Nationalize The Oil Industry?

Though I’m not that fond of the Democrats on most economic matters, I don’t think they are socialists (what they are would involve a much longer discussion). The idiocy of socialism and national ownership of industry is apparent to most thinking people. Nevertheless, my first reaction to tripe like this is alarm:

Link: sevenload.com

Once I have a chance to think about it, though, I realize that FNC and other news organizations have an incentive to keep people worked up: ratings. As ridiculous as the woman being interviewed is, she has almost no chance of seeing her perverse dream through to fruition. Same goes for the Democratic Congressman who is pushing for nationalization. It would revive people’s worst fears regarding Democratic incompetence and ambitions.

I must agree with Allah that it’s still creepy, and alarming.

FILED UNDER: Economics and Business, , , , ,
Robert Prather
About Robert Prather
Robert Prather contributed over 80 posts to OTB between October 2005 and July 2013. He previously blogged at the now defunct Insults Unpunished. Follow him on Twitter @RobPrather.

Comments

  1. Bithead says:

    Frankly, Robert, that they’re even talking about government takeover of oil companies is merely another step down the road of proving your first assertion… that Democrats are not socialists at heart… incorrect.

  2. Hugo must be beaming.

    For, “control the flow of the oil supply”, read constriction of the oil supply since they seem to be unwilling to actually increase the oil supply.

  3. Patrick T McGuire says:

    I worked in the oil industry for nearly a decade. It is a highly complex, highly compartmentalized process involving exploration, drilling, production, refining and distribution, each of which is a mini-industry in itself. If the clowns in Washington get their hands on this, they will need to at least double the number of government employees in order to run this business. And the opportunities for graft and corruption would be enormous.

    It would give an entirely new meaning to the term “oilfield trash”.

  4. Steve Plunk says:

    Wrong thinking on so many levels. It amazes me people like that can get elected.

    Imagine what they say behind closed doors.

  5. graywolf says:

    First, Maurice Hinchey learned about the oil business as a toll collector on the NY Thruway.

    Second, I hope they do it.
    The absolute and total disaster would send the dem cong the way of the Whigs.

    But, is anyone really surprised at this?
    The dem cong have been closet socialists since the 60’s.

  6. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    Next they will nationalize the farming industry. Collectivise it and send the unemployed to work on the farm. Since it will be too costly to run gas or diesel engines on farm equipment. Many will just pull plows. Soviet Style. Remember this when you vote in November.

  7. anjin-san says:

    Sounds like a cheap ploy to try and score points of gas prices. Everyone knows this is a non-starter.

    While the right froths at the mouth about this, they remain silent about Blackwater’s attempt to bring Sharia law to America…

  8. Anjin-san, I would happily have qualified what I wrote by trying to guess which hoary old chestnut you’d randomly vomit up from your bag of progressive talismans in an otherwise predictably orthogonal response, but, alas, too much effort had to be expended to wipe up all the froth to leave sufficient time and energy to correctly anticipate which crackpot conspiracy theory would spring forth from your stream of consciousness non sequiturs. I suppose I would have guessed Halliburton since at least it might have pertained to the oil industry, but que sera sera. Perhaps a Doobie Brothers earwig took root when your clock radio came on this morning.

  9. John Burgess says:

    I read that headline and realized I needed to make a stop at the gun shop. Just in case.

  10. Anderson says:

    About as nutty as blowing the ANWR reserve.

  11. anjin-san says:

    US Company: Crash governed by Islamic Law

    Joseph Neff and Jay Price, Staff Writers

    RALEIGH – To defend itself against a lawsuit by the widows of three American soldiers who died on one of its planes in Afghanistan, a sister company of the private military firm Blackwater has asked a federal court to decide the case using the Islamic law known as Shari’a.

    http://www.newsobserver.com/front/story/1112843.html

    … just another day on the right.

    How did you know the Doobie Brothers are old friends of mine?

  12. Come on Anderson, quit being such a drama queen. They’re only going to use 2000 acres out of 13,000,000. Not such a big deal, if it ever happens.

