New Haven Independent

Posted by: anon | July 2, 2008 5:02 PM

Is this a joke? Energy markets consensus is $7 gasoline this year and $12-15 next year. The Feds should cut the Pentagon budget in half and invest in mass transit, bike paths, etc. before it is too late (well, it already may be - we're tens of trillions of dollars in debt now). If China can build a 400 mile an hour train running 300 miles in one year why can't we?

Posted by: DingDong | July 2, 2008 8:03 PM

Blablablabla.... People have been saying for years that we need to cut our addiction to oil. Politicians did nothing. They pandered to their short-sighted electorates. Now that we are paying the price, they think they can still pander. Worse, it seems DeLauro are pandering both to their short-sighted electorate with all the talk about speculation and lowering gas prices AND pandering to those who actually take the problem seriously and say we need to begin massive investments in transit and bike/ped infrastructure by talking about breaking the US oil addiction. Well, I'm not buying it. And I imagine most readers of this paper aren't either.

Posted by: Doug | July 3, 2008 1:05 PM

I heard Richard Ebeling from the American Institute for Economic Research on WTIC AM 1080 this morning discussing oil supplies, supporting the Republican claim -- and now Dodd's apparently -- that America needs only to start drilling on its shorelines and in the Rockies to solve its oil supply problem. He also said the oil industry will (contrary to the industry's public record) use all the necessary safety technology.

I suggest people read this story from the Kansas City Star, which reports the an easier way to fix America's oil-gas supply problem: more refineries. Not one new refinery has been proposed for a permit since 1976, and the oil industry consolidated its refineries on purpose to jack up the price.
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/articles/?storyId=17491

Also, can Americans trust the oil industry when it is selling us "hot fuel"?

http://www.kansascity.com/news/hot_fuel/

It's a practice where gas stations sell less gas at a higher temperature (and thus greater cubic volume) for the same price.

Apparently Americans are paying billions more for gas each year because of this, and the gov't is doing nothing about it.

Back in the day, we had more refining capacity than we needed, and the price was low. Today, it looks like refining capacity is so low that it won't matter if we start pumping ,more oil out of the ground at the expense of the ocean and/or more Rocky Mountain wilderness. It's time the gov't started building refineries or simply taking over the oil industry.

Posted by: anon | July 3, 2008 1:22 PM

Doug, nobody is going to build any refineries. The reason is simple. There's less and less oil out there every year. Couple that with the fact that demand is skyrocketing in the rest of the world. Anyone who believes otherwise lacks a basic understanding of geology.

Companies are begging people to take their refineries off the books, not the other way around.

Posted by: Chris Gray | July 3, 2008 1:50 PM

Rats! I did it again.

Last week, in the debate about public notices of BOA committee hearings, I reminded people of what Louisa said to me but, once again, confused her name with Rosa's.

My apologies; Rosa would never be so forthcoming.

Posted by: doug | July 3, 2008 3:33 PM

Anon, I hope you have some expertise to back that up, because the two links I included came from the Kansas City Star and the reporting is outstanding in both stories. I think you might be reacting based on what may be a common misunderstanding. Maybe read those links first before you react...

Posted by: Boaz "Bo" ItsHaky | July 3, 2008 4:27 PM

Hello everyone,

I am the post-modern era Republican candidate for CT 3rd Congressional District, running against incumbent Rosa DeLauro.

Vote for me if you wish to see some constructive-reform (true-change) in Washington.

I need your help to move the 3rd District, Connecticut, America and planet Earth into the 21st and a much needed better-future.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at:

boaz.itshaky@gmail.com

Or

203-537-0699

Web site is coming soon

Respectfully,

Boaz "Bo" ItsHaky

Posted by: tomg | July 3, 2008 4:31 PM

Current lease rates are $5 per acre. We are getting fleeced by low land lease rates. How about $5,000 per acre or $50 per barrel and invest the proceeds in mass transit & conservation. It's OUR oil. Let's stop giving it away to the oil companies for peanuts.
We're going to need that oil 20, 40, 100 years from now and there is no better investment to sit on than our natural oil reserves.
The current drilling hysteria is driven by the oil companies who want to lock in the low lease rates before time runs out on the Bush admin.
The price bubble is because the demand has outstripped the supply and because the demand is relatively inelastic. Adapt and prosper.
High oil prices are doing more for the environment and the fisheries this year than all the speeches did over the last 40 years.
The Bush admin last month suppressed an EPA report that showed that CO2 regulations would BENEFIT the economy to the tune of $2 trillion over 30 years. That would undermine the GOP central argument that CO2 regs would be too costly. Bush directed his staff not to open the June 5 email from the EPA.
Could I get some of that immunity please?

Posted by: Stephen | July 3, 2008 4:40 PM

I can't believe what I was reading. Speculators? Maybe somewhat but the fundemental problems is supply and demand. Crude oil production has be largely flat since 2004 while demand has increased. It's not hard to understand.

Instead of grand standing, Rep. DeLauro and Sen. Dodd should get themselves schooled on the oil problem. A campaign of misdirection won't solve anything.

Neither will off-shore drilling. We shouldn't have the illusion it will "solve" anything. If we can produce another 2-3 million barrels a day by 2015 or so, so what. We will soon be on the downhill slope of Hubberts Peak. It's time to start pouring money into mass transit and into efforts to locaize and/or regionalize industry and farming as much as we can.

