No! No! A thousand times, No!
We ought to only begin offshore drilling for oil (or drilling in ANWR) if it makes sense and it makes none.
Bush/McCain have begun to push for Congress to end the ban on offshore drilling, playing on the concerns people have about the price of oil. The Bushmccain argument goes like this:
1. Oil/gas is expensive and getting expensiver every day.
2. Expensive oil/gas is bad.
3. There is oil available off our shores and in ANWR.
[and here comes the BIG LIE...]
4. If we drill there for oil, then our gas prices will go down and we will be more energy independent.
It sounds like this argument might be winning over the hearts and minds of the American people but if we're going to seriously debate this idea, then the REAL facts need to be presented. The Bushmccain approach is a LIE and either they know it and are telling a lie deliberately or they are criminally ignorant of the easily attained facts.
The facts:
1. Oil is a finite resource.
2. The price of oil is increasing because demand is up and supply is tapering off.
3. The price of oil will continue to increase. Why? See points 1 & 2.
4. Drilling offshore or in ANWR would provide SOME relief to our shortages - in 10-20 years.
5. By drilling offshore or in ANWR for oil, Bush's own economists confirm that in 10-20 years we WILL have some relief in gas prices.
6. That relief is estimated by Bush's own economists to be about .50-.75... A BARREL!
7. Right now, a barrel of oil costs about $130 (up from $30 when Bush took office).
8. So, subtracting .75 from that $130/barrel (or whatever it is up to in 2028) comes to... let's see, $129.25/barrel.
9. Or, by the time that "savings" is passed down to the gas pump, that would be... about nothing.
Don't believe the hype. Bushmccain is telling a bald-faced lie or repeating ignorant nonsense.
We need to reduce the amount of the finite resources we use and learn to live within our means. THAT is the one and only answer.
References for the numbers can be found here, here, here or here, or here (at the US Energy Information Administration), or any place sound, fiscally responsible policy is discussed.
"The Interior Department offered a wide range of estimates of how much oil might be within reach of U.S. offshore drilling in a 2006 report. It estimated that the Outer Continental Shelf could hold 115.4 billion barrels. However, it also estimated that recoverable reserves off U.S. coasts in areas now banned from production probably hold only about 19 billion barrels....
...if there are 19 billion barrels in the areas McCain would open to drilling, that's enough to provide about 920 days, or about 2.5 years, of current U.S. consumption."
Yeah. That'll be helpful.
The real problem with gas prices in the US right now is not just the price of a barrel of oil, but the supply of gasoline. That supply depends on refinery capacity, which oil companies have been steadily and purposefully decreasing for years. There hasn't been a new refinery built in this country since the mid 70's and before anyone starts jumping on environmentalists for that, the oil industry execs themselves have repeatedly stated that those environmental regulations have nothing to do with it. According to them, the decrease in supply is pure market economics... decrease the supply and the price of gas increases.
ReplyDeleteBTW, don't forget that if we increased the amount of oil on the open market, OPEC would likely manipulate the market enough to completely negate any possible $0.75 benefit. The C does stand for Cartel, after all.
So, when so-called conservatives complain about the price of oil, just remind them this is what happens in a free market. Deal with it, quit whining, and go buy a bike.
And as you point out, drilling in ANWAR is just as much as an obvious and pathetic attempt to pander to voters as a gas-tax holiday.
"In 20 years..."
ReplyDeleteIf...20 years ago...we would have developed those resources...we'd not be paying out the ASS now!
Thanks Democrats...and...
Thanks, you environmental wackos!
Brother, if it bothers you that much, I'll pay you the buck you would have saved this year from all the savings...
ReplyDeleteAgain, the point is responsibility. Personal responsibility. Fiscal responsibility. Societal responsibility. Living within our means. Not accepting gov't welfare if you don't need it.
ReplyDeleteWhere have all the Good Conservatives - the ones who believe in personal and fiscal responsibility - gone???
And, now a pop quiz.
ReplyDeletePrice is a function of supply and demand, but what is meant by "supply"?
A. The total supply of a commodity in the entire universe. Assuming a constant demand, for any finite resource, the price will always increase over time.
B. The total known supply of a resource, so if we discover that the planet Neptune has a moon covered in corn, the price of corn will immediately drop.
C. The total supply that is available in the market, so increasing this total -- e.g., increasing the supply in the oil market by drilling and refining more crude -- will cause the price to drop, given a constant demand.
It's a trick question. The answer is:
D. The number required to make the math work, in order to make price appear to be monotonically increasing as yet another indicator that we need to Live Within Our Means [TM] and support the economic regulations that will (cough) encourage us to do so.
Memorize the underlying principle: the term is whatever it needs to be in order to make the argument work.
