When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
You seem to be suggesting that the only acceptable drilling in ANWR would be drilling conducted by a private corporation. Why would that be?
Our government is not, and should not be, in the oil drilling business. As Mike’sA points out, if there’s one thing the government proves consistently, it’s that they can’t manage a budget and produce quality performance.
Unless you’re selling ANWR leases to China, most the small oil firms like Exxon and Chevron, will sell to the US because of proximity and lower overhead for shipping the product. Think, DW, think. You have a natural spring in your back yard. Want to sell your bottled water to the local community? Or ship it to France? Which is the wisest business move?
Maybe if we’re lucky, China will sell us the oil their drilling off Key West. Gawd this Congress is dumber than dirt…. I vote for *term limits* please! PLUS annual evalutions too.
MataH: I linked the open secrets list in my post, but was going for the “less is more” approach instead of printing it all out.
DW 5000
15 years ago
Think, DW, think. You have a natural spring in your back yard. Want to sell your bottled water to the local community? Or ship it to France? Which is the wisest business move?
You want to sell it to whoever will pay the most for it, unless something has changed in the way capitalism works. The price is set at “whatever the market will bear.” Whatever the price is, it’s going to be higher than “at cost.” Why? Because a private company is in business to make money, and they don’t sell their product at cost.
China and India are growing markets and would undoubtedly love to have access to ANWR oil. Why would OilCo (not to point any fingers at a particular firm actually in existence) pass that up if those guys are willing to pay more for it than we are here?
Conversely: let’s imagine that the U.S. wins the bidding war. Hooray! We’re willing to pay more for the oil than someone else! Well, that puts us right back in the same situation that we’re in now: high gas prices.
Why turn these drilling leases over to private companies? If we’re going to break thirty years of protection for ANWR and conceivably destroy it in the process, why figuratively bend over and ask the oil companies to shove a splintery stick up our backsides on top of it all?
The point is this: if we’re in a desperate situation, and this desperate situation is caused by high petroleum prices, it doesn’t make any sense to deliberately set out to pay more for the crude than we have to, and that would be the result of letting OilCo do the drilling. Being driven more by the profit motive than by the patriotic motive–having their own best interests at heart, rather than those of the U.S.–we would wind up paying more than we needed to for the petroleum, and there’s even a chance that we could be outbid on it, and that it would wind up in some other country anyway.
My proposal was simple, and I’m sorry if “simple” equals “too complex for Mike to understand.” Oil companies go ahead and do what they do–no nationalization of the oil industry. But if we’re going to break our pact with the people and drill on protected government land, then the government will do it and guarantee that we get all the proceeds, at cost.
Ignoring the laws of free market economics and fair trade are a sure prescription for shortages and higher prices DW… How do you think we got into this mess in the first place.
You just do not get it do you?
How old are you?
DW 5000
15 years ago
How old are you?
You’ve used that one already. Try something else.
It would seem, Mike, that your interest in drilling ANWR is not based on getting oil to Americans at the lowest possible cost, though you make noises to that effect.
Please explain how keeping the oil we drill to use for ourselves will lead to higher prices for that oil.
This ought to be interesting, assuming you can actually answer the question, rather than flailing about repeating “You just don’t get it” or “How old are you?” or “I’ve pooped my pants. What do I do now?”
Buzz
15 years ago
It would seem, Mike, that your interest in drilling ANWR is not based on getting oil to Americans at the lowest possible cost, though you make noises to that effect.
It seems that you think putting the government in charge of that is the way to do that. Because you know government organizations are just so efficient and cost effective in their methods.
BSE53
15 years ago
The solution to oil company profits is to invest in oil company stock.
Any other solution is antithetical to the free enterprise system.
Am I a fan of corporations? NO. Corporations serve the needs of one constituency– the shareholders! Become one.
Captialism is a horrible system– until you compare it to any other ism.
If it hasn’t become crystal clear to folks– the Democrats (or anybody that buys into anthropogenic global warming) have no intention of producing one more barrel of oil. They will block it at every turn, they will lay down in front of the drilling rigs, they will lie, cheat and dissemble to prevent one more barrel of oil from coming out of the ground!
And they will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER allow any production of oil shale or increased use of coal, since they produce more C02 than crude oil.
So prepare for gas prices to stabilize at $6.00 – $8.00 a gallon if the Democrats get their way.
Remember when Jimmy Carter proposed a 50 cent increase in the federal tax on gasoline in the 1970’s when gasoline was $1 a gallon– all in an effort to ‘wean’ us off of oil?
TIME Magazine, Dec 19, 1979- “Gasoline consumption is the root cause of the nation’s petro-woes, and any move to curtail it substantially would have broad and deep economic consequences. Though rising prices and the slowing economy have cut gasoline use by 4.7% this year, the fuel still accounts for just under 40% of the 18 million bbl. of oil that the U.S. burns each day. The Administration estimates that an immediate 50¢ boost in the cost of gasoline, which now sells at an average for all grades of $1.04 per gal., would cut consumption by 7%, the equivalent of about 500,000 bbl. of crude per day.
Though advocates of continued price controls often dispute the point, evidence proves that rising gasoline prices reduce consumption. Studies by Economist Alan Greenspan and others show that when prices go up 10%, gas sales from 1.5% to 2% per licensed driver. Argues Greenspan, “It is clear that a very large part of the driving public consciously or unconsciously is quite sensitive to price.”
A cut in consumption of the size that would result from a 50¢ per gal. tax would pay important dividends both domestically and internationally. In the U.S. it would amount to an immediate and forceful warning to all Americans that energy conservation is now a national imperative. Overseas it would help loosen the world market for petroleum, make it at least somewhat more difficult for OPEC to raise prices, reduce prices on the spot market and send a signal to the U.S.’s increasingly skeptical allies that the nation is exercising leadership to curb energy use. Even with a 50¢ tax, Americans would still have a comparatively easy ride; most Europeans, Japanese and other non-Americans pay $2 or more for the fuel.”
The Democrat solution? Corn based ethanol– which may be the worst possible solution available– unless you consider a potential world-wide food shortage (and the attendant reduction in the world’s population) and $8 a gallon gasoline a good thing.
Remember– ideologues are now in control of Congress– and try as they might to blame Bush for everything– it is Congress that will now set the energy policy for the country.
So tighten your belts Americans, because your future is going to be a lean one.
Please explain how keeping the oil we drill to use for ourselves will lead to higher prices for that oil.
Mike never said keeping the oil we drill would lead to higher prices. What he said was:
….anyone who thinks that big government can do that more effectively and efficiently at a lower cost might be interested in some stock for a buggy whip corporation I am selling.