  13. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    The pilot, anjin, is incapable of following any thread, train of thought or logic. Communists usually are. Anjin, what has the BS you wrote have to do with a U.S. Congressman suggesting nationalization of oil production and sales? I trust you will dodge the question as you are incapable of answering it. You will be the first sent to the collective.

  14. agitator says:

    The American people are finally awaking to the fact that unfettered capitalism spells the end of the American Dream. And Conservatism’s hold of the people’s phyche is dropping faster than Bush’s and the GOP’s approval ratings.

    The fruits of Reaganomics has proven to be the very opposite of “government is not the solution, government is the problem”. Twenty odd years later it can be safely stated that “privatization in not the solution, privatization is the problem”. Deregulation sent America’s jobs to China who now owns our markets.

    The “nationalization of oil” may be just one of many changes that America will see in the future.
    Sustainability=sanity. Mindless growth for greed
    is not possible in a world of finite resources, and continuing “business as usual” simply hastens
    the collapse of an already changing society.

  15. Hal says:

    Wow, I must say that I think y’all on the right must be pretty desperate to grasp at this. Some house Dem says it “sounds like a good idea” and some person whom I’ve never heard of – but is an “Obama supporter” is spewing stuff that is largely incoherent.

    Wow, looks like a serious policy proposal that Obama, himself, must have thought up. Looks like it has serious backing from a solid majority of congressional democrats. From the looks of it, they’re willing to expend some serious political capital to push this through in an election year.

    <laughing out loud>

    Two words for y’all: Terri Schiavo

    There’s wacky people in every party. At least we don’t seem to have the madness run through our party like a highly communicable social disease runs through a college dorm like y’all do.

    <still laughing out loud at the pathetic desperation it has to take to push this to the “creepy” level>

  16. The American people are finally awaking to the fact that unfettered capitalism spells the end of the American Dream.

    Hogwash. First, we don’t have unfettered capitalism; we’re not even close. Reagan et. al. simply removed regulations that stopped markets from functioning properly. The prosperity of the 80s, 90s and 2000s is directly related to Reagan’s policies and Clinton’s, Bush’s and Reagan’s liberalization of trade.

    Deregulation sent America’s jobs to China who now owns our markets.

    It did nothing of the sort. What it did do was reduce airline prices (Carter), reduce transport trucking costs (Reagan), rationalize prices for energy inputs (Reagan again, and so forth. You’re throwing things against the wall hoping something will stick.

    Mindless growth for greed is not possible in a world of finite resources, and continuing “business as usual” simply hastens the collapse of an already changing society.

    More crap. The world has always had finite resources. What we’ve learned since the Enlightenment is that technology, or the human mind, is the most important resource and it has no such limitations.

  17. Hal,

    It is creepy that someone thinks like that. I never said it was plausible; indeed, I went out of the way to say that she wouldn’t succeed.

  18. anjin-san says:

    News flash Robert. The “prosperity” of the 2000’s was mostly a credit card binge. Sooner or later, you have to pay the bills. Thanks to Bush’s stupidity, the Chinese now own a significant portion of our asses. Do you know how much of our finance system Arabs have bought up this year? You know dude, those Muslims you guys are so terrified of…

  19. Hal says:

    It is creepy that someone thinks like that

    Okay, that’s fine. I think it’s simply sad and perhaps amusing, not creepy. Kind of like a retro, 30’s style leftist who escaped from a wax museum. Like all house members, he’s playing for his audience of constituents. If they laugh and don’t support him, he’ll stop. She, on the other hand, is simply enabled by Fox, as you point out.

    But the comment stream here is kind of precious, which is more to what I’m speaking to – not necessarily your post in particular. I mean Zelsdorf Ragshaft III just literally cracks me up any time I see a post of his. And Allah from Hot Air is simply a Goldstein enabler, so s/he always cracks me up every time s/he is quoted.

