Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Optimism About Gas Prices Trumps Pessimism Every Time

By Kevin Roeten

The cost of gas is exorbitant. If we want lower gas prices, there’s an easy way to do it.

How many of us wallow in our fear-mongering and still believe that any oil drilling will decimate the pristine coasts. If they’re not worried about beaches, there worried about OPEC. Or about how using more oil will produce more CO2 and produce more anthropogenic global warming? Or that we’re rapidly approaching “peak-oil”? “Use” or “lose” 68 million acres of dormant leases?

How utterly gloomy.

We know that drilling is prohibited on 85% of America’s offshore waters. From sources of James Inhofe (Senate Committee on Environment) the Pacific and Atlantic regions of the Outer Continental Shelf hold an estimated 14 billion barrels of oil which are equivalent to over 25 years of imports from Saudi Arabia. ANWR is estimated to contain at least 10 billion barrels of oil, or 15 years of imports from Saudi Arabia. If Clinton hadn’t vetoed legislation on ANWR oil 10 years ago, today we would have 1 million barrels/day coming in from ANWR. Even conservative estimates (MMS) show that between 1.57-2.78 billion barrels of oil exist off Florida’s coast.

The Canadian Oil Sands contain 179.2 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. The Energy Independence and Security Act prohibits federal agencies from procuring an alternative fuel produced from non-conventional petroleum sources. Today, eight countries (India, Vietnam, Spain, Malaysia, Norway, Cuba, China and Canada) are exploring, leasing or drilling for oil in the Cuban waters just 45 miles off the coast of Florida. In the Green River Formation (Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah), the Rand Corporation estimates that 1.1 trillion barrels are recoverable at prices as low as $35-$48/barrel within the first 12 years of commercial scale production.

The reason Democrats use for not drilling is hypothetical environmental problems. Major spills from drilling platforms actually are non-existent. Two massive category-5 hurricanes (Katrina and Rita) recently plowed through the heart of 3000 Gulf of Mexico oil and gas platforms just 4 weeks apart (Investors’ Business Daily). There were no problems, mainly due to the new ‘breakaway’ technology used by rigs. New automatic cutoff valves eliminate any spill.

Norway and Britain have been in the North Sea for decades without incident. The National Academy of Sciences found that 63% of petroleum found in North American waters comes from natural seepage from the ocean floor. The Department of the Interior said, “Since 1985 more than 7 billion barrels of oil have been produced from federal waters with less than 0.001 % spilled.” It’s likely that more oil has leaked from transportation vehicles than was spilled in the oceans. Almost all offshore oil rigs have become havens for fish and marine wildlife.

How many forget that when Prudhoe Bay was first opened up, OPEC’s price of oil plummeted. When ANWR begins drilling and producing, expect a major drop in oil prices. With another supplier to America, the law of Supply and Demand really kicks in. OPEC controls most oil pricing, but is not controlled by any one government. And, caribou in Alaska are increasing because of warmer temperatures near the pipeline.

Per Inhofe, Democrats seem to want to shift the blame when they claim there are 68 million acres in America where oil companies have bought the rights to drill, but are just sitting on those leases. Recent oil finding techniques reveal where there is no oil to be had. “Between 2002-2007, 52% of all exploration wells...were dry. By opening the nation’s access to the reserves of the Outer Continental Shelf, ANWR, and Oil Shale, we could cut our nations trade deficit nearly in half.” The Energy Information Association says the US spent $327 billion in 2007 to import oil. These oil imports were 46% of the nation’s $711 billion trade deficit in 2007.

It’s interesting that a very close study of the last 500,000 years has revealed that all anthropogenic global warming has been almost non-existent and warming and cooling is directly due to the sun. It’s even more mystifying how overlays of CO2 concentrations with temperature have usually shown CO2 levels increasing after the temperature spikes.

