Bush cites "suppy and demand" to push for drilling <snort>

[Animale]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 80618.html

Now, I understand the whole supply/demand dichotomy, but saying we need to drill to increase supply - while refusing to institute higher mpg standards on the nations auto fleet (the whole demand side) is just disingenuous. Tougher mpg standards on the U.S. auto fleet would have quicker, more effective, and larger magnitude effects on energy prices than drilling in the U.S. would have, yet it is completely ignored in this speech other than a one paragraph throwaway saying that it a "long run" thing and that they've taken fuel economy to "ambitious new levels" (yeah, it's real ambitious to fight California tooth and nail on their statewide fuel economy levels that are higher than the feds).

These issues are coupled, but by saying "drill, drill drill" when obvious short AND long term answers are being fought against by your administration, that's the height of idiocy.

Animale

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

You don't need the government to mandate everything. The market does it all by itself. Go talk to auto sales people and they'll tell you about all the people dumping their V8's for V4's to get better gas mileage. Tons more cars now have much greater gas mileage than just 5-10 years ago. The development of hybrids. Etc. Stop with the crisis crap and open your eyes.

[Ashur]

[quote="Eric Cartman, from "Die, Hippie, Die""]"We drill."[/quote]

[Xatrei]

I don't understand why drilling is being embraced by so many as an immediate solution for the issue. It will take years for these sources to come online, particularly in new areas such as the proposed off-shore drilling, ANWR drilling or tar sands extraction in Montana. Even so, the volume of oil available - at some distant point in the future - is too small have a huge impact on fuel costs at the pump. I'd rather see efforts focus on mandating greater efficiency and the development of sustainable alternatives for the future.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I don't understand why drilling is being embraced by so many as an immediate solution for the issue. It will take years for these sources to come online, particularly in new areas such as the proposed off-shore drilling, ANWR drilling or tar sands extraction in Montana. Even so, the volume of oil available - at some distant point in the future - is too small have a huge impact on fuel costs at the pump. I'd rather see efforts focus on mandating greater efficiency and the development of sustainable alternatives for the future.

10 years ago this came up and was trashed by the Dems. The Clintons were very outspoken about their opposition to it. The main Dems argument was that it would take 10 years before we would see real productivity from that drilling. Ummmm, that brings us to today. Again, foresight and a long term vision is in seriously short supply.

[Chidoro]

You don't need the government to mandate everything. The market does it all by itself. Go talk to auto sales people and they'll tell you about all the people dumping their V8's for V4's to get better gas mileage. Tons more cars now have much greater gas mileage than just 5-10 years ago. The development of hybrids. Etc.

[douchebag] are there v-4's out there? I know of boxer 4's and i-4's and v-twins (motorcycles) but not v-4's.[/douchebag]

I actually agree with your point, auto sales reports back that up. As it stands, the auto industry is going to have to find a way to get their fleets to average 35 mpg by 2020 if I'm not mistaken.

[Xatrei]

10 years ago this came up and was trashed by the Dems. The Clintons were very outspoken about their opposition to it. The main Dems argument was that it would take 10 years before we would see real productivity from that drilling. Ummmm, that brings us to today. Again, foresight and a long term vision is in seriously short supply.

There are legitimate reasons to oppose them, and it wasn't just the Democrats that opposed them. Many Republicans have opposed the coastal drilling, for example. Meanwhile, the right-wing (with some collusion from elements among not-as-right-wing, aka Democrats) have consistently blocked and stalled any efforts to foster the development of real alternatives to oil. Ultimately, we're better served by reducing consumption by addressing efficiency and pursuing alternatives. Sadly, most of what little effort we've managed has focused on corn ethanol, which is a dead end that really only benefits big Agri-businesses. The attempts to develop oil alternatives is a fundamentally long-term view, chock full of foresight. That's been blocked, though, because those with a vested interest in the status quo are too myopic to take seriously the need to get off of oil.

What's in short supply is actual vision and a desire for genuine change on the part of the powers that be.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

You don't need the government to mandate everything. The market does it all by itself. Go talk to auto sales people and they'll tell you about all the people dumping their V8's for V4's to get better gas mileage. Tons more cars now have much greater gas mileage than just 5-10 years ago. The development of hybrids. Etc.

[douchebag] are there v-4's out there? I know of boxer 4's and i-4's and v-twins (motorcycles) but not v-4's.[/douchebag]

I actually agree with your point, auto sales reports back that up. As it stands, the auto industry is going to have to find a way to get their fleets to average 35 mpg by 2020 if I'm not mistaken.

