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


Video: Bush obeys the law of supply and demand

posted at 1:08 pm on June 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Earlier today, the White House joined John McCain in demanding an expansion of American energy production. Howard Kurtz believes this to be a transparently coordinated effort between the Bush administration and the McCain campaign, and I’m not discounting that possibility. However, it’s just possible that two people can see the results of restricted supply and increasing demand and reach the same conclusion that the solution is to boost supply. Bush makes specific reference to that economic principle in the very beginning, and notes that he has called for loosening restrictions on production for years:

Bush outlines four steps in his proposal:

  1. Increase access to the outer continental shelf (OCS)
  2. Start using oil shale
  3. Use ANWR
  4. Expand refining capacity

All of these are “urgently needed”, as Bush states.  We can potentially recover 800 billion barrels from shale, which would be enough to keep America’s needs fulfilled for decades without importing anything at all.  The OCS would add tens of billions of barrels from just what we know exists now, and perhaps like Brazil, we will find even more oil in those regions.  Right now we are importing gasoline because we have outstripped our refining capacity, which unnecessarily adds to the costs at the pump as well as complicating shipping security.

I’d trade off ANWR if we could get the other three.  It holds an estimated ten billion barrels of oil and would provide a substantial supply increase, but we can address that later if we’re bringing in oil from shale and the OCS.  ANWR could stand as a reserve under those conditions, and it may make passage of such a bill less complicated in Congress.

For refining, I’d add one more condition: an end to state formulations for gasoline.  Our national refining capacity would have a great deal more flexibility if we didn’t have dozens of different mandates for the composition of gasoline.  Since gasoline gets refined and shipped across state borders, the federal government does have jurisdiction if it chooses to use it — and it has in times of emergency, such as with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.  That would allow all US refineries to produce the same formulation and to shift as necessary to meet demand when damaged or undergoing maintenance.

When will Congress take up this challenge?  And who will stand against it in the face of voter anger over fuel prices and the inflation they have wrought?


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 2

The Dems have blocked & will continue to block every effort to reduce the price of gas, because they know that most Americans are stupid enough to blame everything on the President.

jgapinoy on June 18, 2008 at 1:13 PM

Exactly, they want to belabor this until election day. Nice to know these bastards care more about the election than this country.

Jeff on June 18, 2008 at 1:16 PM

I’d soooo love to see this happen.

Do those who say that Bush is coordinating with McCain include his trip to Saudi in that accusation? Bush has been acting to increase supply for awhile now.

TexasDan on June 18, 2008 at 1:16 PM

As Glenn Beck pointed out an hour ago, couldn’t Bush overturn the executive order prohibiting offshore drilling right now, without Congress?

Suihei Deloi on June 18, 2008 at 1:17 PM

Yes!

Oh wait, Dingy Harry Ried is going to pee all over my parade. Neeeevermind.

loganthompson on June 18, 2008 at 1:17 PM

Nah, expect some hard-hitting campaign commercials stressing the dem blockades of increased drilling and production.

If its true that all politics is local, you can’t get more local than your neighborhood gas station.

Bishop on June 18, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Finally, a little sanity in the asylum.

Johan Klaus on June 18, 2008 at 1:23 PM

The “Jack Field” was found in Sept. 2006 and as far as I know has not been developed, Chevron estimates it to be around 15 billion barrels. Thus, if developed it would boost U.S. reserves by a whopping fifty percent.

Maxx on June 18, 2008 at 1:25 PM

House Republicans want the American people to know that right now — around 60 miles off the coast of Key West, Fla. — China is drilling for oil, thanks to a lease issued by Cuba.

Maxx on June 18, 2008 at 1:29 PM

Howard Kurtz believes this to be a transparently coordinated effort between the Bush administration and the McCain campaign…

Transparency is invisible to Howard Kurtz, who is unaware of media bias in political coverage at the networks.

Jaibones on June 18, 2008 at 1:31 PM

What is Bush thinking?

Doesn’t he know that windfall profits taxes will bring down gas prices?

cntrlfrk on June 18, 2008 at 1:31 PM

Howard Kurtz believes this to be a transparently coordinated effort between the Bush administration and the McCain campaign, and I’m not discounting that possibility.

Welcome to $5/gallon gas. You’re going to have plenty of politicians singing and dancing till election day.

John the Libertarian on June 18, 2008 at 1:34 PM

However, it’s just possible that two people can see the results of restricted supply and increasing demand and reach the same conclusion that the solution is to boost supply. Bush makes specific reference to that economic principle in the very beginning, and notes that he has called for loosening restrictions on production for years:

So Bush got it years ago, but he just didn’t complain very loud. And McCain got it yesterday.

Great job guys.

JiangxiDad on June 18, 2008 at 1:36 PM

Seemingly reasonable and well-educated political moderates I know are now blaming evil mustache-twirling speculators for rising oil prices. They completely discount supply and demand as the intrinsic cause of the rise. Even if you can get them to acknowledge S&D as the root cause, they argue for nationalization of the oil industry and increased funding for the development of alternative energy sources over domestic drilling. They invariably argue against domestic drilling because it would take ten years to see in increase in supply from it. So we shouldn’t even try, I guess. Sigh. I just can’t grok that mindset.

aero on June 18, 2008 at 1:37 PM

aero on June 18, 2008 at 1:37 PM

Where do you get 10 yrs? Can you show me something .. a link perhaps?

Maxx on June 18, 2008 at 1:25 PM

Maxx let us hope that estimate is on the smaller side and it yeilds more. But they have to build the pipeline to get it out first. And who to ask why the setback in that… BLM! Gotta love Federal Waters.

upinak on June 18, 2008 at 1:47 PM

Bush and the Republicans should compile a list of federal expenditures that have been spent over the preceding decades for “alternative energy” to head off inevitable protests by the environmental lobby. When the public sees the billions (or is it trillions?) of their taxes that have been poured into hydrogen, fusion, solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, etc., without any significant payoff, most of them will understand that, while research is a good idea in general, it’s no substitute for proven solutions when you’re in a crisis.

