Obama vs. McCain on energy

[ParanoiA]

Then we will never agree Oil Man because I do not believe in expansion of external governance. Government is not to blame here in america, anyway.

 

Government didn't mandate cars to run on oil.

 

Government didn't mandate factories to be built using machines that use oil.

 

Government didn't mandate everything we buy in the store to be packaged in thick plastic overkill that require me to use elaborate cutting tools to open.

 

Government didn't mandate convenience stores to set up the facilities for refilling.

 

Government didn't mandate the use of oil, Oil Man. The people did, in the free market. Freedom has a price. The market will respond to the demand of the consumer. If consumers want electric and hydro solutions, they'll get them.

 

But the market answers demands from the wallet, not your lips. When people start putting their money where their mouth is, we will get all the alternative this and that to the point you'll be sick. Trust me. Just ask some americans about carbs and fast food...

[Pangloss]

start addressing the issues

 

Allow me to continue addressing the issues.

 

Americans are already responding to high prices by buying more fuel-efficient cars. SUVs are disappearing faster than they swept into the marketplace just a couple of decades ago. But even more revealing, a new study out today being widely reported in the media shows Americans drove four billion miles less over the last 12 months than the previous year.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/business/19gas.html?ref=business

 

“U.S. gasoline demand will likely decline in 2008 for the first time in more than 17 years,” says the report to be released Thursday. “For the first time since the 1970s and early 1980s the number of miles driven by Americans has clearly begun trending downward.”

 

The percentage is small, but it's the sixth straight consecutive monthly decline, and the dramatic turn has been described by one researcher as "like falling off a cliff".

 

I thought this quotes was also interesting:

 

The national price for unleaded gasoline would need to average $4.23 a gallon “to create the same economic pain as in 1981,” the Cambridge Energy report said. “Once unthinkable, such a level is now within view.” On Wednesday, gasoline averaged nearly $4.08 a gallon.

 

That suggests to me that the current economic situation and overall public perception are as much factors here as anything else. In short, the tide has changed.

 

There's no need for dramatic societal upheaval. We don't need to stop polluting tomorrow, because we're already going to stop polluting in the very near future. All we have to do is keep going like we're going.

 

I don't think we should be working towards lower gas prices -- that's a HUGE mistake. We should stop the ridiculous oil company subsidies, but we should continue drilling every domestic source of oil as long as it doesn't cause a dramatic lowering of prices.

 

To be honest, I'm actually concerned that speculation on the commodities market will decline prematurely and lead to a resurgence of demand. This is the time where we need to keep this momentum going in the right direction. But I'm not TOO worried about that, because the speculation-driven price, as I understand it, is far in excess of what's been passed along to consumers (the barrel price has increased something like 70% faster than the pump price, but that was a stat I read several weeks ago, if I even read it correctly, so don't quote me on that).

 

Sorry boys, no apocalypse this time around.

[ParanoiA]

I don't think we should be working towards lower gas prices -- that's a HUGE mistake. We should stop the ridiculous oil company subsidies, but we should continue drilling every domestic source of oil as long as it doesn't cause a dramatic lowering of prices.

 

Are you taking this position because you think the higher prices are good for the alternative fuels market? Or some other reason?

 

I'm leaning towards liking the idea of high prices to fuel the alternative market, because I just want to see the end of oil, and the beginning of possible "non-grid" energy solutions. Imagine not having to pay a utility bill.

 

But, meanwhile, I can barely afford a six pack. A six pack Pangloss! This is some serious shit. If a man can't wind down with a beer and a bj, then life just ain't worth livin'.

[iNow]

Americans are already responding to high prices by buying more fuel-efficient cars. SUVs are disappearing faster than they swept into the marketplace just a couple of decades ago.

I understand, and agree.

 

 

The percentage is small, but it's the sixth straight consecutive monthly decline,

Absolutely, and it will most probably continue.

 

 

That suggests to me that the current economic situation and overall public perception are as much factors here as anything else. In short, the tide has changed.

Yes, indeed. We're three for three. I think there must be a disturbance in the force somewhere. Next thing you know, dogs and cats will be living in harmony.

 

 

There's no need for dramatic societal upheaval. We don't need to stop polluting tomorrow[/i'], because we're already going to stop polluting in the very near future. All we have to do is keep going like we're going.

Well, I just can't bring myself to agree with either your comments or their tone. You're quite right that we don't need to stop polluting tomorrow. The simple truth is that we need to stop polluting today. You also ended the comments in a very poor "defend the status quo" kinda way, but I don't think that's what you were doing intentionally so I'll leave it alone.

