You And What Army?
By Repair Man Jack Posted in Energy — Comments (54) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
"We’re going to go right at OPEC," she said. "They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get together once every couple of months in some conference room in some plush place in the world, they decide how much oil they’re going to produce and what price they’re going to put it at," she told a crowd at a firehouse in Merrillville, IN. - Hillary Rodham Clinton (5 May 2008)
From the palace of her delusional Shangri-La, Empress Clinton has decreed that OPEC can no longer exist as a cartel. It’s a good thing that the Sultan of Brunei, like washed-up Rapper, MC Hammer, insures all of mansions and Bentleys through Nationwide.
Senator Clinton goes on to explain why the Clinton Health Security Plan of the early 1990’s represented such an execration in the domain of public policy. Like William Jennings Bryant decrying the gold standard, Hillary sounds the war-tocsin of economic populism.
“That’s not a market. That’s a monopoly," she said, saying she'd use anti-trust law and the World Trade Organization to take on OPEC.
Hillary tells us that she intends to break out the whipin’ stick against a bunch of oil-rich Middle Eastern despots and make them charge her concept of a fair price. She has yet to flesh out the detailed strategy to make a nation who elects a man who believes the 13th Imam is returning from the hereafter, to make all the infidels burn in lakes of hellfire, abide by The Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The details of this are probably as nebulous and broad as that Middle-Class Tax Cut that Bill Clinton ran for President on in 1992.
Hillary’s calls for OPEC to disband and engage the market the way a small-town farmer running a road-side fruit and vegetable stand would become even more risible in the face of her efforts to dismantle the only countervailing force we have against the JP Morgans and Cornelius Vanderbilts of South West Asia. She openly accused our oil industry of intentionally manipulating the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina for fun and for profit.
"I want to go after the oil companies and the oil speculators and the manipulators of the money, because they're the ones who I think are really behind this," Clinton told an audience in Elmira Heights on Thursday. "You have a hurricane, and all of a sudden you see prices going up like that. That has . . . everything to do with people trying to make money off the backs of this tragedy."- Washington Post (September 3, 2005)
I can assure the Senator who would be Queen that Ghadaffi, Ahmadinejad, and the rest of that region’s oil-rich supporters of international terrorism are rooting for Senator Clinton to take those profits. Racing against an opponent wearing ankle weights is not a daunting proposition. In keeping with Osama Bin Ladin’s admonishment that the people will always back the stronger horse, the ministers of OPEC cheer with glee at the prospect of the horse of American industry being saddled with the authoritarian dead weight of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Her newest bone-headed 1970’s revival involves the idea of slapping a Windfall Profits Tax on Oil companies. She claimed to Bill O’Liely they have failed to adequately perform R&D to her specifications. Apparently, their capital stocks and their industrial processes are as badly out of date as The Democratic Party’s national platform.
But once her tax policies have quenched the desire of any enterprising American to enter the oil and gas industry, she will still have to take on OPEC. Only once she’s demobilized Exxon-Mobil, it will be OPEC on Roger Clemmons Juice. At that point, OPEC would be happy to take their offensive product completely off the market and let America do without. Oh boy, would they be happy!
At that point someone could even be impolitic enough to ask her “Oh yeah, you and what Army?” Given her party’s current views of long-term military entanglements in the Middle East, that’s not a question she could laugh off or take lightly. Her answer could be both telling and apocryphal.
Then-Senator Daschle once denounced George W. Bush for following a short-sighted policy that forced the United States to war against Iraq in 2003. Hillary’s willingness to lay waste to America’s domestic oil producers for the crime of acting like businesses and making profits would put us in similar straights with either Venezuela or Iran. Perhaps the pseudo-sapients at Infowars are right to accuse her of threatening to nuke Iran. Once she’s taken those profits, she’s removed other, more rational options from the table.
Actually, watching folks try to protest and equip themselves in ANWR may be almost as fun watching the Dem primaries. Can you just picture them stomping around the tundra, sleeping in tents when it's -30...without windchill!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
My imagined visuals of that protest almost make me want to start a fund to pay for the transportation...one way of course!