Now why do you think the government, owning a single ANWR oil patch would cure our energy independence? What’s the point in the US owning a single oil source to feed our nation? With reasonable daily output, it would not serve the entire nation (can only physically pump so much at a time, ya know…). So who gets the cheap fuel? Who decides who the beneficiaries are of something we would be paying for as a nation?
We’d have to contract the drilling and refining out to the pros anyway, and that will set the cost of supply. Add the federal agency and employees that will manage this new government industry to the costs.
What will happen is just like what happens in the free market. The feds will assess the costs of the subcontractors drilling and refining, add the costs of the new govt expansion, then turn around and raise our taxes in order to cover the costs to provide *some* of us with cheap oil from a single source.
Nothing from the govt is free, and the cost will always be borne by us. You may feel better paying $3 for a gallon of gas at the pump, but you’ll actually be paying for it with less in your weekly paycheck. It not only all comes out in the wash, but the govt is then acting as “the middle man”. Now how bright is that in a pure business sense?
I really do want to know how old DW is. Next, I want to find out which public school system he is a product of.
DW 5000
15 years ago
Mata, I appreciate your addressing the actual issues of the thread.
Mike also wrote this:
Ignoring the laws of free market economics and fair trade are a sure prescription for shortages and higher prices DW
I’m assuming that he wrote this in response to my proposal, although that’s not a given. So far in this thread, he has posted some version of this three times:
I really do want to know how old DW is.
…And that doesn’t really seem to be directly addressing anything at all. Positing for the sake of argument that he is truly on topic, what he’s saying is that the laws of the free market and fair trade would raise the price of oil already in our possession. That’s like saying that an increase in the price of furniture would mean that I have to ante up more cash for a La-Z Boy that I already paid for. That’s not the way things work.
Now why do you think the government, owning a single ANWR oil patch would cure our energy independence? What’s the point in the US owning a single oil source to feed our nation?
Ah. Now we come to the point. Why do you think that OilCo, drilling a single ANWR oil patch, would cure our energy independence? If ANWR won’t do the job that everyone on the Right insists it will, what’s the point?
However much oil is in ANWR, be it six months’ or ten years’ supply, at the end of that time, we’re right back in the same place we were. The issue is not our dependence on foreign oil; the issue is our dependence on oil. Period. It’s a finite resource, and demand is not going down, or even leveling off–it’s increasing.
I’m feeling the high cost of gas–maybe more than a lot of people who are reading this. I live in California, so my price at the pump is already near the highest in the nation. On top of that, I have a car that gets middling gas mileage and a 90-mile-per-day round trip commute. Lord knows I want the price of gas to come down, but there are also other things I want, and preserving some little stretches of wilderness is one of them.
DW (stands for): I have already addressed the topic at hand at length in the post on which you are commenting and the subsequent comments.
However, that does not mean I am obligated to indulge your ignorant fantasies on the nature of markets and proper role of government ad nauseam.
BSE53
15 years ago
DW 5000 makes my point:
“However much oil is in ANWR, be it six months’ or ten years’ supply, at the end of that time, we’re right back in the same place we were. The issue is not our dependence on foreign oil; the issue is our dependence on oil. Period. It’s a finite resource, and demand is not going down, or even leveling off–it’s increasing.”
“…but there are also other things I want, and preserving some little stretches of wilderness is one of them.”
The Democrats are going to fight any attempt to increase our oil production– because they think it is the wrong thing to do. And they are in control!
‘It won’t make that much difference’– so let’s do nothing!
We need a rational energy policy– one that includes increased production, while rewarding conservation– something like a tax credit for driving a fuel efficient car.
We are making strides toward new technology– remember Bush’s proposal for Hydrogen powered cars? Bio-desiel has some promise. Wind? Suffering from NIMBY, plus storage issues (right now can only help peak demand). Solar? Might make a small contribution.
Nuclear? Has huge potential to reduce greenhouse gas emmisions but the Democrats will block any efforts to make new nuclear initiatives viable.
So in the end, the liberals will give lip service to the gasoline prices– “Lord knows I want the price of gas to come down”, but they will block any meaningful proposal that would actually offer practical solutions.
The Europeans pay $8 for a gallon of gas– and we know the Democrats pine to be liked by the Europeans. I wonder if $8 a gallon will make them like us?
Buzz
15 years ago
Now why do you think the government, owning a single ANWR oil patch would cure our energy independence? What’s the point in the US owning a single oil source to feed our nation?
Vs.
Ah. Now we come to the point. Why do you think that OilCo, drilling a single ANWR oil patch, would cure our energy independence?
That should be simple to understand why one is better than the other. Given your idiocy though DW, you can’t figure it out. The private sector is a whole hell of a lot more efficient at doing things than the government. They will get that oil out at a cheaper cost than if the government was in charge of it. You actually think the government would do a good job at running something they have zero experience in than companies who have been at it for decades?
Creating more bureacracy is not a good thing and that’s what your idea entails. Your idea of getting the oil for “free” would wind up costing us more.
DW, no one is suggesting ANWR alone is a cure. Dang, Mike, Curt and others have posted mondo graphics showing all the places that offer possibilities. Let me suggest my thoughts, since I can only speak for myself. But I would guess my attitude is shared.
INRE: Drilling for oil in general:
ANWR is only one of many places we should start because we *know* there is ample supply there to help offset some of the needs. With it’s proximity, we are the likely market for the best price. Because of the North Slope, we already have distribution lines reasonably in place. Think of it as building the second home on the block, after the first home already mandated the road and infrastructure were in place for the neighborhood.
However there are other places that should be explored and developed. Those that take priority are those where we know there is a supply. The secondary priority is exploration of the likely existance. All locations together should help ease the passage into the future.
And speaking of the future, and those of you who believe that 10 years from now, we’ll be in the same boat. I counter with this:
The combustion engine and petroleum based products aren’t going anywhere. When the wind doesn’t blow, the rain doesn’t fall, and the sun doesn’t shine… not to mention our limitations today on capacitance, we will always need oil.
*None* of the alternative technologies are 100% ready and affordable for today’s times. Thereby we need to buy more time to put the nose to the grindstone to finesse the technologies. Buying 10 years of R&D time, even if ANWR alone – of which many of you naysayers suggest we can do that – can make beaucoup difference in how far along other alternatives are. In the 80s, only a few had computers. A decade later, they were sitting in homes everywhere. One day we were using vinyl records, VHS and Beta. A decade later and CDs and DVDs were in the home.
