[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
We don’t need an energy policy, we need Washington to get out of the way.
Okey doke, pal, lol. [/quote]
You actually think the crooks in Washington are going to get it right? Look no further than corn ethanol.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
dhickey wrote:
I’ll be happy to take you to school junior.
I’m sure you would. However, I’m not interested in learning about non-existent realities and regurgitated ideologies. The fact is that there is, has, and for the foreseeable future always will be energy policies.
The debate should be about whether or not they are working, which they clearly aren’t. Energy policy is an issue of national security. Period.
[/quote]
way to dodge. If we didn’t have energy policy we would be drilling our own oil and would have more nueclear. We wouldn’t be talking about the need for an energy policy.
You just said absolutly nothing here. try again. Start with what you are securing and how it wouldn’t be more secure without energy policy.
[quote]
And as to your statement about us not being “self governed” anymore, why on earth wouldn’t that be your first concern? If you are right about energy policy, which I obviously don’t think you are, we would have a MUCH better chance of doing what you say if we fixed this first.
You really have no business complaining about over regulation when you refuse to take any interest in self-governance. [/quote]
Who says I’m not concerned and not doing anything about it?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You actually think the crooks in Washington are going to get it right? Look no further than corn ethanol. [/quote]
They haven’t gotten it right! That’s for sure. Until recently all the Democrats have offered up is the ground-breaking idea that we should inflate our tires. Now that they are talking about drilling this is good.
If it weren’t for Harry Reid perhaps Nevadians might be willing to work with investors and strike a deal about storing nuclear waste in their state etc…
The market isn’t being allowed to work very well, and the solution is not to boycott government. The solution starts with two things really, a public debate about oil/energy and a discussion about fair congressional representation.
The idea that the laissez faire doctrine is somehow useful in justifying the abandonment of government is inane because without some form of government there wouldn’t even be property rights. The obvious solution is to fight for more representation in the existing government and to improve or replace existing energy policies that aren’t working, i.e. ethanol.
Or you could fight a revolution and replace the government… I’d rather not if possible.
I guess the ideal situation for the US to be in would be to have capacity to increase it’s own domestic supply with the turn of a few valve handles if so required up to the point where they have domestic supply covered.
There would need to be some kind of agreement on what was a fair and sustainable barrel price or a target range for the barrel price and output adjusted accordingly (basically this is what OPEC now try to do) the only difference would be that the US would be able to influence the market price by raising or lowering production hence their destiny would be in their own hands.
However I do believe there is a balance to be struck between using up your own reserves and buying on the free market from other nations - a bird in the hand, as long as you have the ability to turn on the taps at home when outside influences come in to play.
To achieve domestic energy independence the barrel price needs to remain high for the short and medium term to encourage the type of large scale, technically challenging, high risk, multi billion dollar developments required ($80 to $100) I would suggest would be a very encouraging price for oil companies.
This would also keep the pressure on alternates which I also believ is no bad thing… just my 2cents
[quote]dhickey wrote:
way to dodge. If we didn’t have energy policy we would be drilling our own oil and would have more nueclear. We wouldn’t be talking about the need for an energy policy.
[/quote]
It’s not dodging. The point was that the specific policy is wrong, not policy itself.
What you are securing is the right to not allow so few individuals to have so much control over national security. This shit is OBVIOUS.
Complaining about all government regulation is a cart with no horse.
[quote]JamFly wrote:
There would need to be some kind of agreement on what was a fair and sustainable barrel price or a target range for the barrel price and output adjusted accordingly (basically this is what OPEC now try to do) the only difference would be that the US would be able to influence the market price by raising or lowering production hence their destiny would be in their own hands.
[/quote]
I agree that the point of US energy policy should be to keep “destiny in hand,” but regulating prices won’t work because we can’t expect OPEC to accept 80$ if they can get more.
Anyway, prices are so fucked up from the Wall Street collapses that it would be impossible at this point to predict where prices will settle.
Your point about having a tap to turn on in order to send market signals to lower prices is right on though! The futures market is so prone to quick change that we actually gain an advantage when we announce plans to drill. When Bush dropped the ex. ban prices dropped at least 20$ in one day.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Anybody defending their rights is a defacto government that will probably form a cartel etc…[/quote]
So if somebody tries to take my wallet, and I kick his ass, I become a de facto government?
I did not know that.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You actually think the crooks in Washington are going to get it right? Look no further than corn ethanol.
They haven’t gotten it right! That’s for sure. Until recently all the Democrats have offered up is the ground-breaking idea that we should inflate our tires. Now that they are talking about drilling this is good.
If it weren’t for Harry Reid perhaps Nevadians might be willing to work with investors and strike a deal about storing nuclear waste in their state etc…
The market isn’t being allowed to work very well, and the solution is not to boycott government. The solution starts with two things really, a public debate about oil/energy and a discussion about fair congressional representation.
