Get your Obamanometer!

The only argument I directed at Setanta was the one that specified him directly. For the rest, he is just beating the air.

The oil companies enjoy large profits (but interestingly only ordinary percentage margins on their high costs - particularly when the cost and risk associated with new production is factored in). There is little doubt that these companies have learned how to pursue risk adverse strategies often hiding behind government mandates such as different seasonal fuel formulas for selected regions of the countrry. Howeve, the remedy for this is easier capital formation, less uncertain processes for the creation of needed new production capacity and the encouragement of more competition in the industry..

Our environmental laws have had the, likely unintended, side effect of creating significant barriers to the entry of new competitors in the industry and investment in needed infrastructure by the existing companies. The remedies for this situation involve greater competition in the industry and more capital investment by those serving it. They don't involve more government intervention, or more of the regulatory poison that created the problem. Irresponsible flailing at the "evil oil companies" by legilators unwilling to consider real causes are at best empty rhetorical gestures.

0 Replies

You're the one who is beating the air when you come up with expressions, dripping your snot, such as "I think Setants [sic] has a seriously inadequate appreciation for the difficulty any petroleum producer faces when contemplating the challenges and uncertainties involved in constructing a new refinery anywere [sic] in this country."

As i have pointed out, it is absurd to think that these companies are going to make significant capital outlays the effect of which will decrease their revenues. That includes the exploitation of domestic petroleum sources, when they can just buy it from OPEC nations, and use the spot market price as an excuse to charge the highest pump prices the market will bear.

Beat your gums some more, O'George.

0 Replies

"This is the kind of thing they do. I don't understand it," Obama said at a town hall meeting in Berea, Ohio, Tuesday. "Two points: One, they know they are lying about what my energy plan is, but the other thing is they are making fun of a step that every expert says would absolutely reduce our oil consumption by 3 to 4 percent. "

2 points

1. Obama has no energy plan, except the one he stole from McCain

2. What expert came up with the conclusion regarding tire inflation?

0 Replies

Obama's energy plan

McCain takes air out of tire pressure debate

Quote:

"Obama said a couple of days ago says we all should inflate our tires. I don't disagree with that. The American Automobile Association strongly recommends it," McCain said

As usual it seems McCain distorts Obama's position and then he has to backtrack. The distortion was in making out like Obama's only answer to energy was to tell Americans to inflate their tires rather than just another factor in saving energy.

The only borrowing was in compromising on the drilling issue. He compromised on that if in the bill other alternatives to oil and other saving energy policies were included. If people in government are not willing to give and take we end up in either gridlock or one side getting everything in the case of having one party having enough of a majority in power.

Quote:

ORLANDO, Florida (CNN) - Barack Obama said Friday that he would be willing to compromise on his position against offshore oil drilling if it were part of a more overarching strategy to lower energy costs.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama told The Palm Beach Post early into a two-day swing through Florida.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done," Obama said.

source

0 Replies

So, all we need to do is inflate our tires ... what a putz!

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

2. What expert came up with the conclusion regarding tire inflation?

[size=16][b][URL=http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/08/inflate_your_tires_bush_41_ene.html]Bush (41) Energy Dept.: Inflate your tires[/URL][/b][/size] [..] After all the grief that Obama has taken from the RNC and from rival John McCain this week [it turns out] that the administration of President Bush -- George H.W. Bush -- was telling Americans the same thing back in 1990. Americans could save 50,000 barrels of oil a day with a little more air in their tires, said the public service announcements of that Bush administration, calling on Americans then to save fuel with a "Do Your Part, Drive Smart'' advertising campaign. The folks at Americans United for Change were more than happy to point this out, of course, as the great tire gauge debate of 2008 reached full tilt this week -- with the RNC passing out gauges in mockery of Obama, and Obama accusing the party of taking pride in its ignorance on a simple matter of conservation. Here's a piece from the New York Times in 1990 about that government-sponsored [url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2D61F39F937A2575AC0A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1][b]gas-saving idea of filling up the tires[/b][/url] and other tips for saving oil

---------------------------

God forbid that a presidential candidate, in times of high gas prices, should point to some common sense, practical solution that every car owner can already turn to now. How laughable!