10 years makes day and night difference with the discovery and progress it can bring.
Drilling for oil, gas, using shale, coal, nuclear PLUS the added growing and improving technologies of wind, solar and hydro promises a less stressful future. We tap into the alternatives when the wind blows, the sun shines and when the water flows. When it doesn’t, we fall back on good ol’ fashioned oil/coal/shale generated fuels. This is the only way our energy will be stable.
The problem here is everyone thinks too extreme. To *not* drill and refine is just as short sighted as banking on a future of oil energy *alone*. The answer is, and will always be, a combination. But we are not ready today to supplement that combo. And we don’t know that 10 years from now, it will be ready either. We can strive for it, but we also need to bank on what we know works today to maintain growth… hang, even stability.
But again, and I cannot stress this enough… we need to buy time. Cleaner technology is in place now for drilling and refining. They can do these tasks quicker than they used to… especially if you can cut thru the red tape and Congressional crap.
And we need to get it going now. When they get to a point where alternatives are more stable, and affordable, it will take time to ramp that production up to speed as well. Then, if the peak oil is hitting dangerously low levels, our demands on that supply will be greatly reduced.
You want to sell it to whoever will pay the most for it, unless something has changed in the way capitalism works. The price is set at “whatever the market will bear.”
Sorry… wrong answer. You sell it where ever it yields the most profit. If France will pay $15 US more for a gallon than your local community, but it costs you $14 US to ship it, plus import taxes and licensing, you sell it local. It is not about high price. It is about P & L.
Why turn these drilling leases over to private companies? If we’re going to break thirty years of protection for ANWR and conceivably destroy it in the process…
First of all, the North Slope has proven we will destroy nothing. Secondly, we’ve made tech strides even since them. As for private vs govt? That brings us to your next comment:
Oil companies go ahead and do what they do–no nationalization of the oil industry.
You keep ignoring an ugly fact INRE prices, oil companies and governments. 93%… do I need to repeat this louder? 93% are directly or indirectly controlled by governments. If your argument had a lick of logic, it is blown here. Were the majority of the oil controlled by the free market, history proves life would be considerably different.
To add yet another government to screw up the works only compounds the problem.
DW 5000
15 years ago
MataHarley:
Thereby we need to buy more time to put the nose to the grindstone to finesse the technologies.
I don’t see that the will is there right now to make this happen. The Right blogosphere is focusing myopically on ANWR, as if it will be the solution to all problems–most of the Righty posters I read are not looking at the big picture, the way you are.
The way people work is this: “Ah, now we’re drilling up there in Alaska. Problem solved! Money for alternative energy research? What are you, some kind of Commie? Next up on The Factor: ‘Solar power generation–an Islamofascist plot?'”
The sweet, sweet irony is that I have people here ridiculing my lack of understanding of supply and demand, then turning around and saying, “Yeah, baby! There’s no doubt that the increasing demand for this diminishing supply of oil will, like, totally lower the price! Adam Smith himself told me so!”
I don’t see that the will is there right now to make this happen.
DW, you don’t know what’s going on behind the scenes. There is a will by any private company to fill a marketing need. And the marketing need for alternative energy is massive. If they are not addressing it full bore, it’s because government constraints are making it cost ineffective. Again, I must point out how many drugs do not make it to the market because of licensing, R&D and government regulations.
ANWR is not a myopic focus. It is, however, a grand poster child of what is wrong with Congress…. i.e. refusing to opt for solutions to a looming problem. This is why it dominates the blogs. Not that it’s supposed to be the “only” source.
The sweet, sweet irony is that I have people here ridiculing my lack of understanding of supply and demand, then turning around and saying, “Yeah, baby! There’s no doubt that the increasing demand for this diminishing supply of oil will, like, totally lower the price!
Maybe I’ve missed something, but I’ve seen no one saying increasing demand for diminishing product lowers prices. What they’re repeated over and over is increased output by add’l production sources lowers prices. I think you agree with that, as a foundation.
The main argument with you is that you believe the government should take control and direct it to the US market for cost. And I’ve pointed out the “cost” to you will be masked, and offset, by a rise in your taxes. You’ll pay less at the pump, and more in taxes. Private companies will steer clear, and production output will diminish… just as demonstrated by Venezuela.
Reality is: The supply is diminishing because the demand from developing nations is increasing, and there is the same ol’ production facilities supplying the same ol’ amount. The Middle East guards their output because they know once their oil is depleted, they will return to being a sand dune, with little to offer the world. I’m not wholly surprised the Saudis finally agreed to increase output. They know if the world’s economy (and the US is not the only gas “crisis” location) is in the toilet, their market and profit fails anyway. What good is having rare expensive oil if no one can afford to buy it?
The cure is to increase production output worldwide…. which will lower the prices, and buy time for other technology R&D to catch up.
Our peak oil is not the cause of the lack of supply now. Peak oil is still debatable in many circles. But for safety’s sake, I’ll go with the idea that it takes a long time for Mother Nature to create it, and we may be pulling it out faster than she can keep up.
Oil companies are energy companies. They are more aware than you or I of any possible finite supply of their financial bloodline. As I said, they are in the energy business. When they can provide the market with what it demands, and still make enough to remain in business and continue progress on technology, they will do just that.
But not with a Obama presidency and this Congress.
The reality is, no matter how much we may want to do it, we are years away from widespread alternative energy.
What the future holds, most likely, will be a mixture of all sorts of different options, blended together to make a workable, effective whole.
A great deal of the mess that we find ourselves in today could be alleviated rather easily by getting the obstructionist mindset out of the way.
Until we can do that, we are going to continue digging ourselves into a rut.
There’s nothing I would like better than to see this country send a message to OPEC which says “Screw you….we don’t need you anymore!”
ANWR is one piece of the puzzle. Offshore deposits are another. Coal to oil is a third. There are lots of different options. Some have horizons that are further out than others. The coal to oil option seems to have the shortest lead time.
The point is that there are tons of different options out there. None of them alone will totally replace oil but meshed together we could see our dependence, even on our own oil, dramatically reduced.
The ANWR and offshore options will give us some breathing space to get the other things done.
The sweet, sweet irony is that I have people here ridiculing my lack of understanding of supply and demand, then turning around and saying, “Yeah, baby! There’s no doubt that the increasing demand for this diminishing supply of oil will, like, totally lower the price! Adam Smith himself told me so!”
Ummm…. you’re gonna have to show your work on that one.
DW 5000
15 years ago
Ummm…. you’re gonna have to show your work on that one.