  20. Anjin,

    You overstate your case substantially. The only thing that Bush did that fits your “credit card” analogy is to cut taxes while letting spending get out of control. That’s one of the reasons I have no faith in the guy and haven’t had for years.

    As far as the Chinese owning U.S. assets, so what? Almost all of that is related to the current account deficit, of which only a small part is related to the budget deficit.

    The trade deficit is not at all alarming to me, nor is Chinese ownership of assets. What are they going to do with them? Ship them overseas? They won’t call due the Treasuries they’ve been buying because they are using them to maintain a peg with the dollar. They won’t carry plant and equipment out of the country nor will they carry buildings out of the country.

    Also, given that the U.S. has one of the best business environments they aren’t likely to quit investing. In fact, as long as they are selling massive amounts of goods which are being purchased in dollars, they will likely continue to keep them in dollars and invest them here, again because of the exchange rate. It’s part of their export driven strategy.

    Much of what I’ve written applies equally well to the “Muslims”. BTW, your left wing xenophobia is showing.

  21. And Allah from Hot Air is simply a Goldstein enabler, so s/he always cracks me up every time s/he is quoted.

    Allah is a he and the Goldstein enabler bit is funny to me. I’ve known Goldstein in an online sense for years and I like him, though I haven’t been reading him regularly in about three years or so. He went on some sort of vacation and for some reason I never picked back up.

    I agree completely with your first paragraph.

  22. Mark Jaquith says:

    Cavuto introduces her as an Obama supporter. That strikes me as a supremely lame attempt at suggesting that Obama is in favor of nationalizing oil refining.

  23. Mark,

    Agreed.

  24. Hal says:

    He went on some sort of vacation and for some reason I never picked back up.

    Well, a “vacation” is a nice way of putting it… But yea, I used to think that he was at least an honorable opponent on the right, but he really just went off the edge and started peeing on the carpet and shitting in the corner – completely ignoring the litter box. Unhinged, in a really weird, dark fashion.

    But, such is the fate of those who really lose perspective and forget that, like everyone, they are at best nothing more than the butt of a joke told in 2025 at retro cocktail parties in dorms.

  25. anjin-san says:

    The only thing that Bush did that fits your “credit card” analogy is to cut taxes

    Guess your right, running vast deficits year after year (spending money you do not have) is nothing like running up your credit cards…

    thanks for the laugh bud

    Its also kind of funny how the right screeches at the thought of doing any business with Cuba (a communist dictatorship!!!) but has no second thoughts about a massive wealth transfer to China, a brutal communist dictatorship which is a serious geopolitical rival.

    xenophobic? no. But I do hope to see us continue to be masters in our own house, which will be much more difficult after watching our country hemorrhage national treasure, overextend its military and flush its credibility under Bush.

  26. Anjin,

    You should either read less quickly or read better. I said that deficits DO fit your analogy . It’s right there in the sentence you quoted, though you left out the part about spending.

    I have no opinion on the Cuba matter (I suppose opening trade with them would be fine, but it won’t happen until Castro is dead, and probably not until his brother is dead also).

    As far as the “wealth transfer” you are referring to, I think you’re mistaken. China is making goods for us at an attractive price level; we are buying them. They are making us wealthier by providing us with cheaper goods. It fits pretty well with trade theory: they are labor-abundant and are providing us with goods produced with that labor. Our labor is increasingly being deployed more closely with capital to increase its productivity. They’re no more taking wealth from us than Illinois is taking wealth from Indiana through trade.

    Perhaps not a xenophobe but a mercantilist at the very least. That was discredited about 230 years ago.

  27. DL says:

    “What we’ve learned since the Enlightenment is that technology, or the human mind, is the most important resource and it has no such limitations.”

    That’s what they said before the Titanic sank, nukes were dropped, and Hitlers doctor’s did their experiments, and we’re now using that brilliant mind to “choose” to destroy human life and play like Dr Frankenstein with animal and humans in laboratories -sorry but the enlightenment missed the fallen nature of man and what is needed to guide it.

