Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


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.


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: 1 ... 3 4 5

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.

Steve Z on June 11, 2008 at 6:59 PM

I’m currently leasing up in that area, and have been in the field for all of the often-disappointing fracture field booms and boomlets (Austin Chalk, Buda Lime, Barnett Shale, Mississippian Chat, etc.)and have endured the spectacle of nutcase estimations and arm-waving by such entities as the USGS (lovingly known to us oil types as the “Useless GS”).

The fact is, vertical fracture based fields are spotty, and the sweet spots are often drilled first, leaving the chaff to be developed later by sleazy promoters and associated scumbags.

The North Dakota/Montana/ Sask. Williston Basin is certainly remarkable, in many ways, but these Bakken estimates are not to be trusted.

If the USGS says 4.3 billion barrels, cut it by almost 80%. That is still a lot of oil, and there are a number of other targets that mimic the Bakken, often at shallower depths.
These Bakken horizontal wells are expensive beasts, and the initial productions vary widely, from a puny 20 up to a massive 5000 barrels of oil per day (a recent record) per well. Production from these fractured horizontal wells is flush production, and the 5000 BOPD may piddle down by almost 98% within a, 18-month period.

Additionally, it currently costs 3.5 million+ for a fully completed 6000-9000′ horizontal leg off of a 9600′ vertical well, if you can find the iron or peel it away from Hess, EOG and the other big players up there. Ouch.

But dingbat projections using Prudhoe Bay or ANWR-type numbers is both silly and self-defeating. Oil-saturated Alaska massive deltaics can be hundreds of feet thick – almost Kuwaitian (aka “Burgan-ian”) in thickness, and piddly 5-15′ (the normal range) vertical Bakken payzones are, well, piddly payzones.

Let’s not go totally pie-in-the-sky here!

TexasJew on June 12, 2008 at 2:53 AM

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

Pop, I have given sites on where to go, who to talk to. What to do, how to look. I am not giving yo my ddamn job.

Why don’t you take a gander at it. I am not embarrassing myself… the only one who seems to be embarrassed is you for reading a science news blip. I actually work with cutting, core, logs, the porosity of the sands and quality of the oil here in Alaska. I don’t have to prove a freaking thing.

If you want to take what the USGS, BLM and Dept of Interior as gossple… then do it. I know better as I have worked on many different project. I also do not need you to tell me where to “look” for items when I posted it earlier. I I have explained how the damn “reports” come out for the White House and such because I help create them. Why don’t you take your head out of your butt, the methane must be effecting your brain!

upinak on June 12, 2008 at 11:57 AM

TexasJew on June 12, 2008 at 2:53 AM

TJ you are correct. Most reports and Stats go off the highest degree of probability … not the conservative, or the true numbers.

You can’t reel in the stock holders if you show medium to low gains. It just won’t happen. So everything is inflated or used in different years, gradiant, in some cases pressures… to make it look better.

It is just like buying a house(metaphore). You have a realtor showing you all these nice house, but not telling you the problems associated with them.

upinak on June 12, 2008 at 12:05 PM

upinak, that’s nice now:

1. Please show me where I said the word “proven”. Otherwise stop lying.

2. Please provide me with other estimates AKA actual numbers. If you don’t have them just say so. No need to keep stalling.

Poptech on June 12, 2008 at 8:17 PM

Poptech on June 12, 2008 at 8:17 PM

USGS (as well as BLM) goes off what industry has given to them (as this may or may not be correct) when they do a exploration well. USGS does not drill anymore unless it is for research only. As of right now check the areas that USGS is drilling, Alaska is one and I think WY and MT are the others. Husky Well Services were the Well Service providers (drillers) at that time.

Here is a link for the History of Umiat 2, NPR-A

The reports are many and varied. They also go off the logs (as I have stated) and if has any oil saturation in the sands and in some cases surface pools (As NPRA has some still). But USGS does there on conclusive report via what is given. Such as:

USGS 2002 Petroleum Resource Assesment of the NPRA

The first paragraph States the history of the NPRA (which started as the Naval Petroleum Reserve in WWII) as well as how a field was found (Alpine which is State not Federal and has never been Federal). This link also has has figures and “estimated” volumes.

But the first sentence of the Summary is the best part:

In anticipation of the need for scientific support for policy decisions and because the perspective of the 1980 USGS assessment of NPRA is two decades old, the USGS has completed a new assessment of undiscovered petroleum resources in NPRA.

Which means they have some new data to interlace with the old… but that data is due because they recieved it from industry.

But if you want the “Start” of the figures. You will have to get the NPRA 305 Publications, but you will have to ask for the Naval Petroleum Reserve Alaska.

Or you can get these: Results of Petroleum Exploration in Naval Petroleum Reserve no. 4 and adjuct areas, Alaska Bye George Grycs and R.C. Jenen.

Subsurface Stratigraphic, Structural and Economic Geology, Northern Alaska.

Any publication on NPRA and ANWR are based of these publications. It was the only time that USGS got off their butts and did real petroleum research, which has been now 1940’s – 1960’s (check the publications dates and research dates). The USGS has gotten out of Petroleum research which is not in the hands of BLM and it and only help the BLM with Leasing federal lands.

Now with all of this said. Pops, you may not have said proven as I have looked back. But insinuation is just as bad. Do you want me to prove anything else? I gave you the information in which other base their “findings” since you can not go into ANWR to do geologic research without a special “permit” that has to be approved via FWS.

Hope that helps you and I am done.

upinak on June 13, 2008 at 3:09 PM

did HA eat my post?

upinak on June 13, 2008 at 3:09 PM

I do not know how much clearer I can make it:

WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF OIL IN ANWR AND NPRA IN BILLIONS OF BARRELS OF OIL? (include link and total number)

Implying I insinuated something through assumption is worse. Don’t state things or imply ANYTHING about what I did not say.

Poptech on June 13, 2008 at 8:00 PM

Poptech on June 13, 2008 at 8:00 PM


HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT THE NPRA AND ANWR DATA IS CONFIDENTIAL!?!

If you don’t EFFING believe me… Call The BLM AND USGS and EFFING ASK!

The SITES I GAVE YOU are the CLOSESTS you will COME TO ACTUAL Estimated AMOUNTS.. From the ORINGAL SOURCE!

It is ON the Second LINK I gave you.. LOOK FFS don’t assume you KNOW because you haven’t LOOKED! It is the FIRST paragraph off the Damn Link… I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION earlier and you didn’t look… idiot!

A new USGS assessment concludes that NPRA holds signicantly greater petroleum resources than previously estimated. Technically recoverable, undiscovered oil beneath the Federal part of NPRA likely ranges between 5.9 and 13.2 billion barrels, with a mean (expected) value of 9.3 billion barrels. An estimated 1.3 to 5.6 billion barrels of those technically recoverable oil resources is economically recoverable at market prices of $22 to $30 per barrel. Technically recoverable, undiscovered nonassociated natural gas for the same area likely ranges between 39.1 and 83.2 trillion cubic feet, with a mean (expected) value of 59.7 trillion cubic feet. The economic viability of this gas will depend on the availability of a natural-gas pipeline for transport to market.

upinak on June 14, 2008 at 12:11 AM

Comment pages: 1 ... 3 4 5


You must be logged in to post a comment.