Arctic and Western Alaska is the exclusive domain of bureaucrats and the very rich unless you actually live there. On today's Alaska Airlines schedule, the cheapest fare from Seattle to Deadhorse (Prudhoe Bay) is about $1300. Getting into or onto ANWR itself would require both a permit and an additional several hundred dollars to charter a small plane.
Anything in Alaska north of the Alaska Highway (Fairbanks to the Canadian Border) or west of the Parks Highway (Fairbanks to Anchorage) is accessible only by air or water, mostly air except in Southeast Alaska.
Protesters usually do their thing in Anchorage where media access is better. Our Legislative sessions are Jan - May, so it is easy to schedule good "protestable" things in winter - helps keep the riff-raff out.
BTW, steps to block the recent oil leases in the Chukchi Sea began yesterday. Here's today's Juneau Empire story: http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/050608/sta_276027555.shtml
Generally, when you hear the words "culture" and "subsistence" from Alaska's Native people, it is Yupik for "the bidding will now begin" and you can reason with them. When you get the national Indian Rights groups, you're dealing with true hard Lefties usually and there is no reasoning with them. The usual course is that they're rarely successful in the Alaska federal District Court but can usually get a three judge panel of the 9th Soviet to side with them. Sometimes the full court overturns the panel, usually not, and these cases go to the USSC. If the State is a party, the case is almost always stretched over a gubernatorial election where one of the articles in trade is continuing the appeal.
In Vino Veritas
of -50. I can just picture the irony of those people standing out there with their "Fight Global Warming" signs, all zipped up in three, no four, down parkas.
Greeniesicles all over the place.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I can see it now...An Oasis of Pink tents and sleeping bags amid the blinding white of the 'Frozen tundra'...Thats it...Chris Berman could be the host.
wholesale lawlessness
he'll throw us a smelly bone
democrat white house
After all, the greenies come from the same stock as the Grizzly Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_Man).
Bears in Alaska look at sleeping bags the way Americans do burritoes. To use the current commercials: It's a 1-handed snack with a 2-handed taste.
Take that to the North Slope during the construction season and you have the heat-n-serve frozen food aisle.
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
Make a note of that somewhere. I don't often do that.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
HERE
|
|
V
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
the logic has obviously escaped them! Madam Clinton is obviously playing to the far left moonbat crowd who can't think beyond..well they just can't think! But, they CAN feel your pain! If this weren't so frightening it would be hilarious! Instead it is HILLARYous!
HILLARYous: adj. A condition whereby a statement or condition is so outrageous that it goes beyond humorous to frightening!
Only Conservatives are in their "Right" minds!
ANWR would lessen the amount of oil we buy from others, but it wouldn't reduce global demand. The Saudis would sell more oil to China and still make their profits, continuing to finance Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Wahhabi militant extremists, funding the construction and operation of mosques throughout the world, and expand Sharia law and finance into western countries.
The only way to deflate the value of oil is to make it non-essential. Moving off of an oil based economy is the only solution. If we're the ones to develop the new energy sectors, then we become the new Saudi Arabia and reverse the economic/cultural tides.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
There's not a single replacement technology within a generation of fruition.
BTW, I'e made it clear that I've lost my ardor for ANWR because it and the Chukchi Sea prospect would draw the price down. I'm liking ANS at $120/bbl. and not spending the money and hassle of developing new prospects. One man's poison is another's meat.
In Vino Veritas
The only way to deflate the value of oil is to make it non-essential. Moving off of an oil based economy is the only solution.
So how do you propose that we do this? How many years have people been working on alternative energy sources now? We're still no closer to it than we were 30 years ago.
After all, my retirement would be a whole lot easier if someone would simply give me $37 million in small unmarked bills, but I don't think that's going to happen any time soon, either.
Magic solutions are no better than no solution at all. In the meantime, let's do what we *can* do: drill ANWR and the Florida shores into pincushions and reduce the price of oil by increasing supply, thus decreasing the income of Saudi Arabia and friends, which will decrease their global influence as well.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
After all, my retirement would be a whole lot easier if someone would simply give me $37 million in small unmarked bills,
I'd happily take large marked bills if anyone is passing them out. :)
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
And treasury bonds...
