bayam, France only powers 79% of it’s power grid with nuclear. The rest is about equal parts hydro and fossil fuels. However, France does generate a surplus and exports it to the tune of about 19%. You are right, though, that they could be self-sufficient with nuclear if they wanted to be.
Dusty on June 9, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Funky Sean Parnell is awesome. I have worked with him, he is a great guy, understands exclusively Natural Resources.. especially Oil and doesn’t play games. i will be voting for him no matter what.
Lignite is a type of coal.
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 5:41 PM
TexasJew,
I googled lignite and from just a few minute perusal, it doesn’t look like a very environmentally friendly option. Wind is completely renewable and we don’t have to destroy Texas to capture it.
pullingmyhairout on June 9, 2008 at 5:44 PM
http:// money. cnn. com /2008/06/06/news/economy/birger_shale.fortune/?postversion=2008060617
extra spaces after slashes and in web address. It’s a blockbuster article and interview of Senators Allard and Hatch
funky chicken on June 9, 2008 at 5:44 PM
That is interesting…
You don’t want to look into it by what you skimmed? Did you know that there is a University that runs entirely off lignite coal? Bet you didn’t know that! Also .. very low emmissions.
Research, don’t skim.
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 5:47 PM
Upinak – That’s your problem not mine. The Legislative problem is not just about oil; it’s about EVERYTHING. We wouldn’t worry so much about a gallon of gasoline if the rest of the problems of Congress were in line!
Let’s see if I get this right: Hitler was better than Attila, was better than Stalin, was better than Dahlmer was
better than xxx. And so on ad finitum. This is rationalism, along the line of least evil. As a mission oriented engineer, figure out how to fix the problem, then fix it. Don’t rely on it is not as bad as it could be. That works on transmissions but not for congressmen.
As far as Alasks is concerned, a great state. However Oklahoma pipeling local 798 built the pipeline, and ….we can play football too.
Also, in general, I think you are on of the more intelligent posters here.
Old Country Boy on June 9, 2008 at 5:48 PM
You should be aware of lignite, since close to 40% of your electricity (and over 30% of Texas’s total) down in your neck of the woods comes from lignite, most of it from mines in South and Northeast Texas.
The closest mines to Corpus are in Atascosca and McMullen counties, as well as several in Webb County along the Rio Grande. There are many more in northeast Texas up in the Fairfield area.
Lignite is low-grade coal – a form of brown coal, also known as sub-sub bituminous. There are over 15 billion strippable tons of lignite in Texas’ mines. It is the single most inportant element in electrical generation in Texas.
Look up “Railroad Commission of Texas” (which regulates lignite production as well as all oil and gas production in Texas), “Lignite”, and “Geology of Texas”
TexasJew on June 9, 2008 at 5:51 PM
TY for the compliment.
But my Senators and Congressman is a possible National problem.
Think about it like this. You get some democrats into the Senate from my State who are earth friendly and want to go the global warming route…. ANWR will sit there, and never be used.
i wasn’t putting Oklahoma down BTW. It is just easier to build pipeline there then some areas. I use to work for a company who was drilling in CO…. you want to talk about headaches!
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Texas, I have to admit. I do not like looking at the RRC. I am not use to the regs and how TX does their API’s compared to AK and CO. Sometimes it gives me a headache honestly. :|
But I love looking at the logs!
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 5:56 PM
19,000 people voted WOW. How many people visit Hot Air every day? Anyone know?
Ernest on June 9, 2008 at 5:59 PM
Yeah. Don’t mess with the hot air in Texas. If it all escaped, Texas would be the size of Rhode Island (an old OU joke).
Upinak, you are right about the people that want to go the AGW route. There are some in every state. (Old man reminiscing) I remember when the Palo Iowa nuclear station was being built. Con men were canvassing the countryside selling child-proof plastic plugs for wall outlets so the roentgens from the nuculer plant would not drain out into the room. I understand they sold a lot of them. Their descendants selected Obama.
Old Country Boy on June 9, 2008 at 6:03 PM
I have gone and spit my water out my nose! You have done well!
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Texas, I have to admit. I do not like looking at the RRC. I am not use to the regs and how TX does their API’s compared to AK and CO. Sometimes it gives me a headache honestly. :|
But I love looking at the logs!
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Just different API numbers.
For example, I just drilled a well with the API of 042-399-35113 the Horizon Exploration Services Nemo-Pendulum #1. landwork ion
The 042 (or, sometimes filed as 42) is for Texas, the 399 is for Runnels County and the 35113 is the well number within Runnels County. If you want to have a headache, try royalty ownership land work in Texas. Most of it is from the old wacky Spanish land grant system, unlike the far more sensible Township and Range I loved up in Oklahoma, New Mexico and Kansas.
