We won't drill

We are looking at the energy picture wrong. Drilling is merely a quick fix for the addiction. We need to get off crack (OIL) and come up with a better solution.

 

I don't think the suggestion is that just ANWR will cause the price of oil to substantially drop. People want oil companies to be able to drill where ever there's oil like most other countries. That would cause the price to drop (or at least not rise as fast).

 

I knew basso couldn't keep this a bipartisan thread for long. he's not a republican though LOL

 

And what's wrong with doing both? Why can't we drill, build refineries, AND use nuclear? Alternative energy sources are a great idea. That's the problem though. They're an idea. They're something that will eventually happen, but not for a potentially long time.

What we need is a comprehensive energy policy that covers everything. And what we're getting out of Washington is absolutely nothing.

 

Caught in a lie, again:
http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/...ening-anwr-cuts-gas-prices-one-penny-in-2025/

Note to Bush, media: Opening ANWR cuts gas prices one penny in 2025

Bush blames Congress’s failure to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for high gasoline prices (here). The Administration’s own Energy Information Administration found otherwise in a 2004 Congressional-requested “Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR“:


It is expected that the price impact of ANWR coastal plain production might reduce world oilprices by as much as 30 to 50 cents per barrel [in 2025].

Don’t spend it all in one place, American public! [Note to Bush: There are 42 gallons in a barrel.] EIA continues:

Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries could countermand any potential price impact of ANWR coastal plain production by reducing its exports by an equal amount.

Curses, foiled again!

Then again, it’s laughable of the EIA to think OPEC (or anyone else) will have any spare capacity in 2025 (see “Peak Oil? Bring it on!“). But that’s the EIA for you.

Now, in “fairness” to the EIA, they did report at the time that the 30 to 50 cent per barrel price is


relative to a projected 2025 world oil price of $27 per barrel (2002 dollars) in the AEO2004 reference case.

This mainly proves the EIA is really lousy at energy forecasting. But let’s just assume the rise is proportional — and say ANWR cuts gasoline prices one penny for every $27 per barrel in the price of oil. That would be 4 cents at current prices. You can do your own calculations if you think gasoline prices will be much higher in 2025 if we keep following Bush’s policies….

EDIT: Let me say, it's not so much as a lie but a bald assertion, it certainly ain't a methodology.

 

Consider yourself pwned. See above.

By the way, for future reference, when you say "METHODOLOGY" you have to actually EXPLAIN THE METHOD by which something was arrived at.

You claim that ANWAR will drive gas prices down by something like 15-40% less than now.

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

EDIT

DON't BOTHER, I just figured it out

Representative Blunt is being disingenous because right next to ANWAR is the word "Shale". I presume this represents the process of extracting oil from shale, which represents billions of barrels of unused capacity.

By disngenously and deliberately lumping TWO sources of oil together, one of which, Shale, is much larger - he is making ANWAR appear to be a far far bigger source of oil than it actually is.

Republicans in Congress - the lies just keep on coming.

DIKEMBE MUTUMBO FINGERWAG - NOT IN MY HOUSE BASSO

I'm embarrassed that it took me 10 whole minutes to figure out.

 

Let me just summarize this disingenous argument put forth by basso and House Republicans one last time - somebody check my math on this too.

Shale, according to the figures in the post on the first page, is 32,000,000,000,000 barrels of oil

ANWAR, is estimated to be somewhere around 10,000,000,000 barrels of oil (again, ANWAR is disingenously lumped in with other reserves in teh first post)

So, using Bluntbasso's calculus, let's lump togehter Shale oil with ANWR oil - 32 trillion plus 10 billion = 32.01 trillion.

The proportional amount of ANWAR to shale in the above figure is 1/3200, approximately 0.03% or 0.0003.

Let's multiply that by the gasoline reduction that the combined figure.