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec1_3.pdf
What it show is the nation's energy balance in 2006. We used almost exactly 100 quadrillion BTU's of energy, so the math is easy. Of those 100 quads, 93 were fossil fuels or nukes. A whopping 7% (rounded up!) were "renewables": Conventional hydroelectric power, biomass, geothermal, solar/PV, and wind. (I daresay that the bulk is hydro, but I don't know.)
Two generations ago, that number was 7%. We are no less dependent on fossil/nukes than we were in 1970.
Nobody here is saying that researching exotic or novel energy sources is a bad thing. Pinning your hopes on them and walking away from fossil fuel development, though, would be extremely silly. And just because you want to believe that ANWR wouldn't be significant doesn't make it so. Lord, how I wish we had moved ahead with exploration/development 10 years ago.
The fact is, fossil fuels will be around, and will be an important part of the nation's energy picture for a long, long time.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
Best case scenario for the imaginable future is a diversified energy portfolio. Coal, oil and natural gas (perhaps equipped with carbon capture and storage plants if a price is ever attached to carbon dioxide) could be used in conjunction with new nuclear plants and an increased proportion of renewables, including hydro, wind, solar thermal, and PV. As for transportation, there's really only hydrogen fuel cells (with hydrogen derived from fossil fuel and nuclear plants) and electricity as potential alternatives for gas. Fossil fuels cannot be eliminated from the equation within any reasonable period of time.
Knowing that it will take several decades, you start now by doing everything possible within a capitalist system to encourage the development of replacement technologies. Some have even asked for governmental stimulus and direction along the lines of the Apollo Program.
In any event, you have to acknowledge the problem and make fixing it a top priority. What I hear, however, when people say "what can we do?" is "why should we change?" because they do not want to shift off of oil.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
"What I hear, however, when people say "what can we do?" is "why should we change?" because they do not want to shift off of oil."
And when you consider that we're supposed to have a Capitalist system, it's the only point that really matters. The public does not want to change its source of energy. The public LIKES fossil fuels and will continue to pay for them until that changes.
Government stimulus and direction, by definition, is not a capitalist system. It's socialism.
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
My reply to you was accidentally added as a new comment.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
You're right that more domestic supply would not eliminate the value of Middle Eastern oil stocks -- not much, anyway (greater total supply would impact prices lower).
But some of the responses to your post are also true: such as the one which says that we're a ways away, timewise, from eliminating the value of oil.
I think you have to remember just how much is invested in an economy fueled by fossil fuels. I don't think there's any question that this is going to change over time -- in the form of a gradual shift. But you're talking decades, if not more.
And part of the Catch-22 of all this is that oil (and coal, methane, etc.) will become cheaper as alternatives satisfy more demand. So what do we do then, if our goal is to eliminate fossil fuels as a source of energy?
Raise taxes on them? Well, sounds good in the abstract -- but, as is usually the case, don't be surprised when we get unintended consequences from that. The laws of economics don't stop applying simply because you don't like what they imply.
Nobody would be happier than I would if we can provide for our energy needs using something more abundant than fossil fuels -- even better if they're environmentally cleaner and renewable.
But we should be careful to keep our discussions grounded in economic reality.
The reality is that we are on the threshold of transitional technologies that will dramatically change the way power is generated, stored, and transmitted. The Chinese get it. The Saudis get it. But we, who have the most to gain by getting off of oil, are the ones most reluctant to do so. Bitterly ironic.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
I assume this wasn't what you meant by making oil non-essential, but it would help a lot.
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
It would help in the short term, but it's very expensive and the cost per watt isn't decreasing year-over-year like it is with solar and other alternatives. And then there is the problem with the waste. The UK will abandon reprocessing of nuclear waste - BNFL announced it has lost more than $1 billion with THORP, its operating well under capactity, and its German and Japanese customers want to renegotiate cheaper contracts.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
are very efficient and can use fuels that were considered waste by previous reactors. You can read about them here
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
If it does address the problems I mentioned, then perhaps the shift off of oil can happen sooner than I anticipated.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Nukes give us electricity. In MASSIVE quantities. Well, that takes out tyhe coal and oil and natural gas, etc etc etc from power production. Cheaper electricity makes electric vehicles viable...
But how do you take the petroleum out of plastics, nylons, soaps...?
