At least they have a solution. The Dem's plan of tax the crap of them will do wonders.

 

All the solutions will not have an effect for some time. Being it domestic drilling, nukes, wind, alternative fuel, whatever. It would take years to bring on domestic oil, years to build nuclear power plants, years to develop alternative fuel that made since, years to build coal to gas plants, ect.. Because of this we should do nothing. That's a great idea. Conservation is all well and good but to really make an impact with conservation it would take years as well.

 

 

The drill more solution is not a solution. In even the rosiest scenarios for offshore drilling and ANWR oil production, we would still be importing more than 60% of our oil and prices would not be materially reduced (unless you think about 4 cents a gallon in 20 years is worth yelling over the rooftops).

The drill more solution is not a solution. In even the rosiest scenarios for offshore drilling and ANWR oil production, we would still be importing more than 60% of our oil and prices would not be materially reduced (unless you think about 4 cents a gallon in 20 years is worth yelling over the rooftops).

Which of these two will have a more beneficial effect on gas prices:

1) Increase domestic production (which, by the absolute worst estimations, will still save us money (at least a nominal amount)

 

or

 

2) Tax the oil companies.

 

No one thinks drilling alone is the answer. But it's part of it, and if not even a part of it, then its better than more taxes.

Are we really less dependant with conservation alone? What % of our usage comes from domestic oil?

 

If we use less and manage to produce more (even a little) we would naturally import less. Even if we don't produce more we would still import less, wouldn't we?

Oil shale recovery is not as economically viable as oil production in the middle east. If recovering oil from shale is extremely difficult or extremely expensive, that 1.5 trillion barrels might as well be on Mars.

 

Have you seen anything on what the costs would be? I would think with people talking $300 per barrel it would start to be in the equation but I've never seen any cost projections.

My argument is built on the conclusions of the authoritative government analysis. And yours is based on what authoritative source? The supply and demand lesson from an 11th grade economics textbook? The EIA analysis takes into effect supply and demand and their conclusion was that ANWR production would reduce global crude prices by $1.44 per barrel in 2028, or 1% of the current level. Yep, that's a mighty big effect--about 4 cents on a gallon of regular unleaded. EIA further concluded that offshore production would not result in a significant reduction in crude prices. Go ahead and dispute the official U.S. government analyses, but just make sure to preface your arguments with, "I think that..."

Authoritative source? I thought the EIA was a government agency! :lol:

 

Given its track record of oil price predictions, maybe the fellas at EIA should dust off a high school economics book.

 

 

Are you sure that you are willing to stake the future on our economy on the EIA's estimates. Maybe you could sharpen that pencil of yours and project the accuracy that we might expect of the EIA forecasted impact of ANWR on gasoline prices based on the following track record. If the EIA's forecasts are off by 31.5% how far off might they be for the year 2028? I admit that my math is a bit rusty, but I think that the error may be a multiple of 100%.

 

 

Hanging our hats on a miniscule increase in supply that won't happen for 10-20 years and won't have a significant effect on prices is a recipe for disaster for this country. It's a little like putting a bandaid over a gunshot wound and saying, "that should do it". However, that seems to be the Republicans' solution to the problem in this election year. Like I said however, it is an effective argument for the not-very-well-informed.

You continue to throw out worst case scenarios everytime that domestic oil production is discussed. Alaska's governor believes that production from ANWR could be in the pipe in around five years. Of course, I am sure that her estimate is based on discussions with producers and mere state geologists - but it is ludicrous to imply that we cannot bring production from ANWR on line in less than 20 years. However, it is an effective argument to those who have no desire to be informed.

 

Direct quote from Pickens:

 

Drilling in ANWR and offshore is not even mentioned on Pickens' website. Sure sounds like he thinks it is an important piece of the solution.

In case you missed it, I quoted directly from Pickens. Pickens says that increased domestic oil production would help the current situation. Your quote only reenforces what most Americans believe - that increasing production from our own reserves is a piece of the puzzle that needs to be put into place.

 

If liberals continue to persist in their no drilling is good drilling approach to energy problems the November elections may not be the debacle for Republicans that many have predicted. Congress's approval ratings are already in single digits. How much lower can they go?

Oil shale recovery is not as economically viable as oil production in the middle east. If recovering oil from shale is extremely difficult or extremely expensive, that 1.5 trillion barrels might as well be on Mars.

 

Someone asked if we had enough oil to curve prices.. we clearly do. That is a fact. Nobody said it would be easy or convienent to get, but it's there.

 

The public American theory has always been... use up all the middle east then go get ours.

Which of these two will have a more beneficial effect on gas prices:

1) Increase domestic production (which, by the absolute worst estimations, will still save us money (at least a nominal amount)

 

or

 

2) Tax the oil companies.

 

No one thinks drilling alone is the answer. But it's part of it, and if not even a part of it, then its better than more taxes.

:thumb: Well said. I really would like for liberals to explain how higher taxes will reduce gasoline prices.