By the way, the Nemo-Pendulum #1 has a beautiful 28-foot payzone in the King Sand and is my best new friend. I call it my little daughter’s college fund.
You should see THAT log!
TexasJew on June 9, 2008 at 6:09 PM
I`m watching a windfall profits tax debate going on in the Senate. I`m reading what`s in it at the bottom of the screen and I`m actually yelling at my t.v.
One of the more loony proposals, outlaw OPEC prica manipulation……How do they plan on enforcing that?
ThePrez on June 9, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Oh I bet that log is beautiful! But are we talking Mud or Electric? Honestly I am more a mud logging person… LOVE to see the cuttings before they are washed and smell that awesome smell of methane in the air! Besides see what the loggers come up with after all is said and done.
My favorite logs though are the old onion skins or sepias. Especially the old hand written ones! I actually own a copy of one, which an old USGS geologist had and was throwing out… I asked if I could have it and got a Sure! Not a deep hole… I can’t find a name on it either nor the lat/long but it is interesting to see what that old geologist wrote. I call it my little treasure for when i am older and can explore.
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 6:16 PM
They can always block any OPEC nation from buying Stock or Businesses in the U.S…. like that will happen!
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Oh I bet that log is beautiful! But are we talking Mud or Electric?
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 6:16 PM
Both, of course. It is a requirement to supply an electric well log to the Commission with what we call an L-1 form.
I had a mudlogger on the well and got one of those too (I mudlogged for years when I put myself through UT/ Austin’s geology department).
I had 470 units of gas and really oily samples – I took one right off the shale shaker in a cup and smelled it. Wow -it was like sticking your nose in a can of diesel oil. Quite a kick!
Whenever that happens, I always quote a great old geology prof of mine at UT – ” ‘Smells like progress!”
TexasJew on June 9, 2008 at 6:30 PM
You know, smelling different “cuttings” while logging. I have noticed different fragrances depending on formation. So far my favorite is the Umiat wells here in Alaska, they smell odd. Not the normal well smell, almost woodsy. The other favor is a cutting from AZ, because of the sulfer content in it made it smell like a odd lilac. I wish I could explain it.
But that is just something I have noticed. And it is always interesting to talk to other about their experiences around the world.
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 6:41 PM
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Oil is a heterogenous mixture of organic chemicals with additional trace elements.
I’ve seen black oil (West Texas Yates high-sulfur), beautiful forest-green oil with red bubbles (Red Fork oil from Kay and Payne County, Oklahoma), red oil (from an Austin Chalk well in Lee County, Texas), clear oil (high-gravity condensate from a Siluro-Devonian well in Roosevelt County, NM), a hundred variations of green from light to very dark all over Texas, and even yellow oil from a deep well near Edna, Texas.
I love oil, as you can tell. I really love the chase.
As far as smells, they do vary, usually corresponding to different API values and trace chemicals. Sometimes, at the well’s shale shaker, the mud additives have a secondary effect. You really smell it during DST’s and at the wellhead while it pumps.
Then, like sniffing a brandy, you get the full true bouquet!
If you think that I’m nuts, well, you just wouldn’t understand – it’s a petroleum geology “thang”…
TexasJew on June 9, 2008 at 6:57 PM
On the other side of the pond, Sarkozy is trying to alleviate the price increase of fuel in Europe by suspending their special taxes. Merkel won’t commit to a united effort, saying each country has its special unique needs.
Did you catch that? The French military goes on summer vacation because fuel is unavailable at a reasonable cost. Well, you can anticipate what the liberal American copy anything French cats will mimic–not to be outdone–retire our military craft and refuse to replace. How many French ships are nuclear powered, anyway?
maverick muse on June 9, 2008 at 7:02 PM
TexasJew and upinak
The closest comparison of earth’s fragrances I’ve noted walking the dog is the fresh cut grass from one locale to another, and the smell of the different Southwestern locales after a thunderstorm.
I would imagine how important being able to smell the content of oil would be, particularly when instruments aren’t available as they weren’t at first.
Which movie was it about a professional perfume sniffer whose nose was insured?
maverick muse on June 9, 2008 at 7:11 PM
Eventually, my Dear TexasJew, Eventually. I will be walking around in that area as well.
Back when you were a mudlogger.. they didn’t need a Bachlors for it. Now you almost have to have a Masters to be one. Well at least up here.
I plan on getting it while in the Military and working on in something else I am interested in and when I get out, I will have the “paper” to at least do what I love as well.