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Well, waterguy, maybe you could explain, in a few words, which measure would help safe more money at the pump, and why:

- domestic drilling, or
- keeping your tires inflated.

We're awaiting your well reasoned response.

Quote:

PolitiFact.com -- by the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly

"We could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups."

Barack Obama on Wednesday, July 30th, 2008 in Springfield, Mo.

Not overinflated (though it sounds like it)here.)

But it couldn't all be extracted immediately. The agency estimates that if the moratorium were lifted production could start by 2017, and by 2030, oil companies could be producing 2.4-million barrels of oil instead of 2.2-million. That's 200,000 more barrels per day.

After refining, a barrel of oil can produce up to 19.5 gallons of gasoline, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. So that's 3.9-million more gallons of gasoline per day, or 1.4-billion gallons of gasoline per year.

And remember, an estimated 2.8-billion gallons of gas are lost annually due to under-inflated tires.

And we didn't even talk about tune-ups. (Repairing a car that is noticeably out of tune or has failed an emissions test improves gas mileage by 4 percent on average, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Fixing a more serious problem, such as a bad oxygen sensor, can improve mileage by up to 40 percent, the agency says.)

All of the numbers in this analysis are estimates, we should emphasize. Oil industry experts told us estimates of the amount of oil offshore and how fast it could be extracted vary widely, and the Energy Information Administration's number is fairly optimistic. Likewise, it's highly unlikely any public awareness effort could change behavior enough to save 2.8-billion gallons of gasoline per day.

But it's clearly within the realm of possibility that tire inflation and tune-ups could save more than offshore drilling could produce. So we find Obama's claim to be True.

0 Replies

Kickycan told Georgeob1: "Yes, of course. It's so simple. All those inconvenient truths in that article OE posted be damned!"

But OE and George come from different worlds. Compare:

old europe wrote:

Quote:
The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.

georgeob1 wrote:

I would say the obvious answer here is domestic drilling. This would involve forcing the government to get out of the way of natural economic activity and permit the creation of more supply as a means of meeting demand. Fairly simple, in my view.

One has the dreary, everyday practical facts; the other has the eternally truthful certainty of ideological dogma.

For one, the answer depends on what the question is, and will vary accordingly. For the other, the answer is a given no matter what the question. Remove government regulation and leave it all up to the free market, and everything will be solved.

Doesnt matter what the subject is, or what the circumstances are. The answer is always the same. That has the undoubted advantage that everything does indeed become "fairly simple". Just ask any doctrinal communist, devout Catholic or idealistic libertarian. Life becomes much simpler if you decide on the answer first, and only then face the questions.

0 Replies

Quote:

"We could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups."

What a putz !!

0 Replies

Obama advocates a solution to our energy problem based on a "comprehensive" plan that oddly excludes opening known domestic petroleum reserves in offshore areas and in Alaska, and further investment in nuclear energy. That leaves only further exploitation of wind, solar and (very limited) hydroelectrical sources plus further government mandates on vhecile design and other measures to reduce demand. Not exactly a "comprehensive" strategy in that it excludes most of the readily available alternatives, ranging from added domestic petroleum production, nuclear power or our ample coal reserves.

He asks us to believe that added domestic production of petroleum will yield only late (10 years hence) and trivial reductions in prices, but offers no meaningful alternative, except for emphasis on renewable sources that cost far more, and only vaguely described measures to reduce domestic demand through government mandates, actions that are likely to have very adverse, but as yet unappreciated effects on economic activity. If that is not an example of irrational a priori belief in doctrine, as in Nimh's criticism, I don't know what is. We have ample evidence of the power of free markets to beneficially increase economic activity, and equally ample evidence of the persistent failures of attempts to reform human behavior or to manage economic activity through authoritarian measures. Platonic ideas remain strangely attractive, but life reveals there are no philosopher kings.