But the Democrats in Congress refuse to increase our supply of energy, and our gas prices keep rising. Recent polls from Rasmussen reveal that 67% of Americans want to drill offshore, while only 18% do not. But because of regulations in America, OPEC realizes that gas prices can be skewed. In the US gas averages $4.02/ gal, while in China it’s $2.84/gal, in Indonesia it’s $2.44, in Mexico it’s $2.65, and in Venezuela it’s only $0.20 (Inhofe). And, you don’t get natural seepage from the ocean floor by reaching “peak-oil”. Anybody ever heard of “abiotic”?

It seems that even rogue corporations like OPEC still have to bow to the law of Supply and Demand if Congress allows America to drill for available oil.

18 comments:

Voltron said...

From the Politico:

"With fewer than 20 legislative days before the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1, the entire appropriations process has largely ground to a halt because of the ham-handed fighting that followed Republican attempts to lift the moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration. And after promising fairness and open debate, Pelosi has resorted to hard-nosed parliamentary devices that effectively bar any chance for Republicans to offer policy alternatives.

“I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned."

Just who the hell gave her THAT job? Hey Bela, try just saving AMERICA.

Voltron said...

What is it with libs anyway?

We have justice Kennedy who looks at INTERNATIONAL law for inspiration instead of the Constitution, now Pelosi, (elected by Americans to congress - at least I think they're Americans, considering her district and all...) who believes she's been elected to "Save the Planet!"...

Besides, I thought we already had a messiah running in this election?

clif said...

Nice to see YOU can't admit YOU were wrong ..... again (as usual)

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

My reason to drill? The less we have to deal with those unstable/bellicose Middle-Eastern dictatorships, the better. It's an easy call for me. Plus, we know how to drill more safely now. Even Mike is on board with us on this one, I think.

clif said...

Senator Imhoff needs to do better research and so do right wing trolls like you;

He should have read this article

Or googles this term;

North Sea oil fields+accidents .....

and he would have found this out.

Following the accident in 1977 at an offshore oil producing platform in the Ekofisk oil field (North Sea) an estimated amount of 13000–15000 tons of oil polluted the sea

Which is around 95,000 barrels of oil. Not an insignificant amount.

AND;

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Kristin Hoffmann of Petroleum Safety Authority Norway (Petroleumtilsynet) told Dagens Nyheter: "This is the second largest in Norwegian history."
[see above] The amount of oil released into the sea is believed to be at least 3840 cubic metres, 25,000 barrels, or approximately 4,000 metric tons. This amount would rank the spill low on the list of oil spills.

this from here;



March 1980: Alexander Keilland oil rig in Ekofisk field of North Sea broke up with fatigue fracture and capsized, killing 123 people.

this

January 1985: Two men were killed and two injured in a pump room explosion on Glomar Arctic II rig in the North Sea.

maybe this;

July 1988: In the world's worst oil rig disaster, 167 people were killed when Occidental Petroleum's Piper Alpha oil rig in the North Sea exploded after a gas leak.

THIS;

September 1988: One person was killed and 66 people rescued uninjured after American-owned Ocean Odyssey drilling rig burst into flames in the North Sea.

or this;

August 1991: Three people were injured in an explosion on Fulmar Alpha platform in the North Sea, owned by Shell.


But then again you were using James Inhoff as a source for facts, which he usually gets wrong.

clif said...

As for the rest of his speech which is the foundation of your less then factual post, lets just say it is as factually challenged, but a good partisan set of untrue talking points for YOU to post .... eh dolt

clif said...

BTW Volt, STILL can't admit I was right about the Center for Media and Public Affairs survey FOR JUNE and JULY and YOU quoted their survey from march and April, can ya son?

Voltron said...

You're right Cliffy, I didn't catch the dates. The current survey is not up on their website yet. I looked at the latest one they had posted.

I'm gonna reserve judgment until I can actually read it.

clif said...

Go ahead, FAR too many people who are better connected then either of US have read it and reported on it.

Enjoy it when it comes out cause like Sen Inhoff you probably can ignore the facts to spin what you want to say.

clif said...

