Barack’s solution wouldn’t give us any short term solution either.
Of course it wouldn’t solve anything in the long run either.
The environmnentalists have had 30 years to get us into this mess. We’re not going to get out of this as soon as we’d like.
The Whistler - 06:06am on 06/21/2008
Here’s the short term solution: Expedite our oil deals with Iraq, deploy our soldiers to protect the oilfields, pipelines and oil shipping ports, and enjoy the radical change in our oil supply. Long-term: drill here, drill now, more oil from American soil(got that one off the radio yesterday).
robert108 - 07:06am on 06/21/2008
Oil is a worldwide market. The US’s influence on this market will continue its steady decline. Event if we were to develop all our resources as fast as possible, it wouldn’t have much impact on the oil market or gas prices. At the same time, our reserves will continue to increase in value and stategic importance.
The market will take care of itself. The high price of oil will promote more energy efficiency which will reduce demand worldwide. At the same time, those high prices will increase supply. This will happen regardless of what the US does domestically. In two or three years, things will have calmed down in the oil markets. We might even have another oil glut like we did during after the oil shocks of the late 70’s.
In the meantime, let’s not rush to burn through all of our domestic reserves. That oil has been sitting there for thousands of years. It’s not going anywhere. The longer we sit on it, the better off we’ll all be in the long run. Let’s let the Saudis burn through their reserves first.
At the same time, the bang for the buck in conservation is much greater. If we can make our cars 10% more efficient, that reduces our gas bills by 10% FOREVER. It’s much easier to do that than to pump enough oil into the worldwide market to reduce the worldwide price by 10%.
jimmy - 08:06am on 06/21/2008
Some rambling thoughts on energy....We have too much of an either/or approach to energy. Either conservation or more supply. Either new hydrocarbon supply or renewables. Why can’t we let the market decide? High prices will encourage conservation AND new sources of supply, just get the federal restrictions on supply out of the way.
If we truly are in an energy crisis, which I don’t think we are, don’t go cap and trade - pass a carbon tax, and use the proceeds to lower other taxes. That will speed the effect of the market in encouraging new, different types of fuel.
Thank goodness most of the Bakken is on private land, so it can be developed in true free market fashion. The next administration will be more restrictive about developing federal lands, so US plays with lots of private ownership will gain focus.
If Saudi Arabia allowed direct outside investment in its resources, then you could say that “we” should exploit its lowest-cost resources first, economically speaking. But they don’t allow such investment, and neither do most OPEC countries, so where can private money go to reap a return on high oil prices? Not many places in the world, but the US is one.
The natural gas market is an example of what happens when the US has a supply advantage - the price we pay for NG is a third less than most of the developed and developing world, so LNG projects have stalled here while still going great guns in higher price areas of the world.
Zsa Zsa - 09:06am on 06/21/2008
...pass a carbon tax, and use the proceeds to lower other taxes. That will speed the effect of the market in encouraging new, different types of fuel.
Nope. Taxes distort the market, and especially taxes that are based on an incorrect premise. What is the rationalization for taxing “carbon”, anyway? Carbon dioxide isn’t a pollutant, and there is no proven reason to try to restrict its output, assuming that we can. The real effect of a carbon tax would be to transfer even more money from the private sector to the public sector, where it will simply provide for even more interference with market forces.
robert108 - 09:06am on 06/21/2008
Jimmy if you want to buy a vehicle that gets 10% or 100% better mileage then go ahead.
Just don’t be telling me what to do.
The Whistler - 10:06am on 06/21/2008
Event if we were to develop all our resources as fast as possible, it wouldn’t have much impact on the oil market or gas prices.
The numbers say otherwise. Nice leftie excuse for doing nothing, though.
The market doesn’t “take care of itself” in a beneficial way when supply is artificially limited. That produces distortions, like the present price of gas and our necessity of having relationships with terrorist States.
robert108 - 02:06pm on 06/21/2008
If one thing is true, it is that we cannot trust corporations to do the right. It enrages me that you continue to blame lack of supply for high fuel costs. It has been noted time and again that we have many resources here at home. However, the greedy oil companies will not drill unless they can be assured of high profits. North Dakota is a great example. The oilfields here sat idle until gas prices went up. Do you really believe the oil companies are going to deny themselves record profits by increasing our supply of home grown oil. I think not. That goes against the laws of supply and demand. Maybe we ought to get used to living within our means, like other countries. There is a reason they drive so many small high mpg cars. The price of gasoline.
ollie-B - 07:06am on 06/22/2008
It enrages me that you continue to blame lack of supply for high fuel costs.