I should have said 8 cylinder versus 4 cylinder. You know what I meant, hehe. My bad.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

10 years ago this came up and was trashed by the Dems. The Clintons were very outspoken about their opposition to it. The main Dems argument was that it would take 10 years before we would see real productivity from that drilling. Ummmm, that brings us to today. Again, foresight and a long term vision is in seriously short supply.

There are legitimate reasons to oppose them, and it wasn't just the Democrats that opposed them. The right-wing (with some collusion from elements among not-as-right-wing, aka Democrats) have consistently blocked and stalled any efforts to foster the development of real alternatives to oil. Ultimately, we're better served by reducing consumption by addressing efficiency and pursuing alternatives. Sadly, most of what little effort we've managed has focused on corn ethanol, which is a dead end that really only benefits big Agri-businesses. The attempts to develop oil alternatives is a fundamentally long-term view, chock full of foresight. That's been blocked, though, because those with a vested interest in the status quo are too myopic to take seriously the need to get off of oil.

What's in short supply is actual vision and a desire for genuine change on the part of the powers that be.

I don't agree. The private sector is making great strides in alternative energy sources. Using Anwar and other sources of naturnal resources to help get us through until those alternatives are developed and made economical is smart. Both, not neither or should be supported.

[Fairweather Pure]

Meanwhile, oil companies are straining like rabid dogs waiting to be let off their leash.


Drilling is a short term answer to a long term problem. Having said that, I think both sides need to give a little in order to advance as a whole. I say drill in Montana. The amount of oil that has been found there is pretty amazing.

[Siji]

[douchebag] are there v-4's out there? I know of boxer 4's and i-4's and v-twins (motorcycles) but not v-4's.[/douchebag]

I don't like the guy and even I knew what he was talking about..

Bush needs some more payoffs before he goes. His time is short and there's a lot of shit still to fuck up before leaving office.

[Funkmasterr]

Of course drilling here is a short term solution to the problem, I think everyone knows that. Animale, you are getting almost as bad as nick on the assumptions that you are always right.

I think that drilling in the U.S. as a short term band-aid is a good idea. Start getting the processes moving to start drilling anywhere and everywhere in the U.S. that we can (including Alaska), and once it gets going, cut our ties from others for oil all together. Then what we do is use the oil we are drilling as a short term thing, but dump a ton of money into R&D of other fuel sources, and have one of them ready to go before our oil running out is a concern.

I know this is oversimplifying things, but I think it's a good idea, and I think it could work if executed properly..

[Chidoro]

[douchebag] are there v-4's out there? I know of boxer 4's and i-4's and v-twins (motorcycles) but not v-4's.[/douchebag]

I don't like the guy and even I knew what he was talking about..

Well, at least Mid knew that I was trying to be a douchebag and got the joke.

[miir]

[douchebag] are there v-4's out there? I know of boxer 4's and i-4's and v-twins (motorcycles) but not v-4's.[/douchebag]

I don't like the guy and even I knew what he was talking about..

Well, at least Mid knew that I was trying to be a douchebag and got the joke.

I recognized and appreciated your attempt at douchebaggery.

[Siji]

[douchebag] are there v-4's out there? I know of boxer 4's and i-4's and v-twins (motorcycles) but not v-4's.[/douchebag]

I don't like the guy and even I knew what he was talking about..

Well, at least Mid knew that I was trying to be a douchebag and got the joke.

I recognized and appreciated your attempt at douchebaggery.

Teabaggery > douchebaggery

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

[douchebag] are there v-4's out there? I know of boxer 4's and i-4's and v-twins (motorcycles) but not v-4's.[/douchebag]

I don't like the guy and even I knew what he was talking about..

Well, at least Mid knew that I was trying to be a douchebag and got the joke.

I recognized and appreciated your attempt at douchebaggery.

Teabaggery > douchebaggery

Only if you have a palate that appreciates the taste of sweaty man bag.

[Truant]

You don't need the government to mandate everything. The market does it all by itself. Go talk to auto sales people and they'll tell you about all the people dumping their V8's for V4's to get better gas mileage. Tons more cars now have much greater gas mileage than just 5-10 years ago. The development of hybrids. Etc.