 

The fact is that your idea of "it'll happen in the future, so don't worry now" really isn't good enough considering the enormity of the challenges we are facing.

 

Either way, we are discussing opinion, so the above is just mine and it differs from yours. That's not a big deal, as we can discuss the reasons we hold the opinion we do without character attacking each other, or dismissing fully the posts of each other with "snipe" responses.

 

 

I don't think we should be working towards lower gas prices -- that's a HUGE mistake. We should stop the ridiculous oil company subsidies

Absolutely. If subsidies are going to be on the table AT ALL, then they should be going toward renewables. According to comments from the CEO in the youtube link I shared above, renewables have had a 200% return on subsidies in the past. That's exactly what we need, as well as people ostracizing their gas guzzling, energy wasting, "I'll do whatever I feel like" lifestyles.

 

 

but we should continue drilling every domestic source of oil as long as it doesn't cause a dramatic lowering of prices.

Okay. Why, then?

 

It's already been shown repeatedly that the returns on this are not even close to significant, and the costs associated are greater.

 

 

Sorry boys, no apocalypse this time around.

See, we were having a nice conversation, and then you had to go shit all over it again.

 

Why was that comment necessary?

How was that helpful to the dialog?

What about seeing reality clearly is supposed to be conspiratorially apocalyptic?

 

Even if apocalypse was on the table, your unsupported comments above don't negate it's possibility.

 

That's where you consistently fail. You have to spit on people when you talk to them. You have to misrepresent what they say to make your own points seem stronger. Tell me again what precisely I had said in this thread to prompt the following smear of my points:

 

 

That's not an argument to ween us off oil, that's an argument that society as we know it needs to be destroyed and remade as some kind of left-wing utopia.

 

Asshole.

<see, ending in such a way doesn't help, now does it>

[john5746]

If a man can't wind down with a beer and a bj, then life just ain't worth livin'.

 

well, I can afford the beer...

[ParanoiA]

It's rhetoric iNow, why all dramatic about it?

 

Your smart ass one liners have been your signature on here, it really doesn't become you to blow up over turnabout.

[iNow]

My one liners tend to be directed at single subject trolls. I am passionate about this issue, and frankly I expect more from Pangloss than discriminatory dismissals of important points with ignorant comments. I am just tired of watching him do it, and I needed to vent.

 

Also, I'd hope that you see my signature on SFN as more than mere "smart ass one liners."

[ParanoiA]

Also, I'd hope that you see my signature on SFN as more than mere "smart ass one liners."

 

Well I certainly didn't mean to imply I don't enjoy them.

 

And yes, they are often of good quality, not mere one liners.

[Pangloss]

But, meanwhile, I can barely afford a six pack. A six pack Pangloss! This is some serious shit. If a man can't wind down with a beer and a bj, then life just ain't worth livin'.

 

Well shoot man, I can sympathize with that. I hope your situation improves. I have no doubt that it will, actually -- you're as bright and engaged a person as I've ever met online. Things will turn up. I think I speak for the entire board on this.

 

Anyway, I can understand why people want to see lower gas prices, but I simply think that cheap gas has carried a price that isn't measured in dollars, and is no longer worth paying. But I'm completely down with you about wanting to mitigate the damage and make the transition as smooth as possible. I don't see catastrophe and destruction of our way of life as a means to the proper end of a better society. Just the opposite, in fact -- I believe that our way of life will be preserved more or less intact.

 

The great irony of the current situation is that it's now going to happen -- the very thing that the left has been warning us about for all these years -- but it's just not going to happen the way they hope and pray and dream for -- the dismantlement of the capitalist way. On the contrary, it's going to be solved much more smoothly and easily than they thought. The highways really won't be plowed over to make way for hemp fields. Sorry!

 

Think Savings and Loan "Crisis", not armageddon. Or even 'crippling economic pain'. For most people, anyway.

 

but we should continue drilling every domestic source of oil as long as it doesn't cause a dramatic lowering of prices.

Okay. Why' date=' then?

 

It's already been shown repeatedly that the returns on this are not even close to significant, and the costs associated are greater.[/quote']

 

Well even you admit that there would be a minor impact, so the point is already made right there -- I believe all oil should be drilled regardless of how minor the impact, mostly because I suspect that once we actually dig in there (and shove aside all the PC BS that gets in the way of the practical science on this subject) that they'll find plenty of oil. But even if they don't then the stretching of the transition will be useful in terms of minimizing the "crippling economic pain" that produces all those left wing wet dreams.