  28. Bithead says:

    Cavuto introduces her as an Obama supporter. That strikes me as a supremely lame attempt at suggesting that Obama is in favor of nationalizing oil refining.

    Thing is, it fits, given Obama’s stated intentions on other matters, and his history. When he states flatly he doesn’t support nationalizing Oil, I might think otherwise.

    But I doubt it.

  29. Hal says:

    But I doubt it.

    ROFLMAO

  30. Hoodlumman says:

    Why is it so outrageous to think that Obama could be a supporter (albeit quiet) of oil nationalization when the Democrats are running a campaign on nationalizing the health industry?

  31. muffler says:

    I have been frustrated for years when I hear that we have not built a new refinery in 30 years. Why? There always seems to be a fire in one that shuts down supply at just the right time. I know it’s not the solution to the problem, but you would think that oil refining is KEY to national security and the US Oil companies would build new ones occasionally. Since they won’t do it I see no reason why the US government shouldn’t under national security concerns. Maybe this would push the oil companies to do something. In the meantime we should be investing in future energy source development and not trying to find our next oil fix. Off shore will not make up for demand and sucking it dry so we don’t have to make changes isn’t what I call a conservative approach.

    Time is a wasting and now is pretty late to start the development of new means of energy, but it isn’t too late yet.

  32. Bithead says:

    ROFLMAO

    I’d be interested in knowing why you find my noting Obama isn’t trustworthy so amusing. We’ve seen him flip his other stated positions. NAFTA, for example, as James has already noted. What is to say he won’t do that on his, shall we say, less explicitly stated positions?

  33. Bithead says:

    Hoodlumman :

    (^5)

  34. Hal says:

    I’d be interested in knowing why you find my noting Obama isn’t trustworthy so amusing.

    I find your logic (or lack thereof) and your ability to completely ignore your lack of it endlessly amusing.

    Just for example, I’m going to assume that you’re blowing goats until I hear you flatly deny otherwise. Likewise about those child molestation charges you have hanging over your head.

    Seriously, dude. Logic. It’s not spelled with a “Q”.

  35. Boyd says:

    muffler, it’s my understanding that whenever an oil company tries to build a new refinery, some governmental body, be it local, state or federal, gets in the way. That’s mostly received wisdom, although anecdotally, I’ve read of one proposed refinery that fit this description.

  36. Hal says:

    Why is it so outrageous to think that Obama could be a supporter (albeit quiet) of oil nationalization when the Democrats are running a campaign on nationalizing the health industry?

    Why is it so outrageous to think McCain is a supporter of the Nazi party when he is running on a campaign of torture and wiretapping without warrants?

  37. Hal says:

    it’s my understanding that whenever an oil company tries to build a new refinery, some governmental body, be it local, state or federal, gets in the way.

    Well, it’s the actual people who’s backyard it’s going to be built in that have the problem with it and therefore yell at their elected officials to prevent it.

    Seriously, do you want a refinery in your backyard? As long as it’s someone else’s, everyone is for it.

    As they say: “Everyone wants to go to heaven. No one wants to die”.

    Let me know when you’ve solved that problem, won’t you?

  38. M1EK says:

    The ironic thing is that the right-wingers who think we can dramatically lower our own oil prices by drilling ANWR or off-shore don’t realize that the only way that could possibly work would be to nationalize our oil industry! (so ‘our oil’ wouldn’t go on the world market)

    Boyd, that’s a lie: the most common rebuttal is to note that for years, no permits were even applied for for refineries.

  39. Bithead says:

    Just for example, I’m going to assume that you’re blowing goats until I hear you flatly deny otherwise. Likewise about those child molestation charges you have hanging over your head.

    Which of course completely ignores the matter of trust, and the record of the man. At every opportunity, the man has tilted left. Explain to me why this won’t be true, assuming we’re unlucky enough to see him attain the office he seeks, please.

    The ironic thing is that the right-wingers who think we can dramatically lower our own oil prices by drilling ANWR or off-shore don’t realize that the only way that could possibly work would be to nationalize our oil industry! (so ‘our oil’ wouldn’t go on the world market)

    Untrue.
    Yes, the market would be smaller, and more controlled. But that’s not the point.