Socratease on June 18, 2008 at 1:51 PM

Who the hell cares if its “transparently coordinated?” They’re both right. I wish every single politician in Washington with an “R” after his name would transparently coordinate a rally on the Mall to let the American People know where they stand on this issue.

Dudley Smith on June 18, 2008 at 1:52 PM

G-Dubs: “I call on Congress to pass good legislation….”

Translation: “Don’t lard up with pork, dumbasses.”

Oh Dumbocrats? You are being called to the carpet. I love how he even got a swipe in on BillyJeff. Good. Now keep the heat up.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 18, 2008 at 1:53 PM

On another note…………..

Now it’s really time for strong opposition to LOST.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 18, 2008 at 1:54 PM

Socratease on June 18, 2008 at 1:51 PM

Here is the common sense after it would be done (I love your idea).

After the compile of this data, if anyone wants to do research, let them go on ahead… but without federal money.

If they (the scientists or researchers) come up with a viable alternative and can prove it work with a panel of scientists and other researchers to take a look at the work and prove it can work… then the Government hand over tax free “reward” to whomever the person(s) responsable are.

Might work, never know!

upinak on June 18, 2008 at 1:56 PM

Y’know, a couple of nuke plants wouldn’t hurt either, since there is quite a bit of stationary consumption of oil and LNG for power…

cthulhu on June 18, 2008 at 1:58 PM

Do it. Please do it. I’m sick of people blaming oil companies for the democrats’ dirty work.

Ah…the leftists attempt to distract from progress. Right on cue.

Black Adam on June 18, 2008 at 1:58 PM

I have no idea why my previous attempt to comment with the link to the stories doesn’t get posted but what I was trying to say is that the democrats are now opposed to drilling here in the US for oil so there would be more for consumers, while not too long ago they were all for stopping the adding of oil to the US strategic oil reserve … so there would be more for consumers.

So which one is it? Do they want oil, or do they not want oil?

wise_man on June 18, 2008 at 2:00 PM

Since Cuba is selling off-shore mineral rights to other countries, you’d think we’d want to drill some of our own oil before others do.

obladioblada on June 18, 2008 at 2:01 PM

When the public sees the billions (or is it trillions?) of their taxes that have been poured into hydrogen

In the case of hydrogen in particular, spending one more penny is too damned much. Hydrogen is not an energy source. Period, paragraph, end of discussion. Where are those vast reserves of hydrogen just waiting to be tapped?

When you burn hydrogen, all you get is a partial return on the energy used to convert something else into hydrogen. It’s an energy storage medium, nothing more, and for most purposes an inferior option to electricity. It’s certainly not worth the cost of creating that “hydrogen economy” infrastructure.

NeighborhoodCatLady on June 18, 2008 at 2:03 PM

couldn’t click the video. It said msnbc at the top. Couldn’t you find an AP link?

Yes, we need alternatives, but we don’t have them, or the infrastructure. So drill, baby, drill.

kirkill on June 18, 2008 at 2:05 PM

Here is Mexico getting excited about finding a mere 10 billion barrels, they describe the discovery as a ‘huge’ oil field.

Makes me wonder why a 10 billion barrel feild is a wonderful thing for Mexico but for some reason a 15 billion barrel find isn’t worth the time of day according to Democrats.

Maxx on June 18, 2008 at 2:06 PM

Where do you get 10 yrs? Can you show me something .. a link perhaps?

upinak on June 18, 2008 at 1:47 PM

No, I’m quoting my “moderate” friends’ argument, not claiming that this is a fact. It might be true and it might not be. Doesn’t really matter for the sake of the argument. Their point is that there would not be an immediate effect (as in tomorrow, next week, next month, or even next year) on gas prices, even if domestic drilling and refining options were increased today. I disagree with them because I think the promise of an increased supply in the future will tamp down speculation in the short term and at least stabilize prices for the time being, if not lower them. Then when the supplies actually hit the market, I think it would produce a marked — though not huge — dip in the price at the pump. Any improvement is an improvement, which is what left-leaners seem to fail to understand.

aero on June 18, 2008 at 2:08 PM

With all the talk about what drilling will or won’t do the most important thing it will do, from the first barrel, is keep billions of dollars here in the US as opposed to fattening the treasuries of folks who want to sell us rope to hang ourselves. We won’t even mention the conservation of not having to ship 100’s of millions of barrels on the open seas where 99% of all spills take place.

This reason, retaining our dollars, has to be pounded home over and over again going forward. Putting aside the marginal benefits of the mystical alternative fuel delusion, we will be using crude oil for several more decades. With new wells and shale etc we should be able to boost production by 2 million barrels a day or over 700 million barrels per year. At today’s prices that over a trillion dollars a decade.

Where I come from that’s a lot of money better spent by us inside the US as opposed to Dubai palaces and indoor ski parks in the middle east.

patrick neid on June 18, 2008 at 2:11 PM

I just looked at Bloomberg and the price of oil did not jump up today, in spite of the fact that US inventories were down for the fifth straight week.

I think Bush is right here. But the Democrats just don’t seem to get it. For instance, their refusal to even acknowledge market forces while they rail about the evil corporations makes me wonder if they really want higher prices.

Terrye on June 18, 2008 at 2:12 PM

Strengthening the dollar would help too.

Terrye on June 18, 2008 at 2:13 PM

aero on June 18, 2008 at 1:37 PM

Actualy some wells are drilled in as little as 30 days from the start of drilling…

Its the transportation infrastructure that needs to be there that takes longer… but even that can be built pretty quickly.

Key is that it will be a process whereby some wells will come online pretty quickly, others taking longer… so the FULL result may not be scene for 10 years, but SOME result will be felt quickly.

Not a reasont for not doing anything.

As to the speculators? There is some evidence that its adding to the problem which supply and demand started. Supply and demand started to raise the price, and then speculators jumped in, believing that supply and demand would continue to increase prices… that belief started a self sustaining loop… which Bush could short circuit by using an executive order to release 25% of the oil from the strategic reserve… it’d kill the speulation going on in the futures market.