You will find the principle has innumerable applications. With a waving of the wand, massive economic regulation can become a matter of responsiblity and even a hallmark of political conservatism. Never mind the principles of economic freedom and limited government, much less the idea that our government is limited to those powers specifically enumerated with the Constitution: conservatism doesn't really mean any of those things (at least at the moment), but those things don't advance the argument.
"If...20 years ago...we would have developed those resources...we'd not be paying out the ASS now!
ReplyDeleteThanks Democrats...and..."
No. Thanks to Ronald Reagan for dumping the progressive policies of renewable energy Jimmy Carter was working toward. Had we continued on with his policies we would certainly not be dependent upon oil as we are today.
Carter Tried To Stop Bush's Energy Disasters - 28 Years Ago
So the position of some is to continue these silly policies for another 20 years, until we can get oil out of ANWAR instead of spending the next 20 years developing cost effective efficient technologies here in this country that will mean jobs and new industries right here on our own soil. Instead of competing with the world on what we can do best: innovation, invention, industry, we'll try to compete with them on a resource we have so little of in the first place. Brilliant. Yeah, that's worked so well so far.
ReplyDeleteIt's also funny how now some so-called conservatives here are blaming the free market for these problems. LOL. No one in the oil industry argues that the domestic gas refining capability has gone up, they fully admit it has decreased, but as John Adams said, facts are tricky things. So, I guess we'll just ignore them and drill in ANWAR in order to make the math work. Gotta love the irony.
"Had we continued on with [Carter's] policies we would certainly not be dependent upon oil as we are today."
ReplyDeleteThis is the BOLDEST lie I've seen come from one of Dan's camp-followers. You can't prove this... one article doesn't make it so. Furthermore, what were you smoking in the seventies? Do you even remember what Carter did to gas prices in the seventies? Because of Carter's policies the Misery Index reached an all-time high at 21.98%, more than double the highest rate under G.W.'s watch.
Good grief, Marty! Do you even remember the gas lines? Do you remember the inflation? Under Reagan the index dropped, at it's lowest, to 7.70%. And you expect us to believe our problems today are the fault of Reagan!?
No. The reason we are at the mercy of foreign oil is because of Democrats refusal to allow new drilling, the building of new refineries, or the construction of new nuclear facilities.
And Dan, no one is saying that if we began drilling today, that the price would immediately come down. Talk about strawmen! And until this guy is able to make his renewable source produce 200,000 barrels of crude a day, we need the oil we have within our own borders, within our own reach.
Calling it a lie, Dan, doesn't make it so. You are, quite simply, wrong on this.
And Alan, it's ANWR, not ANWAR.
ReplyDeleteC'MON, DAN! The HUFFINGTON POST!!! 326 words!?
ReplyDeleteWhy WOULDN"T someone posting there agree with you? Could you not find a more balanced source than the Huffington Post!!???
And your other piece at UPI? 151 words!! VERY authoritative. Carries a LOT of weight! Yessiree, Bob!
"This is the BOLDEST lie I've seen come from one of Dan's camp-followers"
ReplyDeleteSimmer down there fella. It's only an opinion. Feel free to disagree.
"Good grief, Marty! Do you even remember the gas lines?"
Nope. Don't remember any lines here in Texas. Seems as though I saw them on TV, but can't remember experiencing it myself. And I only remember gas prices getting up to about $1.87 a gallon.
Those good ole days!
I do remember a lot of outrage coming from republicans however.
Where is their outrage now?
Eric, the essays have plenty of sources cited. Especially the Huffington piece. The numbers come from Bush's people. Do you doubt them? You'll have to take it up with Bush.
ReplyDeleteI'd have to say that attacking the authors instead of the evidence is not the best way to argue. Do you disbelieve the point that it will take ~20 years and only save .75? Then what evidence do you have that it's incorrect?
It's not enough to kill the messenger.
And Eric, Carter most certainly spoke prophetically when he tried to implement changes that would have reduced our dependence on oil. That he was ignored is not Carter's fault.
ReplyDeleteBubba said:
ReplyDeleteWith a waving of the wand, massive economic regulation can become a matter of responsiblity and even a hallmark of political conservatism.
I'm not exactly sure what "massive regulation" you're talking about. What I'm advocating is that our gov't
1. END some of their regulation that gives welfare to motorists and corporations
2. END some of their policies that encourage hyperconsumption of oil and thus, our dependence upon it
These two steps would have the effect of raising our gas prices to something closer to its TRUE costs which will, in turn, allow the Market to decrease driving
And also,
3. I DO encourage the gov't to set reasonable policies that protects our national environment.
People don't get to drop their junk and toxins in Bubba's back yard because that is only responsible and we have outlawed such actions. I want our beaches and national parks similarly protected.
The thing is, we CAN NOT consume infinitely and excessively a finite resource and it is the height of foolish, childish irresponsibility to try to do so and insane as governmental policy to encourage it, as we have done.
It is indeed all about responsibility.