    Let’s consider the world market for just a moment, shall we?

    I’ve quoted Investors Business Daily in the past, and I mentioned their conclusion that if we drill off the Gulf, drill off the coast of Florida and California, the oil shale in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, if we drill in ANWR, that U.S. oil reserves are larger than all Mideast oil countries combined.

    Think such an influx of product will drop world prices?

    Boyd, that’s a lie: the most common rebuttal is to note that for years, no permits were even applied for for refineries.

    Did you apply for that government grant of 2 trillion dollars, yet? Why not? Simple; you know you’re not going to get it and therefore you don’t try.

  40. Bithead says:

    Seriously, do you want a refinery in your backyard? As long as it’s someone else’s, everyone is for it.

    Oh, I dunno. The majority out in Souix city do. You know the drill… (Pardon the pun)… jobs, prosperity, etc.

  41. Hal says:

    Which of course completely ignores the matter of trust, and the record

    No, I trust that you are blowing goats and you have a clear record of blowing goats.

    Explain to me why this won’t be true

    It is a fact that you’re blowing goats. Explain to me why this isn’t true.

    In any event, Dr. B, it’s impossible to change your mind on Obama. He’s the great satan, Chavez in a better suit. A thinner Michael Moore. A male Hillary and a female Bill. Stalin and Mao rolled into one.

    Let me know how it goes on getting anyone else to buy into this.

  42. Hal says:

    You know the drill… (Pardon the pun)… jobs, prosperity, etc.

    So, who’s the members/organizers of the anti-Hyperion group? Oh wait. You didn’t do any research on that, did you. Note that the “anti-Hyperion group” isn’t a state, federal or local government group.

    Get back to me when you’ve done the rest of your homework.

  43. Steve Plunk says:

    I see Hal up to his usual antics and living up to a certain “law” of internet discourse. Bravo, well done. Of course Hal must realize he does more harm than good to his arguments with such displays. Goats? Come on.

    It would have been nice for the anti-drilling people to advance some serious arguments so we could have real debate. The less than serious nature of conspiracy theories, red herrings and technical jargon tossing just wastes everyones time. I guess kids will be kids.

    It has become clear the left lacks any good arguments against drilling and development. It’s a consensus so please don’t question the conclusion otherwise you must believe in a flat earth. Not really, when you do come up with a logical argument feel free to chime in.

  44. M1EK says:

    and I mentioned their conclusion that if we drill off the Gulf, drill off the coast of Florida and California, the oil shale in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, if we drill in ANWR, that U.S. oil reserves are larger than all Mideast oil countries combined.

    Which is irrelevant, since there is zero possibility we could ever drill those fields at a high enough RATE to compete with the Saudis.

  45. M1EK says:

    Steve, fungibility is not a difficult concept. It’s not technical jargon. And the internet has many, quite excellent, dictionaries.

    Here’s a great article on the topic: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=6ab9db4c-421f-4f48-ac5e-160681c987bf

    A money quote:

    In practical terms, fungibility means the origin of a barrel of oil is effectively meaningless. If Nigerian production suddenly tripled, for example, the supply of Nigerian oil would rise and this would cause the price of Nigerian oil to fall. Obvious enough. But the effect wouldn’t be limited to Nigerian oil. Saudi oil would get cheaper. Russian oil would get cheaper. Canadian oil would get cheaper.

    Why? Because one barrel of oil is pretty much like any other barrel of oil and they are all bought and sold in the worldwide market for oil. In that market, oil has no nationality. It’s just oil.

    Similarly, if Nigeria suddenly stopped pumping oil for some reason, the effect – rising prices – wouldn’t be limited to Nigerian oil. It would be worldwide.

    The same is true within a country. Whether Canada pumps a lot or a little isn’t what determines the price at Canadian pumps. It’s the worldwide price that counts because the price of Canadian oil, like the price of all oil, is determined by the worldwide market.

