mcarterbrown.com  

General Chat MCB's Coffee House: Pull up a seat, and grab your favorite caffeinated beverage. Non-paintball related chat within.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-13-2008, 07:54 AM   #51 (permalink)
Post Whore
 
HP_Lovecraft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern Maine

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silence View Post
Offshore drilling: would do nothing to reduce the price of oil for the next decade. Literally, nothing. Drilling doesn't mean you automatically find oil and when you do find oil you actually have to extract it.
This is an often repeated myth.

Much of the high price of oil is due to speculation in the market. The very IDEA of drilling for oil can drop prices drastically. Another reason for the high price of oil is that much of it is controlled by foreign cartels. Again, the very IDEA of drilling locally creates more competition driving prices down further.

You are implying that simply having more oil is the only factor in the price, and that is simply not true. Most of the oil we use already comes from North America. Plus, saying "it takes a decade", well, prices went up about a decade ago. People remember that.

Quote:
Ironically, the Obama way (use less) has already shown results - American consumption of oil has dropped by about 1 million barrels a day year over year.
Do you really believe that? Oil consumption is down because people are suffereing. They buy less heating oil, and simply freeze when it is cold out. Is that Obamas plan? The high price of oil has also crippled the economy. So less oil is being consumed because people HAVE LESS MONEY.

We need more oil. We have more oil. Obama is doing nothing.

Quote:
Nuclear: another smoke and mirrors point. There's literally one foundry in the world that produce the safest kind of containment vessels.
Typical liberal thinking. Nuclear power cheap, pollution free, and the supply endless. Modern plants are very safe, and used throughout the world, not just Japan. Both Europe and Canada produce very safe systems. Nuclear plants do take years to plan and build, but there are MANY ALREADY PLANNED, and just waiting for permits and financing. They would be producing power in a couple years.

Quote:
McCain's record of standing up against his party? Yeah, I loved him when he said that the tax cuts were immoral.
He did not come up with the name "Maverick". It was originally an insultive title used by other republicans for consistently going against them, and working with Democrats. You can close your eyes, and ignore his record, but fortunetly for you, Obama has no record.
__________________
www.montneel.com

"the evidence strongly suggests that neither Billy nor Adam (Smart Parts) could have invented the electronic paintgun" -Garr M. King, U.S. Judge
HP_Lovecraft is offline  
Old 09-13-2008, 09:13 AM   #52 (permalink)
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2008

Quote:
This is an often repeated myth.

Much of the high price of oil is due to speculation in the market. The very IDEA of drilling for oil can drop prices drastically. Another reason for the high price of oil is that much of it is controlled by foreign cartels. Again, the very IDEA of drilling locally creates more competition driving prices down further.

You are implying that simply having more oil is the only factor in the price, and that is simply not true. Most of the oil we use already comes from North America. Plus, saying "it takes a decade", well, prices went up about a decade ago. People remember that.
It's not a myth. It's fact. The DOE agrees with me, while the only people saying that drilling will matter are Republican hacks like Gingrich or Hannity.

"Speculation" is probably the most misunderstood thing about the oil markets. Literally everyone who buys a futures contract, including people who intend to take delivery and use the oil, is a speculator. To claim that speculation on conditions ten years from now is driving up the price of a futures contract for delivery in October is clearly baseless. The price is basically a function of the spread between real consumption and real production. The narrower the gap, the greater the chance that a supply disruption will cause a price spike, and so the higher the price of oil on the futures market.

Announcing tomorrow that we are opening up offshore drilling will cause at most a few days of turmoil before the day traders eat their fill and the rest of the market remembers that, oh yeah, that oil isn't actually up for sale, so let's get back to the business of discovering the price of actual oil. Oil is something of an obsession for me, so I'd be interested to see what information lead you to the conclusion that oil being foreign makes oil more expensive. It's traded on an open, international market. The price isn't set by anyone.

tl;dr; of this section:
Demand destruction just lowered the price of a barrel of oil by $45 dollars. Announcing offshore drilling or the opening of ANWR would drop it by little if anything. No one is speculating on ten years from now.

Quote:
Do you really believe that? Oil consumption is down because people are suffereing. They buy less heating oil, and simply freeze when it is cold out. Is that Obamas plan? The high price of oil has also crippled the economy. So less oil is being consumed because people HAVE LESS MONEY.

We need more oil. We have more oil. Obama is doing nothing.
I believe that, yes, because it's the way markets work and it's what actually happened.