The idea that the laissez faire doctrine is somehow useful in justifying the abandonment of government is inane because without some form of government there wouldn’t even be property rights. The obvious solution is to fight for more representation in the existing government and to improve or replace existing energy policies that aren’t working, i.e. ethanol.
Or you could fight a revolution and replace the government… I’d rather not if possible.[/quote]
Who is arguing that there should be no gov’t? Why do you keep arguing that? gov’t should do exactly what they formed to do and no less. what is so hard to understand about that?
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
dhickey wrote:
way to dodge. If we didn’t have energy policy we would be drilling our own oil and would have more nueclear. We wouldn’t be talking about the need for an energy policy.
It’s not dodging. The point was that the specific policy is wrong, not policy itself.
[/quote] and the next one will be as well. what is so hard to figure out here? You must have just started following politics.
way to be specific. i can see exactly where this is going and the depth of your knowledge. i think i’ll stop wasting my time.
So is expecting politicians not to make political decisions.
Again, who is complaining about ALL gov’t regulation.
[quote]pat wrote:
In any case it still gives us more control, we are less at the mercy of OPEC. And we could by will take our oil off the market if we wish.[/quote]
I still don’t see how that works out for you.
You can’t produce enough oil to be self-sufficient. So any “missing” oil is going to be bought on the world market.
If you pull out of the market, you get your own oil cheaper (free even); but any oil you have to purchase then costs more, washing out (or greatly reducing) the savings. You can only win if you’re able to produce much more oil that you can consume (like Venezuela) so that even after taking all you need, you have leftovers to sell.
IF you could get most of you population to drive smaller, hybrid, natural gas powered cars, then maybe it could work out. Getting that result though, is even more unlikely than the US nationalizing its oil.
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
In any case it still gives us more control, we are less at the mercy of OPEC. And we could by will take our oil off the market if we wish.
I still don’t see how that works out for you.
You can’t produce enough oil to be self-sufficient. So any “missing” oil is going to be bought on the world market.
If you pull out of the market, you get your own oil cheaper (free even); but any oil you have to purchase then costs more, washing out (or greatly reducing) the savings. You can only win if you’re able to produce much more oil that you can consume (like Venezuela) so that even after taking all you need, you have leftovers to sell.
IF you could get most of you population to drive smaller, hybrid, natural gas powered cars, then maybe it could work out. Getting that result though, is even more unlikely than the US nationalizing its oil.
[/quote]
First, my next car is going to be a gas guzzler.
Second, if we reduce our demand on the world market, the prices will drop. The more we reduce it, the worse it is for OPEC. Just the threat of it causes prices to drop, I fail to see a problem with it. It’s a win win all the way around for us.
[quote]pat wrote:
First, my next car is going to be a gas guzzler.[/quote]
Don’t forget to deflate your tires and pull something heavy in a trailer.
You’re part of the world market. It makes no difference whether your oil comes from Texas, Alaska, Canada or Saudi Arabia.
The only way you can really reduce your demand is to use less oil.
Right. They’re really hurting over there. That’s why they’re building ski resorts under giant domes and artificial islands shaped like puckered assholes. They know the American specie of Gas-Guzzler-Driving-Moron isn’t going anywhere soon.
You’re sure showing them!
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
First, my next car is going to be a gas guzzler.
Don’t forget to deflate your tires and pull something heavy in a trailer.
Second, if we reduce our demand on the world market, the prices will drop.
You’re part of the world market. It makes no difference whether your oil comes from Texas, Alaska, Canada or Saudi Arabia.
[/quote] How do you figure? Why don’t we just quite refining it as well? Maybe we should quite farming over here as well. This make absolutely zero economic sense.
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
In any case it still gives us more control, we are less at the mercy of OPEC. And we could by will take our oil off the market if we wish.
I still don’t see how that works out for you.
You can’t produce enough oil to be self-sufficient. So any “missing” oil is going to be bought on the world market.
If you pull out of the market, you get your own oil cheaper (free even); but any oil you have to purchase then costs more, washing out (or greatly reducing) the savings. You can only win if you’re able to produce much more oil that you can consume (like Venezuela) so that even after taking all you need, you have leftovers to sell.
IF you could get most of you population to drive smaller, hybrid, natural gas powered cars, then maybe it could work out. Getting that result though, is even more unlikely than the US nationalizing its oil.
[/quote]
This post makes no sense, by comparing the US government to Venezuela you are actually suggesting that the US government could seize the assets of privately owned independent oil companies for their own ends? You must realise how ridiculous that suggestion is.
Also the US does have the potential to be a self-sufficient producer by expanding exploration and development - have you even been watching this election unfold? One of the biggest topics of debate is opening up new areas for drilling to achieve energy independence.