  46. Hal says:

    Of course Hal must realize he does more harm than good to his arguments with such displays. Goats? Come on.

    It’s a well respected form of discourse. Bithead is free to ask whether or not Obama has stopped beating his wife yet and I’m free to point out that Bithead is blowing goats until proven innocent.

    It would have been nice for the anti-drilling people to advance some serious arguments so we could have real debate.

    Um, they have. Like, if you want to lower emissions – like McCain sez he wants to – you have to actually – you know – lower emissions. Drilling simply *increases* emissions. You can’t lower emissions without actually – you know – making carbon producing energy more expensive.

    Then there’s the “benefit” of opening ANWR – not even measurable on 4.50/gallon of gas.

    But hey! It’s funny to make completely baseless accusations about Obama relying on people who no one even knows who claim to be a supporter of Obama!

    Yes, that’s some serious arguments and real debate.

    Not really, when you do come up with a logical argument feel free to chime in.

    It really is hilarious to have you lecture me about logical arguments because I’m mocking someone who has no logical argument.

    It’s like I’m caught in a Klein bottle, being hounded on a Mobius strip or something.

    Dr. B can’t seem to put a logical argument out to save his life. This post is about a random congressman’s half assed proposal that doesn’t even have a whif of support by anyone and some random woman that Fox news found so they could burn a straw man.

    And you lecture people about coming up with logical arguments and make cracks about flat earthers?

    Wow. How do you walk through the door with balls that big?

  47. M1EK, we don’t have to “compete with the Saudis” to make drilling in the US worthwhile, and we don’t have to keep all that oil for ourselves either. You even note this somewhat inadvertently in your next comment concerning fungibility if you connect the dots. Since speculation is driven by the margins, any oil we pump will help reduce the price worldwide. The sheer fact of being serious about drilling ourselves will have an overnight impact on the oil markets when, and only when, it is unambiguously clear that more capacity will be coming online.

    Frankly, the environmentalists have overplayed their hand. I believe blowback is the term commonly used to decribe what is about to happen.

  48. Hal says:

    Since speculation is driven by the margins, any oil we pump will help reduce the price worldwide.

    Not true. It has to be enough to make a difference. If the Saudies increase their production by half a million barrels a day (as they will when they complete their recent increase) and it doesn’t make a darn bit of difference, how do you expect getting another 1 million barrels of oil into the market 7 years from now when our daily requirements will have vastly increased?

    Speculation moves at the margins, true. But that assumes that the current system is driven largely by speculation (it isn’t) and that supply/demand relationships won’t get even more tighter as time moves on (they will).

  49. Bithead says:

    So, who’s the members/organizers of the anti-Hyperion group? Oh wait. You didn’t do any research on that, did you. Note that the “anti-Hyperion group” isn’t a state, federal or local government group.

    Close but no Cuban.
    It’s a very small minority of people there, attempting to use the pwoer of government… the courts in this case, to block the will of the majority there.

  50. Bithead says:

    Steve, fungibility is not a difficult concept

    Neither is this, even in a world market. Address it, please;

    I’ve quoted Investors Business Daily in the past, and I mentioned their conclusion that if we drill off the Gulf, drill off the coast of Florida and California, the oil shale in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, if we drill in ANWR, that U.S. oil reserves are larger than all Mideast oil countries combined.

    Think such an influx of product will drop world prices?

  51. Bithead says:

    Not true. It has to be enough to make a difference

    Hal, Same question to you.
    I’ve quoted Investors Business Daily in the past, and I mentioned their conclusion that if we drill off the Gulf, drill off the coast of Florida and California, the oil shale in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, if we drill in ANWR, that U.S. oil reserves are larger than all Mideast oil countries combined.

    Think such an influx of product will drop world prices?

    Its’ the one point you guys can’t seem to address, much less get around.

  52. Hal says:

    Wow. Just what the heck do you think that this group of people are going to do? Use guns? IEDs? Nuclear weapons? Hamsters?

