I hope McCain and his surrogates remember the key point in this — not that checking your tire pressure has a marginal impact and that two-thirds of drivers already have the right tire pressure, but that Obama said it would generate as much as offshore drilling — roughly 1.6 trillion gallons in the OCS. We went over the math this Wednesday, and Obama's just not right (and that's with me using an extremely generous assessment that tire inflation would increase mileage 12.5 percent for one-third of America's drivers). It's not merely that Obama's energy policy consists of recommending the minute and mundane, but that he does so while rejecting solutions that could have a dramatic impact on energy production, oil production, and gas prices. He's either not familiar enough with the issue, or way too careless in asserting the benefits of his policies. That's the message voters need to come away with, not just, "Ha, ha! Look, a tire gauge!"

drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It's painful.

It's a good idea. It's not the solution, which I guess what is being mocked, but it's still a good thing to do.

really? keeping your tires inflated to the proper pressure is painful? Is wiping your own ass after you take a dump painful too?

Now that you mention it tire gauges DO look quite a lot like rectal thermometers

jerseyhoya wrote:

I hope McCain and his surrogates remember the key point in this — not that checking your tire pressure has a marginal impact and that two-thirds of drivers already have the right tire pressure, but that Obama said it would generate as much as offshore drilling — roughly 1.6 trillion gallons in the OCS. We went over the math this Wednesday, and Obama's just not right (and that's with me using an extremely generous assessment that tire inflation would increase mileage 12.5 percent for one-third of America's drivers). It's not merely that Obama's energy policy consists of recommending the minute and mundane, but that he does so while rejecting solutions that could have a dramatic impact on energy production, oil production, and gas prices. He's either not familiar enough with the issue, or way too careless in asserting the benefits of his policies. That's the message voters need to come away with, not just, "Ha, ha! Look, a tire gauge!"

jerseyhoya wrote:If Clinton didn't veto ANWR, we'd be getting that oil now. It takes time, but considering the country is going to still be here in 10 years, the fact that it takes some time to come online doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.

Dumbass NRO piece wrote:It's not merely that Obama's energy policy consists of recommending the minute and mundane, but that he does so while rejecting solutions that could have a dramatic impact on energy production, oil production, and gas prices (note carefully that the author of this NRO piece is talking about a 'gas price solution' that will begin impacting gas prices 10 years hence). He's either not familiar enough with the issue, or way too careless in asserting the benefits of his policies.

Back during the 2004 presidential election and even before, Bush called for Congress to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, arguing that it would help the U.S. achieve energy independence, a goal we dismissed as unrealistic at the time. In 2003, 2005 and 2006, ANWR provisions were attached to several bills, but never made it to final passage. Not one to give up, Bush trotted the idea out again at a press conference this week:

Bush (4/19): The Department of Energy estimates that ANWR could allow America to produce about a million additional barrels of oil every day, which translates to about 27 millions of gallons of gasoline and diesel every day. That would be about a 20 percent increase of oil -- crude oil production over U.S. levels, and it would likely mean lower gas prices.

ANWR could create nearly a million barrels of oil a day (though the mean estimated “peak” number is 876,000 and would not hold steady "every day" as Bush claims). Current U.S. crude oil production is 5.1 million barrels a day. With rather generous rounding, one could calculate that oil from ANWR would bring a 20 percent increase in current U.S. crude oil production.

But supply is only one part of the equation. Bush didn't mention that with U.S. consumption at 20.6 million barrels of oil a day, the ANWR bounty, if all went well, could only satisfy 5 percent of the U.S. thirst. That wouldn't have much impact on eventual gas prices.

More importantly, any effect from drilling in ANWR wouldn't be realized for many years. Even if legislation to tap the oil reserves were passed today, it would take years to reap the crude. An Energy Information Administration analysis in 2004 concluded that "between 7 and 12 years were required from an approval to explore and develop the coastal region of ANWR until first production." The peak production of 876,000 barrels per day wouldn't come about for another five years or so. So even assuming Congress gave the go-ahead today, the first oil wouldn't begin flowing until sometime between 2015 and 2020, with peak output half a decade later.

Logic Alert

Bush was inconsistent in explaining ANWR's potential impact on gas prices compared with other alternatives. A reporter asked Bush if he would consider temporarily ceasing the government's purchase of oil to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). He responded:

Bush: I don't think it would affect price, for this reason: We're buying, at the moment, about 67,000 to 68,000 barrels of oil per day, fulfilling statutory obligations to fill up the SPR. World demand is 85 million barrels a day. So the purchases for SPR account for one-tenth of one percent of global demand. And I don't think that's going to affect price.