Romeo13 on June 18, 2008 at 2:14 PM

I think they can also get rid of 3 grades of gas and go with just one.

My theory: 90 Octane.

Older cars, like mine, will run just fine on it. Newer cars will need a simple adjustment to the computer, if required at all, since they recommend 92 octane and most have fuel injection that ajusts the flow due to engine requirements. 3 times the ammount of gas. Easily double the ammount of ethanol, 10% required vice 13%, 11% or 8%.

Also, this was in my local paper. I’m surprised Hot Air didn’t pick up on the national story!

Mazztek on June 18, 2008 at 2:18 PM

I have no idea why my previous attempt to comment with the link to the stories doesn’t get posted…

wise_man on June 18, 2008 at 2:00 PM

CNN links do not work for some reason, so if that is your source the post will end up in oblivion.

Buy Danish on June 18, 2008 at 2:19 PM

Better than sending our dollars to terrorist supporting regimes in the Middle East. We also need the oil for all of the other things derived from petroleum. Are we going to produce these things from hydrogen or sunlight or the wind?

Jeff on June 18, 2008 at 2:20 PM

Democrats: If Bush wants to do something, it MUST be bad! Doesn’t matter if it makes sense!

“Cthulhu” has an excellent point–we could use lots more nuclear power plants, which could free up natural gas for home heating, and if the price of natural gas came down, people would switch from oil heat to natural gas. Natural gas can also be used to generate hydrogen, if anyone wants to go down that road.

We just need a president who can pronounce the word,
“New clee R” and get Harry Reid out of the way of Yucca Mountain.

Forget about Three Mile Island and “The China Syndrome”. The China Syndrome is here–the Chinese are drilling OUR oil off the coast of Florida!

McCain also needs to get on the shale oil bandwagon. The Rockies (under CO, UT, WY) hold an estimated 800 billion barrels of shale oil, or about 80 ANWR’s. It’s more expensive to extract (about $60/barrel) but half the price of imported oil, so what are we waiting for?

Now we need to educate the voters about the energy issue. Bring It On.

Steve Z on June 18, 2008 at 2:20 PM

However, it’s just possible that two people can see the results of restricted supply and increasing demand and reach the same conclusion that the solution is to boost supply.
It is beyond my understanding that they start to talk and act now. IMO this is way too late.

SIJ6141 on June 18, 2008 at 2:20 PM

This should be a potential game changer for the GOP if only they would pick up the ball and run hard and fast with it. It spawns so many related issues that will appeal to most Americans:

1. Closer to energy independence, especially from hostile nations
2. Defunds those hostile nations
3. Defunds terrorism
4. Keeps US wealth in the US
5. Income to the Treasury from increased leasing of Federal lands would be a boon to government coffers
6. Job growth from exploration, construction
7. Defunding of Arab Sovereign Wealth Funds buying up US assets
8. Reduces the short and long term price of oil, in spite of what the economically illiterate Dems proclaim
9. Strengthens our position on the world stage vis a` vis Iran, Russia, et al.

What do the Dems have in response? Some false claims of potential environmental degradation? Unfortunately for them too much evidence to the contrary exists, i.e. Norway, Gulf of Mexico, North Sea.

Energy is a winner for the GOP if they know how to use it.

DerKrieger on June 18, 2008 at 2:21 PM

From just three months ago, April 2008, Brazil discovers what may be two of the world’s three biggest oil finds in the past 30 years.

Everybody is drilling and finding lots of oil except the United States, our oil tank is dry because of the socialist policies of the Democratic party. They have been fighting to cut off oil supplies to the U.S. for thirty years and now we are seeing the results with four dollar per gallon gas prices. Obama admits he thinks it GREAT !!

Drill anywhere and everywhere NOW is the solution. Democrats say: we can’t just drill our way out of this

BUT YES WE CAN.

Maxx on June 18, 2008 at 2:22 PM

I agree with the Dems, and most thoughtful people frankly, that we need to encourage conservation and the reduction of our overall consumption of oil. But rather than put our economy in an energy straightjacket our politicians need to screw up the courage to set a floor on the price of gas, say $3.00/gal. We gain energy independence by relying on our own assets but we also maturely encourage the changes the Dems want without crippling ourselves in the process. If gas were held steady at $3 for the long term consumers and the auto industry would respond accordingly. Businesses could plan for the long term and the wind would be taken out of the hedge fund sails.

DerKrieger on June 18, 2008 at 2:27 PM

I am so sick on ANWR. ANWR is a battle cry for a lame ideal, while American’s are looking at serious energy problems. O’Reilly was pretty freaked about the possibility of a gallon of gas going to seven bucks last night.

Oil is part of our national security. Screw ANWR.

Hening on June 18, 2008 at 2:28 PM

“I agree with the Dems, and most thoughtful people frankly, that we need to encourage conservation and the reduction of our overall consumption of oil. But rather than put our economy in an energy straightjacket our politicians need to screw up the courage to set a floor on the price of gas, say $3.00/gal”

There a real Carter like solution. Yes, the thoughtful ruling elite know better than the marketplace. How about fat people and the strain they put on health care? Yes, lets restrict their calories! Is that a cigarette I see?

Yes, mein friend we shall modify their behavior. Electrodes please.

patrick neid on June 18, 2008 at 2:36 PM

DerKrieger on June 18, 2008 at 2:27 PM

Price controls? I fear someone’s going to get a bashing.

Jeff on June 18, 2008 at 2:36 PM

But rather than put our economy in an energy straightjacket our politicians need to screw up the courage to set a floor on the price of gas, say $3.00/gal.

DerKrieger on June 18, 2008 at 2:27 PM

I think you meant ceiling. Wrong. Remember the 70s? Gas lines all the way around the corner? That’s what happened back then. Want to repeat history? Take your advice.

fossten on June 18, 2008 at 2:37 PM

When will Congress take up this challenge?

Never.

And who will stand against it in the face of voter anger over fuel prices and the inflation they have wrought?

They won’t have to. They, like Boosh and McVain are already doing, will milk it for all it’s worth with an endless stream of meaningless words wholly uncoupled with anything even resembling action, endless committee meetings, “research”, legal babbling, more meetings, more research, more grandstanding, more legal mumbo-jumbo wrangling etc. etc. etc.