Taking this economy off petroleum is more than just a fuel problem.
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
Problem is that many of those solutions that I have seen involve using food products(using soy to create foams like one of the car manufacturers is doing)...so we end up in the same mess
Now also found at The Minority Report
I posted in the anti-ethanol post about soybeans supplanting most of our staple crops already and people are considering Pushing that trend even farther? What is it about Stupid that makes it such a popular attribute?
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
is now a by product of the more lucrative process of refining fuels from petroleum. So if we ever got nearly completely off of fossil fuels I agree that would be a problem.
But, since we are not going to get off of it at anytime in the near future it is a moot point. There will be plenty of the "waste" products of petroleum available to produce the plastics, butyl rubber, wax, coke, etc.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Non-petroleum based plastics are a booming field, thanks in part due to high oil prices. In addition to plant-based plastics, Agroplast of Demark claims to have developed an economical means of converting animal waste into plastic.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Government stimulus and direction is a standard part of the GOP platform, and most Conservatives have no problem with it. We call it the military. Well what I'm talking about is just as fundamental to our national security as the development of the F-22.
And if you want to play hardball: if the public likes oil, wants oil, and the government does not need to provide stimulus for oil, then the GOP/Conservative stance would be to end the $9 billion in tax subsidies to the oil industry. But we both know that will never happen, because the only Conservatives who are principled enough to make this stand are the Libertarian/Austrian-Economists.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Is this an actual program that you can provide references for?
If there is an actual program, what public good was the subsidy intended to promote and what are the consequences of eliminating it? How is this different than other tax breaks provided for other purposes?
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
And all the hits seem to point either directly to Democratic talking points or to stories about the Democratic talking points. Such things make me skeptical about the "tax subsidies". Usually when a Democrat says someone has a "tax subsidy" it means they were allowed to pay less than 100% of their money in taxes.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
If you know which POM build that $9B was locked into BES during we could check that out and see what we think...
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
The Pentagon as Socialist. No. The Pentagon as direct consumer putting out what they want in their next product and buying the closest match. Capitalism. That's what got us the F-22.
As to the subsidies, well, if we eliminated the Oil company only taxes that steal 66% of their profits at the same time, looks like we come up with a net gain for oil. Hell, just cut those taxes in half and STILL a net gain. Nope, wait, cut them by 1% and STILL a net gain. $9 Bill by our standards may be a lot of money, but look at the scale on which the oil industry is playing. $9Bill is pocket change. It's equivalent to the government giving Me a $100 a year subsidy. Wait, they're supposed to be doing that this year...
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
No More Military Socialism
Murray N. Rothbard, 1970
(excerpted from the first chapter of "Power & Market".)
Many economists object to marketable defense on the grounds that defense is one of an alleged category of "collective goods" that can be supplied only by the State. This fallacious theory is refuted elsewhere. And two of the very few economists who have conceded the possibility of a purely market defense have written ... Thus, a truly free market is totally incompatible with the existence of a State, an institution that presumes to "defend" person and property by itself subsisting on the unilateral coercion against private property known as taxation. On the free market, defense against violence would be a service like any other, obtainable from freely competitive private organizations.
"Economic Freedom, Human Freedom, Political Freedom"
Milton Friedman, November 1, 1991
The major problems that face this country all derive from too much socialism. If you consider our educational system at the elementary and secondary level, government spending per pupil has more than tripled over the past thirty years in real terms after allowing for inflation, yet test scores keep declining, dropout rates are high, and functional illiteracy is widespread. Why should that be a surprise? Schooling at the elementary and secondary level is the largest socialist enterprise in the United States next to the military. Now why should we be better at socialism than the Russians? In fact, they ought to be better; they have had more practice at it.
The Other Austrian
Mark Skousen, January 29, 2000
"[Ludwig von] Mises considered me a renegade from the true economic faith," Peter F. Drucker says, and "with good reason."' Drucker became disenchanted with pure laissez faire capitalism during the Great Depression. At the same time, however, Drucker advocates many positions that free market economists would applaud ... Defense spending is a "serious drain" on the civilian economy, and should be cut sharply. The costs of "free" government services are "inevitably high." Echoing Hayek, Drucker claims that no public institution can operate in a businesslike manner because "it is not a business."