The dems rather save a fish and make there own middle to lower class people suffer with 4.00 gas.

Have you seen anything on what the costs would be? I would think with people talking $300 per barrel it would start to be in the equation but I've never seen any cost projections.

 

I haven't tried to google it, but that is a good question. I suspect it may be economically viable at the oil prices we have today, but there may not be confidence that oil will stay at this level.

Authoritative source? I thought the EIA was a government agency! :lol:

 

Given its track record of oil price predictions, maybe the fellas at EIA should dust off a high school economics book.

 

 

Are you sure that you are willing to stake the future on our economy on the EIA's estimates. Maybe you could sharpen that pencil of yours and project the accuracy that we might expect of the EIA forecasted impact of ANWR on gasoline prices based on the following track record. If the EIA's forecasts are off by 31.5% how far off might they be for the year 2028? I admit that my math is a bit rusty, but I think that the error may be a multiple of 100%.

 

 

I would sure trust the analysis of paid professionals whose job it is to make such forecasts over the opinions of a person on a high school sports website! So tell me, how much would the additional ~1% of world supply reduce world oil prices? $1 a barrel? $5 a barrel? $50 a barrel? Is it enough to preserve the future of our economy (as you imply with your alarmist statement)? And what is your analysis based on? A dartboard? Tiny hairs standing up on the back of the neck? This is really a nice election issue for the Republicans to beat on, however you would do well to just acknowledge that and stop trying to make the incredulous argument (based on nothing, really) that there will be any significant price or import dependence effect.

 

 

You continue to throw out worst case scenarios everytime that domestic oil production is discussed. Alaska's governor believes that production from ANWR could be in the pipe in around five years. Of course, I am sure that her estimate is based on discussions with producers and mere state geologists - but it is ludicrous to imply that we cannot bring production from ANWR on line in less than 20 years. However, it is an effective argument to those who have no desire to be informed.

 

I think you need to check your information. The quote I saw from Alaska's governor said she thought it would take at least five years, not "around five years". That sounds unsurprisingly noncommittal and vague. Could be 6 years, could be 60 years, couldn't it? I suspect Ms. Palin's agenda is simply to take credit for delivering ANWR drilling to her constituents, and is not really concerned with how long it takes to deliver the first barrel. And what would her qualifications be to make such an assessment on ANWR readiness? Hmmm... Degree in Journalism. Two terms on the Wasilla city council. Ethics commissioner on the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Yep, she seems qualified...

 

 

In case you missed it, I quoted directly from Pickens. Pickens says that increased domestic oil production would help the current situation. Your quote only reenforces what most Americans believe - that increasing production from our own reserves is a piece of the puzzle that needs to be put into place.

 

 

Yes, a 4 cent piece of a $4 puzzle. That'll sure make a difference most Americans will notice. If you drive a larger vehicle, you might even be able to afford that cost prohibitive pack of gum with every fillup.

I would sure trust the analysis of paid professionals whose job it is to make such forecasts over the opinions of a person on a high school sports website! So tell me, how much would the additional ~1% of world supply reduce world oil prices? $1 a barrel? $5 a barrel? $50 a barrel? Is it enough to preserve the future of our economy (as you imply with your alarmist statement)? And what is your analysis based on? A dartboard? Tiny hairs standing up on the back of the neck? This is really a nice election issue for the Republicans to beat on, however you would do well to just acknowledge that and stop trying to make the incredulous argument (based on nothing, really) that there will be any significant price or import dependence effect.

I have considerable experience forcasting coal prices...and you? Coal prices are considerably easier to project than oil prices and anybody who puts any faith in a 20-year forecast does not understand the nature of the global (or domestic) energy market. I confess that my five-year forecasts were no more accurate than the IEA's forecasts. One might as well use a dartboard when forecasting beyond a five-year period. The results will not be substantially different than those based on a mountain of expert analysis.

 

It is interesting that you posted the IEA price projections for 20 years in the future and then decide to attack my credentials instead of defending the lackluster track record of your source. Were you not surprised at how inaccurate the IEA's forecasts have been over periods much shorter than 20 years?

 

I think you need to check your source on that quote. The quote I saw from Alaska's governor said she thought it would take at least five years, not "around five years". That sounds unsurprisingly noncommittal and vague. Could be 6 years, could be 60 years, couldn't it? I suspect Ms. Palin's agenda is simply to take credit for delivering ANWR drilling to her constituents, and is not really concerned with how long it takes to deliver the first barrel. And what would her qualifications be to make such an assessment on ANWR readiness? Hmmm... Degree in Journalism. Two terms on the Wasilla city council. Ethics commissioner on the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Yep, she seems qualified...

So the governor of Alaska, the nation's second largest oil producer, is not a credible source. I see. :lol:

 

I suspect that the Alaskan Governor is far more familiar with her state's largest industry than you give her credit. For example, I am certain that she is aware that drilling in ANWR would be confined to a mere 2,000 acres of a 1.5 million acre portion of the 18 million acre reserve.