I love geology.. I love being the underdog working with geologists, the engineers, the geophysists… now I need to move on and either become one of them.. or win the lottery and own my own oil company. But if I win the lottery… I make sure to give you a call to be the consultant. hehe
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 7:12 PM
HAHA! Actually… way back when. When old time drillers would drill in the earth and look for oil, they would actually use their tongues on the drill cuttings to estimate the sand quality and in some cases the types of formations. True story!
Also some geologist to this day still do it. I catch the ones I work with doing it and I had to ask a few years ago, why in the hell they were doing it. Talk about shock when they told me to do it. Yep, I felt like a fool, but you learn a lot from these 70 yr old men and women!
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 7:15 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Good luck selling that.
freevillage on June 9, 2008 at 7:29 PM
I love geology.. I love being the underdog working with geologists, the engineers, the geophysists… now I need to move on and either become one of them.. or win the lottery and own my own oil company.
It’s quite simple:
If you are great with math – go the geophysics/engineering route.
If you are not – go into geology. Geologists generally are fairly math-illiterate. Most geology stops at high school trig and algebra, and geologists seem to like that fine.
I’ve done all three in graduate school yet my greatest learning experience was when I was mudlogging to get my BS at UT/Austin. That field experience gave me the confidence to become a one-man oil company. I started just with flipping leases and working up geology on them while I consulted and sat on wells and was a log interpreter.
I’ve slung chain on rigs when I was a youngster and worked up on 90′-high monkeyboards as a mud-covered derrickman. I guess I didn’t know enough back then to be scared out of my wits. I can’t stand being up on a 3′ ladder these days!
As a female geologist (if I interpreted an earlier post correctly), you’d be in a great position to enter the field.
TexasJew on June 9, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Kind of old to be a mudlogger myself. But I have more then enough credentials when I get out to get right back into geology and work the field. I am okay at math, I actually like calculus better then geometry. But hey to each their own.
I have some ideas as to what I can do… just need to keep my options open. I have a possible contract with a consulting firm, but I want to see what they are looking for and what their goals are for it.
And female it would be, you are correct sir!
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 7:40 PM
It’s easy to call someone stupid on the interweb, lots of experts and cyberthugs but some folks do remember when ex Presidents and VPs didn’t make millions of bucks for kissing OPECs arses and making anti American speeches in their countries. They can remember when conservatives understood the difference between free market and price fixing. When good conservatives broke up trusts and monopolies. When the good of the citizens was of more value than the good of the multinational corporation that buys a politicians vote.
Many conservatives are looking at this election and seeing very little difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Both are big government pork swillers with no answers to the problems the voters are having. McCain is going to lose if for no other reason than the GOP has lost its conservative base.
Some folks had better learn to say populist without the sneer and talk about the 80% of Americans who want our immigration laws without saying they are stupid. This is the very reason the GOP lost Congress in 2006 and will continue to lose ground in 2008 and will lose the White House in 2008, because they consider others opinions “stupid” if it doesn’t agree with theirs. So explain to me how great these record profits the oil companies are making are after you go pawn stuff to buy gas to get to work and listen to yourself as you talk your talk and maybe you’ll see why the socialists are winning. Sheesh, call me stupid.
Buzzy on June 9, 2008 at 7:44 PM
upinak on June 9, 2008 at 7:40 PM
With all the insanity that is going on these days, one last personal post:
Email me at jim at geotexas dot com if you have any questions about what’s happening down here or up in North Dakota. I do double duty for the AAPG in spreading the word, so to speak. It’s great for us to see geologists wanting to enter the energy field (a lot are just greenie-weenies and they are incredibly incompetent), and your timing is excellent..
This is going to be the Golden Age for this field, even if an idiot like Obama or, to a lesser degree, McCain, becomes the Prez.
Like Ben Hecht said about Hollywood, “There’s millions to be made, and all your competitors are idiots!”
Good luck!
TexasJew on June 9, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Buzzy, I wasn’t going to post any more because I think this thread is used up. However,I don’t think anyone on Hot Air is a cyberthug, with the exception of some few and far between trolls. I don’t think Texasjew fits that description. However, I think you are somewhat erroniously, but not stupidly, opinionated. When you talk about oil company record profits, you do are showing your lack of knowledge of the laws of proportionality. e.g. If a $1 billon company, owned by 10 people, make $200 million in profit (20% or $20 million per investor)(think Murtha, Kennedy, Reed, Pelosi), to you that is not an obscene profit. If a nasty oil company makes $9 billion profit on a $100 billion investment of 90 million investors, that 9% profit or $100 per investor (think school teachers and policeman retirement, think your retirement).
I think it is fair to say that anyone who thinks that the price of crude is set by the oil companies is extremely ill informed, or if that anyone believes the cosmo/liberal/socialist drivel about that, they ARE stupid. As Forrest Gump says, “stupid is as stupid does.”