[iNow]

I believe all oil should be drilled regardless of how minor the impact, mostly because I suspect that once we actually dig in there (and shove aside all the PC BS that gets in the way of the practical science on this subject) that they'll find plenty of oil.

You've just exemplified why I get so disgusted with religion. You are placing personal faith over evidence.

 

Of course I concede that SOMETHING will happen as a result of drilling. However, as I've stated repeatedly, it does not even begin to approach the threshold of significance.

 

The costs outweigh the benefits.

 

I'm not saying there are no benefits, I'm saying they are not significant enough to justify the costs.

 

 

Also, this whole "way of life" argument is nonsense.

But I'm completely down with you about wanting to mitigate the damage and make the transition as smooth as possible. I don't see catastrophe and destruction of our way of life as a means to the proper end of a better society.

 

Green collar jobs are one of the key factors which will bring the US back to it's economic and technological dominance... or, at the very least, finally back on par with the rest of the planet.

 

 

And seriously, I really wish you'd stop calling me left-wing in a derogatory manner every time you respond to one of my posts. Can you maybe give that a try for a bit? That'd be super.

[Pangloss]

You've just exemplified why I get so disgusted with religion. You are placing personal faith over evidence.

 

According to ABC News last night they were saying that the federal government says that there's 18 billion barrels of known oil off the coasts right now. That's enough for 2.5 years at current consumption, with a time-to-market of something like 10 years (some say more, as you noted). If that's the case then that oil will be filling my tanks exactly when it needs to be, just as China and India are beginning to completely control a market that is no longer under US control.

 

I don't think it's a matter of faith at all. But it is just my opinion, I agree.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=5197505

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=5191991

[john5746]

I am just tired of watching him do it, and I needed to vent.

 

I suggest the beer and bj approach.

[Reaper]

As of today, the price of crude oil per barrel is $134.85:

 

http://www.oil-price.net/

[ParanoiA]

It's funny what a difference $130 a barrel will do.

 

Last year peak oil was a 'religion'.

 

This year we're desperately hoping that drilling just off our beaches and in wildlife refuges will slow the decline.

 

I'm with you Pangloss — no skin off my nose, nudge nudge wink wink say no more! Say no more! :eyebrow:

 

What does Peak Oil have to do with this? They're not proposing drilling just off our beaches and .01% of wildlife refuges because we think the oil supply has peaked. They're proposing it for independence's sake, and a host of market reasons. And the only way it will work is if alternative energy is our long term solution.

 

So yeah, I'm guessing Peak Oil is still a religion. But I wouldn't know since I don't care if oil has peaked or not. I don't care if carbon emissions hurt the climate or not. I don't care because there is a laundry list of verifiable, uncontested reasons to ditch oil. 'Peak Oil' is just a distraction, to me.

[Reaper]

What does Peak Oil have to do with this? They're not proposing drilling just off our beaches and .01% of wildlife refuges because we think the oil supply has peaked.

 

Actually, that's precisely what they are proposing. And it will be more than just .01% of the wildlife refuges that wildlife refuges that will suffer for this....

 

 

Besides which, we have already shown that the oil to be drilled out will not make any difference at all. One wonders why anyone would still support this decision given that it is utterly stupid and shortsighted.

 

 

 

But then again, some on here tend to be solipsists! They want to invent their own reality, and ignore all the disadvantages and problems that a pure free market brings and the oil based economy. Of course, those who advocate the "all free market solution" have never really read or understood what Adam Smith really wrote or understood about how a "free market" should work...

[ParanoiA]

The point you all seem to be missing is that it doesn't matter if the oil is a piddly amount or not. You all keep replying back with these arguments on how the piddly oil extracted won't help anything. That's fine and I don't contest that at all, but none of you are making an argument against the market dynamics that will change when we drill.

 

So, that's two aspects, not just one. One is the piddly amount that won't actually help much in reality, 10 years from now when we finally get it. (Although, I still contend that massive changes in the consumer market for alternative vehicles will reduce what's required, thus increasing the significance of that piddly amount). Two, is the effect on the oil market today. Drilling for oil - even if just a dummy operation - will influence the business.

 

Maybe it would help if I mention "perception is reality". That's the market dynamics I'm talking about. It's going to effect the price of oil, the production of oil, the prospect of oil right now - LONG before we ever actually get the oil or do anything with it. Drilling = Independence in the minds of business. When OPEC takes notice of America drilling for its own oil, it increases the perceived intensity that our committment is to independence from their market - their product. That will inevitably change the market today.

