so how's that non-coerced conservation working out so far?

6/17/2008 3:12:53 PM

THis is an issue McCain can win easily. American public support is all for drilling. Obama can't take that stance because of his party's environmental backing.

McCain can definitely win this if he has the balls to do it, which it seems he does.

6/17/2008 3:19:18 PM

he has proven that he'll say whatever is popular at the moment.

6/17/2008 3:26:23 PM

lol yes because that's what McCain's known for... Mr Maverick caving into pressure.

[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 3:27 PM. Reason : .]

6/17/2008 3:27:27 PM

From an environmental standpoint there isn't even much of a beef about offshore drilling as there is from home owners who think they are going to be staring at oil rigs in their backyards. Drilling in Wildlife Refuges is another matter.

6/17/2008 3:28:06 PM

^ yes, that has ZERO human impact and we don't drill there... retarded.

6/17/2008 3:30:24 PM

Quote :

"Just throwing it out there, but contrary to popular conception, U.S. refineries are NOT running at full capacity. In fact, according to the US EIA, we are currently running around 89% capacity."

I said pretty much the same thing already. But my voice was drowned out by the screams of the bickering old couple.

6/17/2008 3:30:43 PM

^^ I am not sure I understand what you are saying but just because Wildlife Refuges don't impact humans (as you say) does not detract from their greater importance of biodiversity preservation.

6/17/2008 3:34:53 PM

Quote :

" I am not sure I understand what you are saying but just because Wildlife Refuges don't impact humans (as you say) does not detract from their greater lesser importance of biodiversity preservation."

Fixed. Just because you care more about animals than people, doesn't mean that everyone else does.

6/17/2008 3:36:48 PM

Quote :

"How do you propose, however, that we set a price floor for a globally traded commodity which we don't produce enough of to export? Sure, we could floor gasoline prices with a variable tax, but crude oil is a different issue all together."

Yes, I do mean flooring it with a variable tax. Where this is done could be a matter of discussion; on the crude as it's produced and imported, or specific to consumption (at the pump). But, of course, if an alternative happened to pop up that could sell at less than the floor, then the market would ramp up production of the alternative until it replaced oil completely. At that point, you would have to fight some other issues, you'd probably want the alternative to replace imports then domestic production. But uh, I don't think having to make a plan for how oil is phased out would be a bad problem to have. There's also that global warming thing, a floor doesn't hurt that either. Carbon tax anyone?

But you must acknowledge, our problem is that we don't have good competing alternatives to oil for transportation. The market can solve the problem, but smart government action is needed as to avoid a potential all out crisis.

6/17/2008 3:37:44 PM

Quote :

"lol yes because that's what McCain's known for... Mr Maverick caving into pressure"

have you paid attention to him in the past year?

6/17/2008 3:42:31 PM

I have. He really hasn't flip-flopped on many issues, despite what the Dems have said.

Like that whole smear campaign about his stance on torture. What a crock of shit. He's done more to oppose Bush on torture than any other congressman, Republican or Democrat.


[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 3:57 PM. Reason : 2]

6/17/2008 3:55:32 PM

yea I'm kind of wondering everything he's saying "just to get elected." If anything, he pisses his base off every other day.

6/17/2008 3:57:35 PM

[cue the ThinkProgress talking points]

[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 3:59 PM. Reason : 2]

6/17/2008 3:58:41 PM

Prawn Star has a point ^x6, HockeyRoman. You really do come across like you care more about animals than people.

And if I actually thought for a second drilling in ANWR would pollute the area and kill or irreparably harm the wildlife there, I wouldn't support it. I honestly don't believe that the drilling will do any of that--and there are facts to support my position.

Try not to freak about the source and just absorb the material, okay? If you have information disputing these points, I'll read it:

Quote :