To imply that all congresspersons and senators are in the pay of the big oil companies and the middle east potentates, is obviously not be true. Some are held in thrall by ketchup bottles, some like land in Las Vegas or tuna fisheries, or bootleg whiskey.
Old Country Boy on June 9, 2008 at 8:23 PM
If anything, Ed, I think you undersold the benefits of domestic drilling now.
Given that oil is a highly speculative commodity, and sensitive to potential changes in supply, allowing domestic drilling to occur now (even if greater supply won’t occur for 7 years) will exert downward pressure on prices.
The anticipation of greater supply in the future will affect prices today.
JamesP on June 9, 2008 at 8:47 PM
No, I just didn’t have time to look into it this afternoon. I’ll research better, promise!
pullingmyhairout on June 9, 2008 at 9:26 PM
Newt just said (Box o’ Rocks for Brains) Boxer’s bill wouldh’ve added a dollar to gas prices.
Domino on June 9, 2008 at 11:17 PM
You should think before you speak; I actually don’t live in a large city. This is what I love about people who think mass transit is a bad idea.
People say we cannot have mass transit like Europe (or better than) because our country is just so much bigger. They say we can’t have mass transit because Amtrak is a sucktard, so why would we want more of it (as if we can’t get past ineptitude). They say we can’t have mass transit because our cities are just so spread out. They say we can’t have mass transit because there’s no room. They say we can’t have mass transit because then who’s going to pay for the gargantuan farm subsidies, or useless/mindlessly appropriated defense projects, or bridges to no where? And besides who’s going to sit next to the mentally disturbed homeless man who should get a job for himself and get help from no one.
This is complete bull dung. We aren’t a nation of stupid people, we’ve sent people to the moon, invaded – and mostly conquered – every continent on Earth, we’ve developed cost ‘ineffective’ medicines to combat thousands of useful – and useless – diseases and health misfortunes, we’ve been – and possibly are – a shining beacon of freedom and democracy for all mankind.
People are telling me that in this nation of 300 million people, we can’t develop a transport system that does not rely on every single person having a car? That we simply are just that inept, or we have exhausted and researched every single option and have come to the conclusion we can’t do it. Because I don’t see those research papers, I don’t see those conclusions, all I see is a bunch of people who say we can’t do something. All I see is a bunch of people saying the only way to solve our oil woe is to drill for more of it, as if to solve ones alcoholism one should drink more alcohol.
And why not? Go ahead drill for more oil, open up the reserves, try to solve the problem by making it bigger. But when I am 40 and look back shaking my head because the current generation of nitwits couldn’t lift a finger to plug our desire for oil rather opened it bigger, well then… who the heck knows how depressing it will be, especially when I look into my childrens eyes.
PresidenToor on June 10, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Useless name calling. Good start.
Ah, because OPEC is of course controlled by the U.S.? No wait, the oil companies like Exxon? The Illuminati? Oh yeah, foreign nations worrying about their needs first; so this has what to do with what exactly? And Bush going over there to ask for more oil (because we won’t drill here apparently) is bad? Good? I’m not sure where you went here.
Right, those EEEVIL corporations controlling 5% of the oil sold in the world. What an amazing definition of “monopoly”. You could have 20 different companies in one market each having a monopoly with this definition… that’s definitely a unique definition.
The 95% controlled by countries and not corporations don’t stand a chance against the 5% majority (well, not majority, but you know, 1/20th is a lot like a monopoly, if you stand really close and squint a bit I guess).
Here I agree with you. It has little or nothing to do with the rest of your rant; but hey, you’re having fun with this scatter-shot argument, aren’t you?
9% is the profit you’re complaining about. I complain on years when my stocks don’t make well more than 9%… I guess I’m worse than the oil companies (oh no, they’ll come after me next). And the tech company I work for? Again, we’re way more eeevil than Exxon, our profit margins dwarf theirs (based on percentage returns, not flat dollars; the way you measure these things).
Hey, you’re doing fine on your own.
gekkobear on June 10, 2008 at 12:11 AM
The little secret that you don’t hear from the media or the politicians: http://tinyurl.com/5jzhbz
They figure Joe Sixpack doesn’t care and doesn’t understand, so they can just let the oil companies or OPEC take the blame.
Insane profits are being made by speculators… they now have enough cash to pervert the normal supply-and-demand forces.
Excerpt: One particularly troubling aspect of Index Speculator demand is that it actually increases the more prices increase. This explains the accelerating rate at which commodity futures prices (and actual commodity prices) are increasing. Rising prices attract more Index Speculators, whose tendency is to increase their allocation as prices rise. So their profit-motivated demand for futures is the inverse of what you would expect from price-sensitive consumer behavior.