0 Replies

George, do you know why we don't allow drilling offshore in many places?

It has a lot to do with the inevitable spillage that ends up killing wildlife and ruining beaches. Doesn't that matter to you?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It has a lot to do with the inevitable spillage that ends up killing wildlife and ruining beaches.

Technology has caught up since the last big spill on US shores.
Look to the gulf and how hurricanes over the last few years have
ravaged the offshore platform, but not a drop was spilled.

The new safety measures have proven to be effective - let the drilling begin.

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It has a lot to do with the inevitable spillage that ends up killing wildlife and ruining beaches.

Technology has caught up since the last big spill on US shores.
Look to the gulf and how hurricanes over the last few years have
ravaged the offshore platform, but not a drop was spilled.

The new safety measures have proven to be effective - let the drilling begin.

This is 100% untrue. The bad hurricanes from a few years ago caused over 100 oil spills, totaling more then 700,000 gallons of oil.

http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/06/19/mccain-katrina-spills/

I think it's fair to say that these 'safety measures' have NOT proven effective.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

It has a lot to do with the inevitable spillage that ends up killing wildlife and ruining beaches.

Technology has caught up since the last big spill on US shores.
Look to the gulf and how hurricanes over the last few years have
ravaged the offshore platform, but not a drop was spilled.

The new safety measures have proven to be effective - let the drilling begin.

This is 100% untrue. The bad hurricanes from a few years ago caused over 100 oil spills, totaling more then 700,000 gallons of oil.

No, no, no. You have been duped.

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

It has a lot to do with the inevitable spillage that ends up killing wildlife and ruining beaches.

Technology has caught up since the last big spill on US shores.
Look to the gulf and how hurricanes over the last few years have
ravaged the offshore platform, but not a drop was spilled.

The new safety measures have proven to be effective - let the drilling begin.

This is 100% untrue. The bad hurricanes from a few years ago caused over 100 oil spills, totaling more then 700,000 gallons of oil.

No, no, no. You have been duped.

http://skytruth.mediatools.org/node/19981

http://skytruth.mediatools.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/tic_gallery-medium/skytruth_katrina_rsat_sep02_montage.jpg

Satellite views of the oil slicks.

http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects/581/44814183_MMS_Katrina_Rita_PL_Final%20Report%20Rev1.pdf

Katrina Final report, concluding that:

Quote:

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused 124 Offshore Spills For A Total Of 743,700 Gallons. 554,400 gallons were crude oil and condensate from platforms, rigs and pipelines, and 189,000 gallons were refined products from platforms and rigs.

You don't know what the f*ck you are talking about. Again. And you didn't even bother to google it before you posted. Lazy.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

Quote:
"We could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups."

What a putz !!

It's true. <shrugs>

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

George, do you know why we don't allow drilling offshore in many places?

It has a lot to do with the inevitable spillage that ends up killing wildlife and ruining beaches. Doesn't that matter to you?

Cycloptichorn

Not as much as it evidently means to you.

In the first place the amount spilled is by no means "inevitable". Most of the offshore drilling in the world has occured during the past ten years, and the reliability of the technology is much improved -- as has been amply demonstrated by European drillers in the North Sea and American ones along the Gulf Coast.

In the second place we have learned that beaches and estuaries recover far more quickly than previously estimated from the effects of spills.

Finally, the benefits to humanity of the economic activity that results from the availability of petroleum should not be ignored. This is an aspect of the problem that environmentalists usually do ignore. (It is merely an interesting fact that our "Endangered Species Laws offer potential protections to all species of amimal life save one -- human beings.)

