Not in the way you are thinking
yes, in the way that I am thinking. Supply goes up, price goes down. Supply and demand go up, it becomes a contest between the two. Demand goes up while supply dwindles or stays the same, price goes up.
We are unlikely to get the first; that doesn't mean we should shoot for the third.
Your argument is secondarily crap because you are not addressing how commodity markets work. This is probably the fundamental failing of most people when they talk about oil. They don't get how oil is priced, traded and moved. And it's painfully evident in your argument.
:roll: I love how you throw off comments like that as though you imagine that anyone here is intimidated by you. :lol: what, did the football team laugh at your penis in the locker room or something?
More likely it's a combination of declining production, increasing US imports from other nations and increasing exports of Venezuelan oil to other nations. But I do not disagree that Nationalization is bad for oil production for a number of reasons....
... So you'd force the government to intercede with the private commodities market that would effectively cause refineries to reduce their profit margins even further from where they stand now only to watch Venezuela sell its oil to China and thus actually hurt the US overall with no impacts to Chavez? That's epic fail there.
...
If this was 2006/2007 you'd be right. CNOOC and Sinopec have spent huge amounts of money over the past years to build high sulfur refineries. Sinopec alone increased capacity by leaps and bounds.
well I will admit that my information is dated by probably about at least 2 years here - and if you are correct, then yes, that particular side-benefit of drilling becomes mooted; and the question becomes what happens when we make the
Chinese the monopsony for Venezuelan oil. I would bet Chavez is weakened, but increasingly becomes a (mostly willing) tool of their attempts to destabilize US efforts in the region.
um. sort of the whole time, man.
And thus why you're a fake conservative.
wrong - conservative =/= strict libertarian ; and there are solid foreign policy reasons for narrow and specific trade restrictions.
Hyperbole much? My point (which you seem content to ignore) is that we cannot bring prices down with domestic drilling.
if that is your claim, then rejoice; your preferred conclusion will occur regardless.
The 10 year argument is merely to contrast additional supply with additional demand to point out you are wrong.
- yet it doesn't. opening up the Rockies, both Coasts, and Alaska to drilling still sends futures down off their current up-bidding.
The corollary argument is that we should be getting OFF oil not getting more attached.
according to you, extra drilling will not make us more attached. we will only become less attached as prices always and invariably march upward.
Additional drilling is fine. That will slow prices. But it cannot reduce prices.
that I am not so sure of. We are talking about a
lot of oil. And as the tech continues to develop we
will see reduced demand
off the baseline as ancillary jobs currently performed by oil are replaced. Meanwhile, if we are going to be shifting off of the stuff, then I say let's at least make money off of it while we do.
So, no, they aren't reduced. Got it.
off the baseline of growth absolutely; whether that also pushes it down below the current level? :shrug: that is dependent on too many factors for us to accurately predict.
Still confused about base load for grids and liquid fuel eh?
nope; as i have pointed out - the push for electric cars makes grid power into auto power.
It's amusing someone like you just argued the market can't provide an alternative given the potential for profit.
oh, it can. over time. but right now, the tech isn't there. The government has poured
oodles of money into rabbit holes that now even its' early proponents admit have been failures (not that this stops the subsidies).
I guess we need more government?
on the contrary. we need
less.
less government restriction,
less overregulation, and
less government attempts to pick winners and losers in the alternate energy market. the energy sector can absolutely replace oil - and eventually it will. but let the market and the consumers figure out how to do it, and in the meantime, let's create more capital for investment in those kinds of schemes by drilling here at home.
Easy. Oil prices stay high to ensure the investment for alternatives and which we wean ourselves off from oil and watch Chavez fall to pieces. No one said (honestly) this is going to be fast.
then let us simply drill in the meantime, and increase our wealth, lower unemployment, and increase revenues as we wait for that happy day.
See above. While there will be more jobs, revenue is questionable as the impact of higher gas prices reduced GDP.
you cannot be that ignorant of the concept of a baseline.
1. the largest source of income for the federal government is income taxes. more jobs = more revenue.