Steve

Posted by: Boaz "Bo" ItsHaky | July 3, 2008 9:59 PM

"The EIA analysis says not a word about oil company "gouging," futures market speculation or refusal by U.S. oil producers to exploit the exploration leases they pay billions for -- all the reasons being bandied about by Congressional Democrats (and a few Republicans) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)

... The bottom line here is that the United States needs a bipartisan energy strategy that's simply stated: Do It All. Drill for oil and gas, expand nuclear power, promote conservation and develop alternatives.

The EIA says that for decades to come, 85 percent of U.S. energy needs will come from oil and gas. So, the U.S. ought to produce more of its own in the near term while developing alternatives for the long run.

And, according to the Wall Street Journal, another expert group, the International Energy Agency, is scheduled to report in November that oil-producing countries not only won't produce more oil -- they can't, because of aging oil fields and inadequate investment."
">http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/whos_to_blame_for_4_gas_both_d.html> Who's to Blame for $4 Gas? Both Democrats and GOP
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/whos_to_blame_for_4_gas_both_d.html

Respectfully,

Boaz "Bo" ItsHaky
Bo for Congress

Posted by: DingDong | July 6, 2008 9:55 AM

Doug,

While it is certainly true that the worryingly low U.S. refining capacity (for which NIMBYism and enabling politicians are mostly to blame) may occasionally result in increased gasoline prices, refining capacity is only responsible for short-term changes in price. Crude (i.e. unrefined) oil is the underlying commodity's whose price has skyrocketed and there is sufficient worldwide refining capacity to turn crude oil into gasoline without there being significant production bottle-necks to affect price. That said, it would certainly be good from a trade and security point of view to build more refineries in the U.S. Since NIMBYism is what prevents most from going up, anyone care to offer New Haven as a site?

Posted by: Doug | July 6, 2008 10:51 PM

Hi Ding...

I pointed out the Kansas City Star's reporting on this topic because it would appear that refining capacity is a bottleneck. The reporting is in-depth, and top notch.

Refining capacity may not appear to have an obvious impact in most economists forecasts, but reality is that the oil companies control the speed with which oil is refined into gas in our country. Oil can arrive by the millions of barrels an hour here if it suddenly became more available. But it's up to the oil companies to refine it, and it does not pay to refine it faster, apparently.

Further, the Saudis have told us in no uncertain terms that it's not the amount that they're drilling that is the problem. It's the weak dollar, inefficient consumption, and our lack of refining capacity that are the problems.

The feds would do well to nationalize the refining process, building gov't refining capacity while still allowing private contractors to operate refineries as well. It would be nice if someone monitored these operations for spillage and regulatory compliance. Right now, they essentially do not do that.

There is plenty of open space in the U.S. to build and operate refineries safely. They don't have to be built close to populated areas or close to environmentally sensitive places.

But the bottom line is I would much sooner approve a refinery in my own neighborhood if I felt that it was operated by an entity that had to answer to me, the voter, instead of a private company that appears to care little or nothing about the environment or dumping its carcinogenic product into a the soil, air, and water. Of course, a few years later the gov't would cry poverty and privatize the refinery, leaving the neighbors holding the bag on poor industry practices and spills.

Posted by: DingDong | July 7, 2008 10:44 AM

I wouldn't listen to the Saudis (or the Americans) in the blame game for high oil prices.

That article, while good, does not make the case at all convincingly that refining capacity is a bottleneck that is significantly raising gasoline prices. It simply remarks that there is a shortage of refineries in the US. While not an expert, I take this to be an uncontroversial point.

However, other countries now refine crude oil and then ship gasoline to the United States. Also, what really matters as I stated in my last post, is that CRUDE oil costs more now. That is the underlying commodity that gets refined and turned into gasoline. A shortage in refining capacity cannot, so far as I can tell, explain why crude oil costs more.

I'm, of course, of the opinion that higher gas prices are a good thing -- something is needed to work Americans up from their complicity in destruction of the climate and support of petro-funded illegitimate regimes throughout the world. But that aside, you can build as many new refineries as you want, if crude oil costs $140, gasoline will still be expensive.

Posted by: MattUva | July 8, 2008 12:01 AM

Dude, I'm not voting for anyone who's last name is, "It's shaky".
It's shaky enough already, 'K?

Posted by: Bruce | July 8, 2008 11:15 AM

Opening ANWR and restricted offshore sites to drilling is a moot point. While you will see extraordinary predictions of available oil presented in these arguments, the vast majority of untapped and undiscovered oil is already available for lease. ANWR is estimated to hold only 10 billion barrels and there is maybe another 18 in restricted water offshore. The rest is leasable and accessible to oil exploration and recovery companies. Current US oil consumption is about 7.3 billion barrels per year. Spread out over several decades, opening both of these resources would fill a relatively small percentage of our domestic energy needs, would take decades to exploit, and would not do anything to affect prices.

Don't take it from me, take it from the US Energy Information Administration:

"With respect to the world oil price impact, projected ANWR oil production constitutes between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030, based on the low and high resource cases, respectively. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices."

Posted by: anon | July 8, 2008 12:47 PM

High heating oil prices this winter will create hundreds of new homeless families in our city.

The gas tax should be immediately raised to $5 per gallon, to invest in mass transit and so people can afford to heat their homes (through a home heating tax credit based on income).

Unfortunately, the poor don't vote, so we continue to subsidize gas so that the richest people in the country can keep driving their Hummers 80,000 miles per year.