    Geebus Bithead. I said it wasn’t the government that it was NIMBY. You come back bragging of victory showing that – wait for it – it’s a NIMBY group that’s preventing the sweet, sweet smell of crude being refined in Sioux city. When confronted with that, your mastery of logic pulls out that the NIMBY group is using – wait for it – the courts to do their dirty work and consequently that proves it was the government and not the NIMBY group who is blocking the sweet, sweet smell of crude being refined in Sioux City.

    Geebus. There simply is no way to mock this. I can only stand in stunned awe of your complete lack of any ability to understand how screwed up your argument is.

  53. M1EK says:

    The amount of oil we can add if we drill to the best of our ability is a tiny fraction of world supply. Remember, a large part of this “new supply” first has to counterbalance depleting existing fields before you start to see any actual downward movement in prices.

    That’s the point. If we were talking about adding another 25% of annual supply, that’d be quite another story. But we don’t have the ability to do that, and we never, ever, ever will. The oil that came out of the ground that easily is long since gone.

  54. Hal says:

    Its’ the one point you guys can’t seem to address, much less get around.

    Obviously you simply didn’t bother to actually read the link I posted previously on this comment thread.

    If Congress were to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, crude oil prices would probably drop by an average of only 75 cents a barrel, according to Department of Energy projections issued Thursday.

    The report, which was requested in December by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, found that oil production in the refuge “is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices.”

    I guess both Ted Stevens and the Department of Energy are simply liberal tools of Chavez – er… Obama!

  55. Bithead says:

    Wow. Just what the heck do you think that this group of people are going to do? Use guns? IEDs? Nuclear weapons? Hamsters?

    You keep barking out this nonsense like you’re talking about this huge popular uprising against the reinery being built, when in fact it’s a small group of people, indeed.

    If Congress were to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, crude oil prices would probably drop by an average of only 75 cents a barrel, according to Department of Energy projections issued Thursday.

    Only one problem, Bucko… that report assumes no response by the rest of the markets, such as OPEC, who has a history to trying to underprice everyone else to keep all other oil fields offline to the extent possible, thereby maintaining their monopoly. All it would take is a commitment by us to drill oil where it is, domestically, and oil would be back at around $80 or less before the echo died.

    Or had you forgotten that the recent round of price spikes started the day Bubba vetoed ANWR?

  56. Bithead says:

    The amount of oil we can add if we drill to the best of our ability is a tiny fraction of world supply.

    So, the middle east only contains atiny amount of oil. Who knew?

    In any event, Dr. B, it’s impossible to change your mind on Obama. He’s the great satan, Chavez in a better suit. A thinner Michael Moore. A male Hillary and a female Bill. Stalin and Mao rolled into one.

    I’m up to about half the country at the moment, if you trust the polling data.

  57. Hal says:

    You keep barking out this nonsense like you’re talking about this huge popular uprising against the reinery being built, when in fact it’s a small group of people, indeed.

    Um, that was actually my point – that it was the people, not some shadowy government conspiracy.

    Geebus.

    that report assumes no response by the rest of the markets, such as OPEC, who has a history to trying to underprice everyone else to keep all other oil fields offline to the extent possible, thereby maintaining their monopoly.

    Yes, the DOE is famous for its myopic view of the world’s energy markets and is unable to anticipate how the system will react, not to mention they have no expertise in this matter.

    I’d ask you for any links/backup for your assertions which fly in the face of known experts but we both know that ain’t gonna happen, right Dr. B?

    All it would take is a commitment by us to drill oil where it is, domestically, and oil would be back at around $80 or less before the echo died.

    roflmao!

    Let me know what you’re smokin’ dude. That’s got to be some primo stuff.

  58. Hal says:

    I’m up to about half the country at the moment, if you trust the polling data.

    45% and the second derivative is negative.

    Yes, you’re doing a bang up job.

  59. Bithead says:

    Yes, the DOE is famous for its myopic view of the world’s energy markets and is unable to anticipate how the system will react, not to mention they have no expertise in this matter.