Okay. Here were a couple of my main points in this thread:
1. Oil is a limited resource, even if we do open new areas up for drilling.
2. Demand is increasing for oil, not leveling off or dropping.
Except for one or two thoughtful and detailed posts in reply, most blew that off and rhapsodized about the wonders of the free market and how everything would be all right if we would just get off the oil companies’ backs.
Oil is the problem. Opening new areas up for drilling just postpones the inevitable. Arguing about friggin’ free market economic policies over this issue is like fighting over who gets to choose the next CD when your car is driving off the cliff. The priority needs to be to steer the car away from the cliff.
Of course I would fight drilling in ANWR, even if it were conducted by the government. I was interested, though, in seeing whether Mike’s push for opening up drilling there was motivated by a real desire to get more petroleum to Americans who need it or if it was motivated by a desire to do whatever he could to see big business get even bigger (4% margin or not–the oil companies are doing fine).
Given a situation in which he fished his wish–theoretical drilling in ANWR, albeit by (gasp!) a government drilling operation–he blew that off and fought for OilCo. The point for him is not acquiring the oil; clearly, it’s all about lining people’s pockets. Figuratively speaking, I offered Mike the option of choosing the next CD if we could just turn the car away from the edge of the cliff. He wasn’t interested.
It’s like banging my head into the wall to try and get through to that DW (stands for…).
How much more clear could I have made it than to present President Bush’s four part plan for the immediate future which leads to this goal:
In the long run, the solution is to reduce demand for oil by promoting alternative energy technologies. My administration has worked with Congress to invest in gas-saving technologies like advanced batteries and hydrogen fuel cells. We’ve mandated a large expansion in the use of alternative fuels. We’ve raised fuel efficiency standards to ambitious new levels. With all these steps, we are bringing America closer to the day when we can end our addiction to oil, which will allow us to become better stewards of the environment.
In the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil.
–President Bush
President Bush has been beating this drum for YEARS! What do I have to do, reprint every White House press release on the subject?
Meanwhile, Congress has done NOTHING!
Here’s some more news in case DW missed it:
President George W. Bush talks about energy issues and the importance of developing and using alternative fuels Thursday, Sept. 28, 2006, during a visit to the Hoover Public Safety Center in Hoover, Ala. The city has just opened an alternative fueling station to provide E85 (ethanol) and biodiesel fuels for public agency vehicles.
President George W. Bush and Dr. Subhendu Guha, President of United Solar Ovonic LLC, tour the company’s solar cell production area in Auburn Hills, Michigan, Monday, Feb. 20, 2006.
President George W. Bush views a hybrid vehicle powered by Lithium-ion batteries during a tour by Johnson Controls’ CEO John Barth, far right, and employee Mike Andrew at the Johnson Controls’ Battery Technology Center in Glendale, Wisconsin, Monday, Feb. 20, 2006.
President George W. Bush listens to AC Transit Employee Jamie Levin while standing in the doorway of a bus powered by fuel cell technology during a tour of the California Fuel Cell Partnership in West Sacramento, California, Saturday, April 22, 2006.
President George W. Bush gestures as he addresses an audience at the Limerick Generating Station in Limerick, Pa., Wednesday, May 24, 2006 , urging the the advancement of nuclear energy as part of a diversified U.S. energy policy that will make America less dependent on foreign sources of oil and more dependent on renewable sources of energy.
President George W. Bush greets audience members after his remarks on energy initiatives at Hotel Du Pont in Wilmington, Del., Wednesday, Jan. 24, 2007.
President George W. Bush holds a jar of spruce wood chips during a tour of the labs at Novozymes North America, Inc., Thursday, Feb. 22, 2007 in Franklinton, N.C., during a demonstration on how cellulosic ethanol can be produced from bio mass materials.
President George W. Bush talks to the media after a demonstration Monday, March 26, 2007, of alternative fuel vehicles on the South Lawn drive of the White House. Standing with him from left, are: Rick Wagoner, Chairman and CEO, General Motors Corporation; Alan Mulally, President and CEO, Ford Motor Company; Tom LaSorda, President and CEO, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, and Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters.
President George W. Bush stops to talk to the manufacturers of a converted plug-in hybrid electric vehicle during his tour of the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference 2008 Wednesday, March 5, 2008, at the Washington Convention Center in Washington, D.C.
President George W. Bush delivers his remarks on energy initiatives following his tour of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Athens, Ala., Thursday, June 21, 2007. Speaking about the energy needs of the nation President Bush said, “Nuclear power is America’s third leading source of electricity. It provides nearly 20 percent of our country’s electricity. Nuclear power is clean. It’s clean, domestic energy.”
President George W. Bush is shown alternative fuel development technology Tuesday, July 10, 2007, during his visit to GrafTech International, Ltd. in Parma, Ohio. GrafTech is developing new fuel cell components from natural graphite to increase efficiency and reliability.
Is that enough or would anyone like more?
The point is that Bush has been pushing, AGGRESSIVELY, for alternatives to petroleum, but fully realizes that until those are viable we MUST use the oil we have right here, right now!
Opening new areas up for drilling just postpones the inevitable. Arguing about friggin’ free market economic policies over this issue is like fighting over who gets to choose the next CD when your car is driving off the cliff.
Postponing is the game of life, DW. We postpone death in terminal cancer treatments using known remedies – all in the hope that a real cure would come along in the interim.
I cannot agree with your analogy that because something appears inevitable today (of which we really don’t know this about peak oil), we abandon the “chug along” solutions prematurely while seeking to advance alternatives. All indicative of a defeatist attitude towards life.
Mike’sA… stop running into the wall. I believe DW’s last “confession” post said it all. “Of course I would fight drilling in ANWR, even if it were conducted by the government. ” Reminiscent of a college student or professorial mentality. Only time and events can change it.
In the meantime, most of us would prefer your head stay intact…
Aye Chihuahua
15 years ago
OK DW, maybe I missed it. I’ll put all of it right here together so you can sort it out.
You said:
The sweet, sweet irony is that I have people here ridiculing my lack of understanding of supply and demand, then turning around and saying, “Yeah, baby! There’s no doubt that the increasing demand for this diminishing supply of oil will, like, totally lower the price! Adam Smith himself told me so!”
I replied:
Ummm…. you’re gonna have to show your work on that one.
To which you gave me:
Okay. Here were a couple of my main points in this thread:
1. Oil is a limited resource, even if we do open new areas up for drilling.
2. Demand is increasing for oil, not leveling off or dropping.
So, where did anyone tell you that:
increasing demand for this diminishing supply of oil will, like, totally lower the price
That’s what you claimed, so where is it?