The numbers are right. The SPR takes away about 68,000 barrels of oil per day, and according to EIA, world oil consumption is 83.6 million barrels a day. Furthermore, his conclusion that suspending the SPR purchases may not affect price is a fair one. Some experts have said it might; others dissent. As the Congressional Research Service summarized, gasoline prices "are sustained by a number of conditions" and they may remain unchanged "even if additional crude oil appeared on the market."

But the notion of tapping ANWR, the alternative Bush was pushing, can be dismissed using exactly the same logic. In fact, the EIA found in a 2004 study that:

EIA: ANWR coastal plain oil production in 2025 is projected to constitute between 0.5 to 1.3 percent of total world oil consumption.

So according to EIA estimates, the oil that could gush from ANWR would actually supply as little as four tenths of 1 percent more of world oil consumption than the oil that would result from halting purchases for the SPR. Not much of a distinction, particularly since ANWR oil wouldn't begin peak flow for more than a dozen years.

Ramp Up the Refineries!

The influx of crude oil alone cannot lower prices. Bush alluded to this, noting that "another reason for high gas prices is the lack of refining capacity." It's true that no matter how much crude oil you have, only so much can be processed into usable gasoline, depending on refinery capacity. And our current facilities are working at full tilt.

But Bush oversimplified the problem in saying, "we ought to expand our refining capacity by permitting new refineries and getting after it quickly." It's true that there is a myriad of federal, state and local regulations and permits to navigate for anyone wanting to build a refinery. But he ignores the fact that they are tough to build, expensive, and for many companies, simply not worth the trouble.

As a 2005 New York Times story about a company's attempt to build the first new refinery in the country since 1976 summarized:

NY Times: The business of turning crude oil into gasoline, jet fuel or heating oil has rarely been a lucrative proposition. It has dismal profit margins compared with its more glamorous cousin, exploration. It is highly cyclical and fairly unpredictable, because demand for gasoline swings sharply by season.

Ten years after the company first decided to try to build the refinery and seek permits, it still lacks enough investors and hasn't begun construction.

Someone did get something right. Bush is correct in noting that the average price for a gallon of gas has climbed $1.40 in the last 18 months, from $2.25 to $3.65. So while politicians' solutions may slip on faulty reasoning, the problem remains a stubborn fact.

jerseyhoya wrote:It's not beside the point in the political context. We're winning the debate on off shore drilling.

jerseyhoya wrote:Drilling is part of the answer, along with a whole host of other things. The Chamber of Commerce put out a 13 point plan calling on Congress and the White House to address to solve our country's energy policy. It got pretty good bipartisan support, and obviously it's a little more business oriented than something that'll ever pass this Congress, but I think it's the right idea. There's enough in the energy debate that everyone can get something they want. If dajafi and I can agree on a basis for a plan, Congress should be able to.

What made me remember to pull this is the quote from the President of the Chamber of Commerce: "It's not a Chinese menu," Donohue quipped. "You have to take all 13 of them."

1) Aggressively Promote Energy Efficiency

2) Reduce the Environmental Impact of Energy Consumption and Production

3) Invest in Climate Science to Guide Energy, Economic, and Environmental Policy

4) Significantly Increase the Funding for Research, Development, and Demonstration of Advanced Clean Energy Technologies

5) Immediately Expand Domestic Oil and Gas Exploration and Production

6) Commit to and Expand Nuclear Energy Use

7) Commit to the Use of Clean Coal

8) Increase Renewable Sources of Electricity

9) Transform our Transportation Sector

10) Modernize and Protect U.S. Energy Infrastructure

11) Address Critical Shortages of Qualified Energy Professionals

12) Reduce Overly Burdensome Regulations and Opportunities for Frivolous Litigation

13) Demonstrate Global Leadership on Energy Security and Climate Change

jerseyhoya wrote:1) Aggressively Promote Energy Efficiency

2) Reduce the Environmental Impact of Energy Consumption and Production

3) Invest in Climate Science to Guide Energy, Economic, and Environmental Policy

4) Significantly Increase the Funding for Research, Development, and Demonstration of Advanced Clean Energy Technologies

5) Immediately Expand Domestic Oil and Gas Exploration and Production

6) Commit to and Expand Nuclear Energy Use

7) Commit to the Use of Clean Coal

8) Increase Renewable Sources of Electricity

9) Transform our Transportation Sector

10) Modernize and Protect U.S. Energy Infrastructure

11) Address Critical Shortages of Qualified Energy Professionals

12) Reduce Overly Burdensome Regulations and Opportunities for Frivolous Litigation

13) Demonstrate Global Leadership on Energy Security and Climate Change

jerseyhoya wrote:You forgot to bold 6, 7 and 12.