Here volty;

ENJOY SON;

July 28, 2008

MEDIA BASH BARACK (NOT A TYPO)



Study Finds Obama Faring Worse On TV News Than McCain

Barack Obama is getting more negative coverage than John McCain on TV network evening news shows, reversing Obama’s lead in good press during the primaries, according to a new study by Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). The study also finds that a majority of both candidates’ coverage is unfavorable for the first time this year. According to CMPA President Dr. S. Robert Lichter, “Obama replaced McCain as the media’s favorite candidate after New Hampshire. But now the networks are voting no on both candidates.”

These results are from the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) 2008 Election News Watch Project. They are based on a scientific content analysis of 249 election news stories (7 hours 38 minutes of airtime) that aired on ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and Fox Special Report (first half hour) from June 8, 2008 to July 21, 2008. Previously we analyzed 2144 stories (43 hrs 30 min airtime) during the primary campaign from December 16, 2007 through June 7, 2008. We report on all on-air evaluations of the candidates by sources and reporters, after excluding comments by the campaigns about each other.

MAJOR FINDINGS:

Since the primaries ended, on-air evaluations of Barack Obama have been 72% negative (vs. 28% positive). That’s worse than John McCain’s coverage, which has been 57% negative (vs. 43% positive) during the same time period.



This is a major turnaround since McCain and Obama emerged as front-runners in the early primaries. From the New Hampshire primary on January 8 until Hillary Clinton dropped out on June 7, Obama’s coverage was 62% positive (v. 38% negative) on the broadcast networks; by contrast, McCain’s coverage during this period was only 34% positive (v. 66% negative).



Obama ran even farther behind McCain on Fox News Channel’s Special Report with 79% negative comments (v. 21% positive), compared to 61% negative comments (v. 39% positive) for McCain since June 8. During the primaries Obama had a slight lead in good press on Fox, with 52% favorable comments (v. 48 % unfavorable), compared to 48% favorable (v. 52% unfavorable) for McCain.



Obama’s bad press has come at a time when he was much more visible than McCain. Since June 8, he has been the subject of 120 stories on the three network evening news shows, 50% more than John McCain’s 80 stories.



Examples of Obama’s evaluations:



Positive: “Obama came to Baghdad and he brought his star power with him…..hundreds of U.S. troops and State Department personnel mobbed Obama at the embassy here.” –Terry Moran, ABC



Negative: “You raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying, even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, ‘why’?” – Katie Couric, CBS



Negative: “Far more Americans say John McCain would be a good commander in chief than Obama” – Jake Tapper, ABC




Like I said before you said I was lying.

Voltron said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I can't believe it, dude. Bartlebee actually called Mike out on the use of the term, Reich Wing. About time, huh?

Mike said...

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
I can't believe it, dude. Bartlebee actually called Mike out on the use of the term, Reich Wing. About time, huh?"


And I told him essentially the same thing i told you albeit in a slightly nicer more respectful way that i'll say what i want and call things like I see em............see Will although I agree with you on much of what you say I dont really respect you because you do the very thing you piss and whine about........ie assign others positions, never admit when your wrong, deny facts, act like a hippocrite etc......

I may not agree with Voltron on that much, but at least i feel the positions he claims to stand for are genuine and he's being honest at least in that regard with himself and everyone else.

I b

Mike said...

I will admit to this, although i have been known to give volt a hard time when he tries to blindly defend the Bush Admin and their failed policies or blindly defend conservatives or Conservatism which in recent years has become a failed ideology or spin lies about energy policy discredit his opponents etc.........I dont dislike him and do have some respect for him.

I wont say this often, but i've actually learned quite a bit from Volt in many areas both directly and from researching the facts to expose some of his empty talking points.

Mike said...

BTW, Volt, you havent been around much lately............everything OK????????

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

What facts have I denied, Mike?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I go after people who I deem to be unfair, whether they be "the future was yesterday", who was unfair to Obama (to which he referred me as part of the "Obama police" - go figure, huh?) or "existentialist cowboy", who is still peddling insider theories on 9/11. And I have no patience for idiotic hyperbole. Sue me.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I'm honest, too, Mike. I "honestly" hate BOTH parties and "honestly" believe that 99.9% of all politicians are typical politicians. Looks like my suspicions about Obama may have at least been partly founded, huh?