Democrats intent on destroying middle class with $11 gas

[OC Burns]

Both parties represent the same interests. And we aint it.

The longer we continue fighting each other, the longer we get buggered.

[cooperthedog]

Allan – ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, in 2025…

That is 1/2 of 1% of the price of a barrel oil. Assuming that roughly the same percentage reduction would apply to gasoline, you are looking at saving 2 cents per gallon if ANWR is drilled (you will, of course, have to wait 10-15 years for this price “relief”). See below for details and src.

jficquette – You’ve provided some links to what appears to be oil industry sponsored propoganda (anwr.org), as well as a conspiracy theory of big oil lying about reserves to boost profits (which ironically contradicts your original premise of environmentalists conspiring to raise gas prices). In the future, when making a specious argument, cross reference your “talking points” a little better.

I will counter this with the official Energy Information Administration data (the EIA is part of the DOE, and provides the official energy statistics).

Estimates of oil reserves

In May 2008 the Energy Information Administration released the following report:

“The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively.” [29]),

The report also states:

“Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.” [30])

For the average case, drilling in ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, in 2025. The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030.[31]

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html

[cooperthedog]

Allan – ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, in 2025…

That is 1/2 of 1% of the price of a barrel oil. Assuming that roughly the same percentage reduction would apply to gasoline, you are looking at saving 2 cents per gallon if ANWR is drilled (you will, of course, have to wait 10-15 years for this price “relief”). See below for details and src.

jficquette – You’ve provided some links to what appears to be oil industry sponsored propoganda (anwr.org), as well as a conspiracy theory of big oil lying about reserves to boost profits (which ironically contradicts your original premise of environmentalists conspiring to raise gas prices). In the future, when making a specious argument, cross reference your “talking points” a little better.

I will counter this with the official Energy Information Administration data (the EIA is part of the DOE, and provides the official energy statistics).

Estimates of oil reserves

In May 2008 the Energy Information Administration released the following report:

“The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively.” [29]),

The report also states:

“Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.” [30])

For the average case, drilling in ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, in 2025. The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030.[31]

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html

[cooperthedog]

Allan – ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, in 2025…

That is 1/2 of 1% of the price of a barrel oil. Assuming that roughly the same percentage reduction would apply to gasoline, you are looking at saving 2 cents per gallon if ANWR is drilled (you will, of course, have to wait 10-15 years for this price “relief”). See below for details and src.

jficquette – You’ve provided some links to what appears to be oil industry sponsored propoganda (anwr.org), as well as a conspiracy theory of big oil lying about reserves to boost profits (which ironically contradicts your original premise of environmentalists conspiring to raise gas prices). In the future, when making a specious argument, cross reference your “talking points” a little better.

I will counter this with the official Energy Information Administration data (the EIA is part of the DOE, and provides the official energy statistics).

Estimates of oil reserves

In May 2008 the Energy Information Administration released the following report:

“The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively.” [29]),

The report also states:

“Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.” [30])

For the average case, drilling in ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, in 2025. The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030.[31]

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html

[cooperthedog]

Allan – ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, in 2025…

That is 1/2 of 1% of the price of a barrel oil. Assuming that roughly the same percentage reduction would apply to gasoline, you are looking at saving 2 cents per gallon if ANWR is drilled (you will, of course, have to wait 10-15 years for this price “relief”). See below for details and src.

jficquette – You’ve provided some links to what appears to be oil industry sponsored propoganda (anwr.org), as well as a conspiracy theory of big oil lying about reserves to boost profits (which ironically contradicts your original premise of environmentalists conspiring to raise gas prices). In the future, when making a specious argument, cross reference your “talking points” a little better.

I will counter this with the official Energy Information Administration data (the EIA is part of the DOE, and provides the official energy statistics).

Estimates of oil reserves

In May 2008 the Energy Information Administration released the following report:

“The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively.” [29]),

The report also states:

“Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.” [30])

For the average case, drilling in ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, in 2025. The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030.[31]

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html

[cooperthedog]

Allan – ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, in 2025…

That is 1/2 of 1% of the price of a barrel oil. Assuming that roughly the same percentage reduction would apply to gasoline, you are looking at saving 2 cents per gallon if ANWR is drilled (you will, of course, have to wait 10-15 years for this price “relief”). See below for details and src.

jficquette – You’ve provided some links to what appears to be oil industry sponsored propoganda (anwr.org), as well as a conspiracy theory of big oil lying about reserves to boost profits (which ironically contradicts your original premise of environmentalists conspiring to raise gas prices). In the future, when making a specious argument, cross reference your “talking points” a little better.

I will counter this with the official Energy Information Administration data (the EIA is part of the DOE, and provides the official energy statistics).