 

Businesses take notice and make changes when you reject their service. Drilling for own oil creates that message that we are on a dedicated path to rid ourselves of their service. No matter if it will actually do that or not.

 

You all can disagree with that, but for the last time, please take issue with THAT point instead of taking the easy path of pointing out how "it's just a little bit". Market dynamics are not that simple.

[Reaper]

So in other words, this thread is just simply going to go around in circles, just like all the other ones on this topic simply because some of us just want to deny or water down reality. *sigh*

Edited June 20, 2008 by Reaper

[Phi for All]

Businesses take notice and make changes when you reject their service.

This is one of the most powerful tools capitalism has, especially in an age where tracking your clientèle's habits is easier than it's ever been. I stopped using my local Blockbuster when my neighbor who managed the store was forced to quit due to differing management concerns. I quit Blockbuster out of sympathy for a friend but Blockbuster has been flailing around ever since, trying to draw me back with all kinds of offers. I'd unsubscribe to their emails but I find it mildly amusing.

 

This is definitely a capitalist issue. Everyone seems to agree that the high prices at the pump will fuel the search for alternatives. When the oil profiteers cease to become profiteers, you're going to see them pulling aces out of their sleeves faster than David Copperfield on a Mississippi riverboat.

[ParanoiA]

So in other words, this thread is just simply going to go around in circles, just like all the other ones on this topic simply because some of us just want to deny or water down reality. *sigh*

 

Or more accurately, because some of us don't READ the points being made and respond to them, but rather recycle their arguments as if those points were never made.

 

I'm still waiting for someone to refute my point that drilling for oil, no matter fruitful or not, will effect the oil market today.

 

Or else we can keep going in circles.

 

This is definitely a capitalist issue. Everyone seems to agree that the high prices at the pump will fuel the search for alternatives. When the oil profiteers cease to become profiteers, you're going to see them pulling aces out of their sleeves faster than David Copperfield on a Mississippi riverboat.

 

Amen to that.

[iNow]

I'm still waiting for someone to refute my point that drilling for oil, no matter fruitful or not, will effect the oil market today.

To be fair, I accept your proposal that, since the market is speculative, seeing the "potential" for oil later will impact those speculations today, and maybe bring prices down.

 

The "hope" of future oil could increase the "hope" that available supply will be higher, leading to "speculations" which decrease prices today.

 

It's a valid proposal, I just don't think that the numbers justify it, nor that any cost changes in the present would be significant. I'm thinking that maybe it will drop the price per barrel of oil, but I'm concurrently thinking that such a price drop would only be about 50 to 75 cents.

 

We just don't know. It's speculative, and that's why there is such disagreement. However, as POMs video mentions, the speculation is a symptom of the issue, not a cause.

 

 

 

 

 

According to ABC News last night they were saying that the federal government says that there's 18 billion barrels of known oil off the coasts right now. That's enough for 2.5 years at current consumption, with a time-to-market of something like 10 years (some say more, as you noted). If that's the case then that oil will be filling my tanks exactly when it needs to be, just as China and India are beginning to completely control a market that is no longer under US control.

 

I don't think it's a matter of faith at all. But it is just my opinion, I agree.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=5197505

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=5191991

 

Well, I do like the BBC. They are definitely one of the players on my short list of news sources. They make really good programs too, and often they are available to view in their entirety online. And I mean, how can you fault an organization that hosted Monty Python? Seriously, that's major street cred right there.

 

However, I'm looking at the numbers in your post. It says 18 Billion barrels known. That is FAR higher to everything I've read and seen, and your "enough for 2.5 years" statement also stands contrary to the evidence.

 

I'm rather curious how they obtained that, since I'm looking at the USGS Fact Sheet which comes from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment.

 

 

Here's what they say:

 

The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels

 

I've always been more inclined to trust the actual scientific data than the news source reporting it, but YMMV.

 

 

In the report I shared, they also make a very interesting comment that just because the oil is there does not mean we can recover it. Here's a splendid little graphic which makes this apparent to even the most ignorant agenda biased uninformed of viewers:

 

 

 

 

Further, I found the following:

 

 

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

 

Beyond the existence of the reserves, however, little was agreed upon by both sides of the debate. Supporters of the drilling claimed there were as many as 16 billion barrels (2,500,000,000 m³) of oil to be recovered, but this number was at the extreme high side of the report and represented only a 5 percent probability of technically recoverable oil across the entire assessment area, which included land outside ANWR. Opponents of drilling pointed out that the USGS report actually estimated 7.668 billion barrels (1,219,100,000 m³) of oil to be recovered.