But nothing will get done. Nothing whatsoever. By ANY of them.

In the end, they’ll all be able to say “we TRIED” even though they didn’t and the Moron Bloc of imbecilic voters will bleat and baa their way to the polls and pull the levers for the same morons they always vote for.

But, again, nothing will actually get done.

If you think otherwise, you’re a fool.

Misha I on June 18, 2008 at 2:37 PM

aero on June 18, 2008 at 2:08 PM

Ok I was curious as to where you had seen ot heard. Understandable, but it usually takes no more then 20 days to drill (depending on where and what they are drilling thru) as well as work the pipelines in. Offshore is a pain but you can get pipeline out (depending on the distance) within a 3 month period due to construction constraints and such. Land is usually faster to get the pipelines taken care of… IF there is a via pipeline to connect too. If not that will usually only take 2 yrs at most.

DerKrieger on June 18, 2008 at 2:27 PM

I am so tired of hearing about conservation efforts on Oil and Companies who drill. We have the most stringent in the world and that is a main reason why it takes forever to drill in certain areas.

I.O.G.C.C. is a Conservational Commission who are usually one of the ruling factors of why people can and can not drill and have more then enough paperwork to choke a horse. They also beileve in Global warming… and they are in “charge” of most other Conservational and Enviromental issues.

I provided a link if you would like to look.

upinak on June 18, 2008 at 2:39 PM

I’d trade off ANWR if we could get the other three.

Good choice.

When I worked in the Alaskan oil patch, the word on the street was that there wasn’t much oil in ANWAR. Back in the late 80’s, Chevron sunk an exploratory well, clammed up about it, and declined to try anymore. Everyone in the biz read between the lines.

A similar situation occured on the west side of the North Slope in the NPR. The NPR was known for numerous seeps and since WWII everyone thought there was a lot of oil there. The Navy had an extensive exploratory program there in the 50’s and came up dry. In the 80’s Husky Oil sank about 16 wells scattered across thousands of square miles over 8 years and came up dry on all of them.

Sometimes, promising areas don’t deliver. I wouldn’t get too worked up over ANWAR.

lonesomecharlie on June 18, 2008 at 2:42 PM

patrick neid

The government ALWAYS taxes gas. Right now though they’re simply irrational about it. Federal taxes, state taxes, local taxes, indirect taxes passed through the oil copanies, distributors, retailers, et al. The government KNOWS that the oil companies et al pass the taxes on to us they also know that MOST Americans DON’T know this. I only suggesthis, as have others, to remove wild fluctuations from the market lest we all find ourselves back in mammoth SUVs the next time there’s a supply squeeze. Since when has the government NOT used the tax code to manipulate behavior?

And as for fat people and smokers, they should pay more for health insurance than those of us who are in good shape and don’t smoke. Just like crappy drivers of Corvettes pay more than good drivers of Accords.

DerKrieger on June 18, 2008 at 2:43 PM

I’m all for exploring and drilling anywhere and everywhere we can including my own backyard if I get royalties. I just also happen to think we need to develop a strategy to stretch our our resources. Issue with that?

DerKrieger on June 18, 2008 at 2:46 PM

lonesomecharlie on June 18, 2008 at 2:42 PM

What exactly did you do in the “patch”? Which one were you playing in? You forget they thought the same about part of Kuparuk and it turned out to be a pretty decent find that is still going. Prudhoe was suppose to dry up by now and is still going. Then they have Badami, Alpine, Northstar, Umiat (which was confidential and “dry” and come to find out it isn’t and has a high pressure yeild and was at one time a Husky NPRA well way back when).

And ANWR is confidential via BLM now, not USGS anymore.

upinak on June 18, 2008 at 2:47 PM

DerKrieger on June 18, 2008 at 2:46 PM

I hope you have mineral rights! If you do, then you are luckier then most.

upinak on June 18, 2008 at 2:49 PM

Back to ANWR for a moment. If you click on this link for the map of this god forsken place you will see that the pipe line is only fifty miles away.

map

http://www.anwr.org/docs/CloseupofareaIII.pdf

summer:
http://www.anwr.org/gallery/pages/30-Exploration_Alpine2.htm

winter:
http://www.anwr.org/gallery/pages/25-Alpine%20winter_exploration.htm

some local residents hanging out:

http://www.anwr.org/gallery/pages/17-Caribou_no_impact.htm

patrick neid on June 18, 2008 at 2:56 PM

This has been driving me crazy for months now!

I believe that the price of oil has only gone up significantly over the last year in DOLLARS. This is not because of a change in the supply/demand dynamics in the oil markets. It is because the value of the dollar has fallen due to the Fed’s decision to pump liquidity into the economy.

Yesterday, for grins, I ran a simple OLS regression of daily WTI spot prices against the USD/EUR exchange rate for the last year. For those of you with a statistics bent, the R-squared was about 86% (with an F-statistic that was off the charts). For those of you without a statistics bent this means that 86% of the variation in the price of crude oil in dollars can be explained by the USD/EUR exchange rate.

Although correlation doesn’t imply causation, in this case the mechanism is pretty straightforward. As dollars lose value it takes more of them to buy imports. Since the crude oil market is global, it takes more dollars to buy crude oil. If the dollar strengthens the dollar price of oil and gasoline will fall. So, it appears that the “energy crisis” is actually a “currency crisis”. The Fed could end it by tightening up on the money supply. Of course, it would trash the economy, so they are trading higher dollar-denominated commodity prices for lower marginal investment rates.

jl on June 18, 2008 at 3:14 PM

Der,

Taxing folks is one thing but putting a price floor under something is a whole other issue.

I have neither the typing skills nor the time to argue the point. As to taxes being used to modify behavior that can’t be denied. But then using bad policy to justify using it again is absurd.

I’ll let you spend your time working out the new health care policy that you think the government should have. Hmm, how healthy is that person? Insurance in case you forgot is a private sector enterprise. It uses its own actuary tables to assign risk. It does not use government to establish prices. It uses the free market. Admittedly in its pricing mechanism it has to account/add for all the bullshit interference that the government causes because thoughtful people such as yourself don’t trust the free market to adjudicate its own problems.