The above testimony given by Michael W. Masters before the Senate on May 20th details the 3 things congress can do to stop this, but their pals are getting filthy rich and would rather see the American public screwed until they’ll cry uncle and vote in the full-monte Socialists.
electric-rascal on June 10, 2008 at 12:12 AM
Texasjew,
As a geologist, what’s your opinion of the peak oil debate?
Golden Boy on June 10, 2008 at 12:32 AM
Texasjew,
As a geologist, what’s your opinion of the peak oil debate?
Golden Boy on June 10, 2008 at 12:32 AM
There will never be another Ghawar (Saudi Arabia’s premier field and the greatest collection of oil in the world – a superporous limestone with oil-saturated vugs you can stick your fingers through and a huge field in aerial extent) or Burgan (Kuwait – a sandstone with an unbelievable 3000′ payzone)
That being said, we will need the Athabascan tar sands of Canada and the great tar sand fields of Venezuela to make up some of the overall declines in world oil production.
In terms of economics, however, the cheap lift costs of fields like Ghawar and Burgan will always be impossible to achieve with the costs of extracting the oil from tar sands, and especially oil shales, which is very costly and produces a great amount of often environmentally destructive waste.
In other words, the days of cheap, easily pumpable oil is coming to a close.
TexasJew on June 10, 2008 at 1:29 AM
edgehead on June 10, 2008 at 1:32 AM
But is it the truth?
Johan Klaus on June 10, 2008 at 2:20 AM
PresidenToor on June 10, 2008 at 12:08 AM
I swear no more posts, however I’m up with a sick pointer and just saw your post and couldn’t leave it alone. I infer you to be stating that if other countries can have intercity rapid transit in the not-so-populated areas then so can we. You know, if we can send men to the moon why can’t we (insert inane task). We may even need to let private companies do this.
El Capitan, Broadway limited, Firefly, Cannon Ball, Phoebe Snow, Zypher, Orannge Blossom Special, National Limited, Chief, Super Chief, Empire Builder. Remember these? The private companies got out of the business, except in the high density areas. Oklahoma pays for their own Amtrak and we have paid highway taxes for years without having any rail services. Those highway taxrs paid for other states light rail and commuter services.
I think it was Budd that came up with the RDT, an single or double coach inter city train. Didn’t make it. Try to face the fact that one or two people getting on or off a train at each little town stop between Chicago and St. Louis still won’t fill a normal coach. It is not a matter of equipment, it is a problem of crewing and fuel for such a small number of users.
I have spent a lot of time in Europe riding trains. I like the chunnel train and the West Anglia Great Northern (WAGN) line. WAGN works on the honor system, no conductors. I have also riden the original Orient Express several times. The days of that kind of train are gone. The US railroads do the freight thing; you know, carrying Chineese containers from San Diego to Boston or Jacksonville.
Your “improve rapid transit” is a third order solution – a miniscule solution to a miniscule part of a big, big problem. If you didn’t take the math, look up “third order.”
Old Country Boy on June 10, 2008 at 3:54 AM
Today I sent a check to my current Congressman’s Senatorial campaign that might be big enough to catch his attention.
Enclosed a letter asking him to get together with the two or three other congresscrittters that may still have a tiny bit of common sense left, and quickly put together a bill to get the drills adrillin’, the refineries abuildin’, New Nuke plants anukin’, and to see if anything that can be done to take the world’s best coal reserves off the National Monument list after Clinton put it there as a ‘bought n paid for’ ‘favor’ to the Riadys.
Heck, I reckon that merely INTRODUCING a quick bill based on common sense energy policy ought to be good for a 20 cent per gallon reduction in Gasoline and Diesel prices.
LegendHasIt on June 10, 2008 at 4:37 AM
Good post.
But don’t expect a substantive reply. The guy is a total (Obama)Messiah worshiper:
‘Hope’ outweighs reality 100,000 to 1 with them , and will continue to do so until socialism actually rears up and smacks them, personally, in the head with a 2X4… repeatedly.
LegendHasIt on June 10, 2008 at 5:16 AM
So why does Europe have to be our model for everything? Are we not still a sovereign nation, able to determine our own path? Europe can go **** up a rope.
abcurtis on June 10, 2008 at 7:19 AM
It’s a shame when you have to bribe the guy representing you to do the right thing. But that’s the world we live in now.
abcurtis on June 10, 2008 at 7:21 AM
NUCLEAR POWER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OIL! Please stop spreading this Myth:
- Only 1.5% of the United States electrical generation comes from oil (EIA)
If you want to lower prices you have to remove the taxes and drill anywhere and everywhere.