[douchebag] are there v-4's out there? I know of boxer 4's and i-4's and v-twins (motorcycles) but not v-4's.[/douchebag]

Just for the sake of clarity there IS a "V4" out there, sort of. Volkswagen has (or had) what they called a VR4. Which was a 4 cylinder at an angle less than the normal 90 (60 or 45 also common), something like 15 degrees I think. Two of these engines together is what made up their W8 that they sell (or sold). They also have a VR6, just for completeness sake.

Parenthesis there because they existed at least up until a couple years ago, I don't know for sure if they still exist on current production models, but i'd imagine they do.

[Xatrei]

Of course drilling here is a short term solution to the problem, I think everyone knows that. Animale, you are getting almost as bad as nick on the assumptions that you are always right.

I think that drilling in the U.S. as a short term band-aid is a good idea. Start getting the processes moving to start drilling anywhere and everywhere in the U.S. that we can (including Alaska), and once it gets going, cut our ties from others for oil all together. Then what we do is use the oil we are drilling as a short term thing, but dump a ton of money into R&D of other fuel sources, and have one of them ready to go before our oil running out is a concern.

I know this is oversimplifying things, but I think it's a good idea, and I think it could work if executed properly..

It's not an immediate or short term solution at all. Frankly, nothing is because one doesn't exist, although ending the speculation business would certainly help. The lead time on new exploration and exploitation of these resources ranges from close to a decade to far more. Experts have predicted it will take 8 to 14 years before we see any meaningful production from the coastal drilling that's been hyped recently, and we'll see similar waits for ANWR production, should that go forward, and even longer for tar sands extraction. We can't just "cut our ties" from other oil producing nations. We cannot, in the foreseeable future, produce nearly enough oil to meet our needs. By the time any of this new domestic oil production comes online, it will still be far too small relative to the global supply to have any significant affect on crude oil prices, or on the costs of refined petroleum products (such an increase would reflect a boost in global production of something like 1-2% ).

The long term solution is to focus - almost exclusively - on improving energy efficiency and developing alternative energy sources. We're just going to have to bite the bullet on the higher petroleum costs until such alternatives come online, because there are no practical alternatives.

[Gzette]

I say its worth a shot, as long as oil companies foot the bill. I'm guessing that's doubtful though, because they're hurtin for cash so hard these days big govment will have to step in.

[Animale]

Of course drilling here is a short term solution to the problem, I think everyone knows that. Animale, you are getting almost as bad as nick on the assumptions that you are always right.

I think that drilling in the U.S. as a short term band-aid is a good idea. Start getting the processes moving to start drilling anywhere and everywhere in the U.S. that we can (including Alaska), and once it gets going, cut our ties from others for oil all together. Then what we do is use the oil we are drilling as a short term thing, but dump a ton of money into R&D of other fuel sources, and have one of them ready to go before our oil running out is a concern.

I know this is oversimplifying things, but I think it's a good idea, and I think it could work if executed properly..

Um, who said that it isn't a short term (and short sighted in my opinion) solution. I was just pointing out that better short term solutions are out there, that also happen to be better long term solutions as well - and that these solutions have been actively fought against by the Bush administration.

Now, in politics you have to give a little to get a little - how about this compromise. Give control to the states for offshore drilling, allowing them to negotiate the deals with oil companies to maximize state revenue streams. This also gives states (such as California) the right to refuse offshore drilling if, in their mind, the cost/benefit does not add up.

In return, the feds (and states if they so desire) dramatically increase fuel standards for the U.S. transportation fleet (40-50 mpg at least, with tougher and sooner timetables) and dramatically increase funding for finding true alternative fuels. Doing so would lower oil prices in the short term (a quick (5-10 year) fleet mpg increase requirement would dramatically lower futures speculation by quickly decreasing demand pressures) and the long term prognosis for energy security would be enhanced by both the larger drilling levels in the states that choose to allow it (ANWR should still remain off-limits IMO, McCain agrees with that by the way) and by the future development of truly renewable fuel sources.

Now what's a truly renewable fuel... "clean" coal doesn't count, neither does corn ethanol, nor does hydrogen from methane. Basically it's solar, fusion, or new technologies in fission (coupled with dramatically increased battery technology).

Animale

[Funkmasterr]

Of course drilling here is a short term solution to the problem, I think everyone knows that. Animale, you are getting almost as bad as nick on the assumptions that you are always right.

I think that drilling in the U.S. as a short term band-aid is a good idea. Start getting the processes moving to start drilling anywhere and everywhere in the U.S. that we can (including Alaska), and once it gets going, cut our ties from others for oil all together. Then what we do is use the oil we are drilling as a short term thing, but dump a ton of money into R&D of other fuel sources, and have one of them ready to go before our oil running out is a concern.