Then we have this tidbit:
Of course I would fight drilling in ANWR, even if it were conducted by the government.
You. DW, are the perfect example of the obstructionist mindset.
You have no good reason not to drill, you just don’t wanna.
We know that oil production in existing fields is declining. But what we are learning is that there are VAST deposits of oil in areas which we are now only discovering. And we are finding new ways to recover oil economically (and ecologically safe) from oil shales that we previously could not have recovered.
There is enough oil from known deposits in the United States to provide all our petroleum needs with imports limited only to Canada. Those sources could fuel us easily for the next 20 years as we transition to petroleum alternatives using the taxes and royalties from our own domestic prouction to pay for the transition.
But if we follow the course libs have laid out, we won’t be able to afford to transition to an economic alternative and massive increases in energy cost will further constrict the economy preventing the growth which would make that transition possible.
Our government is not, and should not be, in the oil drilling business. As Mike’sA points out, if there’s one thing the government proves consistently, it’s that they can’t manage a budget and produce quality performance.
Unless you’re selling ANWR leases to China, most the small oil firms like Exxon and Chevron, will sell to the US because of proximity and lower overhead for shipping the product. Think, DW, think. You have a natural spring in your back yard. Want to sell your bottled water to the local community? Or ship it to France? Which is the wisest business move?
Maybe if we’re lucky, China will sell us the oil their drilling off Key West. Gawd this Congress is dumber than dirt…. I vote for *term limits* please! PLUS annual evalutions too.
MataH: I linked the open secrets list in my post, but was going for the “less is more” approach instead of printing it all out.
Think, DW, think. You have a natural spring in your back yard. Want to sell your bottled water to the local community? Or ship it to France? Which is the wisest business move?
You want to sell it to whoever will pay the most for it, unless something has changed in the way capitalism works. The price is set at “whatever the market will bear.” Whatever the price is, it’s going to be higher than “at cost.” Why? Because a private company is in business to make money, and they don’t sell their product at cost.
China and India are growing markets and would undoubtedly love to have access to ANWR oil. Why would OilCo (not to point any fingers at a particular firm actually in existence) pass that up if those guys are willing to pay more for it than we are here?
Conversely: let’s imagine that the U.S. wins the bidding war. Hooray! We’re willing to pay more for the oil than someone else! Well, that puts us right back in the same situation that we’re in now: high gas prices.
Why turn these drilling leases over to private companies? If we’re going to break thirty years of protection for ANWR and conceivably destroy it in the process, why figuratively bend over and ask the oil companies to shove a splintery stick up our backsides on top of it all?
The point is this: if we’re in a desperate situation, and this desperate situation is caused by high petroleum prices, it doesn’t make any sense to deliberately set out to pay more for the crude than we have to, and that would be the result of letting OilCo do the drilling. Being driven more by the profit motive than by the patriotic motive–having their own best interests at heart, rather than those of the U.S.–we would wind up paying more than we needed to for the petroleum, and there’s even a chance that we could be outbid on it, and that it would wind up in some other country anyway.
My proposal was simple, and I’m sorry if “simple” equals “too complex for Mike to understand.” Oil companies go ahead and do what they do–no nationalization of the oil industry. But if we’re going to break our pact with the people and drill on protected government land, then the government will do it and guarantee that we get all the proceeds, at cost.
Ignoring the laws of free market economics and fair trade are a sure prescription for shortages and higher prices DW… How do you think we got into this mess in the first place.
You just do not get it do you?
How old are you?
How old are you?
You’ve used that one already. Try something else.
It would seem, Mike, that your interest in drilling ANWR is not based on getting oil to Americans at the lowest possible cost, though you make noises to that effect.
Please explain how keeping the oil we drill to use for ourselves will lead to higher prices for that oil.
This ought to be interesting, assuming you can actually answer the question, rather than flailing about repeating “You just don’t get it” or “How old are you?” or “I’ve pooped my pants. What do I do now?”
It seems that you think putting the government in charge of that is the way to do that. Because you know government organizations are just so efficient and cost effective in their methods.
The solution to oil company profits is to invest in oil company stock.
Any other solution is antithetical to the free enterprise system.
Am I a fan of corporations? NO. Corporations serve the needs of one constituency– the shareholders! Become one.
Captialism is a horrible system– until you compare it to any other ism.
If it hasn’t become crystal clear to folks– the Democrats (or anybody that buys into anthropogenic global warming) have no intention of producing one more barrel of oil. They will block it at every turn, they will lay down in front of the drilling rigs, they will lie, cheat and dissemble to prevent one more barrel of oil from coming out of the ground!
And they will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER allow any production of oil shale or increased use of coal, since they produce more C02 than crude oil.
So prepare for gas prices to stabilize at $6.00 – $8.00 a gallon if the Democrats get their way.
Remember when Jimmy Carter proposed a 50 cent increase in the federal tax on gasoline in the 1970’s when gasoline was $1 a gallon– all in an effort to ‘wean’ us off of oil?
TIME Magazine, Dec 19, 1979- “Gasoline consumption is the root cause of the nation’s petro-woes, and any move to curtail it substantially would have broad and deep economic consequences. Though rising prices and the slowing economy have cut gasoline use by 4.7% this year, the fuel still accounts for just under 40% of the 18 million bbl. of oil that the U.S. burns each day. The Administration estimates that an immediate 50¢ boost in the cost of gasoline, which now sells at an average for all grades of $1.04 per gal., would cut consumption by 7%, the equivalent of about 500,000 bbl. of crude per day.
Though advocates of continued price controls often dispute the point, evidence proves that rising gasoline prices reduce consumption. Studies by Economist Alan Greenspan and others show that when prices go up 10%, gas sales from 1.5% to 2% per licensed driver. Argues Greenspan, “It is clear that a very large part of the driving public consciously or unconsciously is quite sensitive to price.”
A cut in consumption of the size that would result from a 50¢ per gal. tax would pay important dividends both domestically and internationally. In the U.S. it would amount to an immediate and forceful warning to all Americans that energy conservation is now a national imperative. Overseas it would help loosen the world market for petroleum, make it at least somewhat more difficult for OPEC to raise prices, reduce prices on the spot market and send a signal to the U.S.’s increasingly skeptical allies that the nation is exercising leadership to curb energy use. Even with a 50¢ tax, Americans would still have a comparatively easy ride; most Europeans, Japanese and other non-Americans pay $2 or more for the fuel.”
The Democrat solution? Corn based ethanol– which may be the worst possible solution available– unless you consider a potential world-wide food shortage (and the attendant reduction in the world’s population) and $8 a gallon gasoline a good thing.