Poptech on June 10, 2008 at 7:29 AM
There is plenty of oil left:
- The largest supplier of oil to the United States is Canada (EIA)
- The second largest supplier of oil to the United States is Mexico (EIA)
- 60% of United States oil imports come from non-OPEC countries (EIA)
- 2 Trillion barrels of oil are in the United States Oil-Shale Reserves (USGS)
- 580 Billion barrels of oil are in Russia’s Arctic Ocean Shelf
- 400 Billion barrels of oil are under the Arctic Ocean
- 175 Billion barrels of oil are in the Oil Sands of Alberta, Canada
- 15 Billion barrels of oil are in Jack field in the Gulf of Mexico
- 10.6 Billion barrels of oil are in the National Petroleum Reserve (NPRA) in Alaska (USGS)
- 10.4 Billion barrels of oil are in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska (USGS)
- 4.3 Billion barrels of oil are in the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and Montana (USGS)
- 4.0 Billion barrels of oil are in the Central North Slope in Alaska (USGS)
For Comparison:
- 260 Billion barrels of oil are in Saudi Arabia (EIA)
- 80 Billion barrels of oil are in Venezuela (EIA)
Poptech on June 10, 2008 at 7:31 AM
Every other tin pot America hating coutry is using horizontal and slant directional drilling technioques right outside of our territorial waters, draining our reserves while we pooh pooh at the notion of drilling due to fear of spoiling the natural habitat of (name your favorite bug / bird).
China Drilling for oil right off Florida coast.
Alden Pyle on June 10, 2008 at 8:12 AM
When is Congress going to act? Well, they’re taking up a bill to remove tax breaks for oil companies and hit them with a windfall profits tax. I need someone to explain to me how that’s going to lower the price of gas and not raise it significantly. Also, someone please explain to me how Democrats are favored to pick up seats in Congress this year. I don’t know how voters in this country manage to get dressed in the morning.
orlandocajun on June 10, 2008 at 9:24 AM
What poptech says is true. Here is the famous 2002 Lawrence Livermore study: https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/02flow.php
Y’all might refer to this to calm a lot of fevered brows. It also debunks most liberal mindless responses to anything energy.
Old Country Boy on June 10, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Hey Pop… so where do you get your information LMFAO!
ANWR, BTW, is unknown in value and resource as are quite a few other “fields” that you have put on there.
As I said earlier yesterday.. it is a guesstimate!
Looks at the whole thread before posting.
upinak on June 10, 2008 at 11:23 AM
I’ll pass on reading 4 pages, I got my information from the USGS but I was too low there is a combined 32 Billion barrels of oil:
- 32 Billion barrels of oil are in ANWR, NPRA and the Central North Slope in Alaska (USGS)
We are NOT running out of oil:
Myth: The World Is Running Out of Oil (Video) (5min) (John Stossel, 20/20)
Poptech on June 10, 2008 at 12:07 PM
For those who are too lazy to look up the 2002 energy estimate, for generated electricity alone, the following is the mix:
Nuclear 21.2%
Hydro 6.5%
Bio 0.04%
Natural Gas 14.9%
Coal 20%
Petroleum 2.4%
These figures are rounded off. I would live to find an updated EE, but I don’t think the mix has changed much. Now all you electicity freaks that think that electric cars are the living end, well they are. We use them and we will end living faster! Commercial electricity generation and DISTRIBUTION has a 69% energy loss. Note we aren’t using petroleum much for power generation as poptech said. Nuclear is our major source with coal second. What we need to do is trade natural gas for coal and nuclear as soon as possible. Having been in the industry, I know you can’t trade natural gas for coal in boilers, the tube spacing required for coal is much larger to allow the products to escape. The Demo-dimwits suggested this during the Carter years and we couldn’t do it then either. What you have to do is stop building NG and make all new stations coal and nuclear.
Now I am not a petroleum geologist, but I have watched ongoing recovery from existing known suspended sources. It doesn’t seem to take 7 years, but a timescale of months to a couple of years.
But lets take the Dimocrats at their worst, no more coal mining, don’t drill anywhere because it takes 7 years to come on line (oh if we had started 7 years ago), don’t expand refining capacity. Then you won’t have to worry about them. The blue states will all be freezing in the dark or walking.
Old Country Boy on June 10, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Umm sure. That estimate that you posted on the NPRA (national Petroleum Reserve which was at one time the naval Petroleum Reserve) is actually inaccruate.
Umiat Wells, API’s 50-287-10001-00 thru 10011-00, which was a USGS/Naval project back in the 50’s and 60’s came up with nothing. At times they were dry holes. Other times they just had really high pressure gradiant. Many areas around the NPRA area have come up with nothing. The traps they assumed were there via siesmic have not turned up anything.
There were also shot-holes done (200 foot holes to determine the varient of the ground via the permafrost and methane out-take) and they showed that it would be poor to extremely poor for drilling.