2. drilling here will be a huge multi-billion dollar industry. higher GDP = more revenue.
3. more jobs means fewer people on the social safety net. lower expenditures = de facto the same as more revenue.
Clearly not a student of geology either. Much less history. Or Russia. Or anything for that matter. The US does not have the geological economically recoverable hydrocarbon deposits that Russia does.
that's correct - looking into the future development of our resources (assuming of course that we are allowed to develop them), we have more.
Nor do we have the crony capitalism that allows it to produce more with basically no rules regarding labor and environmental protections.
really? you think that crony capitalism goes along with
no regulation?
While that always is a threat, Putin knows doing that enough will ensure that Europe gets its own more reliable supply or goes alternative.
only if he does it for such an extended period of time that he would risk a collapse of Russia as well. punishing Eastern Europe in short spurts here and there has worked well for him in the past, appeals to his nature, and is likely - all things remaining equal - to continue to work for him in the future.
Except you don't get the difference between base load for grids and liquid fuel.
interesting that you say this....
and then say this....
Except that there is a growing number of electric and CNG vehicles in this country.
CNG filling stations are starting to pop up across the country. C'mon. You are not that ignorant.
CNG has real possibilities - and we have bucketloads of it. However (again), the government shouldn't be in this business, and shouldn't be subsidizing it. If CNG is worth the switch, then that's where the market will go.
Windmills at the moment don't make sense due to the make up of how the US grid works. Wind is pretty consistent in the parts of the US where major farms are
so consistent we have to built a coal plant next to the windmills because we can't rely on them? and we have to plow under how many hundreds of thousands - millions - of acres? for how much energy?
California has some huge windmills ---some 3200 of them --- covering mountain sides in their windy areas. (Tehachapi, Altamont Pass, San Gorgonio) All together, they produce --- at a rare full wind --- about 300 MW, which is about 1/4 as much power as a moderately large nuclear power plant produces, and is less than 10% of the electricity the small state of Connecticut consumes.
and that's their
peak?
So reliability is not the issue. It's transportation of the electricity.
and storage.
Just thought you'd like to know that the issue with windmills and solar is not their reliability.
actually I'm a fan of solar - where it's practicable and cost-efficient. Once we have the
storage problem licked, and start mass-producing good solid sturdy cheap cells it strikes me that solar is a real major way of the future.
came across this today - now obviously it's the military, so cost-efficiency often matters a lot less than weight-efficiency for these guys, but:
A company of U.S. Marines recently conducted a remarkable three-week patrol through southern Afghanistan, replacing hundreds of pounds of spare batteries in their packs with roll-up solar panels the size of placemats to power their battle gear.
By allowing the troops to recharge their radios, GPS devices and other equipment, the green technology freed the Marines of India Company from constant resupply by road and air. And by carrying fewer batteries, they carried more bullets....
I remember in Iraq when we built them a street-light system, we used Solar also. Because if there was one thing those people had more than (easily stolen or attacked) oil, it was
sun.
It's the issue of transferring gigawatts of power across the nation. Just thought you might like to know that basic, elementary fact anyone who bothered to educate themselves on this topic before opening their mouths should have known (clearly not you). You confused the issue of reliability with efficiency of transfer. How many times have you failed here? I've lost track.
again, man - really, it's okay. everybody thinks you're pretty, all right?
If only we had the geological resources to do that.
gosh yes, if only there were a trillion barrels of oil laying around untapped somewhere.... or an entire coastline un-drilled...
It's interesting how you just called the market a failure despite the rise of electric and alternative fuel vehicles.
take away the subsidies and
then we'll see how those vehicles
actually perform on the market.
I take it a large portion of your 401K is in oil stocks?
I'm in the military - we aren't offered a 401(K). Wish they would - I would happily trade my "pension" for an employer-match.
Interestingly enough, you are arguing the malthusian position here.
HAH, yeah, because
I'm the one here moaning about peak oil and how GDP is sooo screwed because energy prices are
only going to go up as the population/demand
only increases faster than supply.....
take out "oil" and replace it with "food" in the previous conversation, and take a look at this thread.