I know this is oversimplifying things, but I think it's a good idea, and I think it could work if executed properly..

Um, who said that it isn't a short term (and short sighted in my opinion) solution. I was just pointing out that better short term solutions are out there, that also happen to be better long term solutions as well - and that these solutions have been actively fought against by the Bush administration.

Now, in politics you have to give a little to get a little - how about this compromise. Give control to the states for offshore drilling, allowing them to negotiate the deals with oil companies to maximize state revenue streams. This also gives states (such as California) the right to refuse offshore drilling if, in their mind, the cost/benefit does not add up.

In return, the feds (and states if they so desire) dramatically increase fuel standards for the U.S. transportation fleet (40-50 mpg at least, with tougher and sooner timetables) and dramatically increase funding for finding true alternative fuels. Doing so would lower oil prices in the short term (a quick (5-10 year) fleet mpg increase requirement would dramatically lower futures speculation by quickly decreasing demand pressures) and the long term prognosis for energy security would be enhanced by both the larger drilling levels in the states that choose to allow it (ANWR should still remain off-limits IMO, McCain agrees with that by the way) and by the future development of truly renewable fuel sources.

Now what's a truly renewable fuel... "clean" coal doesn't count, neither does corn ethanol, nor does hydrogen from methane. Basically it's solar, fusion, or new technologies in fission (coupled with dramatically increased battery technology).

Animale

I actually don't disagree with you much on this (don't tell anyone).

The only thing I will say I see as being a speedbump for the mpg regulations would be performance. People have gotten used to cars with high HP and a big enough percent of them would not be willing to sacrifice that. I think that will be the only factor that could get in the way of public acceptance.

I know they have started to address this more, so I don't think the technology is out too far, but it's a ways.

I guess I will just be interested to see what happens in the next 6months - 2 years regardless of who the next president ends up being.

[Boogahz]

Now, in politics you have to give a little to get a little - how about this compromise. Give control to the states for offshore drilling, allowing them to negotiate the deals with oil companies to maximize state revenue streams. This also gives states (such as California) the right to refuse offshore drilling if, in their mind, the cost/benefit does not add up.

That is essentially the step that is stalled now. The Federal bans stop the States from allowing it. Lifting those would allow each state to actually decide whether or not they will allow drilling, and how the drilling can be done/regulated. The States have NO say until the Executive and Congressional bans are lifted.

[Forthe]

It is funny watching people having this non argument. The proposed offshore drilling has to be approved by the state, leased to a company, exploration and then finally production.

People seem to think that Oil companies will be motivated to rush out and develope these fields which is just not true. The will buy up the leases as insurance and perhaps explore to boost their reserves. However, it is not in the Oil industries' interest to put out more oil than is demanded. It is in their interest to get as much $ as they can for as long as they can.

Mind you I'm in a oil exporting province (offshore oil!!) of an oil exporting country so the high oil price isn't all bad but this "suppy and demand" argument is a crock. Is anyone having trouble filling up their tank? Supply is fine.

[Forthe]

Now, in politics you have to give a little to get a little - how about this compromise. Give control to the states for offshore drilling, allowing them to negotiate the deals with oil companies to maximize state revenue streams. This also gives states (such as California) the right to refuse offshore drilling if, in their mind, the cost/benefit does not add up.

That is essentially the step that is stalled now. The Federal bans stop the States from allowing it. Lifting those would allow each state to actually decide whether or not they will allow drilling, and how the drilling can be done/regulated. The States have NO say until the Executive and Congressional bans are lifted.

Could GA drilling spill onto the FL coast?

[Boogahz]

Now, in politics you have to give a little to get a little - how about this compromise. Give control to the states for offshore drilling, allowing them to negotiate the deals with oil companies to maximize state revenue streams. This also gives states (such as California) the right to refuse offshore drilling if, in their mind, the cost/benefit does not add up.

That is essentially the step that is stalled now. The Federal bans stop the States from allowing it. Lifting those would allow each state to actually decide whether or not they will allow drilling, and how the drilling can be done/regulated. The States have NO say until the Executive and Congressional bans are lifted.

Could GA drilling spill onto the FL coast?

Who cares? Hurricanes will wipe Florida out eventually anyhow!