Just think if insurance companies were left to their own devices they would not offer insurance to home owners that live in New Orleans or on flood planes etc. Oh my god, with no houses, there probably would not be all these flood stories. Go figure!

patrick neid on June 18, 2008 at 3:14 PM

patrick neid on June 18, 2008 at 2:56 PM

Actually it is only 35 miles. And I have been saying it for a while.

Caribou hunting on the haul road is coming up soon.. YUM!

upinak on June 18, 2008 at 3:20 PM

jl on June 18, 2008 at 3:14 PM

I’m with you. The “value” of the dollar can be measured in things like how much gold (or oil) it could buy.

That being said, there can still be shenanigans or fear in the futures markets, there are still legitimate supply risks and demand increases that surely play their parts.

Gas prices essentially doubled in the US in the past year. I wonder by how much they’ve increased in the Eurozone.

JiangxiDad on June 18, 2008 at 3:25 PM

the moonbat dems made a tactical error today by immediately and publicly denouncing the President’s plan. And hussein was out there publicly saying the same things.

Now McNumnuts has a serious stick to whack him with, if he isn’t too timid to use it.

Not to mention the other republicans. Its very clear all the moonbat blather to the contrary, the dems put us in an energy squeeze and are quite happy to see us all suffer. Hussein admitted it.

dogsoldier on June 18, 2008 at 3:29 PM

aero on June 18, 2008 at 2:08 PM

I think the ten years thing is ANWR and that is because it’s in the Arctic circle and a pipeline will have to be built since the roads are barely passable in the warmest of months. Other sources can be exploited much more quickly.

Kafir on June 18, 2008 at 3:33 PM

Kafir on June 18, 2008 at 3:33 PM

Kafir, almost everything is done in the winter anyways. ice roads are easy to make. And it would only take 2 yrs due to building pipelines.

They have perfected oil drilling up here… and have special equipement for drilling and directional/coil tubing.

upinak on June 18, 2008 at 3:39 PM

Kafir on June 18, 2008 at 3:33 PM

I think you’re right. The argument I’m having with these moderates and left-leaners, though, is not about how many years it will take to get more domestic oil to market, but whether or not it is even worthwhile to try. They claim it won’t make enough of a difference to even make it worth the effort of getting it out of the ground. I say it creates jobs, keeps revenue in the U.S., and has the potential to at least stabilize prices in the near-term, if not lower prices significantly.

They counter with the fear that, if oil production increases, we will all buy Hummers and drive them back and forth to the corner store 100 times per day if the price of gas drops by even a dime a gallon. They LIKE the high prices because, like Obama, they believe we’ll only change our behavior and come up with alternative energy sources when the pain becomes unbearable. My response to that is that domestic drilling might ease our pain enough to not completely crash our economy over the next 20-30 years while we build nuclear as fast as we can and come up with more viable energy alternatives. They seem to think that some miracle alternative exists already, and the evil Republicans and Big XXX executives are selfishly hiding it from us so that they can milk every last dollar of obscene oil profit before they reveal the cars that run on recycled baby garbage.

aero on June 18, 2008 at 3:47 PM

This is crap and pure political posturing. Why didn’t he do this when the Republicans controlled congress?

Spolitics on June 18, 2008 at 3:50 PM

cars that run on recycled baby garbage.

aero on June 18, 2008 at 3:47 PM

LOL! I started to type “recycled baby diapers” and changed it to “recycled garbage.” Forgot to delete the word “baby,” so it looks like I almost suggested cars that run on recycled babies. Given the new parody ad in which the mother begs John McCain to take her baby, perhaps I wasn’t too far off the mark. ;-)

aero on June 18, 2008 at 3:51 PM

But, oh the humanity of all that CO2 dumped into the atmosphere! Why, we’d have even more and lusher trees, plants and grasses! How can we stand for that?!? I guess we’ll just have to go out and breathe in all that oxygen the trees, plants and grasses outgas into the atmosphere.

Wildcatter1980 on June 18, 2008 at 3:52 PM

aero on June 18, 2008 at 3:47 PM

I hope you weren’t implying I am a left leaning or moderate.

I am all for drilling. Even if you have to drill on Mt Rushmore!

upinak on June 18, 2008 at 3:59 PM

JiangxiDad

I really doubt that the futures markets are being rigged by speculators. Start by looking at the spot (immediate delivery) market for crude oil. That market must physically clear, which is to say that every barrel must find a home. The only way to push that price up is to withhold production (economically VERY silly for a producer to do) or to take supply off the market by storing it.

If crude oil were being stored to push up the spot price, it would show up in crude inventory numbers, which it hasn’t. Also, there isn’t enough storage available in the world to push the overall spot crude price up by much. And if there were, speculators who got wind of it would “front-run” on the the storers by selling the forward market down ahead of the big bunch of supply that inevitably must hit the market.

So the physical market is clearly working and is not being gamed by speculators. And the futures prices are right in line with the spot prices. If someone were playing games with the futures they would have to disconnect from the physical market, but the relationship between spot and futures is perfectly reasonable.

Also note that any speculator who purchases a crude oil contract in the expectation that prices will rise must DO something with that contract prior to expiration (that is to say, SELL it) or take the physical crude oil and either store it (which they aren’t doing) or sell it. Buying something and selling it doesn’t result in the price being higher. It just creates commissions for brokers.

Nope. This isn’t the speculators, at least not in commodities.

jl on June 18, 2008 at 4:00 PM

I hope you weren’t implying I am a left leaning or moderate.

