July 1, 2008Casey At BatEvery few months some Democrat decides that oil companies are to blame for high prices. Except they're not. It's Democrats who are at fault. This time it's Senator Casey's turn. The federal government is so poorly staffed to investigate oil speculation and price gouging that its agents might as well be “cops going after criminals with water pistols,” said U.S. Sen. Bob Casey Jr. ... because frankly their semi-annual effort has failed. Oil and gas woes dominated the discussion with the editorial board as Casey cast doubts on what he called shortsighted proposals to expand drilling along the U.S. coastline and in the Alaska wilderness. Six months worth of oil: Lie. If we got it all out immediately and refined it and sold it our current consumption rates that's "possibly" what it would take. But you cannot drain an oil reservoir that fast (nor would you want to, you need to replace the oil volume removed with water to maintain pressure). Even the oil volume potentially produced in those six months is not true. You cannot (and the Senate damned sure cannot) forecast advances in oil production and drilling technologies. Oil that was out of reach even 10 years ago is being produced with new techniques. Who's to say what big oil companies or service companies like Halliburton or Schlumberger will develop in the coming years? Don't bet against ingenuity. The 10 years of drilling is also a lie. It does not take 10 years to drill a well. It takes weeks to drill a well... and one rig can only drill one well at a a time. So it might take years to bring more and more wells to production. But first you must do exploration... which usually amounts to dragging microphones over the surface looking for oil. We can't even do that. If we took Senator Casey's (and the Democrat) acreage complaint to heart, it would only lead to more dry holes being drilled. If you do non-invasive exploration and no oil is found, of what use would drilling into nothing be? Of no use. Once a company determines there's potentially oil under a lease, then they do exploratory drilling. If they establish there's financially producable amounts of oil beneath a lease, THEN they go into production mode. In the Alaska oilfields (an area with I have personal experience), if there is a production facility nearby, it's generally a matter of plumbing at that point. However, all of the existing leases have already been explored and re-explored. All the oil that can be found in those location has been identified. So when you hear dishonest Democrats saying "they have 80 million acres of leases"... this is true. But not every acre has oil under it! If oil is discovered, and the nearest processing facility is thirty or forty or fifty miles away, a production facility needs to be built... which means years of environmental permitting and lawsuits. It's not 10 years, it's more like 5. If five years is too far out for oil, why should we spending billions or trillions to tackle .4 degrees of global warming in fifty? Oil and Energy Senate Posted by AlexC at July 1, 2008 12:19 PM |
Again, do these people do laundry or maintain their property? He is part of the 110th Congress of a 220 year-old nation. I can't see that thinking a whole freakin' decade out is too much for these people.
Martin Feldstein has a great piece today on how future supply would lower today's prices. (HINT: it rhymes with Weevil Escalators...)
Posted by: jk at July 1, 2008 1:46 PMCasey's "...area available for drilling" reminds me of the old joke:
What are you looking for under this street light?
Posted by: johngalt at July 1, 2008 3:41 PMI dropped a contact lens. Will you help me find it?
Sure! Where do you think it landed?
Well, I dropped it way over there but the light's better here.
I've heard 6 years thrown out as the time from drilling to refinement. That still begets the question, so why didn't the Democrats let us start drilling 6 years ago? Oh, they couldn't have predicted the future? Nor can they now.
Good examination of the microeconomics by Feldstein, but I didn't see that he boiled prices down to a simple concept: prices reflect supply versus demand, not just in the present time, but in the *future*. All it would take is for Congress to approve drilling in ANWR, and before a single rig is set up, oil prices would start falling immediately.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 1, 2008 4:11 PMExactly right, Perry.
And the fact that speculators keep pressing the price higher and higher is proof positive of their conviction that it [ANWR drilling] won't be happening anytime soon.
Posted by: johngalt at July 2, 2008 7:41 PMExactly right, Perry.
And the fact that speculators keep pressing the price higher and higher is proof positive of their conviction that it [ANWR drilling] won't be happening anytime soon.
Posted by: johngalt at July 2, 2008 7:41 PM | What do you think? [5]