Estimates of oil reserves

In May 2008 the Energy Information Administration released the following report:

“The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively.” [29]),

The report also states:

“Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.” [30])

For the average case, drilling in ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, in 2025. The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030.[31]

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html

[cooperthedog]

Josh,

While I believe the trend in increasing oil prices is fundamental (a finite & static/declining supply and increased demand), I can’t argue that part of the current run up isn’t attributed to the weak dollar and inflation hedging (speculation). To what degree, I do not know. I do know that oil has also increased in euros, albeit to a lesser degree (~4.5x increase in EUR since 02 lows & ~7x for USD), so the medium of exchange isn’t the only factor.

In addition the “parabolic” move may be the illusion of linear graphs vs. logarithmic & breaking the psychological $100 mark. The increase in the last 6 months (100 to 140) in “only” a 40% increase. The price of oil was ~$20 in 2002, and doubled TWICE to $80 last year, and I don’t remember fx or speculators being blamed, nor the parabolic arguments proffered until recently. On the other hand the dollar has been falling since then, and seems to really have accelerated starting in mid 2007 (imagine that…), so your argument of medium of exchange is definitely a factor that should be included in the scope of the debate.

I would posit that the environmentalists are also to blame for our currency crisis. Anyone interested in the “facts” knows that these notorious limosuine liberals are in bed with the Federal Reserve. Environmentalists are to Bernanke, as peanut butter is to jelly…

I’ve included a graph of oil in USD and Euros.

[img_assist|nid=8129|title= Oil in USD & EUR|desc=|link=node|align=center|width=446|height=330]

Source: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/06/oil_prices_in_o.html

[cooperthedog]

Josh,

While I believe the trend in increasing oil prices is fundamental (a finite & static/declining supply and increased demand), I can’t argue that part of the current run up isn’t attributed to the weak dollar and inflation hedging (speculation). To what degree, I do not know. I do know that oil has also increased in euros, albeit to a lesser degree (~4.5x increase in EUR since 02 lows & ~7x for USD), so the medium of exchange isn’t the only factor.

In addition the “parabolic” move may be the illusion of linear graphs vs. logarithmic & breaking the psychological $100 mark. The increase in the last 6 months (100 to 140) in “only” a 40% increase. The price of oil was ~$20 in 2002, and doubled TWICE to $80 last year, and I don’t remember fx or speculators being blamed, nor the parabolic arguments proffered until recently. On the other hand the dollar has been falling since then, and seems to really have accelerated starting in mid 2007 (imagine that…), so your argument of medium of exchange is definitely a factor that should be included in the scope of the debate.

I would posit that the environmentalists are also to blame for our currency crisis. Anyone interested in the “facts” knows that these notorious limosuine liberals are in bed with the Federal Reserve. Environmentalists are to Bernanke, as peanut butter is to jelly…

I’ve included a graph of oil in USD and Euros.

[img_assist|nid=8129|title= Oil in USD & EUR|desc=|link=node|align=center|width=446|height=330]

Source: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/06/oil_prices_in_o.html

[cooperthedog]

Josh,

While I believe the trend in increasing oil prices is fundamental (a finite & static/declining supply and increased demand), I can’t argue that part of the current run up isn’t attributed to the weak dollar and inflation hedging (speculation). To what degree, I do not know. I do know that oil has also increased in euros, albeit to a lesser degree (~4.5x increase in EUR since 02 lows & ~7x for USD), so the medium of exchange isn’t the only factor.

In addition the “parabolic” move may be the illusion of linear graphs vs. logarithmic & breaking the psychological $100 mark. The increase in the last 6 months (100 to 140) in “only” a 40% increase. The price of oil was ~$20 in 2002, and doubled TWICE to $80 last year, and I don’t remember fx or speculators being blamed, nor the parabolic arguments proffered until recently. On the other hand the dollar has been falling since then, and seems to really have accelerated starting in mid 2007 (imagine that…), so your argument of medium of exchange is definitely a factor that should be included in the scope of the debate.

I would posit that the environmentalists are also to blame for our currency crisis. Anyone interested in the “facts” knows that these notorious limosuine liberals are in bed with the Federal Reserve. Environmentalists are to Bernanke, as peanut butter is to jelly…

I’ve included a graph of oil in USD and Euros.

[img_assist|nid=8129|title= Oil in USD & EUR|desc=|link=node|align=center|width=446|height=330]

Source: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/06/oil_prices_in_o.html

[cooperthedog]

Josh,

While I believe the trend in increasing oil prices is fundamental (a finite & static/declining supply and increased demand), I can’t argue that part of the current run up isn’t attributed to the weak dollar and inflation hedging (speculation). To what degree, I do not know. I do know that oil has also increased in euros, albeit to a lesser degree (~4.5x increase in EUR since 02 lows & ~7x for USD), so the medium of exchange isn’t the only factor.