Remember– ideologues are now in control of Congress– and try as they might to blame Bush for everything– it is Congress that will now set the energy policy for the country.
So tighten your belts Americans, because your future is going to be a lean one.
DW, you said:
Mike never said keeping the oil we drill would lead to higher prices. What he said was:
Now why do you think the government, owning a single ANWR oil patch would cure our energy independence? What’s the point in the US owning a single oil source to feed our nation? With reasonable daily output, it would not serve the entire nation (can only physically pump so much at a time, ya know…). So who gets the cheap fuel? Who decides who the beneficiaries are of something we would be paying for as a nation?
We’d have to contract the drilling and refining out to the pros anyway, and that will set the cost of supply. Add the federal agency and employees that will manage this new government industry to the costs.
What will happen is just like what happens in the free market. The feds will assess the costs of the subcontractors drilling and refining, add the costs of the new govt expansion, then turn around and raise our taxes in order to cover the costs to provide *some* of us with cheap oil from a single source.
Nothing from the govt is free, and the cost will always be borne by us. You may feel better paying $3 for a gallon of gas at the pump, but you’ll actually be paying for it with less in your weekly paycheck. It not only all comes out in the wash, but the govt is then acting as “the middle man”. Now how bright is that in a pure business sense?
I really do want to know how old DW is. Next, I want to find out which public school system he is a product of.
Mata, I appreciate your addressing the actual issues of the thread.
Mike also wrote this:
Ignoring the laws of free market economics and fair trade are a sure prescription for shortages and higher prices DW
I’m assuming that he wrote this in response to my proposal, although that’s not a given. So far in this thread, he has posted some version of this three times:
I really do want to know how old DW is.
…And that doesn’t really seem to be directly addressing anything at all. Positing for the sake of argument that he is truly on topic, what he’s saying is that the laws of the free market and fair trade would raise the price of oil already in our possession. That’s like saying that an increase in the price of furniture would mean that I have to ante up more cash for a La-Z Boy that I already paid for. That’s not the way things work.
Now why do you think the government, owning a single ANWR oil patch would cure our energy independence? What’s the point in the US owning a single oil source to feed our nation?
Ah. Now we come to the point. Why do you think that OilCo, drilling a single ANWR oil patch, would cure our energy independence? If ANWR won’t do the job that everyone on the Right insists it will, what’s the point?
However much oil is in ANWR, be it six months’ or ten years’ supply, at the end of that time, we’re right back in the same place we were. The issue is not our dependence on foreign oil; the issue is our dependence on oil. Period. It’s a finite resource, and demand is not going down, or even leveling off–it’s increasing.
I’m feeling the high cost of gas–maybe more than a lot of people who are reading this. I live in California, so my price at the pump is already near the highest in the nation. On top of that, I have a car that gets middling gas mileage and a 90-mile-per-day round trip commute. Lord knows I want the price of gas to come down, but there are also other things I want, and preserving some little stretches of wilderness is one of them.
UGH!
Mike. Dude.
I know it’s your blog, but one would think that some little shred of personal integrity would get you to address things like a grownup.
So far in this thread, you have done the following:
1. Attacked me in consecutive posts for a position that I never took;
2. Repeatedly namecalled;
3. Fallen back full-length on meaningless platitudes on the order of “THE INVISIBLE HAND RULEZ!!!ELEVENTY!!.”
Nowhere, though, have you directly addressed the actual thing I wrote. MataHarley did, and interacting with her is worthwhile and interesting.
Again, I know that it’s your blog, but have some pride, man. When you get like you are here, you’re an embarrassment to Michaels everywhere.
UGH!
As if on cue, you illustrate my point. Well done.
DW (stands for?): If I really wanted to get started on the namecalling you make it too easy.
You make next to no sense and seem oblvious to the rules that govern economics and trade.
I apologize if you are offended by my pointing this out but it is irrefutable.
Perhaps MataH can take you in hand and find something useful in your comments. She has a much higher tolerance for………. than I do.
DW (stands for?): If I really wanted to get started on the namecalling you make it too easy.
Now I’m afraid. Mike might start really, really, really calling me names now! Yikes!
At any rate, it’s easier than addressing the topic at hand.
No, that’s not what he is saying.
This is what he said:
The meaning of the entire statement changes when you drop off that one inconvenient word.
Economics 101 is really very basic. Any time you insert an external pressure or influence into supply and demand, prices will be influenced.
DW (stands for): I have already addressed the topic at hand at length in the post on which you are commenting and the subsequent comments.
However, that does not mean I am obligated to indulge your ignorant fantasies on the nature of markets and proper role of government ad nauseam.
DW 5000 makes my point:
“However much oil is in ANWR, be it six months’ or ten years’ supply, at the end of that time, we’re right back in the same place we were. The issue is not our dependence on foreign oil; the issue is our dependence on oil. Period. It’s a finite resource, and demand is not going down, or even leveling off–it’s increasing.”
“…but there are also other things I want, and preserving some little stretches of wilderness is one of them.”
The Democrats are going to fight any attempt to increase our oil production– because they think it is the wrong thing to do. And they are in control!
‘It won’t make that much difference’– so let’s do nothing!
We need a rational energy policy– one that includes increased production, while rewarding conservation– something like a tax credit for driving a fuel efficient car.
We are making strides toward new technology– remember Bush’s proposal for Hydrogen powered cars? Bio-desiel has some promise. Wind? Suffering from NIMBY, plus storage issues (right now can only help peak demand). Solar? Might make a small contribution.
Nuclear? Has huge potential to reduce greenhouse gas emmisions but the Democrats will block any efforts to make new nuclear initiatives viable.
So in the end, the liberals will give lip service to the gasoline prices– “Lord knows I want the price of gas to come down”, but they will block any meaningful proposal that would actually offer practical solutions.
The Europeans pay $8 for a gallon of gas– and we know the Democrats pine to be liked by the Europeans. I wonder if $8 a gallon will make them like us?
Vs.
That should be simple to understand why one is better than the other. Given your idiocy though DW, you can’t figure it out. The private sector is a whole hell of a lot more efficient at doing things than the government. They will get that oil out at a cheaper cost than if the government was in charge of it. You actually think the government would do a good job at running something they have zero experience in than companies who have been at it for decades?
Creating more bureacracy is not a good thing and that’s what your idea entails. Your idea of getting the oil for “free” would wind up costing us more.
DW, no one is suggesting ANWR alone is a cure. Dang, Mike, Curt and others have posted mondo graphics showing all the places that offer possibilities. Let me suggest my thoughts, since I can only speak for myself. But I would guess my attitude is shared.