LOW ESTIMATE $.70 reduction * .0003 = .00021 dollars

HIGH ESTiMATE $ 1.60 reduction * .0003 = .00048 dollars

According to bluntbasso's own figures then, ANWR oil reduces the price of gasoline by anywhere .02 cents to .04 cents

 

Basso - by what dollar amount will ANWR reduce gasoline prices - assuming it could all be extracted tomorrow.

You posted that it would result in substantial downward price pressures. I posted that the amount there is o low that any downward price pressure would be negligible. You claimed that your "methodology" proved my statement to be wrong, deeming me "ignorant"

Your own research and "methodology" indicates that ANWR oil will only have a fractional effect on oil prices.

Answer the question - by what dollar amount will ANWR reduce gasoline prices - assuming it could all be extracted tomorrow.

Answer the question - why is ANWR, a negligible source of new oil, listed next to Shale, a substantial source of new oil, on the chart you presented?

Answer the question - Is it ignorant to believe that ANWR drilling will result in substantial downward price pressure according to the figures you presented?

 

So, this is pretty funny. SamFisher seems to have addressed some of the flaws, but I'd like to contribute my 18 cents.

The federal gas tax is indeed 18 cents per gallon, but it's absolutely ludicrous to infer that eliminating the tax would result in 18 cents of savings for consumers. The incidence of a tax, and thus the benefit of a tax cut, is shared by producers and consumers. How much is paid by each group is determined by how responsive each group is to changes in price (this is known as elasticity). In the gas market, supply is relatively inelastic; that is, producers will continue to sell about the same amount of oil even if prices (or taxes) change. Demand for oil is more elastic, as consumers may decide to drive less or even purchase more fuel-efficient cars as gas prices rise.

Because of this, if the gas tax is eliminated (which will decrease the amount it costs to sell gas), suppliers of gas will keep selling about the same amount of gas and pocket most of the tax break rather than increasing production or lowering the price at the pump.

So, to sum up, the gas tax will not save consumers anywhere near 18 cents/gallon and will instead go mostly into the pockets of the oil companies.

These same economic principles are also why many prominent economists actually support raising the gas tax.

 

That was basically my point

Can you imagine the nasty *ss water from Galveston being around Miami and LA

Rocket River

 

The problem with this little redirect is that your initial response WAS only in reference to ANWAR.

SamFisher: Any suggestion that drilling in ANWAR would result in substantial downward price pressure, even in the fictitious universe where such oil was instantly available and could be refined starting tomorrow - reveals the suggestor to be ignorant as to basic facts regarding oil consumption.

basso: consider yourself ignorant.

If you weren't referencing ANWAR, then how does your post in any way refute what SF was saying? The more likely scenario is that you didn't even read what you posted and therefore had no idea that your "consider yourself ignorant" was completely offbase and incorrect.

If there was ever a time for one of those internet "FAIL" images, this was it.

 

Well, you could just stamp the word over that table he posted.

 

So then why is it that when a supply disruption occurs, we see such a large jump in prices? When supply is so close to demand, any increase in demand or supply will have large price movements. Its reasonable to expect that if we added 5% of domestic supply (assumes 10b barrels over 40 years and around 10mm of current daily production - or 1% of global supply), you would have an impact on prices of more than just 75 cents.

Are there alternative examples that could be studied in to what happens to pricing when supply increases by 5% in a market where demand/supply is so tight or 1% of global supply?

ANWR is part of a long term solution, not a magic bullet. We need to get off of our oil addiction and these prices will push us to do it. But we can't go cold turkey and frankly I'd prefer to drill in ANWR or offshore than use the ridiculously wasteful shale extraction methods. If you hate CO2, then don't read about how much power is used to extract oil from shale.

 

Carnage.

 

I'm using blunt/basso's numbers for how much price movement is caused by new supply - suffice it to say if the effects are as dramatic as you say, the availability of the 32 trillion barrels of shale oil will drive prices down to almost zero.

 

I was in galveston water two weeks ago, its not nasty, its brown because of mud from rivers dumped in this part of the gulf. its always been that way.