 

 

So, let's maybe all first agree on what numbers we are using before we continue arguing that the numbers justify any of this, shall we?

 

 

 

Once we've agreed on numbers, the primary thrust of my posts here in this thread once again becomes relevant. From the link above:

 

 

 

In May of 2008 the Energy Information Administration released the following report:

 

"The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively."

 

This means that if drilling in the ANWR was to start in 2008 that the first barrel of oil would arrive in 2018 and that the oil arriving has a 50 percent chance of being 2.6 billion barrels. The United States currently uses 8 billion barrels per year.

 

The report also states:

 

"Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case."

 

For the average case, drilling in ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, out of a current $130, in 2025. This amounts to about a 0.5% change. The total production from ANWAR would be, in 2024, approximately 1% of the United States needs.

 

 

 

So, if we get into more scurmishes about the data, maybe we can go straight to the horses mouth and check the Energy Information Administrations numbers:

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html?featureclicked=2&

 

 

 

I look forward to your response.

Edited June 20, 2008 by iNow

[ParanoiA]

It's a valid proposal' date=' I just don't think that the numbers justify it, nor that any cost changes in the present would be significant. I'm thinking that maybe it will drop the price per barrel of oil, but I'm concurrently thinking that such a price drop would only be about 10 to 50 cents.

 

We just don't know. It's speculative, and that's why there is such disagreement. However, as POMs video mentions, the speculation is a symptom of the issue, not a cause.[/quote']

 

Fair enough. You addressed the point and disagree and you have a legitimate reason to. Plus, there's the whole issue of fueling the alternative market via high gas prices, so I'm not entirely convinced we should want the price to drop anyway.

 

Regardless, I think that's part of the intent behind the proposals to drill. I also think, though, that they are as hopeful as Pangloss in believing there is more there than being reported. I'm inclined to default to judgement of those in the field, which seem to agree with you that the amount is insignificant.

[Pangloss]

I've always been more inclined to trust the actual scientific data than the news source reporting it, but YMMV.

 

True enough. But I was under the impression that 18 billion barrels was what awaited along ALL of the US coastlines (ok, 16 billion barrels, if you insist). If that's only what may be in ANWR then that would seem to suggest that there's far more waiting off the coast of Florida, etc. Sounds like a freaking bonanza. What am I missing here?

 

BTW, I don't think it will reduce the price of oil at all, not even that 75 cents they talked about, because of the growing demand in China and India. Nor do I think that's an important goal for this exploration. But perhaps you just included that information for the sake of thoroughness.

Edited June 20, 2008 by Pangloss

[iNow]

Do you understand the concept of probability, and how even 16M barrels is at the low end of the probability scale? In simple terms, it's not likely that we will get that much. Most likely, we'll get much less (as has been clearly articulated in my previous post).

[ParanoiA]

Call me stupid but I don't understand the graph. I don't understand what "Probability of more than, in percent" value is really referring to. I don't understand what "volume of oil increasing" is. And guess how much I grasp the 3 squiggly lines...

 

I've always had this problem. Graphs are my achilles heel, I guess. If someone will take the time, I would appreciate it. Thanks.

[john5746]

Call me stupid but I don't understand the graph. I don't understand what "Probability of more than, in percent" value is really referring to. I don't understand what "volume of oil increasing" is. And guess how much I grasp the 3 squiggly lines...

 

I've always had this problem. Graphs are my achilles heel, I guess. If someone will take the time, I would appreciate it. Thanks.

 

Just that there are technical and economical constraints as well as uncertainty of the amount of oil that can be extracted. Well, the economic constraints will shift big time and I say that will also shift the technical curve as well, since economics drives innovation - after all that is what we want with alternative fuels.

 

 

Looks like neither candidate wants to consider ANWR, so we can drop that one.

 

McCain opposes drilling in some parts of the wilderness and says those areas must be left undisturbed.

 

"When America set aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we called it a 'refuge' for a reason," he said.

 

McCain also criticized the energy policy of Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama.

 

"He says that high oil prices are not the problem, but only that they rose too quickly. He doesn't support new domestic production. He doesn't support new nuclear plants. He doesn't support more traditional use of coal, either," McCain said.

 

"So what does Sen. Obama support in energy policy? Well, for starters, he supported the energy bill of 2005 -- a grab bag of corporate favors that I opposed. And now he supports new taxes on energy producers. He wants a windfall profits tax on oil, to go along with the new taxes he also plans for coal and natural gas. If the plan sounds familiar, it's because that was President Jimmy Carter's big idea too -- and a lot of good it did us."