INRE: Drilling for oil in general:
ANWR is only one of many places we should start because we *know* there is ample supply there to help offset some of the needs. With it’s proximity, we are the likely market for the best price. Because of the North Slope, we already have distribution lines reasonably in place. Think of it as building the second home on the block, after the first home already mandated the road and infrastructure were in place for the neighborhood.
However there are other places that should be explored and developed. Those that take priority are those where we know there is a supply. The secondary priority is exploration of the likely existance. All locations together should help ease the passage into the future.
And speaking of the future, and those of you who believe that 10 years from now, we’ll be in the same boat. I counter with this:
The combustion engine and petroleum based products aren’t going anywhere. When the wind doesn’t blow, the rain doesn’t fall, and the sun doesn’t shine… not to mention our limitations today on capacitance, we will always need oil.
*None* of the alternative technologies are 100% ready and affordable for today’s times. Thereby we need to buy more time to put the nose to the grindstone to finesse the technologies. Buying 10 years of R&D time, even if ANWR alone – of which many of you naysayers suggest we can do that – can make beaucoup difference in how far along other alternatives are. In the 80s, only a few had computers. A decade later, they were sitting in homes everywhere. One day we were using vinyl records, VHS and Beta. A decade later and CDs and DVDs were in the home.
10 years makes day and night difference with the discovery and progress it can bring.
Drilling for oil, gas, using shale, coal, nuclear PLUS the added growing and improving technologies of wind, solar and hydro promises a less stressful future. We tap into the alternatives when the wind blows, the sun shines and when the water flows. When it doesn’t, we fall back on good ol’ fashioned oil/coal/shale generated fuels. This is the only way our energy will be stable.
The problem here is everyone thinks too extreme. To *not* drill and refine is just as short sighted as banking on a future of oil energy *alone*. The answer is, and will always be, a combination. But we are not ready today to supplement that combo. And we don’t know that 10 years from now, it will be ready either. We can strive for it, but we also need to bank on what we know works today to maintain growth… hang, even stability.
But again, and I cannot stress this enough… we need to buy time. Cleaner technology is in place now for drilling and refining. They can do these tasks quicker than they used to… especially if you can cut thru the red tape and Congressional crap.
And we need to get it going now. When they get to a point where alternatives are more stable, and affordable, it will take time to ramp that production up to speed as well. Then, if the peak oil is hitting dangerously low levels, our demands on that supply will be greatly reduced.
DW, in response to your #53 post:
Sorry… wrong answer. You sell it where ever it yields the most profit. If France will pay $15 US more for a gallon than your local community, but it costs you $14 US to ship it, plus import taxes and licensing, you sell it local. It is not about high price. It is about P & L.
First of all, the North Slope has proven we will destroy nothing. Secondly, we’ve made tech strides even since them. As for private vs govt? That brings us to your next comment:
You keep ignoring an ugly fact INRE prices, oil companies and governments. 93%… do I need to repeat this louder? 93% are directly or indirectly controlled by governments. If your argument had a lick of logic, it is blown here. Were the majority of the oil controlled by the free market, history proves life would be considerably different.
To add yet another government to screw up the works only compounds the problem.
MataHarley:
I don’t see that the will is there right now to make this happen. The Right blogosphere is focusing myopically on ANWR, as if it will be the solution to all problems–most of the Righty posters I read are not looking at the big picture, the way you are.
The way people work is this: “Ah, now we’re drilling up there in Alaska. Problem solved! Money for alternative energy research? What are you, some kind of Commie? Next up on The Factor: ‘Solar power generation–an Islamofascist plot?'”
The sweet, sweet irony is that I have people here ridiculing my lack of understanding of supply and demand, then turning around and saying, “Yeah, baby! There’s no doubt that the increasing demand for this diminishing supply of oil will, like, totally lower the price! Adam Smith himself told me so!”
DW, you don’t know what’s going on behind the scenes. There is a will by any private company to fill a marketing need. And the marketing need for alternative energy is massive. If they are not addressing it full bore, it’s because government constraints are making it cost ineffective. Again, I must point out how many drugs do not make it to the market because of licensing, R&D and government regulations.
ANWR is not a myopic focus. It is, however, a grand poster child of what is wrong with Congress…. i.e. refusing to opt for solutions to a looming problem. This is why it dominates the blogs. Not that it’s supposed to be the “only” source.
Maybe I’ve missed something, but I’ve seen no one saying increasing demand for diminishing product lowers prices. What they’re repeated over and over is increased output by add’l production sources lowers prices. I think you agree with that, as a foundation.
The main argument with you is that you believe the government should take control and direct it to the US market for cost. And I’ve pointed out the “cost” to you will be masked, and offset, by a rise in your taxes. You’ll pay less at the pump, and more in taxes. Private companies will steer clear, and production output will diminish… just as demonstrated by Venezuela.
Reality is: The supply is diminishing because the demand from developing nations is increasing, and there is the same ol’ production facilities supplying the same ol’ amount. The Middle East guards their output because they know once their oil is depleted, they will return to being a sand dune, with little to offer the world. I’m not wholly surprised the Saudis finally agreed to increase output. They know if the world’s economy (and the US is not the only gas “crisis” location) is in the toilet, their market and profit fails anyway. What good is having rare expensive oil if no one can afford to buy it?
The cure is to increase production output worldwide…. which will lower the prices, and buy time for other technology R&D to catch up.
Our peak oil is not the cause of the lack of supply now. Peak oil is still debatable in many circles. But for safety’s sake, I’ll go with the idea that it takes a long time for Mother Nature to create it, and we may be pulling it out faster than she can keep up.
Oil companies are energy companies. They are more aware than you or I of any possible finite supply of their financial bloodline. As I said, they are in the energy business. When they can provide the market with what it demands, and still make enough to remain in business and continue progress on technology, they will do just that.
But not with a Obama presidency and this Congress.
The reality is, no matter how much we may want to do it, we are years away from widespread alternative energy.
What the future holds, most likely, will be a mixture of all sorts of different options, blended together to make a workable, effective whole.
A great deal of the mess that we find ourselves in today could be alleviated rather easily by getting the obstructionist mindset out of the way.
Until we can do that, we are going to continue digging ourselves into a rut.
There’s nothing I would like better than to see this country send a message to OPEC which says “Screw you….we don’t need you anymore!”
ANWR is one piece of the puzzle. Offshore deposits are another. Coal to oil is a third. There are lots of different options. Some have horizons that are further out than others. The coal to oil option seems to have the shortest lead time.
