Posted on 04/07/2008 4:34:19 AM PDT by Kaslin
Wold an immediate additional 2 million barrels of oil per day produced in the US change the spot price of oil? Absolutely it would.
However, only the weakest of minds would not have grasped the fact that I was dealing with at least a short to medium-term time horizon and not tomorrow's spot prices.
The current high oil price consists of a variety of factors the largest driver of which is the fact that current demand is growing faster than supply. Beyond that fundamental there is a terrorism premium and speculators have no doubt had an impact, but we are still talking about $80 a barrel regardless.
Since oil demand is currently growing at about 2% to 3%. At approx. 86 million bpd of global that extra 2 million bpd will last all of 2 or 3 years to cover the slack. And, if you read the other posts about proven reserves and then did the simple mathematics, you would notice that betting on American ability to keep up production levels is probably a poor one given the proven reserves.
Your single statement dismissal is the sign of either a poor or a lazy mind.
Ad hominem attacks are the sign of a very immature or uneducated mind.
You wrote: “We have billions of barrels in the ground that we are not allowed to get because of nonsensical enviro laws”
How many billions of barrels does the US have in the ground? I actually answered that question in a previous post. If the US uses 21 million bpd multiply this by 365 and then explain to me how much oil we have left again. My FRiend, your attacks are without ground and your math skills show that often people call others what they are themselves. You think like a liberal. Perhaps you would be happier at the DU?
True, but at what cost? Oil from shale ain't exactly cheap. It might (and probably is) more economical be to build nuclear power plants and wind mills and plug-in hybrids. Do the math and then come back.
I'm slowly learning economic logic from posters here on Free Republic and from books that posters have suggested.
Free Republic is great!
I think of McCain as a "consensus-tive."
Right — but even at $3+ per gallon gasoline is relatively inexpensive. As far as I know, there isn’t a single source of energy that is more cost-efficient and energy-efficient than a fossil fuel out there.
Actually, it was a simple rebuttal to a categorical statement. Sometimes, less is more.
You might want to consider that sweeping, categorical statements are a sign of a "poor or lazy mind." The world is seldom that simple or uncomplicated.
Oil shale is one possibility, as are oil sands and coal liquefaction. I actually meant extracting crude from deeper and more remote locations. I don’t t know the economics of oil shale; I do know that it takes a considerable amount of heat to extract the kerogen from the shale.
Nuclear plants are terribly expensive to build and also suffer from NIMBY politics. Currently we generate 20% of our electricity from nuke plants. Wind is a feel good measure. A typical wind mill is roughly 1 MW when the wind is blowing. My dual fuel plant (#6 oil/natural gas) is 1200 MW. You could probably fit about 8 to 12 windmills in the space if you removed my plant. For comparison, we generate less than 2.5% of electricity from renewable resources (not including hydro), less than 1.5% from petroleum, and a little over 20% from natural gas. 50% of our power comes from coal.
Regardless of where the electrical power comes from (and currently only a fraction is from crude oil derived products), to convert the 200 million cars in the US to plug in hybrids will require a significant upgrade in the distribution grid. Unless you can get everyone to plug their car in around midnight. I suspect people would just plug it in when they get home from work, then turn on the TV, A/C, and heat up their dinner. (A simple solution would be a timer however. If you can get people to care.)
I guess it all comes down to where you want spend the money. Infrastructure to continue driving internal combustion vehicles or infrastructure to drive electric vehicles. As for me, I don’t care. I don’t have a car. I walk to work. That and my Harley gets 50mpg on the highway and averaged 35mpg over the last year.
Generally what you say is true...
But when they tie it into a UN agreement / International Heritage Site / World Natural Treasure site things get much more complicated.
And just how many Executive Orders HAVE actually been overturned in the entire history of the United States?
(I only know of two important ones)
And how many do you think that any Republican Presidents following McCain (in the unlikely event that there ARE any Republican Presidents following McCain) will overturn any that he made?
For all effects and purposes Executive Orders, by tradition are permanent, even though by force of law they COULD be overturned.
I know. It's like it's just a word to them, like some secret password that we dummies will fall for, but it means nothing.
Good analysis. Price mechanisms cause people to care. Plain and simple. If electricity is expensive at peak hours they will use less at peak hours and or buy their own generation capacity.
In terms of wind to land use, the cost of a 1MW of wind energy has been dropping rapidly, and is becoming more competitive. If you price in the cost of security to other fuels, it looks even better. There are consistency problems, but the wind is generally blowing somewhere. There are lots of smart people working on storage options too.
The experiences of Europe shows that wind can easily provide a significant percentage of power - and it is growing.
I am not too sure about your argument regarding the space required for windmills. I was not under the impression that lack of space was the major constraint in the use. It is the excess of space and the lack of infrastructure to transmittthe electricity that will be the real true invest that will almost certainly have to come from the government vis a vis the interstate highway system.
Wonderful, but is that a direct result of the higher gas prices? Are you self-employed or work for someone else? If employed by someone else, how did you convince them to let you work from home because of higher gas prices? (I might want to use your strategy).
and our family switched cars with each other so the ones that drive farthest to work or school, get the best millage.
That's prudent, even if gas prices were low.
Do you stay home in the evenings and on weekends or do you still go out and drive around to the mall, sporting events, et al?
My working at home was unrelated to gas prices. I work as a machinist for someone else. I live on a farm and am always so busy I pretty much don’t have a life. I never leave. My biggest gas expense is summer mowing. About $20 a week just for that.
tagline fix
You forgot to add that the government takes fully one half of that pretax profit! The real gain is around three percent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.