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

It is not the oil supply itself that is the problem. It is the refining capacity and lack of refineries that causes fuel prices to be so high. OPEC could produce more oil if they chose, but they cannot refine it any faster and prices are nuts because of the demand for the refined oils. If the gubment TRULY cared about driving down fuel costs to consumers, they would put their money into building a couple refineries in the US and then concentrate on building a program to collect oil from the tar flats (which they already have patents on the process).

The privatized oil companies are never going to do this because they are in it for big profits and they are seeing record profits from this mess. The big reason Mexico has prices that are half of what our prices are is that they somewhat do this already.

[Xatrei]

Mexico has less refining capacity relative to their country's demand than the USA has, and imports a huge portion of their refined petroleum as a result. Their oil prices are so low because refined petroleum is heavily subsidized by the government.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Huh? Mexico refines about 1.5 million barrels per day and consumes 2 million per day. We consume over 20 million a day and can refine 17 million.

[Xatrei]

I don't know about those numbers. I don't have time to track it down right now, but I'll look for it when I have a chance. In a report I saw or heard over the weekend, they cited numbers indicating that Mexico currently imports about 40% of the refined petroleum products that they consume. I've seen that number cited in other reports as well. I'll follow up when I have time to track that down.

Whether 40%, 25% or somewhere in between, the reason for Mexico's comparatively cheap fuel prices has far more to do with heavy subsidies by the government than refining capacities.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Of course they can afford to subsidize it with that low of a comparative demand as well. I am guessing they also get a hell of a lot better deal form their mexican speaking buddies in Latin America as well.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

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

[Wulfran]

Well by Kilmolls numbers Mexico refines 75% of their consumption and the US refines 85% so that backs up what Xatrei said (at least superficially) but we're talking an order of magnitude in the usage number (not sure on Mexico's population to correlate it). Its a lot less of a burden to subsidize half a million barrels than 3 million.

The whole idea of drilling in ANWAR is a joke, like a lot of the politics of energy in the world right now. You have a project that will take at least 5 yrs to come on line, supply a small % of your demand and possibly damage an environmentally sensitive area as a bonus. Seriously, you guys are better following the thought train of your military and working on some sort of coal conversion or work on some way to economically produce the massive oil shales in the NW plains.

Another thing that makes me laugh is shyte like this http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... hub=Canada
You have a source of oil on-line and some political hacks want to boycott it based on some propaganda most of them never bothered to investigate for themselves. I'm not going to say the oil sands are a wonderland, and there aren't improvements that can and should be made, but when you're bitching about the price of a commodity, you don't limit your sources of it and expect the price to come down...

And yes, refining capacity is a bottleneck and thus a price issue for us, in large part because of the NIMBY philosophy that our society has: we all want shit convenient and cheap but no one wants it made/produced/refined near them where it might cast a shadow on their little happy, pink, fuzzy view of their world.

[Knarlz]

Will offshore drilling lower oil prices?


......How is increasing American production by 1 million barrels a day, which is about 1.5 percent of daily global oil consumption, going to bring about the 25 percent drop in oil prices that many proponents of increased Alaskan and offshore drilling have suggested? ….


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25287795/



On a related note: the US dept of energy expects world wide oil demand to increase by only 1/3 in the next 21 years.
With total energy demands up by 50%

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25368258/

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Will offshore drilling lower oil prices?


......How is increasing American production by 1 million barrels a day, which is about 1.5 percent of daily global oil consumption, going to bring about the 25 percent drop in oil prices that many proponents of increased Alaskan and offshore drilling have suggested? ….

With the general public, it is the perception more than the reality that drives things. Much like the kick to the economy the tax refunds gave....the refund was not THAT much, but people perceived that to be a big giant free check so they started spending. It will be the same when oil shows to be in higher supply...the prices will fall. Gas prcies will be much much slower to come down, but that is because the oil companies are damn near criminal.

[Funkmasterr]

Will offshore drilling lower oil prices?


......How is increasing American production by 1 million barrels a day, which is about 1.5 percent of daily global oil consumption, going to bring about the 25 percent drop in oil prices that many proponents of increased Alaskan and offshore drilling have suggested? ….

With the general public, it is the perception more than the reality that drives things. Much like the kick to the economy the tax refunds gave....the refund was not THAT much, but people perceived that to be a big giant free check so they started spending. It will be the same when oil shows to be in higher supply...the prices will fall. Gas prcies will be much much slower to come down, but that is because the oil companies are damn near criminal.

I wouldn't say damn near, I'd say they are.