The point is that there are tons of different options out there. None of them alone will totally replace oil but meshed together we could see our dependence, even on our own oil, dramatically reduced.
The ANWR and offshore options will give us some breathing space to get the other things done.
Ummm…. you’re gonna have to show your work on that one.
Okay. Here were a couple of my main points in this thread:
1. Oil is a limited resource, even if we do open new areas up for drilling.
2. Demand is increasing for oil, not leveling off or dropping.
Except for one or two thoughtful and detailed posts in reply, most blew that off and rhapsodized about the wonders of the free market and how everything would be all right if we would just get off the oil companies’ backs.
Oil is the problem. Opening new areas up for drilling just postpones the inevitable. Arguing about friggin’ free market economic policies over this issue is like fighting over who gets to choose the next CD when your car is driving off the cliff. The priority needs to be to steer the car away from the cliff.
Of course I would fight drilling in ANWR, even if it were conducted by the government. I was interested, though, in seeing whether Mike’s push for opening up drilling there was motivated by a real desire to get more petroleum to Americans who need it or if it was motivated by a desire to do whatever he could to see big business get even bigger (4% margin or not–the oil companies are doing fine).
Given a situation in which he fished his wish–theoretical drilling in ANWR, albeit by (gasp!) a government drilling operation–he blew that off and fought for OilCo. The point for him is not acquiring the oil; clearly, it’s all about lining people’s pockets. Figuratively speaking, I offered Mike the option of choosing the next CD if we could just turn the car away from the edge of the cliff. He wasn’t interested.
So, DW, can we assume you’re not much on capitalism in general? Or is it only capitalism that is “too successful”?
It’s like banging my head into the wall to try and get through to that DW (stands for…).
How much more clear could I have made it than to present President Bush’s four part plan for the immediate future which leads to this goal:
President Bush has been beating this drum for YEARS! What do I have to do, reprint every White House press release on the subject?
Meanwhile, Congress has done NOTHING!
Here’s some more news in case DW missed it:
President George W. Bush talks about energy issues and the importance of developing and using alternative fuels Thursday, Sept. 28, 2006, during a visit to the Hoover Public Safety Center in Hoover, Ala. The city has just opened an alternative fueling station to provide E85 (ethanol) and biodiesel fuels for public agency vehicles.
President George W. Bush and Dr. Subhendu Guha, President of United Solar Ovonic LLC, tour the company’s solar cell production area in Auburn Hills, Michigan, Monday, Feb. 20, 2006.
President George W. Bush views a hybrid vehicle powered by Lithium-ion batteries during a tour by Johnson Controls’ CEO John Barth, far right, and employee Mike Andrew at the Johnson Controls’ Battery Technology Center in Glendale, Wisconsin, Monday, Feb. 20, 2006.
President George W. Bush listens to AC Transit Employee Jamie Levin while standing in the doorway of a bus powered by fuel cell technology during a tour of the California Fuel Cell Partnership in West Sacramento, California, Saturday, April 22, 2006.
President George W. Bush gestures as he addresses an audience at the Limerick Generating Station in Limerick, Pa., Wednesday, May 24, 2006 , urging the the advancement of nuclear energy as part of a diversified U.S. energy policy that will make America less dependent on foreign sources of oil and more dependent on renewable sources of energy.
President George W. Bush greets audience members after his remarks on energy initiatives at Hotel Du Pont in Wilmington, Del., Wednesday, Jan. 24, 2007.
President George W. Bush holds a jar of spruce wood chips during a tour of the labs at Novozymes North America, Inc., Thursday, Feb. 22, 2007 in Franklinton, N.C., during a demonstration on how cellulosic ethanol can be produced from bio mass materials.
President George W. Bush talks to the media after a demonstration Monday, March 26, 2007, of alternative fuel vehicles on the South Lawn drive of the White House. Standing with him from left, are: Rick Wagoner, Chairman and CEO, General Motors Corporation; Alan Mulally, President and CEO, Ford Motor Company; Tom LaSorda, President and CEO, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, and Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters.
President George W. Bush stops to talk to the manufacturers of a converted plug-in hybrid electric vehicle during his tour of the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference 2008 Wednesday, March 5, 2008, at the Washington Convention Center in Washington, D.C.
President George W. Bush delivers his remarks on energy initiatives following his tour of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Athens, Ala., Thursday, June 21, 2007. Speaking about the energy needs of the nation President Bush said, “Nuclear power is America’s third leading source of electricity. It provides nearly 20 percent of our country’s electricity. Nuclear power is clean. It’s clean, domestic energy.”
President George W. Bush is shown alternative fuel development technology Tuesday, July 10, 2007, during his visit to GrafTech International, Ltd. in Parma, Ohio. GrafTech is developing new fuel cell components from natural graphite to increase efficiency and reliability.
Is that enough or would anyone like more?
The point is that Bush has been pushing, AGGRESSIVELY, for alternatives to petroleum, but fully realizes that until those are viable we MUST use the oil we have right here, right now!
Postponing is the game of life, DW. We postpone death in terminal cancer treatments using known remedies – all in the hope that a real cure would come along in the interim.
I cannot agree with your analogy that because something appears inevitable today (of which we really don’t know this about peak oil), we abandon the “chug along” solutions prematurely while seeking to advance alternatives. All indicative of a defeatist attitude towards life.
Mike’sA… stop running into the wall. I believe DW’s last “confession” post said it all. “Of course I would fight drilling in ANWR, even if it were conducted by the government. ” Reminiscent of a college student or professorial mentality. Only time and events can change it.
In the meantime, most of us would prefer your head stay intact…
OK DW, maybe I missed it. I’ll put all of it right here together so you can sort it out.
You said:
I replied:
To which you gave me:
So, where did anyone tell you that:
That’s what you claimed, so where is it?
Then we have this tidbit:
You. DW, are the perfect example of the obstructionist mindset.
You have no good reason not to drill, you just don’t wanna.
Sort of like a two year old child.
We know that oil production in existing fields is declining. But what we are learning is that there are VAST deposits of oil in areas which we are now only discovering. And we are finding new ways to recover oil economically (and ecologically safe) from oil shales that we previously could not have recovered.
There is enough oil from known deposits in the United States to provide all our petroleum needs with imports limited only to Canada. Those sources could fuel us easily for the next 20 years as we transition to petroleum alternatives using the taxes and royalties from our own domestic prouction to pay for the transition.
But if we follow the course libs have laid out, we won’t be able to afford to transition to an economic alternative and massive increases in energy cost will further constrict the economy preventing the growth which would make that transition possible.