In addition the “parabolic” move may be the illusion of linear graphs vs. logarithmic & breaking the psychological $100 mark. The increase in the last 6 months (100 to 140) in “only” a 40% increase. The price of oil was ~$20 in 2002, and doubled TWICE to $80 last year, and I don’t remember fx or speculators being blamed, nor the parabolic arguments proffered until recently. On the other hand the dollar has been falling since then, and seems to really have accelerated starting in mid 2007 (imagine that…), so your argument of medium of exchange is definitely a factor that should be included in the scope of the debate.

I would posit that the environmentalists are also to blame for our currency crisis. Anyone interested in the “facts” knows that these notorious limosuine liberals are in bed with the Federal Reserve. Environmentalists are to Bernanke, as peanut butter is to jelly…

I’ve included a graph of oil in USD and Euros.

[img_assist|nid=8129|title= Oil in USD & EUR|desc=|link=node|align=center|width=446|height=330]

Source: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/06/oil_prices_in_o.html

[cooperthedog]

Josh,

While I believe the trend in increasing oil prices is fundamental (a finite & static/declining supply and increased demand), I can’t argue that part of the current run up isn’t attributed to the weak dollar and inflation hedging (speculation). To what degree, I do not know. I do know that oil has also increased in euros, albeit to a lesser degree (~4.5x increase in EUR since 02 lows & ~7x for USD), so the medium of exchange isn’t the only factor.

In addition the “parabolic” move may be the illusion of linear graphs vs. logarithmic & breaking the psychological $100 mark. The increase in the last 6 months (100 to 140) in “only” a 40% increase. The price of oil was ~$20 in 2002, and doubled TWICE to $80 last year, and I don’t remember fx or speculators being blamed, nor the parabolic arguments proffered until recently. On the other hand the dollar has been falling since then, and seems to really have accelerated starting in mid 2007 (imagine that…), so your argument of medium of exchange is definitely a factor that should be included in the scope of the debate.

I would posit that the environmentalists are also to blame for our currency crisis. Anyone interested in the “facts” knows that these notorious limosuine liberals are in bed with the Federal Reserve. Environmentalists are to Bernanke, as peanut butter is to jelly…

I’ve included a graph of oil in USD and Euros.

[img_assist|nid=8129|title= Oil in USD & EUR|desc=|link=node|align=center|width=446|height=330]

Source: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/06/oil_prices_in_o.html

[EconProf]

Glad to see that both sides are bringing data to the table. Dare I say that everyone is getting more civil here too. It is not often that a thread that devolves into mud-slinging can recover and become useful to us observers.
Here’s another piece of data. Many Americans have no idea how significant, area-wise, drilling for oil in ANWAR would really be. The fact is that the drilling would occupy an area the size of the Dallas airport, in a region the size of Virginia. That is like taking a postage stamp and putting it in the middle of your bedroom.
Add to that, with modern technology and safety requirements, oil spills and accidents are practically non-existent today.
Whether you are for or against drilling in ANWAR, let’s keep these facts in perspective.

[EconProf]

Glad to see that both sides are bringing data to the table. Dare I say that everyone is getting more civil here too. It is not often that a thread that devolves into mud-slinging can recover and become useful to us observers.
Here’s another piece of data. Many Americans have no idea how significant, area-wise, drilling for oil in ANWAR would really be. The fact is that the drilling would occupy an area the size of the Dallas airport, in a region the size of Virginia. That is like taking a postage stamp and putting it in the middle of your bedroom.
Add to that, with modern technology and safety requirements, oil spills and accidents are practically non-existent today.
Whether you are for or against drilling in ANWAR, let’s keep these facts in perspective.

[EconProf]

Glad to see that both sides are bringing data to the table. Dare I say that everyone is getting more civil here too. It is not often that a thread that devolves into mud-slinging can recover and become useful to us observers.
Here’s another piece of data. Many Americans have no idea how significant, area-wise, drilling for oil in ANWAR would really be. The fact is that the drilling would occupy an area the size of the Dallas airport, in a region the size of Virginia. That is like taking a postage stamp and putting it in the middle of your bedroom.
Add to that, with modern technology and safety requirements, oil spills and accidents are practically non-existent today.
Whether you are for or against drilling in ANWAR, let’s keep these facts in perspective.

[EconProf]

Glad to see that both sides are bringing data to the table. Dare I say that everyone is getting more civil here too. It is not often that a thread that devolves into mud-slinging can recover and become useful to us observers.
Here’s another piece of data. Many Americans have no idea how significant, area-wise, drilling for oil in ANWAR would really be. The fact is that the drilling would occupy an area the size of the Dallas airport, in a region the size of Virginia. That is like taking a postage stamp and putting it in the middle of your bedroom.
Add to that, with modern technology and safety requirements, oil spills and accidents are practically non-existent today.
Whether you are for or against drilling in ANWAR, let’s keep these facts in perspective.

[Author]

Posts