Where have all the conservatives gone?
no one is saying that if we began drilling today, that the price would immediately come down... Calling it a lie, Dan, doesn't make it so. You are, quite simply, wrong on this.
ReplyDeleteHey, I allowed that it could be plain ignorance, as well.
The way that Bushmccain are speaking, they are implying that "We need to act now so we are not dependent upon foreign oil. Take action to ease the price of gas!"
Here is what Bush said:
"In the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil, and that means we need to increase supply here at home," Bush said, adding that there is no more pressing issue for many Americans than gas prices.
Here is what McCain said:
"In the short term, this requires more domestic production, especially in the Outer Continental Shelf. We need to encourage production in ways that are consistent with sensible standards of environmental protection. And in states that permit exploration, there must be a sharing of benefits between state and federal governments. But as a matter of fairness to the American people, we must assure affordable fuel for America by increasing domestic production,"
Same script, same lies, same innuendo.
"In the short run..."
"assure affordable fuel..."
They are selling a lie. To be honest, I don't think they are ignorant. It's possible, but I doubt it. I think they are pandering to the public by suggesting that REPUBLICANS WILL ACT TO END OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN FUEL AND SAVE MONEY NOW AT THE GAS PUMPS. IT'S THE DEMS WHO ARE STOPPING US.
It is a lie and a damnable one, at that, as what we need to do, more than anything else, is begin living within our means.
"And Alan, it's ANWR, not ANWAR."
ReplyDeleteThanks for the typo-patrol, EL. In my defense I can only offer that I was hurrying up because dinner was ready. Many apologies for sullying your retinas with such an obvious and egregious mistake. ;)
Dan your “argument” ignores the cascading effect of increased oil supply in the future has on the commodity speculators. It’s no different than gold. If you’re an investor who owns a lot of gold but you know for a fact that the market will be flooded with gold in the near future then you will sell what you have now as the price would be higher. Right now oil commodities are being traded at a very high price and that has an effect on the cost per barrel. Allow for future supply increase and suddenly the price drops as the market is flooded with sellers which in turn brings down the cost per barrel.
ReplyDeleteNow is the time where I point out your post’s logical fallacies:
Appeal to Belief
Appeal to Ridicule
Biased Sample
Hasty Generalization
Factual Error
Oversimplification
You can find an excellent discussion of the topic at hand HERE.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Marty.
ReplyDeleteSo, Edwin, you expect oil prices will be going down significantly? I wouldn't count on it.
Not only is oil a finite resource, like gold, it is a resource that gets used up and is gone forever - unlike Gold.
Naming logical fallacies and proving them are two different things. I've appealed to belief?
[1. Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
2. Therefore X is true. ]
Where have I done that?
Where have I appealed to ridicule? In suggesting that it is a lie to think that we can save gas money and decrease our dependency by drilling offshore/ANWR? That's not ridicule, it is reality, so say Bush's experts.
Citing logical fallacies by name and proving them are two different things, friend.
"So, when so-called conservatives complain about the price of oil, just remind them this is what happens in a free market. Deal with it, quit whining, and go buy a bike."
ReplyDeleteThat's how I have felt all along; I cringe when I hear anybody, especially my fellow conservatives say "the government oughta do something!"
I checked Cato's site and they agree that it would take about a decade to bring any price relief, though it did not say how much. I think it is really a matter of the costs/benefits; if there is significant benefit at little risk to what the people want in ANWR, then we should do it. If there is little/no benefit, don't do it.
Common sense words from my favorite True Conservative! May your tribe increase!
ReplyDeleteIts to late now anyhow. The no drill here parties who ever they are have screwed this country. No nuke plants no oil drilling, No coal to oil plants. There is always a reason to stop it.
ReplyDeleteThey say we need electric cars. We need this we need that. Well science hasn't given us the advancement yet to do that. It may have 20 to 30 years down the road. But NOoooo we can't do anything.
So now we are all broke. Nothing to really replace oil. Stock-market going to hell. And winter coming with people no where to turn to keep warm. Food going out of this world. Welcome to your new world.
I am guessing it will hit the big cities first. People cold wanting food. They will turn to gangs. Rich people most likely will try to leave the area. Killing and stealing will be the common. So the food and fuel will run short and they will spread across the nation.
Welcome 3rd world USA. Welcome Mad Max come to life.
I know its easy for people with larger bank accts to say well hey, 8 bucks a gal for gas isn;t that bad. Or we need new electric cars etc. Well us normal 40,000 a year working people are already broke.
You well to do people think your going to escape the mess coming down the road? HAHA well I live in areas that you would not go now. And its headed straight towards you like a grizzly bear. You think millions of starving, freezing people are going to walk past your warm cozy mansion when this all gets as bad I believe it is headed? They see you all as the reason it is happening. Enjoy all the money you got now. Its not going to be pretty.
Truth!!!