I don’t need to rely on 20/20 for my information. All you have to do is google Well History Files or Well Logs for the North Slope/NPRA of Alaska.
here is one link you may use. AOGCC which you can get Stats on well production and ratio’s of Exploration vrs. Non-Exploratory. Even down to areas and regions.
PRA is a great consulting company who get their information straight from the horses mouth.
Div. of Oil and Gas is also a great way to look at Seismic and topo graphics LIS mapping which is free to download.
But everything information wise that anyone gets is usually public information that they gather and make their own conclussions. Which is usually published but misses a large portion of information. This also includes the Federal Government… EIA, DOE, USGS, etc.
When it comes to reports, or the like, I usually research myself and find that they didn’t add everything and used what they wanted. Now the question is, do you do your own research… or do you go by what others say as gospel?
upinak on June 10, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Poll topic changed.
RushBaby on June 10, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Ah, it’s not really that… He is one of the few ‘good guys left. I know him personally and like him a lot as a person, as well as a reliable conservative legislator. I just thought a little bigger check than usual would get his attention better during an election that will be a rough one on him. He is used to winning this district in a landslide. Winning the whole state is a whole ‘nother deal, and he knows it.
LegendHasIt on June 10, 2008 at 2:52 PM
You’re right on target with both your methodology and your proposed agenda. I sincerely hope it works.
I agree with you, just the reality of a bill being proposed should knock the price down. When opec is convinced we’re serious about weening ourselves off the ME oil tit, they’ll respond with lower prices. Just like they did in the 70s and 80s.
Thanks for taking action.
techno_barbarian on June 10, 2008 at 3:18 PM
You are welcome, Techno. ;-)
LegendHasIt on June 10, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Not only that, but the speculators will shift some of their money that is driving prices even higher into drill bit, pipe, uranium and coal futures, instead of putting all their money into gasoline. ;-D
LegendHasIt on June 10, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Here’s my prediction and I hope nobody else has expressed it – I haven’t read every comment.
IF the U.S. Congress ever got off their dead butts and said we were going to go all out drilling, which would flood the market in a few years, two possibilities come to mind:
1. The prices would drop greatly in anticipation of the much greater demand
B. OPEC, etc would drop the price so low that it would be uneconomical for American companies to drill in the areas we are talking about.
Where’s the downside?
darwin-t on June 10, 2008 at 10:17 PM
upinak, you claim it is inaccurate yet you post no contradictory evidence? So yeah ummm sure. My source is a 2005 USGS report:
New USGS Oil & Gas Assessment Of Central North Slope, Alaska
“The central North Slope contains most of the commercial oil fields and virtually all of the petroleum-producing infrastructure and pipelines in northern Alaska, including the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. To date, 15 billion barrels of oil have been produced from this area, and remaining reserves include 7 BBO of oil… USGS estimates that there are 4.0 BBO of oil resources that remain to be discovered, most in the northern part of the assessment area. For comparison, recent USGS estimates of undiscovered oil in adjacent areas include 10.6 BBO in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA) and 10.4 BBO in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) 1002 area. Most undiscovered oil accumulations in the central North Slope assessment area are expected to be relatively small in comparison to those already discovered. [...]
The assessment was based on a comprehensive review of all available geological, geophysical, and geochemical evidence; including hydrocarbon source rocks, reservoir rocks, and traps. The minimum accumulation sizes considered in this assessment are 5 million barrels of technically recoverable oil”
4.0 BBO + 7.0 BBO + 10.4 BBO + 10.6 BBO = 32 BBO in Alaska
If you have other estimates please provide them. You mention drilling from the 50s and 60s, well can you confirm the current USGS report is using this same information? You made no case for this and failed to post and contradictory evidence.
Poptech on June 11, 2008 at 1:02 AM
Old Country Boy, the current electrical generation via petroleum is 1.5% based on 2006 statistics:
Net Generation by Energy Source by Type of Producer (EIA)
48.9% Coal
20.0% Natural Gas
19.3% Nuclear
7.11% Hydroelectric
1.58% Petroleum
Poptech on June 11, 2008 at 1:14 AM
There isn’t any downside to your arguments.
cjs1943 on June 11, 2008 at 1:19 AM
Here in the East millions rely on home heating oil for heat and hot water, yet the focus is strictly on gasoline. As surely as winter will arrive the stories are now being written of old people unable to afford fuel oil and frozen to death for lack of heat.
Government has fallen and it can’t get up.
diogenes on June 11, 2008 at 7:35 AM
Ed, I loved the poll. It posed a conundrum, though. I’d like to see us do ALL of those things! If we could do only one of them, though, I’d like for us to drill here, drill now, so that’s how I voted.
