How the hell is NAFTA benefiting the USA? For whatever cheap shit comes in, we end up paying through the gut for the benefit of Mexican aristocrats. Mexican wage earners do not benefit from NAFTA. If they did, they wouldn’t keep crashing our border to work illegally here. NAFTA has brought insanity to dinner.

It’s like saying, “We don’t have enough eggs, but getting chickens to lay more isn’t going to solve the problem.”

crazy_legs on June 23, 2008 at 11:54 AM

“We can’t drill our way out of it.”

Why oh why aren’t Republicans out hammering this stupidity every single day at every opportunity? That’s all they should talk about, no matter what the question is.

I’m amazed that the Democrats think this is a viable position. Must be the echo chamber.

However, I also do not think that increasing oil production will have an immediate effect on prices. It might some, but a slowdown in demand would be quicker. However, we still need to open new fields.

Terrye on June 23, 2008 at 3:26 PM

Terrye, I respectfully disagree. The market is as much a psychological construct as anything else, and fears of shortages drive it nuts. The Damns’ refusal to consider drilling psyche them as much as Venezuela’s posturing and Iran’s saber-rattling and general Third-World instability does.

No, we aren’t going back to the “Hummers for everyone!” mentality of a year or two past, but we don’t need to. We have pressure now to revise the energy paradigm of the developed and developing world, but we can’t do that if our economy and society dies first, so we do need oil and we do need to go for it now.

No one in the market is going to make money betting on further shortages when we are drilling like crazy and dumping ridiculous bans on refining and producing. They are out to make money, not throw it away. If supply-side economics worked, why won’t supply-side energy policy?

McCain needs to challenge BO, the next/first/only time he sees him in a real debate, to postulate his actions if Saudis oil facilities get hit. This is the National Security question of the day that the Marxists are ignoring. Terrorists have already tried to take out the Saudis’ capacity, and, with the world obviously panicked about oil supplies, that target’s desirability has increased exponentially; the next attack is only a matter of time.

We need a strong economy. We need independence. We need to begin to wean ourselves off foreign oil and distance ourselves from despotic regimes. Oh yeah, if we can survive without their oil, then we are also free to threaten their oil infrastructure if they get out of line by oh, building nukes or some such foolishness. BO is wrong on this, will McCain be right?

Obama would rather demagogue about “speculators” than actually do something about our oil situation. Increasing supply will do nothing to… increase supply? Do I have that right? What is this, the Twilight Zone?

Well we could deport the 15million illegal aliens. The poor in Mexico use less oil than the poor in America.

By deporting the vast millions of mexicians back home demand would drop.

win/win you will also reduce government outlays.

There is 2-3 TRILLION blls in the oil shales. We would become a net exporter of oil if this was tapped. The dollars would be coming back home.

It is really that simple.

jerseyman on June 23, 2008 at 12:51 PM

.
Jonathan Swift came up with ‘A Modest Proposal’ nearly 300 years ago.

In the excerpts, McCain directly hits Obama on taxes as well as his more burdensome plan on global warming and manages an indirect shot at Obama as a redistributionist.

As opposed to McCain’s less burdensome plan on global warming?

So sick of this crap.

jerseyman on June 23, 2008 at 12:57 PM

It’s not that ‘the things’ don’t work, it’s that we didn’t do them right. Our fault, not gubmint.

LimeyGeek on June 23, 2008 at 12:53 PM

The government can do all sorts of things to gain votes – even if they don’t work and make things worse.

jerseyman on June 23, 2008 at 12:51 PM

The gubmint can also wave its magic wand and ‘mandate’ higher efficiency standards.

Don’t ask about them about the costs of such standards though. Unless you like blank stares, that is.

To reduce demand, reduce the population, its simple economics.

If you do not want to drill for more oil, kill more people. Its ugly, but insn’t that what liberal, progressive, socialist policies all lead to?

A lot depends on where you’re drilling. If you are adding new wells to an existing field, all you have to do is drill the well (According to the series black gold, Texas oilmen can put 30, 35ft sections of pipe into the ground in a single day. That’s 1000 feet a day.) and connect the well to the existing pipeline network. Note: drilling and pipe laying can occur simultaneously.

The farther the well is from existing infrastructure, the slower the drilling goes and the longer it takes to lay the pipe.

jerseyman on June 23, 2008 at 12:44 PM

Maybe the Obama gubmint can launch a program of free pyjamas and walking shoes for old people during winter?

I’ve read that the US has more shale oil/tar sands than Saudi Arabia has oil. 10 to 15 years ago, the break even point for such oil was around $50/barrel. The break even point for coal to oil has dropped tremendously in recent years as well. The last time I saw the numbers, the US had enough coal to last over 1000 years.

As to your claim that increases in US production won’t have much impact on oil prices, you forget to factor in the inelastic nature of oil pricing. Just as small increases in demand can result in large increases in prices, small increases in supply can result in large decreases in prices. Additionally there is the benefit of not sending as much money overseas, which will strengthen the dollar.

Unless they can magically conjure petroleum from any old place, there remains a limit on how much oil we can dig out of the ground

Part of their technological advances address this very issue – where to drill. We have the upper hand here, as there are plenty of good, scientifically verified, leads to guide them. I don’t see the exploratory lead-time being a major factor. Not in the US, anyway.

Ali Naimi, Saudi Arabia’s energy minister said that it would take up to 3 years to get an additional 2.5 million b/d online on their existing infrastructure

With all due respect – consider the source. Although their infrastructure is grossly mismanaged, and somewhat behind-the-times, I find this claim very suspicious. These people have a history of ‘dragging their feet’ as a means of leveraging their economic position. If it’s true, then their reserves and technology are in far worse shape than I understood.

I hear some people saying it will take no time at all, and others saying it will take some time

The “no time at all” people are nuts – it’s a serious business, both in terms of investment, logistics and technology. Of course it’ll take ’some time’ to accomplish – welcome to reality. My understanding of things leads me to believe that new US operations could be productive within 3 years.

But as I’ve mentioned before, this doesn’t mean we have to wait 3 years before the price at the pump drops. Speculators will have no more sane reason to bid up the price per barrel once the longer-term future of our supply is secured. That means relatively prompt reductions in gas prices.

Idiot politicians are digging our graves with all their damnable restrictions and utterly incompetent ignorance of economics.

Getting off your ass and going to the store isn’t a “long term solution” to needing to eat, but you still have to do it or you run out of food.

They are looking for the single, magic, solution that will fix a problem.

The oil companies have become vastly more technologically sophisticated over the last 2-3 decades. Once they have a site, they can plan and execute an operation within precise time/resource/cost boundaries. They can produce results within a couple of years – starting from scratch.

LimeyGeek on June 23, 2008 at 12:25 PM

Ali Naimi, Saudi Arabia’s energy minister said that it would take up to 3 years to get an additional 2.5 million b/d online on their existing infrastructure. That’s not starting from scratch, and that’s from one of the biggest producers in the world, so I assume their technology wouldn’t be the issue.

I’m not totally disagreeing with you, I just don’t really understand the oil business. I hear some people saying it will take no time at all, and others saying it will take some time. I just don’t understand the process of pipe to tank enough to decide who I’m going to believe.

Let’s build more, if that’s the case, but then, THEY EFFING DON’T WANT US TO.