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Let me begin by stating that I went into economics due to Murry Rothbard, and one of my all time heroes was Milton Friedman. But having said that, over time I find that not all of the things they taught really work in the real world.
I would be loath to give my military procurement to the lowest bidder even if it meant having to put up with a "military industrial complex".
There are certain jobs which you just do not want to contract out overseas. Nor do I think it even desirable that Government function like a business (even if it could).
In general, less government, free markets, less regulation, lower taxes are all good, but even these things have prudent limits.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I agree - as do most Conservatives and the GOP, and I bet Raven too. That's why I said the only ones who take a principled stand on the issue are Libertarian/Austrian Economists -- everyone else chooses when and where to apply the socialist model, like the military.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Although Cato isn't strictly an Austrian Economic think tank (like The Mises Institute), it does share many of the same core ideas:
Oil Subsidies in the Dock
Cato, Jerry Taylor, April 2, 2008...If the Congress were really interested in ending oil and gas subsidies, it could eliminate preferential tax treatment afforded intangible domestic drilling expenses, increase the amortization period for geological and geophysical expenditures from five years to seven, end preferential expensing for equipment used to refine liquid fuels, close the exemption from passive loss limitations for owners of working interests in oil and gas properties, and eliminate accelerated depreciation allowances for small oil producers, natural-gas distribution pipeline investments, and expenditures on dry holes. Such a plan would reduce – rather than compound – economic distortions produced by the tax code and deliver about $8.3 billion for the Treasury over 10 years. Congress is presumably less inclined to offer such a plan because those subsidies are far more important to “Little Oil” than they are to their “Big” brethren, and it’s the former – not the latter – that has most of the political clout in Washington.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
BUT what it sounds like these "subsidies" do is encourage smaller oil companies to explore more, drill more and replace equipment with more modern equipment faster than they may otherwise have. The expenses they right off over 5 years as opposed to 7 years is the same amount, but amortizing over a shorter term encourages them to start another round sooner.
I can believe that extending amortization periods would bring in a short term boost of $8.3 billion, but it's likely that the longer term effects would be:
1. LESS tax revenue due to decreased oil exploration and due to decreased purchases of new equipment.
2. Even LESS new oil coming into the market.
3. Exactly thesame writeoff over 7 years as they get in 5 now.
4. More downtime at refineries due to having to stretch the useful like of equipment an extra 2 years which leads to less supply on the market.
5. Less tax revenue from industries that produce the equipment that is not going to be replaced as quickly.
That $9 billion is a talking point rather than anything worth pursuing.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Subsidies are a bad word to be sure, but nuclear power plants were cost competitive 30 years ago and newer designs and more safety have come out. One cannot look at the European use of nuke reactors and conclude that they don’t pay their way. As far as this goes, Europe has electric rail transit, something that is still in its infancy here but would go a long way toward a goal of less petrol use for transportation.
Abundant nuclear electrical power would shape the future in the same way that subsidies shape the present. (We lost rail transport because highways were built for public use and the trucking industry was able to out ship the rail industry – which had to use trucking for the last mile in most cases.)
More nuclear electricity would allow more water projects too; desalination requires pumps as do increased water in remote areas.
I would go farther and say that anyone who wants to get off the oil standard should place nuclear power at the head of the list of renewable sources, and use wind, solar, and geo power for niches where they solve specific problems. In fact, more and cheaper electricity will probably speed battery development and lead to electric vehicles faster than solar or fuel cells will. Please note that I have no objection other than societie's failure to rely on market forces for not driving the development of these alternative sources – at this time they are government gifts to people in the industry and are largely paid for by the taxes enacted to fund the government programs to spur development. Their time will come when they can compete, and right now they can not compete with unfettered nuclear.
I also agree with the poster up thread who indicated that a reuction in petroleum usage will result in a drop in price. So any competitive process has to be able to compete with power generation when oil prices have fallen by half.
...and building a bunch of new refineries, then. Oh, yes, and throwing the inevitable protesters in jail when they try to interfere with any of that, not to mention all those that'll try to interfere with the nuclear plants that'll need to be built to handle our increased electrical power needs.
(pause)
Uh-huh.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.I've been usurped!