I am all for drilling. Even if you have to drill on Mt Rushmore!

upinak on June 18, 2008 at 3:59 PM

Never fear, dear upinak, I know you’re very conservative and sensibly in favor of drilling! I was talking about the left-leaning and moderate friends I originally cited as the ones making the “10-years-to-see-a-difference” argument against domestic drilling.

aero on June 18, 2008 at 4:02 PM

Even if you have to drill on Mt Rushmore!

upinak on June 18, 2008 at 3:59 PM

And, by the way, I got an amusing mental image of pipelines running out of Washington’s left nostril and Jefferson’s ears.

aero on June 18, 2008 at 4:07 PM

aero on June 18, 2008 at 4:07 PM

I have a VIVID imagination! :)

upinak on June 18, 2008 at 4:15 PM

As Glenn Beck pointed out an hour ago, couldn’t Bush overturn the executive order prohibiting offshore drilling right now, without Congress?

Suihei Deloi on June 18, 2008 at 1:17 PM

Makes more sense than nationalizing the oil companies.

Akzed on June 18, 2008 at 4:17 PM

AOL has a poll going. 74% of people favor lifting the ban on drilling. I think the Republicans found their issue. Now they just have to come up with a good excuse for why they didn’t do anything about it a long time ago. For cryin’ out loud… this was an issue in the 2000 campaign!

Spolitics on June 18, 2008 at 4:57 PM

Now they just have to come up with a good excuse for why they didn’t do anything about it a long time ago.
Spolitics on June 18, 2008 at 4:57 PM

It’s not like all they had to do was flip a switch.

There are democrats, environmental groups and whatnot fighting them at every turn. They pick and choose the things that they will do and who to respond to as they function in washington. Obviously as gas prices climb from the world wide demand for oil this finally has enough behind it for them to try again.

wise_man on June 18, 2008 at 5:01 PM

The House Republicans passed legislation every year that they were in the majority in repeated attempts to lift restrictions on domestic drilling. Every year, Democrats and RINOs in the Senate killed it. Then we lost the majority and every chance we ever had was gone. But don’t blame the House Republicans — at least they were trying, and trying hard, to get it done.

aero on June 18, 2008 at 5:06 PM

There are democrats, environmental groups and whatnot fighting them at every turn.

wise_man on June 18, 2008 at 5:01 PM

And they’re still there. Only now, the Republicans are a minority party. Gas prices have been rising since 2000. This is not a new issue.

Spolitics on June 18, 2008 at 5:12 PM

You’ve all made good points, as did the President. But what you are all overlooking is the actual reason for the present situation.

In law enforcement, we have a saying; When your investigation is at a standstill, and you don’t know where the evidence is pointing, think motive. In other words, to understand what someone is doing, understand why they want to do it.

The motivation of the progressive “enlightened elites” in this matter was well summed up by Joseph Lieberman in a recent op-ed on RCP. Put simply, for the last fifty years they have believed that our country, in fact Western civilization as a whole, is evil, is a failure, is a threat to the world in general, and must be destroyed at all costs to “save the world”. Over those five decades, progressives in general and Democrats in particular have repeatedly used every trick in the book to acheive this.

But their best trick, their “ace in the hole”, has been to strangle our energy production. They believe the best way to kill this “evil culture” is to “starve the Beast”- of energy. And that is precisely what they have been doing for thirty of those fifty years, going back to Jimmy Carter’s bans on nuclear plants, new oil refineries, and oil exploration.

They believe that once our society collapses, they will be able to rebuild it along “rational” lines- think a medieval culture of nobles and serfs (them nobles, the rest of us serfs). They believe that they will always have their “necessities” of life (Starbucks’ lattes, private limos, private jets), while the rest of us are working in the fields, spreading “night soil” in rice paddies by hand. (Ask any veteran of SEA what that is.)

They do not understand- or are too stupid to comprehend- that once a civilization’s technological base goes down, everything else goes with it.

And a civilizational collapse does not care if you are a card-carrying member of the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, or whatever- it is as likely to kill you as anyone else.

A lot of them do not understand that the sort of “starting from zero” they dream of is certain to kill a hell of a lot of people, and not just in the Third World. Some of them do understand it, and don’t care.

And some of them, to judge from the rhetoric of the “deep-ecos” they fawn over, understand it and are hoping for it, because they think there are too many people on Earth now. (Going back to Paul Ehrlich’s long-ago disproven “Population Bomb” theory, which many of this lot still believe in, regardless.)

As things stand now, thanks to the maneuvers they have pulled off in the last three decades, all they have to do to keep us on the road to societal oblivion is….nothing. We are in a mess now, and it will get worse unless decisive action is taken.

As long as they can prevent that sort of action, in the end, they win.

And the rest of us most likely will not be around to complain.

At which point these “enlightened ones” believe that they will be able to kick back, sip their lattes’, and spend the rest of eternity having themselves cloned over and over again and arguing about which of them is The One Most Perfect Socialist In History.

Well, it won’t happen that way. Unlike in Hollywood movies, the “enlightened ones” are no less vulnerable to a disaster than anyone else.

Even if they’re the ones who cause it.

Not that it will matter to the rest of us.

The answer is simple. Tell our “enlightened leaders” that they have two, and only two, choices; solve this problem now, or lose their jobs. If they try to play the old “bait and switch” game of “Wind and Sun”, or “Ethanol”, or “No Nukes”, or anything else, fire them.

Vote against any incumbent who supports the status quo in energy policy. Regardless of party.

And keep on doing it until there is a majority in our elected offices who remember who they work for.

clear ether!

eon

eon on June 18, 2008 at 5:18 PM

aero on June 18, 2008 at 5:06 PM

You are CORRECT! ANWR has been a huge issues (even before offshore was banned) for years. ANWR was ALMOST put thru a couple years ago… but 5 votes stopped it short!

THANK YOU INDEPENDENTS AND RINOS!

upinak on June 18, 2008 at 5:18 PM

aero on June 18, 2008 at 5:06 PM

Was John McCain one of them? That won’t bode well.

Spolitics on June 18, 2008 at 5:23 PM

And for the long term build nuclear plants…..lots of them. If we can generate enough electricity it can one day become cheap enough for things like electric cars.

Jill1066 on June 18, 2008 at 5:24 PM

Was John McCain one of them? That won’t bode well.