That’s because your feelings have been manipulated by leftie propaganda, and you have no knowledge of economics. Today’s situation is the result of thirty years of a criminally incompetent energy policy instituted by Dems during the Carter administration. Instead of businessmen who are motivated to bring us good stuff at affordable prices, we are forced by environmentalist commies to restrict supply in the name of social engineering, with predictable results. It’s time to get the govt out of the energy business.
robert108 - 07:06am on 06/22/2008
It’s time to get the govt out of the energy business.
Which is exactly why John McCain wants the States - not the feds - to control their own resources!
Barack’s solution wouldn’t give us any short term solution either.
Of course it wouldn’t solve anything in the long run either.
The environmnentalists have had 30 years to get us into this mess. We’re not going to get out of this as soon as we’d like.
Here’s the short term solution: Expedite our oil deals with Iraq, deploy our soldiers to protect the oilfields, pipelines and oil shipping ports, and enjoy the radical change in our oil supply. Long-term: drill here, drill now, more oil from American soil(got that one off the radio yesterday).
Oil is a worldwide market. The US’s influence on this market will continue its steady decline. Event if we were to develop all our resources as fast as possible, it wouldn’t have much impact on the oil market or gas prices. At the same time, our reserves will continue to increase in value and stategic importance.
The market will take care of itself. The high price of oil will promote more energy efficiency which will reduce demand worldwide. At the same time, those high prices will increase supply. This will happen regardless of what the US does domestically. In two or three years, things will have calmed down in the oil markets. We might even have another oil glut like we did during after the oil shocks of the late 70’s.
In the meantime, let’s not rush to burn through all of our domestic reserves. That oil has been sitting there for thousands of years. It’s not going anywhere. The longer we sit on it, the better off we’ll all be in the long run. Let’s let the Saudis burn through their reserves first.
At the same time, the bang for the buck in conservation is much greater. If we can make our cars 10% more efficient, that reduces our gas bills by 10% FOREVER. It’s much easier to do that than to pump enough oil into the worldwide market to reduce the worldwide price by 10%.
Some rambling thoughts on energy....We have too much of an either/or approach to energy. Either conservation or more supply. Either new hydrocarbon supply or renewables. Why can’t we let the market decide? High prices will encourage conservation AND new sources of supply, just get the federal restrictions on supply out of the way.
If we truly are in an energy crisis, which I don’t think we are, don’t go cap and trade - pass a carbon tax, and use the proceeds to lower other taxes. That will speed the effect of the market in encouraging new, different types of fuel.
Thank goodness most of the Bakken is on private land, so it can be developed in true free market fashion. The next administration will be more restrictive about developing federal lands, so US plays with lots of private ownership will gain focus.
If Saudi Arabia allowed direct outside investment in its resources, then you could say that “we” should exploit its lowest-cost resources first, economically speaking. But they don’t allow such investment, and neither do most OPEC countries, so where can private money go to reap a return on high oil prices? Not many places in the world, but the US is one.
The natural gas market is an example of what happens when the US has a supply advantage - the price we pay for NG is a third less than most of the developed and developing world, so LNG projects have stalled here while still going great guns in higher price areas of the world.
Nope. Taxes distort the market, and especially taxes that are based on an incorrect premise. What is the rationalization for taxing “carbon”, anyway? Carbon dioxide isn’t a pollutant, and there is no proven reason to try to restrict its output, assuming that we can. The real effect of a carbon tax would be to transfer even more money from the private sector to the public sector, where it will simply provide for even more interference with market forces.
Jimmy if you want to buy a vehicle that gets 10% or 100% better mileage then go ahead.
Just don’t be telling me what to do.
The numbers say otherwise. Nice leftie excuse for doing nothing, though.
The market doesn’t “take care of itself” in a beneficial way when supply is artificially limited. That produces distortions, like the present price of gas and our necessity of having relationships with terrorist States.
If one thing is true, it is that we cannot trust corporations to do the right. It enrages me that you continue to blame lack of supply for high fuel costs. It has been noted time and again that we have many resources here at home. However, the greedy oil companies will not drill unless they can be assured of high profits. North Dakota is a great example. The oilfields here sat idle until gas prices went up. Do you really believe the oil companies are going to deny themselves record profits by increasing our supply of home grown oil. I think not. That goes against the laws of supply and demand. Maybe we ought to get used to living within our means, like other countries. There is a reason they drive so many small high mpg cars. The price of gasoline.
That’s because your feelings have been manipulated by leftie propaganda, and you have no knowledge of economics. Today’s situation is the result of thirty years of a criminally incompetent energy policy instituted by Dems during the Carter administration. Instead of businessmen who are motivated to bring us good stuff at affordable prices, we are forced by environmentalist commies to restrict supply in the name of social engineering, with predictable results. It’s time to get the govt out of the energy business.
Which is exactly why John McCain wants the States - not the feds - to control their own resources!