You're significantly oversimplifying things with your line about "We have more oil. We need more oil." Indeed. And how much oil do we have? How much more do we need? What will the peak production on our domestic oil be if we start drilling offshore? What will world production look like in that timeframe?

Here's a brief news story summarizing things. If you want, I can dig a bit and show you the graphs comparing the number of drilling rigs to actual US production, numbers of drilling rigs in existence and where they're going, drilling rig production figures, etc. Spoiler alert: We drill three times as many holes now as we did in the 60s and our production is still declining.

Quote:
Typical liberal thinking. Nuclear power cheap, pollution free, and the supply endless. Modern plants are very safe, and used throughout the world, not just Japan. Both Europe and Canada produce very safe systems. Nuclear plants do take years to plan and build, but there are MANY ALREADY PLANNED, and just waiting for permits and financing. They would be producing power in a couple years.
Did you even read what I wrote or have an aneurysm at the word nuclear and spew out liberal in response? Did you manage to make it to the part where I said I have no problem building nuclear plants?

Try reading what I wrote again. I'm not sure if it's worth it, but I'll repeat myself here: we could greenlight every proposed nuclear project in the country and it wouldn't matter because there's a production bottleneck around utility scale nuclear containment vessels. We could buy less-safe varieties but that would exactly fulfill the promise of safe energy. So while I have no problem building nuclear plants, I think it's a cheap political ploy to pretend like they're going to be popping up all over the place in the next few decades solving the country's energy woes.

Quote:
He did not come up with the name "Maverick". It was originally an insultive title used by other republicans for consistently going against them, and working with Democrats. You can close your eyes, and ignore his record, but fortunetly for you, Obama has no record.
Unfortunately, I can't close my eyes to the fact that he has backed away from all the stances that made him a maverick. If I could ignore that, maybe I'd be able to vote for him, but unfortunately I can't ignore what people do on the campaign trail, especially when it completely contradicts what makes them attractive as a candidate.

Last edited by Silence; 09-13-2008 at 09:18 AM.
Silence is offline  
Old 09-13-2008, 10:23 PM   #53 (permalink)
MCB Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006

Most studies I have read indicate drilling in ANWR and in the Gulf will reduce the cost of gasoline some cents per gallon, depending on which study you read. I'm not convinced completely of the credibility of many of those studies or that they take into consideration all pertinent factors. HP is correct a significant part of the increase in the price of gasoline is from speculators driving up prices by their activities, but there are a lot of other factors also. Demand is a factor, of course, but a reduction of 1 million gallons per day is only 1/85 or so of worldwide demand. It's not enough to affect the price very much. Also, the U.S. imports about half its 20 to 22 million barrels per day. It is estimated ANWR production could be just under 1 million barrels per day, IIRC. I don't recall what the production would be offshore in the Gulf.

With all that in mind, drilling in ANWR and the Gulf wouldn't greatly reduce the cost of oil (and therefore gas in the United States), but it would have some positive effect. There are two important effects that are nearly impossible to quantify. First, replacing foreign imports with domestic production would reduce our dependence on foreign oil and allow us more latitude in dealing with countries like Venezuela. Second, domestic production would be better for our economy by transferring less wealth overseas and by giving Americans more good-paying jobs (oil field workers are relatively well-paid). There are several other, more subtle effects that could come from increasing domestic production, but those are even more difficult to quantify.

So, how much is it worth to have less dependence on foreign oil imports?

custar
custar is offline  
Old 09-13-2008, 11:08 PM   #54 (permalink)
Post Whore
 
Sly1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oregon
Send a message via AIM to Sly1

hey fellas.. I think Mccain and Obama would both disagree with me saying this, which makes me feel good.. but lets end this thread..
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by splattttttt View Post
There's this honey where I work. Hopefully she dies before me.
Feedback-
Sly1 is offline  
Old 09-13-2008, 11:27 PM   #55 (permalink)
Post Whore
 
Walking_Target's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: ON, Canada

One point on Nuclear...

Canada has *the* most versatile and efficient reactor technology going, not to mention one of, if not the safest design. The CANDU reactor design can utilize fuel that most other reactors would not be able to process.
__________________


Walking_Target is offline  
Old 09-14-2008, 05:02 PM   #56 (permalink)
Bigger Balls
 
Siress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA

__________________
Feedback: MCB, SCP, PHOG, PBN, and My eBay account
Siress is offline  
Closed Thread

  mcarterbrown.com » General » General Chat

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO
© MCB Network LLC