Spolitics on June 18, 2008 at 5:23 PM

If you are curious. Got to the Library of Congress and type in ANWR for a search. Go back as far as you can… it will usually show who voted for what concerning what bill or ammendment on what year. If I remember right McCain use to be PRO drilling, way back when.

upinak on June 18, 2008 at 5:28 PM

upinak on June 18, 2008 at 5:28 PM

I’m familiar with his ANWR record — at least since 2000. But what about the OCS? I don’t remember the Republicans ever making an issue out of that before. It seems to me they’re taking their lead from Newt on this.

Spolitics on June 18, 2008 at 5:31 PM

Spolitics on June 18, 2008 at 5:31 PM

OCS… I assume you are talking about Offshore?

Offshore is kind of a bastard, of sorts. Federal Regualtions have been in place for a while concerning drilling offshore. The Florida and Cuba issues has popped up the last couple of years as more and more people learned about it. But it is something about Castro being a turd and the U.S. and Cuba split where they are closest down the middle… but these two did not make any type of agreement if they would drill because of Carter and the fact that offshore wasn’t viably returnable. Here is a good Link.

Newt is giving me a headache.. he is also weirding me out. I kind of wonder if he is doing this to possibly run in 2012. Something isn’t right about why he is trying to stay in the spot light.

upinak on June 18, 2008 at 5:48 PM

I agree with the Dems, and most thoughtful people

I’ve found that, I too, only agree with thoughtful people. I plan to join with a Dem friend in selling thoughtfulness offsets.

BTW the Dems wil not do anything to improve the economy, or much else, before the election. They would consider anything to help as a vote for McCain.

snaggletoothie on June 18, 2008 at 5:59 PM

upinak on June 18, 2008 at 5:48 PM

He’s selling books. And you might be right about 2012. Thanks for the link. That article is over two years old which supports my point that this is not a new issue. Note the Republican senators were trying to do business with Castro, not lift the U.S. ban. Dumb. It’s NIMBY on a national scale.

Spolitics on June 18, 2008 at 6:07 PM

the Government{Investors} hand over tax free “reward” to whomever the person(s) responsable are.

Might work, never know! {Has always worked before}

upinak on June 18, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Fixed it.

Johan Klaus on June 18, 2008 at 6:24 PM

For refining, I’d add one more condition: an end to state formulations for gasoline.

Yep, we have to many boutique blends to gasoline..

Good points by the President.. all would help.

We also have TONS of coal.. :}

Chakra Hammer on June 18, 2008 at 7:18 PM

OCS… I assume you are talking about Offshore?

Offshore is kind of a bastard, of sorts. Federal Regualtions have been in place for a while concerning drilling offshore. The Florida and Cuba issues has popped up the last couple of years as more and more people learned about it. But it is something about Castro being a turd and the U.S. and Cuba split where they are closest down the middle… but these two did not make any type of agreement if they would drill because of Carter and the fact that offshore wasn’t viably returnable. Here is a good Link.

Newt is giving me a headache.. he is also weirding me out. I kind of wonder if he is doing this to possibly run in 2012. Something isn’t right about why he is trying to stay in the spot light.

upinak on June 18, 2008 at 5:48 PM

This is the definition of OCS..

http://ocsenergy.anl.gov/guide/ocs/index.cfm

Chakra Hammer on June 18, 2008 at 7:28 PM

The Outer Continental Shelf

The U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) as defined by the Federal government consists of the submerged lands, subsoil, and seabed, lying between the seaward extent of the States’ jurisdiction and the seaward extent of Federal jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction is defined under accepted principles of international law. Generally, the OCS begins 3-9 nautical miles from shore (depending on the state) and extends 200 nautical miles outward, or farther if the continental shelf extends beyond 200 nautical miles. Figure 2 shows the extent of the U.S. OCS. The Federal Government administers the submerged lands, subsoil, and seabed of the OCS.

Chakra Hammer on June 18, 2008 at 7:30 PM

Distance to the horizon

* For observers on the ground with eye-level at h = 5 ft 7 in (5.583 ft), the horizon appears at a distance of 2.89 miles.

* For observers standing on a hill or tower 100 ft in height, the horizon appears at a distance of 12.25 miles.

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

Chakra Hammer on June 18, 2008 at 7:41 PM

So standing flat on the a Beach (Generally, the OCS begins 3-9 nautical miles from shore (depending on the state) and extends 200 nautical miles outward, or farther)you wouldn’t see the rigs unless possibly on a hill even then they would be so tiny because they would be so far out with the naked eye.

Chakra Hammer on June 18, 2008 at 7:45 PM

I’m:

pro-drilling
pro-OCS drilling
pro-refinery construction
anti-boutique blends
anti-octane simplification (Mazztek!)

If they’re going to “cut down” on octane blends, you know they’ll cut off high octane, and while that shiny new Corvette may actually run on 88 octane, it will develop less power and WORSE GAS MILEAGE.

AND I’ll have to buy new computers for BOTH of my cars, along with scads of other people, and some cars will have to be replaced – you’re basically going to spend more than you’d save.

LEAVE MAH DAMNED OCTANE ALONE!!!

Yeah, most people use regular, but I’m tired of always being the one that’s told “no more soup for you!” One of those silly “freedom” things, we already have enough people imposing their preferences on others.

Heck, I can’t even get 93 around here, and 92 is marginal.

I’m going to have to start carrying Jerry-cans of Toluene around.

Merovign on June 18, 2008 at 9:40 PM

And personally I wouldn’t mind seeing a few oil rigs – it’s not like they’re going to be in front of every beach, they’re too expensive to just pepper the shelf with them!

Merovign on June 18, 2008 at 9:42 PM

I think they can also get rid of 3 grades of gas and go with just one.

My theory: 90 Octane.

Older cars, like mine, will run just fine on it. Newer cars will need a simple adjustment to the computer, if required at all, since they recommend 92 octane and most have fuel injection that ajusts the flow due to engine requirements. 3 times the ammount of gas. Easily double the ammount of ethanol, 10% required vice 13%, 11% or 8%.