    Heh. What you say with irony, I say with assurity… and I would include your ‘expertts’ in this, as well. After all, they managed to get us to the point of $4+ gas. Tell me about how well they predicted this situation and reacted correctly to it. Hell, I doubt they could have done worse had they tried.

  60. Bithead says:

    Let me know what you’re smokin’ dude. That’s got to be some primo stuff.

    Again, look at the quote presented from BID, and tell me that amount of oil woldn’t cause price drops of at LEAST that order.

  61. Bithead says:

    Um, that was actually my point – that it was the people, not some shadowy government conspiracy.

    But again, USING the power of government. Did you miss that part the first couple times?

  62. M1EK says:

    Bithead, the amount we could produce PER DAY from drilling those fields is trivial. You’re conflating reserves with production capacity.

    The Saudis still have some fields left where it takes very little investment in equipment or money to get the oil out of the ground. We have nothing like that left; and it’s thus going to be much harder to get each barrel/year out of the ground for us.

  63. Hal says:

    But again, USING the power of government. Did you miss that part the first couple times?

    What’s that line y’all keep using about guns? Oh yes. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. You’d think someone like you would be able to at least grasp that bit of logic and apply it in the present series of laughable comments you’ve squeezed out. But no.

    roflmao.

    Keep up the good work. I’m sure you’ll be able to convince a wide swath of the American public with your finely honed debate skills.

  64. Bithead says:

    Bithead, the amount we could produce PER DAY from drilling those fields is trivial. You’re conflating reserves with production capacity.

    Whereas you seem set on only working in the moment, not down the road. It’s that kind of non-thinking that put us in this position in the first place. I don’t suppose it occurred to you that our production capacity would change?

  65. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    Why would any serious thinker even debate with hal. I did not capitalize his name because.

  66. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    hal, that was not a question, it was a statement.

  67. Hal says:

    Thank you. I never would have noticed without you pointing it out.

  68. Steve Plunk says:

    M1EK, I do not dispute that oil is a fungible commodity. Any additions to the world market would have an impact just as minor disruptions to supply have an impact. I am convinced small increases in supply would do much more good than harm.

    Hal, my big brass ones have developed over time and grow even bigger as they feed on the nonsense of leftists. Thanks.

  69. Hal says:

    Hal, my big brass ones have developed over time and grow even bigger as they feed on the nonsense of leftists.

    Cool. Still, you didn’t even bother to address the serious argument with which I responded to your request. Proving, I suppose, that what you really wanted to do was simply bitch and posture instead of have a serious argument.

    Oh well.

  70. Bithead says:

    M1EK, I do not dispute that oil is a fungible commodity.

    Indeed, he keep trotting out that word like soeone would a maghic wand… even though nobody is disputing the point. Perhaps he wants to make this go away:

    Any additions to the world market would have an impact just as minor disruptions to supply have an impact. I am convinced small increases in supply would do much more good than harm.

    Or as I put it, small oilfields have a tendency to putpusnch their weight, because of the knee-kerk reactions from OPEC, particularly the Saudis.

    Last time we got into this, I was told that the Saudis wouldn’t be able to raise their output at all, because they couldn’t… they’re running dry over there, so our additions to the market wuldn’t draw any monopolistic response from the Saudis. Of course now that the Saudis have raised by a substantial amount their daily output, we know they DO have the capacity to ract to other, competitive feilds coming on line, just as I said.

    And of course the argument that the Saudis couln’t react hasn’t come up again. But M1EK still argues our additional oil woldn’t make any difference.

    Why’s that, M1EK?

    OK, yeah, they won’t be able to pump at the rate. On what basis do you make that claim and on what basis do you assume that situation won’t change?

  71. Hal says:

    Matt Simmons on Bloomberg regarding oil, capacity and drops in the bucket

    No doubt Dr. B will claim he’s a lefty tool and come up with some logical (snicker) argument as to why he’s missing the magic pixie dust which will make oil $80 a barrel.

  72. Bithead says:

    No, not particularly. But he is wrong, none the less.
    As you will see.