 

Oh, I have checked my source...and you?

 

IBD: How long will it take to develop these areas? Critics say five to 10 years.

 

Palin: ANWR would take five years to begin providing crude oil to our pipeline. But you have to consider that if we'd started this five years ago, then we wouldn't be in this position right now. And who knows where we're going to be in another five years.

 

There are even bigger sources of crude than ANWR . . . such as offshore areas like the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea. Congress can help us with those areas right now, bringing even more energy than ANWR and bringing it quicker.

 

We frequently find ourselves at the mercy of those who think that we must be protected from ourselves. Shell is up here wanting to drill offshore, but they've been fighting various environmental groups through the 9th Circuit Court and are running into very fierce pushback. In this area, Congress could help us with the development and bring those sources of energy to market quicker than ANWR. - Alaska's 'Frustrated' Governor Palin On Our 'Nonsensical' Energy Policy

 

I interpret Gov. Palin's words as meaning that it will take five years to put oil from ANWR in the pipeline. However, I can see how some might interpret her words differently.

 

Yes, a 4 cent piece of a $4 puzzle. That'll sure make a difference most Americans will notice. If you drive a larger vehicle, you might even be able to afford that cost prohibitive pack of gum with every fillup.

:lol: I prefer to Chuck Shumer's estimate of the impact of 1 million barrels of oil per day of new production on gasoline prices. Of course, Shumer's number was only intended to apply to additional Saudi Arabian production - but I think that his number is a little more realistic than your 4 cent number.

I have considerable experience forcasting coal prices...and you? Coal prices are considerably easier to project than oil prices and anybody who puts any faith in a 20-year forecast does not understand the nature of the global (or domestic) energy market. I confess that my five-year forecasts were no more accurate than the IEA's forecasts. One might as well use a dartboard when forecasting beyond a five-year period. The results will not be substantially different than those based on a mountain of expert analysis.

 

It is interesting that you posted the IEA price projections for 20 years in the future and then decide to attack my credentials instead of defending the lackluster track record of your source. Were you not surprised at how inaccurate the IEA's forecasts have been over periods much shorter than 20 years?

 

 

 

You pointed out EIA's history of forecasting the market price of oil, which is a function of many, many factors. That is not the same as predicting the change in market price due to a very small change in one factor. Accurately forecasting the absolute magnitude of something with many input variables (each having a wide range of possibilities) is always much more difficult than estimating the difference due to a minor change in one input variable, holding all others constant. Therefore, your point is not really applicable.

You pointed out EIA's history of forecasting the market price of oil, which is a function of many, many factors. That is not the same as predicting the change in market price due to a very small change in one factor. Accurately forecasting the absolute magnitude of something with many input variables (each having a wide range of possibilities) is always much more difficult than estimating the difference due to a minor change in one input variable, holding all others constant. Therefore, your point is not really applicable.

 

If a small change in oil production would have a negligible affect on price, then why did the price spike when Huriccanne Katrina disrupted production in the Gulf of Mexico?

You pointed out EIA's history of forecasting the market price of oil, which is a function of many, many factors. That is not the same as predicting the change in market price due to a very small change in one factor. Accurately forecasting the absolute magnitude of something with many input variables (each having a wide range of possibilities) is always much more difficult than estimating the difference due to a minor change in one input variable, holding all others constant. Therefore, your point is not really applicable.

The cost of oil is not the result of some laboratory experiment. You cannot hold all of the variables constant while measuring the effect that additional domestic production would have on the price of a gallon of gasoline. Therefore, your point is not really applicable.

 

Proponents of the unfounded theory that placing additional reserves on the market would have a negligible effect on gasoline prices are conveniently overlooking the psychological impact that a strong American resolve to displace foreign oil in the domestic market would have.

 

The no-new-drilling advocates are also overlooking the impact that the income from the sale of additional domestic production would have on our economy. How many jobs would an additional $100 million per day in oil revenues from ANWR production create (even if the oil is shipped to Asia)? Would you really rather have an Iranian madman or Saudi prince to pocket that money than an American oil company?

 

The whole notion that the US can close the spigot on domestic oil production and not affect the future cost of gasoline is preposterous. Our children will pay dearly for the short-sighted political games that environmental extremists are playing with this nation's economic lifeblood.

I recently emailed Senator McConnell thought I would share his staffs response.

 

Senator McConnell is working to get a vote on the Gas Price Reduction Act that would allow for increased domestic energy exploration and production while expanding utilization of alternatives like electric cars and trucks. Most Americans now support allowing expanded domestic energy production, including offshore drilling. Read Senator McConnell’s recent remarks on the Senate floor about the Gas Price Reduction Act.

 

If you haven't yet done so, take a moment to sign the petition encouraging Congress to take action that will lower gas prices.

 

Thanks for your support.

 

-Justin Brasell

Campaign Manager