Mazztek on June 18, 2008 at 2:18 PM

OK- lessee if I can answer this one intelligently :)-

I don’t know how old your car is, but if it was built after 1980, 87 octane should do just fine. Most- but not all-
cars sold in the US can at least tolerate the stuff because of devices like knock and oxygen sensors. Some cars need the higher octane because of compression ratios, combustion chamber design, or simply, because of performance requirements. The higher octane permits faster combustion- quite literally, more explosion. Ethanol tends to slow this process down rather a lot. That’s why you need more ethanol
per process to do the same work as gasoline. Ethanol does a fair job as a fuel stretcher, but it’s sorta like adding water to a 3/4 full glass of iced tea- you still have tea, but the flavor isn’t quite as strong. Now- you mention adjustment to the computer (or, as us geeks in auto electricals call them, modules). The various sensors that a modern engine carries all play a role in how that 87 octane works. In short, they all tell the module to dial up or dial back the spark timing for various reasons- one of the major ones being prevention of pre-detonation, which can severely damage an engine if allowed to go unchecked, especially with the low-grade that 87 is. You’re also correct that all cars now have fuel injection- the level of emissions control needed today is simply impossible with a carburetor. Having said all that, I will agree up to a point that we could slim down to two grades of fuel: 87 for us plebes, 92 (or perhaps up to say 97) for the few cars that do need it. The one thing to remember is in order to make that higher grade fuel, you need more oil, most especially in a post-tetraethyl lead world.

BillH on June 18, 2008 at 10:14 PM

Merovign on June 18, 2008 at 9:40 PM

Well, I really don’t see a problem with having the 92 octane(however it’s really not necessary for more vehicles), but just make it so that the “blend” of 92 octane is the same from state to state thats wht i;m talking about, thats not the way that it currently is.. we have so many blends now that its crazy.

Have say 87, 90, and 92 only 6 blends..(87, 90 and 92 or warm environments and 87, 90 and 92 for cold environments.. during the summer it could go down to just the 3 blends)

Chakra Hammer on June 18, 2008 at 11:04 PM

Well, I really don’t see a problem with having the 92 octane(however it’s really not necessary for more vehicles), but just make it so that the “blend” of 92 octane is the same from state to state thats wht i;m talking about, thats not the way that it currently is.. we have so many blends now that its crazy.

True enough, Chakra. One of the bigger bottlenecks to our already strained refining capacity is the need to produce the so-called “boutique” blends of gasoline. California is absofreakinglutely insane with this stuff. The Fed EPA has not helped by declaring areas of California over emissions limits they’ve set eons ago. Ergo, we have literally lost count of the different blends of gas needed for a particular region. CalEPA? You’d think since they want to believe Fed law doesn’t apply here, they would at least try to ameliorate the problem- smooth it over a bit. Uh, yeah. We’re talking about a hangover from the bad old Jerry Brown days. Now, other states are beginning to feel their oats- this problem isn’t over. Not by a long shot.

BillH on June 18, 2008 at 11:19 PM

Oh- and Merovign: I didn’t mean to imply your answer wasn’t intelligent. You just posted faster than I did- I use the tried and true hunt-and-peck method.

BillH on June 18, 2008 at 11:23 PM

OR.. in the summer they could make a blend for the coastal regions and inner cities or something.. (but still only have the 6 blends)

(actually only 2 whole sets got 87, 90, 92, the “coastal/inner city blend” would need to be a compromise made by the environmental groups) come on pick one..

Chakra Hammer on June 18, 2008 at 11:26 PM

Hmmm…Nobody has commented on the fire in Bush’s belly with that speech. It brooked no nonsense and had facts underlying it in terms of providing for our energy needs, making us less vulnerable to despotic regimes, and boosting our economy with solid jobs. I say, “Bravo! Keep the message strong and repeat it until the sense of it sinks into the voters’ awareness.”

Once we demonstrate some resolve on the issue based on the points President Bush listed (and adding coal, natural gas, and nuclear power into the mix), it wouldn’t surprise me if the oil-rich ME states began to produce more or release more into the market because some competition for the petrodollars was coming on board.

Surely alternatives will continue to be researched, but the viability of these energy sources may be just as far or further off as producing and refining the fuels that we now have at our disposal.

onlineanalyst on June 18, 2008 at 11:49 PM

aero on June 18, 2008 at 1:37 PM

If speculators are to blame for some of the increase and I do believe that is the case it is due to projections of a supply/demand curve failing come 2015. right now we have enough oil. the problem is when you run the numbers of increasing demand from China, India, russia, and Brazil among others in the coming decade then the supply will not be there.

Do to this the speculators are betting that the price will go up which it will. How do you solve this problem you change the supply side of the equation by 2015.

thus if the USa begins drilling and finding oil the speculators will NOT bid up the price because there will be plenty of supply coming into the market to met demand.

Therefore we can drill our way out of the problem and opening up drilling will impact the price today.

If we also start keep working on electric cars, nuclear power plants, solar, wind, biofuels, and hydrogen that will also impact the supply of oil in the fututre and the price will come down.

What will make this problem worse is if the dems are sucessful in restricting supply, decreasing profit margins and incentives to bring oil to market. then all bets are off and $10-12 gas/gal is a distinct possibility.

This is why it is not a good time to be in the market. If the reps lose this fight the economy will go into a massive depression caused by high energy usage.

unseen on June 19, 2008 at 12:45 AM

The Dems have blocked & will continue to block every effort to reduce the price of gas, because they know that most Americans are stupid enough to blame everything on the President.

jgapinoy on June 18, 2008 at 1:13 PM

…and the oil companies.

labrat on June 19, 2008 at 1:07 AM

Chakra Hammer on June 18, 2008 at 7:30 PM

Sorry I took so long to get back to you.

But FYI.. OCS for Federal/BLM is usually the start of the API numbers and that generally doesn’t mean that they are Offshore. At times, and in many cases, they are onshore! Especially here in Alaska.

If you don’t believe me, please ask TexasJew who will back me up. I hate dealing with Federal/BLM because they are slower then molasses on the north Slope at -50. I.E. they are always in stand still mode.

upinak on June 19, 2008 at 1:48 AM

Comment pages: 1 2


You must be logged in to post a comment.