[quote]JamFly wrote:
One of the biggest topics of debate is opening up new areas for drilling to achieve energy independence.[/quote]
There is no serious chance that we can drill our way into energy independence. Look at the estimated reserves International - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
To look at oil consumption, see http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/politics/GlobalOil.html
The US consumes 19,650,000.00 bbl per day. We have a know reserve of 20.972 billion bbl. This is only 3 YEARS of reserve at our current consumption. Unless we can find a lot more reserves, the chant “Drill, Baby, Drill” should stay in the bedroom.
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
JamFly wrote:
One of the biggest topics of debate is opening up new areas for drilling to achieve energy independence.
There is no serious chance that we can drill our way into energy independence. Look at the estimated reserves International - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
To look at oil consumption, see http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/politics/GlobalOil.html
The US consumes 19,650,000.00 bbl per day. We have a know reserve of 20.972 billion bbl. This is only 3 YEARS of reserve at our current consumption. Unless we can find a lot more reserves, the chant “Drill, Baby, Drill” should stay in the bedroom.
[/quote]
This make so sense whatsoever. We should extract as much of our own oil as makes economic sense.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This make so sense whatsoever. We should extract as much of our own oil as makes economic sense.
[/quote]
What makes no sense? I put the estimated US reserves in the numerator, and I took the daily only consumption per day in the denominator. The result is the number of days that the US would would last if we used all of our know reserves.
Do you disagree with the rate at which we consume oil? Do you know of more oil reserves than the DOE? There is a pretty easy way to make money if you know where to find oil, so please let me know where it is.
If my back of the envelope estimate is reasonable, it just means that if we drill or not, we are not going to achieve energy independence. We can only reduce our dependence a little by drilling all of our reserves, it doesn’t matter much. I don’t really care if we all piss in Lake Michigan either, Chicago isn’t going to flood despite our best efforts. Some things just don’t matter - you have to do the math to figure out what matters. We simply don’t have enough oil in the US to come anywhere close to independence.
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
This make so sense whatsoever. We should extract as much of our own oil as makes economic sense.
What makes no sense? I put the estimated US reserves in the numerator, and I took the daily only consumption per day in the denominator. The result is the number of days that the US would would last if we used all of our know reserves.
Do you disagree with the rate at which we consume oil? Do you know of more oil reserves than the DOE? There is a pretty easy way to make money if you know where to find oil, so please let me know where it is.
If my back of the envelope estimate is reasonable, it just means that if we drill or not, we are not going to achieve energy independence. We can only reduce our dependence a little by drilling all of our reserves, it doesn’t matter much. I don’t really care if we all piss in Lake Michigan either, Chicago isn’t going to flood despite our best efforts. Some things just don’t matter - you have to do the math to figure out what matters. We simply don’t have enough oil in the US to come anywhere close to independence.
[/quote]
Your statement that we should find more reserves before we drill makes no sense.
There is no such thing as energy independence. Never was, never will be. We should drill anyway.
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
JamFly wrote:
One of the biggest topics of debate is opening up new areas for drilling to achieve energy independence.
There is no serious chance that we can drill our way into energy independence. Look at the estimated reserves International - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
To look at oil consumption, see http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/politics/GlobalOil.html
The US consumes 19,650,000.00 bbl per day. We have a know reserve of 20.972 billion bbl. This is only 3 YEARS of reserve at our current consumption. Unless we can find a lot more reserves, the chant “Drill, Baby, Drill” should stay in the bedroom.
[/quote]
The US is currently running as a net importer to the tune of roughly 12million barrels/day. The reason I used the word ‘potential’ in my previous post is that currently the Gulf of Mexico is the only area offshore US which has been heavily explored and developed.
When you consider the geographically small area of the GoM compared with the Pacific/Atlantic areas you can imagine the potential for exploration and development. 12 million barrels is a large short fall but when you consider developments such as Thunderhorse which currently produces ~250,000b/day it’s not inconceivable that the US could go a large way to meeting their own demand if several large finds were made (in Brazil the Tupi field has just been discovered estimated to contain 8BILLION barrels with an estimated 80BILLION (unconfirmed) in the surrounding areas).
I do believe that oil and gas has to be just one part of a sustainable energy solution going forward in the search for energy independence options such as nuclear and renewables do need to be pursued to give a sustainable blend.
Additional to my last post taken from an industry article.
Chevron announced the discovery of a giant oil reserve in the Gulf of Mexico, the Jack Field, estimated to hold as much as 15 billion barrels of oil, enough to increase the U.S. proven reserves by as much as 50 percent.
Still, environmentalists largely have blocked offshore ultra-deep oil exploration in the U.S.
Yet Cuba announced plans to hire the communist Chinese to drill for oil some 45 miles off the shores of Florida.
This move was made possible by the 1977 agreement under President Jimmy Carter that created for Cuba an “Exclusive Economic Zone” extending from the country’s western tip to the north, virtually to Key West, Fla.