Oil in America

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BlueK

The whole oil independence thing is irrelevant. The world price and market for oil couldn't care less where our oil was drilled. But it makes for good political rhetoric. If we don't buy our oil from the middle east, (which for the most part we don't anyway) Europeans or Chinese, or someone else will. The middle east will still be important as long as someone is buying from them and opec will still have a huge impact on the world price for oil as long as there is demand. The only way to lessen the importance of the middle east is for the overall demand for oil to go down. Where it comes from doesn't matter.

The world oil market cares about supply. We become capable of putting a few billion more barrels a year on the market, and it will indeed have an impact. Prices would also be cheaper to Americans because domestic oil would be cheaper than foreign.

Moreover, were we to export more than the measly 300M barrels/year we currently do, we would command a much greater presence in determining how the world market functions. Yes, the Chinese, the Europeans, or whoever would still buy from the Middle East. But they also might buy from us.

As I said in my linked post, I'm not opposed to alternative fuel research. I am opposed to artificially handcuffing our own energy resources as a means of "forcing" that research. Oil is going to be with us yet for a very long time, barring some new miracle resource, and we might as well press our advantage.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

This is exactly right. *The* imperative is to reduce our appetite for cheap oil.

As for point argued before that we should let the market reduce our consumption, that's all good, but we've been here before, and we went right back to gas-guzzling hogs as soon as the price of gas subsided. Some things the market doesn't do well, and national defense policy, immigration policy & energy policy are three areas we shouldn't let the market decide where we go as a nation.

(Weren't conservatives angry when Carter created the Dept of Energy?)

Point of reference. If when the price of gas subsided we went right back ot gas-guzzling hogs, why was oil so cheap up until 2005 or so. Do you think the economic growth of China and India might have had something to do with it.

Plus in a free market system, aren't we allowed to make pigs of ourselves and then pay the price.

You think rising gas prices have hurt us, wait until the dems raise taxes. My guess is I will spend about an extra $1,200 a year in gas costs. That is nothing compared to what my taxes will cost me if Obama gets elected.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

The world oil market cares about supply. We become capable of putting a few billion more barrels a year on the market, and it will indeed have an impact. Prices would also be cheaper to Americans because domestic oil would be cheaper than foreign.

Moreover, were we to export more than the measly 300M barrels/year we currently do, we would command a much greater presence in determining how the world market functions. Yes, the Chinese, the Europeans, or whoever would still buy from the Middle East. But they also might buy from us.

As I said in my linked post, I'm not opposed to alternative fuel research. I am opposed to artificially handcuffing our own energy resources as a means of "forcing" that research. Oil is going to be with us yet for a very long time, barring some new miracle resource, and we might as well press our advantage.

Even if we were able to find a clearly superior renewable energy source that was also less expensive than oil/gas, how long would it take to fully convert everything over to utilize that new fuel source?

[scottie]

Why is gas so much cheaper in Venezuela?

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lis...ces/price.html

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by scottie

Why is gas so much cheaper in Venezuela?

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lis...ces/price.html

Government subsidy which they can afford in part due to producing more than they can consume.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Is the far right really against increasing legal immigration quotas or improving the legal immigration process? I'm not familiar with those arguments.

The popular position is to oppose illegal immigration while saying kind things about legal immigration. But ask one of those folks about whether we should make it easier to enter legally and they're either totally ignorant of how difficult it is to enter legally, and suspicious of the idea of making it easier, or they just don't like the idea of allowing more legal immigration. At least, that's what it seems like to me. The real debate, IMO, is not really about legal vs. illegal. It's about how much immigration we want, total. It's my opinion that most of those hard core against illegal immigration don't really want more legal either.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Government subsidy which they can afford in part due to producing more than they can consume.

MASSIVE government subsidy. One starts to really get a picture of the American oil situation when one listens to the Execs testify to Congress:

Conoco Exec VP: "We can only compete directly for 7 percent of the world's available reserves while about 75 percent is completely controlled by national oil companies and is not accessible."

Exxon-Mobil Senior VP: "Exxon Mobil is the largest U.S. oil and gas company, but we account for only 2 percent of global energy production, only 3 percent of global oil production, only 6 percent of global refining capacity, and only 1 percent of global petroleum reserves. With respect to petroleum reserves, we rank 14th. Government-owned national oil companies dominate the top spots. For an American company to succeed in this competitive landscape and go head to head with huge government-backed national oil companies, it needs financial strength and scale to execute massive complex energy projects requiring enormous long-term investments."

And this stunner:

"Of the 2 million barrels per day Exxon Mobil refined in 2007 here in the United States, 90 percent were purchased from others."

Check it out at Powerline from a few weeks ago:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../05/020571.php

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Tex

The world oil market cares about supply. We become capable of putting a few billion more barrels a year on the market, and it will indeed have an impact. Prices would also be cheaper to Americans because domestic oil would be cheaper than foreign.

Moreover, were we to export more than the measly 300M barrels/year we currently do, we would command a much greater presence in determining how the world market functions. Yes, the Chinese, the Europeans, or whoever would still buy from the Middle East. But they also might buy from us.

As I said in my linked post, I'm not opposed to alternative fuel research. I am opposed to artificially handcuffing our own energy resources as a means of "forcing" that research. Oil is going to be with us yet for a very long time, barring some new miracle resource, and we might as well press our advantage.

Sure, dropping in more supply will affect the price. But it will not make any difference in the geo political game. It may not even affect the price that much as OPEC can still play games to drive it back up. It's debateable at best.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Sure, dropping in more supply will affect the price. But it will not make any difference in the geo poltical game.

I guess you ignored the rest of my post where I explained how it would.

[Tex]

An amusing observation about high gas prices:

Libs have long been in favor of higher gas prices via taxation (see: Charlie Rangel). They thought that if they could make gas prohibitively expensive it would force the electorate, and thus the political machine, to force alternative fuels into the mainstream.

Now higher gas prices are with us, and opening the coastline for more drilling--formerly a 3rd rail--is all the rage. Heh.

A silver lining, if there is such a thing.