The bottom line here is that if we have cheap, abundant energy, we have the ability to solve all the attendant problems; social, environmental and other. If we don't have cheap, abundant energy, we won't be able to do anything. It is a pity that the esteemed Obama doesn't appear to understand that very basic principle.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
George, do you know why we don't allow drilling offshore in many places?

It has a lot to do with the inevitable spillage that ends up killing wildlife and ruining beaches. Doesn't that matter to you?

Cycloptichorn

Not as much as it evidently means to you.

In the first place the amount spilled is by no means "inevitable". Most of the offshore drilling in the world has occured during the past ten years, and the reliability of the technology is much improved -- as has been amply demonstrated by European drillers in the North Sea and American ones along the Gulf Coast.

In the second place we have learned that beaches and estuaries recover far more quickly than previously estimated from the effects of spills.

Finally, the benefits to humanity of the economic activity that results from the availability of petroleum should not be ignored. This is an aspect of the problem that environmentalists usually do ignore. (It is merely an interesting fact that our "Endangered Species Laws offer potential protections to all species of amimal life save one -- human beings.)

The bottom line here is that if we have cheap, abundant energy, we have the ability to solve all the attendant problems; social, environmental and other. If we don't have cheap, abundant energy, we won't be able to do anything. It is a pity that the esteemed Obama doesn't appear to understand that very basic principle.

Why would we write laws to protect humans from humans? We already have other laws which cover that. The Endangered Species laws are to protect animals not already protected by other laws. This is simple stuff, George.

Both you and I know that oil drilling is not the best way to get 'cheap, abundant energy.' Nuclear, wind, and solar are the way to do that. These facilities do not require constant influx of new materials to be pumped out of the ground in order to continue operation; Nuke plants do require material input, but a tiny amount. Solar and wind, the energy literally comes to them Laughing

Oil is a stop-gap technology, to hold us over until better battery storage becomes available. Our grandkids (well, MY grandkids, your descendants) will have a hard time believing some of the attitudes displayed by those who think that drilling oil is the only solution to our energy problems.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Both you and I know that oil drilling is not the best way to get 'cheap, abundant energy.' Nuclear, wind, and solar are the way to do that. These facilities do not require constant influx of new materials to be pumped out of the ground in order to continue operation; Nuke plants do require material input, but a tiny amount. Solar and wind, the energy literally comes to them

Wind and solar energy are potentially abundant, but they are not cheap. With current technology they are roughly twice the cost of energy derived from coal or petroleum and three times the cost of nuclear energy. Though proponents are fond of quoting optimistic forecasts of forthcoming cost improvements, they have not materialized as predicted over the past few years. WE can expect improvements, but it will likely take decades to achieve them.

Your favored Obama opposes nuclear power. I find it amazing that he persists in claiming he has a "comprehensive" plan for our energy independence, when it is obvious that he has no plan at all and, instead is merely a captive of the single issue zealots who sadly control the Democrat party.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Oil is a stop-gap technology, to hold us over until better battery storage becomes available. Our grandkids (well, MY grandkids, your descendants) will have a hard time believing some of the attitudes displayed by those who think that drilling oil is the only solution to our energy problems.

Cycloptichorn

Petroleum is hardly a stop-gap. Instead it and coal are the prime sources of energy worldwide. Improved battery technology won't benefit us if we don't find new sources for the generation of electrical power. Obama opposes both nuclear and new coal applications. Today these two sources provide about 73% of our total electrical power. He hasn't even begun to address how he would replace them, much less expand our total electrical power.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Your favored Obama opposes nuclear power.

You've said that repeatedly. I'm not entirely sure what you base this on. Here's the point from Obama's energy plan:

Quote:

Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy. Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. senate to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants. To prevent international nuclear material from falling into terrorist hands abroad, Obama worked closely with Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN) to strengthen international efforts to identify and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti-terrorism priority. In terms of waste storage, Obama does not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. He will lead federal efforts to look for safe, long-term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage technology available.

Obama Energy Plan (pdf)

0 Replies

Get your Obamanometer!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know