"Drilling for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge makes so much sense, it’s no wonder opponents have to twist the facts to turn it into a controversy. We’re talking about 10 billion barrels of domestic oil located in an area with a proven track record for environmentally responsible drilling. Yet a host of tall tales from environmental activists and like-minded journalists has made it a tough fight in Washington. Congress is currently deciding whether to add ANWR drilling to the defense appropriations bill. Given the continued high oil prices and political turmoil in many oil-producing nations, now might be the best chance to get ANWR done. But it will happen only if the ANWR myths are exposed. Here are several: ANWR Drilling Would Harm Alaska’s Environment. Some perspective is helpful to understand the ecological insignificance of ANWR drilling. ANWR comprises 19 million acres in Northeast Alaska, 17.5 million of which are totally off-limits to drilling or any other kind of economic activity. This is why the news footage showing beautiful snowcapped mountains is misleading, because the drilling would not be allowed anywhere near there. Only the flat and featureless coastal plain would be affected, and even there only a small portion of its 1.5 million acres. The current version of the bill limits the surface disturbance to 2,000 acres, a small piece of a big coastal plain in a very big wildlife refuge in the biggest state in the Union. Oil Wells Would Despoil One Of The Few Remaining Pristine Places. Again, the vast majority of ANWR will be completely unaffected by drilling. It would occur only on a small part of the coastal plain where there already is some human habitation. There are plenty of truly pristine places in Alaska worth preserving, but ANWR’s coastal plain isn’t one of them. As it is, Alaska has 141 million acres of protected lands, an area equal to the size of California and New York combined. Drilling Is Incompatible With The Purpose Of National Wildlife Refuges. Drilling critics have tried to confuse wildlife refuges with national parks, wilderness areas and other more highly protected categories of federal lands. But national wildlife refuges typically allow limited mining, logging, drilling, ranching or other activities. Indeed, the statute creating ANWR contemplated future oil production on the coastal plain, subject to congressional approval. It is worth noting that another wildlife refuge in Alaska, the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, has had drilling onsite for decades. The oil production there rarely makes the news because it has not caused any problems, even though Kenai has far more wildlife than ANWR. Oil Development Harms Local Wildlife. An extensive track record proves otherwise. In addition to Kenai, Alaska has oil drilling in the Prudhoe Bay field, only 55 miles west of ANWR. Prudhoe Bay has produced more than 10 billion barrels of oil since the 1970s, which has been transported through the Alaska pipeline to the American market. Decades of studies show that this oil production has had a negligible impact on the environment. Environmental opponents of drilling cannot point to a single species that has been driven to extinction or even a population decline attributable to Prudhoe Bay. In addition, the drilling there was done with decades-old technology and methods far less environmentally sensitive than what would be required in ANWR. The Caribou Herds Will be Devastated. Environmentalists have been particularly excessive in predicting dire harm to the herd of migrating caribou that passes through ANWR. But the caribou herd that migrates through Prudhoe Bay has increased from 3,000 to 23,000 since drilling commenced there in 1977. Alaskans Oppose ANWR Drilling. In fact, polls regularly show 75 percent or more of Alaskans support drilling. This includes the native Alaskans who live in the vicinity of the area where ANWR drilling would occur, although the few who oppose drilling get most of the media attention. Alaskans know from first-hand experience that resource extraction can co-exist with environmental protection. They also know how silly the environmental gloom and doom predictions are, as they have been hearing such nonsense for decades. If the average American, and his or her representative in Congress, knew the facts as well as the average Alaskan, ANWR drilling wouldn’t be controversial in the first place. Fortunately, it’s not too late for Congress to take the common sense step and boost domestic oil supplies by passing legislation allowing ANWR drilling."

Ben Lieberman is a Senior Policy Analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179005,00.html

[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 4:01 PM. Reason : .]

6/17/2008 4:00:21 PM

Quote :

"yea I'm kind of wondering everything he's saying "just to get elected.""

*yawn*

http://www.google.com/search?q=mccain+gas+tax+holiday
/message_topic.aspx?topic=529727

At least throw out a worthwhile challenge...

[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 4:04 PM. Reason : .]

6/17/2008 4:01:45 PM

how about bush's tax cuts during a time of war?

6/17/2008 4:07:23 PM

You know what, even if we start training the next generation of doctors right this second it will still take another 8 years ( sometimes 10 ) for them to complete their education. Its too long, we need to find another way to get healthcare. Training more doctors just ignores the gaping hole in the chest of US medicine. We don't need more doctors. We need to learn to go to the doctor less. Then we'll all have enough doctors.

6/17/2008 4:07:43 PM

^ LOL

6/17/2008 4:08:44 PM

^^^We're at a precipice now. It is perfectly justifiable to oppose raising taxes at a time when we are in danger of falling into a very nasty recession.

Likewise, it was certainly understandable for him to oppose those tax cuts in the first place, at a time when Bush was beating the drums for war. A lot can, and does, change in 7 years.


[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 4:11 PM. Reason : 2]

6/17/2008 4:09:33 PM

So, how about the gas tax holiday, which will amount to a piffling amount of savings and drain the highway fund? Tell me that isn't naked pandering.

6/17/2008 4:12:31 PM

It's either pandering or he's foolish enough to believe that it will give motorists a break at the pump. No doubt about it. Either way it's somewhat disturbing.

I liken it to Obama's call for a windfall profits tax on oil companies. Pandering to his base.

[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 4:16 PM. Reason : 2]

6/17/2008 4:16:18 PM

You'll hardly find me to be someone who thinks Obama is any better on the matter, or for that matter, anything but a cipher who picks easy battles to look "principled."

But Obama isn't the point, here - it's McCain's "rock-hard" principled consistency.

6/17/2008 4:18:43 PM

Fair enough. I don't believe that McCain has sold his soul to become President the way Dems paint him, but he does pander at times.

6/17/2008 4:21:03 PM

Quote :

"You really do come across like you care more about animals than people."

That is a very fair and accurate assessment truth be told. As the highest order of being I feel a very strong responsibility to look out for other creatures that are being threatened by our (human) actions. There is also a spiritual component to this that I try to keep out of TSB and my discussions about it in general because I always hate when people argue their platform straight out of the Bible (not that that is where I derive my inspiration but merely an example) but rather it provides a foundation. Here is a tiny dose of what I mean and you can explore it as you care to. The role of kami is look after and protect humans while the role of humans is to look after and protect kami.


I have long maintained that the whole debate of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is a proxy war against environmentalism as a whole. I am still waiting for someone to address the Alaskan National Petroleum Reserve which is even bigger than "ANWR" and has been set aside since 1923.

I just don't buy into the notion that 2,000acres against 19 million is nothing because of where it is located. That coastal plain is home to an abundance of polar bear dens, caribou calving grounds and land for migratory birds. And the response of "they'll just adapt and get over it" is simply not good enough. What about all of the permanent structures required just for the exploration alone? and the logistics of water consumption used for drilling and waste created by drilling/construction. Also, what happens if they do find untold amounts of oil and the 2,000 acre cap is no longer sufficient to meet their insatiable demand? This just sounds like a pandora's box to me.

[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 4:29 PM. Reason : .]

6/17/2008 4:27:18 PM

Quote :

" That is a very fair and accurate assessment truth be told. As the highest order of being I feel a very strong responsibility to look out for other creatures that are being threatened by our (human) actions."

sharks, as the highest order in the ocean, do the same with smaller fish. Glad us higher beings are so moral.

Quote :

"Also, what happens if they do find untold amounts of oil and the 2,000 acre cap is no longer sufficient to meet their insatiable demand? This just sounds like a pandora's box to me."

THAT SOUNDS AWESOME TO ME, ARE YOU KIDDING?

Energy independence for every American...

[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 4:34 PM. Reason : .]

6/17/2008 4:33:48 PM

Quote :

"What about all of the permanent structures required just for the exploration alone?"

What the fuck? Please paint me a picture - how does one of those listed animals die because of the oil exploration and extraction? In fact, how does is the population hurt - the only thing I care about, and the only thing any human should care about.

The only way any of this opposition is valid if it's a matter of severity and not yes/no. Attack the policy makers, not the lawmakers then. Are they throwing big blocks of tar all over the 2000 acres that the bears roll in and get stuck?

I mean really, I hope you appreciate how much of a WTF this issue has always been for the rest of us.

6/17/2008 4:34:36 PM

^^ Unless you can find information to the contrary the highest order of sea animal in terms of brain functionality (which is what I meant so stop being obtuse) would be dolphins or perhaps whales.

^

Quote :

"Some scientists cite studies that show a reduction in density of cows with calves near roads and developed areas around Kuparuk (Nellemann and Cameron, 1998). They fear that development and production in the 1002 area could cause cows to calve in less desirable locations or prevent the herd's access to sites where they can escape from the voracious insects common in early summer."

http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/crs_anwr.shtml
No where did I say anything about species "dying".

[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 4:39 PM. Reason : .]

6/17/2008 4:36:21 PM

^off topic


this is getting good, btw.

6/17/2008 4:38:39 PM

Quote :

"But you must acknowledge, our problem is that we don't have good competing alternatives to oil for transportation. The market can solve the problem, but smart government action is needed as to avoid a potential all out crisis."

Interesting theory.

We haven't had good competing alternatives to oil because there were no good alternatives to cheap oil. If you make oil expensive, even artificially, then you'll induce that within the market. However, that would be a hard bill to pass. You'd essentially have the environmental lobby going up against the AARP (high fuel is bad for fixed income) organized labor (high fuel is bad for petroleum intensive industries), against farm groups (high oil raises the price of fertilizer), against free-marketeers, against low income advocates (a crude-oil tax would be regressive). I don't see it being politically feasable.


And how many times do people need to be told, that drilling for oil in Alaska by anyone other than a government controlled corporation would not significantly lower the price of crude oil, which is a globally traded commodity.

It is time for Americans to accept that the era of cheap petroleum is over, and instead of looking back on the "good old days" and waiting for them to return (post WWII Europe anyone?) we should take the lead as the world's innovator and begin the long, slow, painful divorce not just from foreign oil, but from petroleum products as much as possible.

This isn't to say that we're going to find a solution tomorrow, or that we should abandon everything and become sod-farmers who live on grubs, but there is no reason not to seize upon the future and make it our own, instead of waiting for the world to make it for us.

6/17/2008 5:34:02 PM

Quote :

"nd how many times do people need to be told, that drilling for oil in Alaska by anyone other than a government controlled corporation would not significantly lower the price of crude oil, which is a globally traded commodity."

Unless it costs $140 a barrel to extract oil from ANWR then it will lower the price of crude oil, which is a globally traded commodity.

Demand is fairly inellastic, so is supply, so an extra million barrels a day of light-sweet crude hitting the market would substantially lower prices below where they would have been had the oil not been drilled. How can you possibly believe otherwise?

6/17/2008 5:40:14 PM

I don't believe otherwise, but I think there are those out there who feel that we'll just consume all of the ANWAR oil domestically, bringing it back down into the $1.50 range, which wouldn't happen without significant government involvement.

But that is also assuming that the rather inelastic demand curve doesn't continue shifting to the right with the increasing urbanization of China. Car ownership in China increased 32% last year for a total of ~57m cars in China. With a population of 1.4B, that is only 4% market penetration. A similar jump in 2008 would increase the total number of cars in China to ~75m.

Now, 75m is paltry compared to the 243,023,485 cars estimated to be on the road in the United States, but if car ownership in China grows by only 25% a year, they'll have surpassed us in less than 8 years and still be at less than 20% penetration. In the US penetration is 60%.

I'm not arguing against ANWAR drilling, it might very well have its place, but I am arguing against those who feel that it would be a placebo which would allow us to keep our heads in the sand for another 50 years of cheap oil.

6/17/2008 6:05:56 PM

we need the debates between McCain and Obama to start

6/17/2008 6:58:46 PM

Quote :

"so an extra million barrels a day of light-sweet crude hitting the market would substantially lower prices"

Do you mind telling me what 1/5 of "substantially" is?
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1814924,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

6/17/2008 7:24:07 PM

^Speculators had been anticipating that move for weeks. In fact, the rumor was that Saudi Arabia was gonna boost production by 500,000 barrels per day.

An "unexpected" increase in supply, such as a giant oil field being discovered and/or developed, would have a significant impact on oil prices.

6/17/2008 7:31:57 PM

Which is why I have little issue when it comes to offshore drilling but no one seems to want that kind of compromise.

6/17/2008 7:42:31 PM

John McCain does

6/17/2008 8:37:02 PM

I would feel more comfortable if he said something to the effect of "My friends, as president will pursue a course with Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling in exchange for making the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge a national monument thus closing it for future oil speculation." He'd almost assuredly get my vote.

6/17/2008 8:51:34 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0PY7N4iRgLQ

6/17/2008 9:47:54 PM

If you go to http://www.eia.doe.gov, Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government, you can find all of the info you want on U.S. oil production, OPEC imports, and non-OPEC imports. In March 2008 (its latest data), the U.S. produced 5.1 million barrels of oil per day, 1.8 million of which were exported. So we export a third of our domestically-produced oil.

From OPEC, we imported 5.9 million barrels per day, with the main countries being the Saudis (1.5 million/day), Nigeria (1.2 million/day), Venezuela (1.0 million/day), and Iraq (773k/day). From non-OPEC, we imported 6.6 million barrels per day, with the main countries being Canada (2.5 million/day), Mexico (1.4 million/day), and Russia (400k/day). So our grand total for imported oil in March 2008 12.5 million barrels per day. It has data going back to 1973 for the monthly imports. We've been in the range for 12-15 million barrels per day fluctuating both ways since December 2003. You can also see our oil production since 1920. Domestically, we peaked at 10 million/day in November 1970. We touched 9 million in 1986 and it's been downhill from there, and we're only 60% of that 1986 level today.

First, all those derricks that produced oil in the 1970s and 1980s are still there and still approved, why aren't their owners opening them up and producing oil from them? This is being done in Los Angeles County of all places, I read an article in the USA Today a month ago on it. Why isn't it going on elsewhere?

Second, OPEC I think is made more of a scapegoat by domestic economists. The only people we get big oil from there are the Saudis (who we're "friends" with), Nigeria, Chavez (who we're decreasing our receipts from him looking at historical data), and Iraq (who we're "newly friends" with). A majority of our oil is non-OPEC, and we receive more oil from Canada than we do the Saudis and Mexico is about the same as the Saudis. Heck, we receive more oil from the U.S. Virgin Islands than Kuwait, and we went to war for them!

Third, at the same site, our refinery utilization and capacity in March was 83.2%. That was our lowest refinery utilization since 2005 and the normal level is 92-95% from previous data. So we have 10% less refined gasoline than normal conditions. I understand maintenance and breakdowns and all that, but you'd think at higher prices it would be higher, why isn't it? So we could have 100 trillion barrels of oil, if it can't be refined, the price of gas doesn't come down any.

The obvious answer is to build a refinery. But existing refineries and oil companies are not interested in one being built, why not? Because the existing refineries enjoy their oligarchy and are therefore not interested in further refineries being built.


And before anyone says "words", God forbid someone bring in stated facts in the middle of your pointless pissing contest dumbsh*t arguments.

[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 10:27 PM. Reason : .]

6/17/2008 10:22:30 PM

Quote :

"The obvious answer is to build a refinery."

how does that solve anything when our refineries aren't at capacity now? or are they only at 85% because of repairs/maintenance?

also: isn't crude at a very high price now? refineries shouldn't affect those prices, should they? (at least not directly). it seems to me that the problem is refining capacity right now, but excess demand worldwide (and perhaps speculation somewhat as well)

[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 10:38 PM. Reason : .]

6/17/2008 10:37:28 PM

Quote :

"http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/crs_anwr.shtml No where did I say anything about species "dying"."

Sure, that's fine. I don't need you to take my argument as attacking you - take it as attacking opposition to drilling in ANWR (or just as pro drilling there), and address my points at your discretion.

At the same time, I need to address the claim that drilling will not significantly affect prices at the pump, or our trade deficient. By basics of economics, it will, in principle, do some combination of those.

The area under discussion is estimated to have 4.3 billion (95% probability) barrels economically at $40 / barrel. If we take modern prices $140 per barrel, then that results in:

4.3e9 x $40 = 172 billion
4.3e9 x (120 - 40) = 430 billion

High estimates go over twice that amount. That first number goes into the US GDP. This is important, but also very important is that second number, which is money that essentially comes from the environment - money that just falls from the sky. It doesn't disappear, and the company that develops the reserve is breaking even with compensation from that first number.

On to demand, no one thinks it's going down. So the conflict is; are we helping ourselves or just pushing down the price for the next generation of automobile owners in China? Also, what if an alternative is developed? You know what, I think that half trillion that goes essentially to our government from drilling in the Arctic would go a long way for R&D and infrastructure development for just such an alternative. And, as I'm sure everyone is aware, we are currently the largest oil user. China has had constant production for the last like decade and doesn't have places like Alaska to expand to. Even if there is plenty of oil to be had (which there likely isn't), this goes a long way to not create a trade surplus, but soften our long-lasting trade deficit.

One way or the other, considering the likely increasing cost of oil, the fact that you could drill for more than $40 / barrel oil, and speculation as to how much there is, this is a domestic natural resource worth at least 0.5 trillion, probably 2.0 trillion-ish and possibly more. How does this not essentially go to American tax payer/oil buying wallets? It does.

--
About the environmental impact...

Quote :

"They fear that development and production in the 1002 area could cause cows to calve in less desirable locations or prevent the herd's access to sites where they can escape from the voracious insects common in early summer."

This might hurt some cows, or caribou, or whatever they are. Note wording carefully - this threaten some, meaning specifically that this would not threaten an animal population. What was the status of those caribou?



I'm not too worried. Any environment argument is specifically preservationist and not environmentalist/conservation (unless you break out global warming arguments). The preservationist argument says that we shouldn't touch it because we haven't touched it yet.

That argument, in itself, is untouchable. It's a matter of prerogative, since this is the largest untouched environmental reserve, giving the land itself a unique status. However, the public has never supported preservationist approach to federal lands.

I only make a big deal of that because I took PS 320. I assure you, to keep it closed on a preservationist basis will not work. To keep doing so would be ignoring the will of the American people, even though this is likely what the democrats will do.

And I'm finished.

[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 10:55 PM. Reason : Ah! That was Muir vs. Pinchot, from the class]

6/17/2008 10:48:46 PM

Quote :

"it seems to me that the problem is refining capacity right now, but excess demand worldwide (and perhaps speculation somewhat as well)"

I think speculation is a bigger factor at the moment than the current demand.

6/17/2008 10:59:12 PM

Quote :

" The obvious answer is to build a refinery. But existing refineries and oil companies are not interested in one being built, why not? Because the existing refineries enjoy their oligarchy and are therefore not interested in further refineries being built."

Either that, or it's just incredibly expensive to build new ones due to environment regulations. The refinery industry does actively expand them instead. For example:

http://www.dcnonl.com/article/id25073

As you can see, this particular refinery enjoying its oligopolistic reign of terror has nonetheless committed to spending $1.4 billion on expansion.

Perhaps we need a President McCain who will make it easier for new refineries to be built ...

6/17/2008 11:01:54 PM

As far as I understand, the brunt of current price increases comes from speculation that comes out with a significant demand-supply mismatch 5 years-ish from now.

Oh, and Venezuela's leader being bat-shit crazy doesn't help.

6/17/2008 11:03:13 PM

^

Vinod Khosla will save us all by then.

6/17/2008 11:08:09 PM

16 billion barrels of oil offshore and another 59 billion elsewhere...

ok lets say we decide to use that 75 billion barrels up in 20 years...thats about 3.75 billion barrels a year or about 1/2 of what we currently per year....man i hope in that 20 years we can create nuclear fission or some bomb ass fuel cells etc etc etc

http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/funda/Sidebar/OilConsumption.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/washington/18drill.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

[Edited on June 18, 2008 at 1:36 AM. Reason : god i hope dems let this one pass]

6/18/2008 1:35:44 AM

sarijoul, highly technical parts of the world economy tend to be hard to keep up with. Right now the experts are up in a tizzy because the oil market has never gone this way to such an extent. It appears that the world has been boosting supply for all these years by increasing the refining of light-sweet crude, which is cheap to refine and produces mostly high demand products (fuel oil, diesel, etc). However, the supply of light-sweet crude comes from only a few places on Earth whose production is collectively falling. This means that refineries which are only capable of refining light-sweet crude are having difficulty finding supplies and are shutting down, hence the seemingly low 85% refinery utilization.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world tends to produce sour and heavy crudes which must be refined in specially designed, and expensive, refineries and even then produce less of the high demand products. As such, OPEC is already exporting all the light-sweet crude it can produce and has been doing so for awhile. When Saudi Arabia announces it is going to boost output it is invariably talking about heavy crude from its less desirable fields. The problem is that there is currently no way to refine this extra supply of heavy crude. Because no buyers can be found even after reportedly deep discounts, OPEC countries eager to meet their quota are parking unsaleable heavy crude on fleets of tankers just off shore. Iran, which produces almost exclusively heavy crudes, is reported to have the largest such fleet floating near Kharg Island numbering at "least 14 very large crude carriers, or VLCCs."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aCvsbL.iegY0

6/18/2008 2:56:37 AM

mmm... Sulfur

6/18/2008 3:06:33 AM

Fuck oil. Anyone who doesn't see this as the perfect time to move away from it and instead advocates more drilling is incredibly short-sighted and stupid. There is no long term solution to our energy independence where we are powered by oil. Stop using that as an argument. We've already used most of the oil we can get domestically. The only real way to develop energy independence is to start driving cars that don't use oil, continue to develop solar power, and increasing use of nuclear energy (oh my god... yes I'm totally for that) among other things. Drilling for more oil is not the answer. The only answer is to allow for the price of oil to remain high so that we can get away from it faster. It's going to suck for awhile, but in my opinion it'll be better to do it now than it will be later. We've dug ourselves into the deepest fucking hole we could manage and now it's time for us to climb our way out. It's not impossible but it will be hard to do. We cannot continue to use oil forever.

6/18/2008 4:02:01 AM