WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House of Representatives voted to direct the Bush administration to stop filling the strategic petroleum reserve temporarily in an effort to alleviate increasing gas prices.
"Purchases for SPR [the reserve] account for one-tenth of 1 percent of global demand," Bush said in April. "And I don't think that's going to affect price when you affect one-tenth of 1 percent, and I do believe it is in our national interests to get the SPR filled in case there's a major disruption of crude oil around the world." - CNN -------- and the Republicans are wrong -
Republican leaders in the House said the bill was a good "first step" to addressing gas prices, but used the vote as an opportunity to push for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- a 19-million acre strip in northeastern Alaska, where oil exploration has long been prohibited by Congress.
Drilling in the refuge could produce a million barrels of oil a day and "reduce gasoline prices by 14 times the price reduction achieved by redirecting oil from the SPR," said House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio and Republican Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri in a letter Monday to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California.
The Republicans also proposed tapping reserves in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, where an estimated 1.5 trillion barrels of oil shale exist.
However, Pelosi argued that more drilling is not the answer, saying drilling on federal lands has increased over the years without affecting gas prices. She also said opening the arctic refuge for drilling would only provide six months of oil -- 10 years from now. - CNN (Same Article)
Stopping the ling of the strategic petroleum reserve is just a sop to the public, who aren't really looking at the reality of the action, and what little result would be gained. One-tenth of 1 percent reduction in price wouldn't even be noticed. More savings would result if people just kept their tires inflated properly and coasted down every tenth hill they drive down.
Drilling in the Arctic not only wouldn't affect prices right now, but, as I showed in another thread, wouldn't produce any usable oil for at least seven years, and more likely ten or twelve years. Even then, the amount of usable oil would be less than a year's demand, and that is using today's demand as a base. Regarding building new refineries, all I can say is that the oil industry seems to have trouble finding investors for this. The last proposal to build one was, I think, a decade ago, and is still looking for money.
It is, of course, getting old, both to hear and to say, but if people had paid attention to the "tree-hugging crazies" over 30 years ago, and started demanding that the government start investing in new energy technologies and demanded more efficient cars from Detroit, we wouldn't be in this position. There would also be a significant auto industry left in Detroit.* If we don't do something similar to what the crazies said should be done back in the 70s, we'll find ourselves in the same position again, but since the demand for global oil is snowballing, so it won't be thirty years in the future, it will be much sooner.
*Today's Detroit situation, of course, should please the "free market" people. After all, the US auto industry just didn't keep up with its competition and we now see the results. Of course, we could ask them for more of their response to US consumers' demand for smaller cars. Does anyone still have a Pinto, a Pacer, or that god-awful thing that Chrysler produced that looked like a 10 year-old Fiat?
Posts: 16773 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
I think the Republicans are right. Sure, drilling in the ANWR won't produce a flood of oil, but it'll make millions for someone. It should be drilled just on principle! How dare that land just sit there, not turning a profit, idly supporting tundra, caribou and other useless stuff.
You may be right, and, according to one "expert", it will be good for the caribou.
"The caribou love it. They rub against it and they have babies. There are more caribou in Alaska than you can shake a stick at." - President George H.W. Bush, speaking of the Alaskan pipeline
Apples Trees
Posts: 16773 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
We import let's say roughly 60% of our oil. At $126 in the process we are making some regimes around the world, regimes not exactly friendly to the United States, quite rich. Yet here we have sizable oil reserves right here at home that is off-limits because of environmental moratoriums. Brilliant
["Drilling in the Arctic not only wouldn't affect prices right now, but, as I showed in another thread, wouldn't produce any usable oil for at least seven years, and more likely ten or twelve years."]
DG-Yes this statement is certainly correct. But you know what. In ten to twelve years, we are still going to need oil. The oil we already have doesn't do us a bit of good if we just keep it in the ground doing nothing.
["It is, of course, getting old, both to hear and to say, but if people had paid attention to the "tree-hugging crazies" over 30 years ago, and started demanding that the government start investing in new energy technologies and demanded more efficient cars from Detroit, we wouldn't be in this position."]
It is not the governments job to be investing in new energy technologies & trying to create more energy efficient cars. We have the market place for that. But I shall also point out that Since President Bush has been President, the government has been providing $izable grants to the auto makers for development of more fuel efficient cars & alternative energy technology. Are we to blame Bush for not having had done it 30 years ago???
If Bush is good at anything, he is good at resisting political pressure and popular opinion.
The strategic petroleum reserve is for emergency use. Both Truman and Eisenhower suggested it, and Ford initiated it following the Arab oil embargo of 1973-1974. It has been tapped several times, including a response to shortages anticipated by Hurricane Katrina damage. It is not there as a means of controlling prices.
The product in the SPR is crude, not refined gasolines and jet fuels. An emergency reserve of refined product has been discussed on several occasions, including during a bill proposed last year by Senators Schumer and Durbin. The fact that nobody knew what it would cost aside, the bill did not pass because it ran into the same technological problem the concept always runs into: refined product has a short shelf life, inconsistent with the reserve concept.
Some politicians have expressed an interest in not adding to the SPR. Fine. That is easy. SPR capacity is 727 million barrels, and the SPR is currently 702 million barrels. The difference is about two days worth of US consumption.
Posts: 7655 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
Interesting link. The CEO of Daimler Chrysler is quoted in it. He points out that we, in Europe, get 36 miles per gallon. You , in America, get 24. (Why is that? If you were serious about saving fuel you'd be driving the European type of car). He also says that diesel cars have 20 to 30 per cent better fuel economy than gasoline ones.They also have 20 per cent less carbon dioxide emissions. (They account for over 50 per cent of new cars in major European markets.Some American corporations, who must know,realise that. Hertz and Avis know the score:rent from them in Europe and you'll get a diesel)
Meanwhile the Administration is fannying about with pointless subsidies of corn production for ethanol, thereby encouraging farmers to grow feed corn for cars, not cattle, with consequences for food prices, and pretending that a 'plug-in' car will ever be a substitute for a gasoline or diesel one.
As for the ludicrous 'hybrid', it's window dressing for image, not an answer. Nobody in America ever asks why Europe and Japan,places where fuel is far, far more expensive than in America, have never developed hybrids for their own markets, preferring to improve diesels and gasoline engines. When they did develop hybrids they did so to sell them to 'cheap fuel' America. It was the American market, where gas is still cheap,and was a lot cheaper when they started to sell hybrids, that they thought they'd find the customers That says a lot.
"But I shall also point out that Since President Bush has been President, the government has been providing $izable grants to the auto makers for development of more fuel efficient cars & alternative energy technology. Are we to blame Bush for not having had done it 30 years ago???" - LR
I find it hilarious (but understandable) that Republicans are now so defensive about bush's administration that they now defend him when he is being congratulated.
Posts: 16773 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
That says a lot.