Thanks for linking the petition. I just signed it and will forward it to some family and friends.
On it, I listed myself as an independent. The Republicans need to see that they’re losing support if they don’t get onto this issue yesterday in a way that can’t be ignored by the MSM. Writing press releases and holding press conferences aren’t enough; the Republicans, in order to get their message covered, have to MAKE news, not suggest it! I’m not suggesting that they break the law, but it would have been awesome had one of those nutjobs climbing the NYT tower unfurled a banner saying something like:
Geologists: We have 60 years of oil supply here.
Engineers: We can get it with no environmental harm.
Republicans: Let’s get it and ease gas prices.
Democrats: They’re hopelessly wrong, and you have too much money.
flutejpl on June 11, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Not sure if you were directing this at me. But I was talking to a bayam who is infatuated with alternative/green energy.
As I think it is neat it doesn’t mean it would work here.
upinak on June 11, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Pop I really don’t think you understand “confidentiality cluases”.
Have a nice day :)
upinak on June 11, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Pop here is something you also need to look at.
http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/ofr/ofr9834
The oil and gas resource potential of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 Area, Alaska
If anyone knows what potential means, I don’t need to go any further. Pops, it has the potential, but even if it has the potential…. That doesn’t mean it is there.
here is the link for NPRA via USGS:
http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/index.jsp?jboEventVo=PubResultView&view=basic&jboEvent=Search&pxfield_all=NPRA
Here is the link for BLM (Bureau of Land Management)
http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/energy/oil_gas/npra/npra_oilandgasactivity.html
BTW the NPRA Wells that you see are and will be confidential. You can ask to see these Well Histories and Logs, even under FOIA, but that doesn’t mean you will see them!
You link also cracks me up. As you keep saying that it is PROVEN, this paragraph from your link says it all:
Pops, FYI. You can’t PROVE anything until you actually DO something.
Have a great day! :)
upinak on June 11, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Agreed that we are NOT running out of oil. I do have a little quibble with Poptech’s figure on the Bakken field in North Dakota and Montana. The 4.3 billion barrel figure from USGS is for “easily” recoverable oil using conventional drilling. But estimates of the amount of oil actually in the formation are in the 175-200 billion barrel range, although enhanced techniques are required to extract that much. Since there hasn’t been much drilling yet up there, we may get some pleasant surprises.
But Shhh! Don’t tell Congress–even the Democrat Senators from those states are pro-drilling, but out-of-state liberals might start worrying about what might happen to the buffalo. Tell them not to worry–some of the buffalo already end up in the meat section of upscale super-markets, down the aisle from the arugula.
Steve Z on June 11, 2008 at 6:59 PM
What is funny about your comment is that you are right and wrong.
Well with that said… and I think you might agree. If millions where you are are using heating fuel, which spins off diesel as well… why is diesel fuel so much higher and the fact that heating fuel/oil is as well when it doesn’t cost all that much to produce it.
Now think about it…………..
Remember that new “low sulfer” diesel that was coming out. Now remember how much heating oil and diesel was about a year and a half ago…. no put the two together and I bet you are going to be one p.o.ed dude!
upinak on June 11, 2008 at 7:10 PM
No one seems to recall how bio-fuels were the answer Congress had for keeping prices down, demand down, and pollution down. As of today we all can really heartily cheer the total ignorance/cluelessness/mindlessness of our oh-so-impotent politicians as common sense again proves that a bunch of lawyers just cannot wrap their
chemicalgreed filled minds around proven scientific basics such as …Nuclear power plants use ZERO oil to produce energy.
The use of corn to produce energy reduces the supply of corn needed to feed people.
Drilling in ANWR will have NO effect on animal life as there is NONE in that location to speak of.
Another depressing fact is we have only ourselves to blame for allowing the current crop of craptastic congress critters to get in. I cannot blame Bush [so sowwy, liberal losers] as he had the forsight to introduce increased drilling right at the beginning of his presidency. Democrats deemed it more important to keep America weak, and charge Americans for their success. That is why NO person who voted for any democrat has any right to bitch about our current gas prices.
My self inflicted goal is to change that trend by slapping down any clueless voters I come across in person. Such is my battle against ignorance in an effort to save America from itself.
DannoJyd on June 11, 2008 at 11:17 PM
upinak, please stop lying and show me where I said “proven”. Oh wait did you just embarrass yourself? My bad.
Must be nice to argue from a position where only you can see the data, so sorry if I do not believe what I do not have proof of. I provided my source and you have yet to provide yours. No I am not taking your “opinion” on it.
Poptech on June 11, 2008 at 11:50 PM
upinak, do you always jump to conclusions without reading?
“If you have other estimates please provide them.”
Poptech on June 11, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »