April 29, 2006
May I Have $6.00 A Gallon Please?
Chuck Schumer (Dem., N.Y.) recently asked "If $75 a barrel oil and a $3 average for a gallon of gasoline isn't a wake-up call, then what is?" and as the Wall Street Journal notes it is indeed a fine question for Senator Schumer to ask. They go on to note:
In fact, Mr. Schumer and most of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate--the very crowd shouting the loudest about "obscene" gas prices--have voted uniformly for nearly 20 years against allowing most domestic oil production. They have vetoed opening even a tiny portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas production. If there is as much oil as the U.S. Geological Survey estimates, this would increase America's proven domestic oil reserves by about 50%."[...]
The dirty little secret about oil politics is that today's high gas price is precisely the policy result that Mr. Schumer and other liberals have long desired. High prices have been the prod that the left has favored to persuade Americans to abandon their SUVs and minivans, use mass transit, turn the thermostat down, produce less consumer goods and services, and stop emitting those satanic greenhouse gases. "Why isn't the left dancing in the streets over $3 a gallon gas?" asks Sam Kazman, an analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who's followed the gasoline wars for years."This graph shows the average price of gasoline, per gallon, in both the United States and some European countries. Click this Link to see where Mr. Schumer really wants gas prices to go (he won't tell you, I just did) Is that what you want Mr. Schumer? If it is, then be at least honest enough to say so without the fancy footwork designed to make you look indignant (when you aren't) and gouge the American People under the guise of concern which you are obviously trying to do.
Let us be honest in this debate about gasoline prices. First, there is no evidence of price gouging to date. Since the 1990's the SEC and FTC have been scrutinizing the oil companies without finding any evidence. Second, the inflation adjusted price of gasoline today is less than the cost of gasoline in 1979/80. View image! As you can see from the graph, the cost of gasoline of gasoline was higher in 80/81 than now. That does not mean that gasoline won't go still higher and break records but the reasons for that are not necessarily under the control of the oil companies. It is called supply and demand and with India and China feverishly working to increase their supplies, that will drive the price up all else remaining the same.
Looking at the cost as a percent of personal comsumption expendatures on a monthly basis, you will see that while expenditures are indeed up, the cost are still below the '80/'81 levels View image. Again, while the costs and expense for families is high, it has been higher.
We also need to take a look at where the real costs of gas at the pump come from. The hype of the left is that the oil companies get it all, or at least that is what they want you to believe. The reality is that the cost of crude (and remember we import way too much oil) is 47% of the cost. So, at $3.00 a gallon $1.47 of that is just for the cost of the oil to make the gas. Add to that another $0.69 for state and federal taxes and you are already over two thirds of the cost of a gallon of gasoline. But wait, we aren't done yet. It costs $0.36 to get the gasoline to you and to advertise their product and we are now up to $2.46 of the cost of a gallon of gas at $3.00. That is just shy of 84% of the cost. View image According to the Energy Information Administration: Department of Transportation: Bureau of Economic Analysis, those folks charged with knowing how much you have to pay for gasoline, only about 27 cents is profit and another 27 cents goes into refining costs. TWENTY SEVEN CENTS!!! Yeppers, that's price gouging. NOT! Economics are obviously not the forte of Mr. Schumer and his cohorts.
There are other reasons for the significant rise in the cost of gasoline that the liberals/Democrats don't want you to know. While the UN dithers with Iran, world concern regarding supplies have driven up costs lest the Iranians block the exit to the Persian Gulf or other major disruption of oil transshipment. There are also currently seventeen types of "botique" blends of gasoline and ethanol that are mandated by congress and or the states. This causes disruptions in delivery and where in one locality one type of fuel has to be turned down because it is not a mandated type. There is a move afoot in congress to whittle that number down to six.
Just a lowly eight months ago, Congress passed and the President signed an energy bill with significant tax breaks to get the oil companies up and moving because of the major disruption caused by Hurricaine Katrina and Rita. The disruption of the refinary capacity has caused part of the problem and we have not built any new refinaries in over 20 years. That is also part of the problem because the majority of refinaries located on the Gulf Coast were damaged and supplies disrupted. Now, congress is debating on rolling back the tax breaks but that will only increase receipts to the government because the fact of the matter is that corporations do NOT pay taxes. You do. Taxes are part of the economic mix that are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices IN ADDITION to the taxes you pay at the pump.
Then there is the move by the President to halt filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that is almost full anyway and this will hardly make even a small dent in the cost of gas. Bold move Mr. Bush. NOT!
Which brings me to the Republican's efforts (What efforts?...Ed! - precisely) in this mess. They are as busy with double talk and crapping on the oil companies making it look like they are so concerned and are acting just like Democrats. In fact, it is getting harder and harder to tell the two parties apart (execept the Republicans don't have anyone near as deadly as Schumer when it comes to getting between Schumer and a TV camera). I fear the Reps will find out that we really don't need two liberal parties in November and that the population will just vote for Democrats rather than Republicans acting like Democrats. But, maybe the Reps will wake up, it is not too late. YET!!!
Posted by GM Roper at April 29, 2006 08:51 AM | TrackBack"If there is as much oil as the U.S. Geological Survey estimates, this would increase America's proven domestic oil reserves by about 50%.""
Of course even if true, which it isn't, this is a few months of use at our current consumption rate. Why is it people like you can't hear the music for tone deafness? The oil isn't found here. Geology put most of it somewhere else. Take a look at the fold put map in National Geographic and look at the well sites already available on the north slope. Why isn't this affecting the market right now? ANWR is a straw man for fools.
Posted by Jake Elmore at April 29, 2006 08:23 PM
Jake, that is the biggest lie of the left. While it is true that it would take a long time to bring the ANWR oil to market, not to look is to ask for continued dependence on foreigh oil. Further, we are talking about proven reserves. According to some a number of years ago, that amount would have been exhausted 5 years ago. The prove reserves level keeps rising, not only here but other places as well.
Talk about tone deafness... and by the way, do you approve of Kennedy's "Not in My own backyard" approach to wind farms?
Given our need for oil and given that we are doing damn little to both increase our own drilling and decrease our own consumption to keep our economy growing are you serious about shutting down or are you just harping on the left's meme? What is your solution and what comments do you make to the other facts as presented above?
Tone deaf indeed!
Posted by GM Roper at April 29, 2006 09:16 PM
Excellent artilce, GM.
it reminds me of something my boss said to me: "we pay $3 a gallon of milk, dont we?"
Granted, milk cant get me to work each morning. It might help me maintain strong, healthy bones, but HEY it's not exactly going to move those bones thirty miles in 15 minutes.
But...and I say this cautiously, because I think my circumstances arent universal...BUT I have not been slowed down so far with these gas prices going up as they have. Sure, it hurts my wallet...and Im a broke kinda guy! But the way I see it this kind of pressure on gas prices will help hasten Americans embrace of alternative, perhaps even nuclear, energy...or whatever...and then we can hopefully tell the oil-tyrants of the world to get lost.
Of course, we will always need SOME oil, but we have plenty here...maybe one day Texas or Alaska will provide more than enough oil for all Americans. Until that day, though, I guess we must live with the $3 gallon gas that Chucky so so wanted us to pay anyway.
Have I mentioned that I hate that smarmy dude? I shook his hand once and it was sweaty and he certainly smelled like a liar...anyway
Yeah, this is a long comment so Ill shut up now!
Posted by QuickRob at April 29, 2006 09:30 PM
Jake sounds just like the liberals who stalled oil drilling in Alaska's north slope and whinned about wildlife being hurt by the pipeline. (Wildlife loves the pipeline. It's warm.) Liberals were wrong then, and they are wrong again, and again, and again, and.... Their goal is to make the US. weak, since the U.S. stands in their way of a socialist world run by the elite (not elected) left. It doesn't matter if the issue is oil, nuclear energy, war in Iraq, immigration, etc., etc.
In fact, drilling that oil from ANWR can greatly benefit the economy. By doubling the oil flowing from Alaska and thus maximizing the capacity of the Alaskan pipeline, production costs will decrease. When this is combined with the increase in the domestic supply of oil, gasoline and oil prices will drop. And besides reducing the cost of living for the average American, establishing this oil field will help to create jobs and public revenue. According to the Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Association, ANWR drilling will create up to 736,000 jobs. It could also make the federal and Alaskan governments billions of dollars in leasing licenses. Despite the rhetoric, we have little to lose and much to gain by drilling in ANWR. http://www.jhunewsletter.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/03/31/424c82d47a27c
Posted by Woody at April 29, 2006 11:13 PM
We have a lot to lose. It's just that you guys and your ilk don't give a damn about those other "natural" commodities. Fair enough but it invites calling you the knuckle-dragging cretins that you are. Progress will only come when the likes of you two are defeated. You didn't look at that map I referred to. Talk to me when you have because I don't abide students who lose their homework.
Posted by Jake Elmore at April 30, 2006 08:41 AM
Its right here for you.
The question was: why haven't all of these current drill sites provided gas relief? The wind farm thing is called shift the burden fallacy. That particular one has fishery and marine mammal implications beside the view of rich people, most of which are republicans in that area. Don't get cute.
Posted by Jake Elmore at April 30, 2006 08:49 AM
GM and Woody and others (actually with a brain), Don't you just love Jake Elmore?
He has some knowledge and is so full of himself that he thinks he knows everything. What a great feeling that must be. It is a real time saver too. You don't have to seriously listen to anyone else nor read seriously. You never have to change your postion when new information is presented. He, doubtless, is a graduate of Archie Bunker (a liberal show damning non-Liberals...but worthy of many points) University.
I note that he, like nearly all Liberals, has NO solutions. He is just like a little boy that has learned swear words and now, to his delight?, is rude, crude, generally obnoxious, without bringing any real information to the dialogue.
Keep going, Jake. We love your antics. You show the positions you have to be without merit, and thus help brighter folks to see...the man behind the curtain...so to speak.
Posted by tad at April 30, 2006 10:00 AM
This is part of the economic jihad of which OBL spoke. And our own oil companies and so-called "elected representatives" are allowing this to happen.
I can withstand the price of gasoline, but the cost of fuel for my house's heat is another matter entirely. Furthermore, with petroleum prices soaring, almost all goods will also be affected.
PS: You are so right to point out the taxes on gasoline. Grrrrr!
Posted by Always On Watch at April 30, 2006 11:12 AM
Drilling in ANWR and off both coasts, plus converting shale to oil (which Shell is beginning to set up), would make us independent enough, long enough, to develop and manufacture other alternatives.
There is enough shale to convert an estimated 6 times the amount of oil Saudi Arabia has! We can be independent for several decades! It costs approximately $2.37 to convert shale to one gal. of gas!
Right now, and for several years, probably, alot of folks can't afford hybrid cars, or making their own ethanol (which costs more to make than gas, at the moment), let alone the engine modifications needed.
That alone is a good reason to drill where we know oil is, and to also build more nuclear reactors, refineries and hydroelectric dams.
The feds should immediately do away with the federal gas tax. There's way too much pork, and States do a better job,
and if they don't, the voters can remedy the situation easier.
Windmills hurt marine life? LOL! Yeah, the fish might swim into the poles and knock themselves out. Well, the lefty fish anyway.
Bottom line, the ONLY reason we are dependent on foreign oil is because of the democrats and environ-mental
weenies!
When you pay high prices for heating you home, or filling your gas tank, or pay higher prices for consumer goods, remember what the democrats, RINOS and greenies did!
Posted by Ben USN (Ret) at April 30, 2006 03:23 PM
I see no one answered the question or read the map: never mind the messenger, answer the question: why haven't those existing well and new fields had an effect on gas? The answer is because there isn't enough compared to what we use. It's miniscule. Six months of supply that would go straight to China is not "buying us time." And that would be avialable in 2016. Try again.
Posted by Jake Elmore at April 30, 2006 06:26 PM
Gee, Jake....you never answered why that paragon of military virtue, John Kerry bailed out on his crew.
So, your answers have to be answered, but you're excused?
Not very sporting, old sod.
Posted by tad at April 30, 2006 08:42 PM
He didn't bail out. Guys leave all the time. Haven't you seen MASH? Or, don't go in the first place like Bush and Cheney. The difference is you can't answer mine. Or even read from what I've seen. Use your GI bill for some education.
Posted by Jake Elmore at April 30, 2006 09:46 PM
Jake, I don't know of any other Officer that "bailed out" after three mini-wounds, nor do I know of any other Officer that knows another Officer that bailed out after three mini-wounds and four months in-country. There have been some whose wounds were so grevious that it required their leaving the theater but not that bailed out. Can you document your assertion that "Guys leave all the time. Haven't you seen MASH?" I'm not surprised of course that you would compare Kerry to MASH... there is a certain resemblence.
No, bailed out is exactly the picture. From arguing over the severity of a wound and his own commanding officer saying "no way" in essence to his request for a medal all the way to getting it awarded by other means.
This whole post was initially intended as a joke, a play on the Bush Lied meme so popular with the dunderheads of the left. It has however morphed into a rat-trap where-in lefty's come to support their non-hero for egregriously being against the war (after he was for it of course). Silly lefties!
Posted by GM Roper at May 1, 2006 05:09 AM
No, it's a matter of principle. He served in the line of fire and left when he was qualified to do so. Many others have in every war. The "stay with my men" thing is actually a line in a movie uttered by Aidan Quinn for Christ's sake. The answer to that was "Horseshit." No a coward wouldn't have turned the boat into the fire. A coward would have gone into the National Guard and skipped out due to family connections. Naive wingers, hypocritical indeed.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 1, 2006 09:37 AM
Let me give you guys another liberal's POV:
1) I don't care if they drill in ANWR... the environment is already screwed so we may as well finish the job. HOWEVER, drilling in ANWR will NOT solve our problems, it will only delay the inevitable.
2) If it isn't price gouging that's going on, then what is it? How exactly are these record profits being generated? You can go on and on about market forces but it's pretty darn clear that something is out of whack with the market right now. WHAT IS IT if it's not price gouging?
3) I actually see Bush's temporary halt in purchases for the Strategic Oil Reserve as a smart move along with relaxing environmental restraints on refineries. It might not have a huge impact but it's better than not doing anything at all.
Posted by E. Nonee Moose at May 1, 2006 10:47 AM
Moose,
I agree with (1) that we should drill in ANWR. But, I believe that it will not affect the environment any more than the North Slope or the Alaskan pipeline, which turned out fine despite objections by the left. ANWR won't have any impact immediately, but it will help ten years from now to make us less sufficient on foreign oil and more capable of avoiding shortages.
On (2), I don't know if price gouging is occuring or not. What I do know is that the Arab nations get together and jack up oil prices to what they want, and that oil companies charge what they think they can get. That's not to my liking, but it's no different than either of us wanting pay raises or our own government gouging us for taxes. Everyone does it.
Regarding (3), I didn't like it when Clinton started dumping our strategic reserves on the market to keep down prices. There's a reason that those reserves are in place, and manipulating gas prices isn't supposed to be one of them. Bush's actions may help with gas prices, but I don't agree with taking any such steps that threaten these reserves. I am for easing environmental regulations that keep us from building or improving our refining capacity. I have always thought that they went overboard and cost far, far more than the benefits that the restrictions provided.
Also, I am for getting on the ball to build nuclear power plants just like the Euorpeans have done. It's cheap and safe energy--not without problems but better than most other solutions.
Posted by Woody at May 1, 2006 12:49 PM
"I fear the Reps will find out that we really don't need two liberal parties in November and that the population will just vote for Democrats rather than Republicans acting like Democrats. But, maybe the Reps will wake up, it is not too late. YET!!!"
Actually, I think it is too late. Most of my conservative friends and associates are now set on either voting Libertarian, or voting "none of the above", but its not because of gas prices, its because of the illegal aliens. One friend even went so far as to say "I'd rather pay for $5 a gallon gas in U.S. Dollars than in Mexican Pesos".
Posted by Vulgorilla at May 1, 2006 01:13 PM
I keep hearing and reading that the amount of ANWR oil will only last 6 months so why bother. That statement is foolish and deliberately misses the real point. Yes, if the US were trying to rely entirely for all domestic petroleum needs from only one source, that source might run out in a short time (although, nobody has really shown the data to support 6 months, but someone said it once and it got repeated so often that it must be so) but if 100 thousand to one million barrels per day of oil get produced from the new ANWR fields, the US will be that much LESS DEPENDENT on some anti-US third world nation for that oil. By the way, if that paltry field in ANWR would only meet total US domestic needs for 6 months, it would last 20 YEARS at 500 thousand barrels per day of production. (Do the math: 20 million X 181 days divided by 500 thousand X 365 days per yr.)
I know something about oil and about supply & trading and I stay informed on mostly a real time basis. Last week and this week, so called experts have been discussing thepossibility of an oil price spike to over $100 per barrel and saying that it could occur if Iran shuts down as little as 300 thousand barrels per day of production. I would surely like to see an additional 100 thousand to one million barrels per day being produced right here in the US for the 20 to 50 years.
Posted by MLSmith at May 1, 2006 04:11 PM
Then why haven't all the barrels currently being produced made any difference? You folks may be willing to turn wildlife refuges into Elizabeth, New Jersey but most Americans aren't. Of course you've probably not seen oil-soaked ducks being shoveled into 55-gallon drums in Prudhoe like I have. Not that you would care since callousness and greed are conservative staples. And actually the "effects" are the herds have declined. The other herds calve in ANWR that's how they've maintained. They won't calve where there is development e.g roads pads, metal buildings and so on even though they'll pass through them once the calves are born. Take that away and it will get worse.
No you've got to get the country running on corn liquor. That's an idea I can really get behind.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 1, 2006 06:06 PM
"four years ago Congress lifted the export ban on oil shipped through the Alaska pipeline. Alaska oil often goes to Korea and China. How does that help our energy security problems?"
It's a fair question. Why doesn't it go to Long Beach?
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 1, 2006 06:13 PM
It's price gouging when you have the same transportation "crisis" every year and still don't know how to contend with the summer fuel changeover. How many years does it take?
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 1, 2006 06:17 PM
The whole thing just doesn't compute.
Oil at $72 per barrel is supposed to be the reason for the high price of Gasoline. Then why does Exxon register profits of more that 8 billion dollars in the last quarter? That's 32 Billion per year (Thats billion with a B). I don't have the previous quarter profit amounts at hand, but for the time that Oil has been high, the Refining companies have registered profits that are way, way out of the norm.
Like I said, There's a rat in that woodpile. Will one of you experts tell me why the profits are outpacing the oil pricing?
Also may I point out that oil is a finite reserve. Why should we use it as if it were unlimited?
Posted by James S Melbert at May 1, 2006 07:00 PM
Well....its my own darn fault, I shoulda known better than to try and reason with an idiot.
Sorry Jake, I question everything about your posts. I sincerely doubt that you witnessed oil soaked ducks being shoveled into drums on the slope; I wonder if you have ever been on the North Slope (I haven't) but I did live in Alaska and I can attest that even the area that was so decimated by the Valdez spill in '89 has come back such that I couldn't see long term effects when last there in 2003.
As to your claim that Alaskan North Slope Crude (ANS) is being exported, I agree that some has been exported, but don't think the volume is significant and can't find the exact volumes on the Energy Information Administrations web site. I can tell you that ANS production is averaging around 850 thousand barrels per day (BPD) today, was higher in 2005 and that the average of all petroleum exports to China was 10 thousand BPD in 2005. The average of all petroleum esported to Korea was about 20 thousand BPD during that same year. These totals, however, included residual fuels so I would be surprised if this represented much volume of ANS crude. Undeniably, the huge preponderance of ANS does go to Anacortes, Long Beach or to another California destination......it stays in the US.
Another factor and perhaps more important is that the oil economy is a WORLD economy. If it makes more sense to export oil to a destination where the freight is cheaper and to import more from somewhere else to the US, this will just result in lower prices to the consumer. World demand is around 85 million BPD and oil flows (in the absence of some political stoppage) to the destination where its "quality" is needed, the price makes sense on a relative basis, and the transportation cost makes the most economic sense. World demand has risen substantially, especially in India and China, and there is little excess capacity in the world today. So of course, prices are up. The thing to remember is that in the event of an embargo, US oil production will stay in the US and the dollars don't leave the country either (maybe the profits to Britain the case of BP).
I invite you to look at the EIA web page entitled Potential Oil Production from the Coastal Plain of the ANWR Analysis of Production where the strong sentiment is that the US stands to benefit from more than 1 million barrels per day of production for more than 20 years if ANWR is opened and all without serious consequence to the wildlife and environment in Alaksa.
This will be my last word on the subject because facts don't seem to change opinions, even inaccurate opinions, if those beliefs are this closely held.
Posted by MLSmith at May 1, 2006 07:39 PM
Well question all you want, but facts are facts. It's a question of values. The arctic and the antarctic are melting. Something should be done before Miami goes under. America has long be run on whisky before we knew what oil was. I'm for that!
Moreover I've lived in both Alaska, over five times, and even Houston. I'm afraid I seriously doubt anything that someone from Houston says about the oil business. I'm sorry I don't support CHina with the products taken at the expense of MY land. While I'm stuck with the clean up bill. Do you live in Pasadena,Texas? The most polluted groundwater in the world. That's a fine badge.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 1, 2006 08:32 PM
"I did live in Alaska and I can attest that even the area that was so decimated by the Valdez spill in '89 has come back such that I couldn't see long term effects when last there in 2003."
I was there too. Did you talk to the Cordova fishermen? They haven't recovered or anything close to it. Did you visit the beaches on all the islands? No, you never left the Alyeska terminal or the Pipeline Club. Same old can't see it from Texas BS we've come to expect and get.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 1, 2006 08:36 PM
Jake, when you lived in Alaska did you see or hang out with Mark A. York?
Posted by Woody at May 1, 2006 11:42 PM
Who? It's a small place peoplewise but a big territory physically.
I've been doing some interviews with government oil folks and they say ANS exporting ban was lifted in 1996. The numbers exported are in the hundreds of thousands of barrels since then.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 2, 2006 09:56 AM
GM: I see you found an environazi moonbat! It's amazing how willfully misinformed these folks are.
Environmental Literacy cites a USGS study showing THREE TRILLION BARRELS OF OIL:
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/ar...id=1300&print=1
Available if we only DRILL FOR IT!
I have a regular reader who also lived in Alaska, and who worked at the Prudhoe Bay oil fields. I don't know where Jake gets his environmental scaremongering from, but people who have actually been up there see it differently.
The Valdez accident, SEVENTEEN YEARS AGO, was a disaster, but a single incident. And of course now that double hulled tankers have replaced the more vulnerable single hulls, the possibilities of another such accident are remote.
And let's not forget how many oil rigs were destroyed by Katrina and refineries damaged. Where are the photos of oil soaked beaches and dead shore birds????
Oil drilling, refining and transportation is SAFE!
There are other motivations behind the obvious envirowhackiness of Jake and company. Why else would they be so eager to promote a boycott of Exxon and propose instead that people buy CITGO gas?
CITGO is owned by Hugo Chavez's Venezuela and he is using the profits to fund his planned natural gas pipeline from Venezuela to Argentina.
Hey Jake! Got an atlas handy? What lies between Venezuela and Argentina? That's right, the AMAZON RAIN FOREST!
Your anti-capitalist, anti-US- development pals are sending their $$$ to a country that plans to tear a gaping wound through the heart of the beloved rain forest.
So Jake, do me a favor and stow the environmental scaremongering. Why not just be honest about your real motivations.
P.S. Before you engage in your next round of environmental scaremongering, I worked at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for a number of years. I'd like to know what your environmental credentials are. A subscription to Mother Jones Magazine and lifetime membership in the Sierra Club isn't going to cut it.
Posted by Mike's America at May 2, 2006 10:18 AM
15 years with the US Fish and Wildlife Service as a caribou biologist. Wow. I see the oil prediction is climbing even as we speak! You must have the magic glasses on. I posted a map upstream that's open to drilling. No one looked at it or answered my question. I wonder why?
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 2, 2006 01:59 PM
How much Oil is in the Arctic Refuge?
"The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) updated its estimates of potential petroleum resources in the Refuge in 1998 by re-analyzing the original seismic data from 1984-1985 along with more recent data from seismic surveys and drilling in adjacent areas. Using the updated report and recent oil prices, the USGS estimated in 2000 that, assuming a price of $24 per barrel, there is a 95% chance of finding 1.9 billion barrels (BBO) of economically recoverable oil in the Arctic Refuge's 1002 Area; a 5% chance of finding 9.4 BBO; and a 50% chance of finding 5.3 BBO. Reported estimates of 16 BBO from the 1002 Area and adjacent private lands and offshore State waters do not factor in the costs of developing the oil field."
http://alaska.fws.gov/nwr/arctic/issues1.htm
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 2, 2006 02:20 PM
So Jake: From your perspective as a Caribou Biologist, please explain why and how the Caribou are more plentiful than ever? Seems they like those oil platforms and pipelines.
And thank you for admitting that all your scare mongering regarding oil supplies has simply been a LIE!
Posted by Mike's America at May 2, 2006 03:10 PM
Well pardner in South Carolina that's because they aren't. The herd is down over 35 thousand since 1989. As I said above for the reading impaired, the Central arctic herd hasn't declined further because they calve in ANWR. Right where the drilling is planned. Calving takes place in a week's time so they move back after it's over. They won't calve in Prudhoe Bay or anywhere near the oil fields. You come off as an insane lunatic. Must have been a political appointee not career service where the jobs have to be earned.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 2, 2006 03:32 PM
I linked to this one GM..Hope the dang TB goes thru this time...:)
Posted by Angel at May 2, 2006 07:36 PM
Well let's see Pardner... You've already insisted that the United State Geologic Service estimate on oil were "LIES."
So, forgive me if I doubt your expertise. Could be you know a thing or two about LIES.
After all, the Fish and Wildlife Service doesn't have such a good reputation for veracity. Certainly when employees planted Lynx hairs from a captive animal as a "test" then used that information to try and prohibit access to a wilderness area they shot what little credibility they had:
http://www.nwi.org/EndangeredSpecies/TWT17Dec01.html
As for Caribou, I can only assume that if your statement is correct then the following photos showing Caribou happily living in the shadow of oil equipment at Prudhoe are fake:
http://anwr.org/gallery/pages/18-Caribou-on-pad.htm
http://anwr.org/gallery/pages/17-Caribou_no_impact.htm
But when push comes to shove on the overall issue of oil resources, forgive me if I err on the side of the United States Geological Survey, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Dept. of Energy Energy Information Administration and most of all:
The people of Alaska.
Your continuing distortions and scaremongering do little but confirm the fact that oil drilling is SAFE. Oil transport by pipeline and tanker is SAFE. Oil refining is SAFE. Use of refined oil products is SAFE.
The question is why you refuse to admit the real motivations behind your opposition?
Posted by Mike's America at May 2, 2006 07:46 PM
You are a loon. Lynx hairs? That was debunked years ago. You must have been a Michael Brown type hack. I'm a biologist. Life is my business. Oil usage is not safe. It's like cigarettes are and were: pollutants, warming the planet and killing current residents and future ones too. I consider people like you the worst kind of blind shills. Go jam your head back in the Bible where belongs, and chant for the end times.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 2, 2006 08:15 PM
Did you hear what I said? Caribou won't "calve" where there is development. Drop calves. Get me a picture of a female giving birth on an oil pad. You're too stupid to even know what I'm saying, or even write hyperlinks for that matter.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 2, 2006 08:19 PM
"The U.S. Geological Survey is solely responsible for the input and results of this assessment. The USGS acknowledges the cooperation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Minerals Management Service, and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (Geological and Geophysical Surveys, Division of Oil and Gas, and Oil and Gas Conservation Commission), which provided access to data as well as feedback on geology and methodology"
They don't quite as averse to my employer as you are do they. Any way you cut it, there's no trillion barrel estimates. Who's the liar? I think that would be you there buckaroo.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 2, 2006 08:30 PM
Yeah, I figured you try and defend the frauds at FWS. Another fake but accurate story hunh?
And I've learned something. People who start out by describing lies and calling other people liars usually have a veracity problem themselves.
You seem to fit that bill perfectly. Your added insults merely confirm the intellectual and factual weakness of your position.
It's sad really that for an issue of this importance that you are unable to engage in an honest debate.
Apparently you feel that being a caribou biologist gives you credibility for issues far outside your purview. I guess you can fool yourself if you want to, but it doesn't cut the mustard with me.
And by now, it should be clear to all who read this thread that your desperate attempts to buffalo me (or should I say caribou?) with your distortions, half truths, deceptions and personal insults are a tantamount admission that you represent not a sound environmental approach, but a political one.
Frankly, as with most lefties, you're so full of caribou crap it ain't funny!
Posted by Mike's America at May 2, 2006 09:55 PM
The story is fake out of context and proven false. Just because Scott McGinnis says something doesn't make it so.
As for this your expertise is laughable. My data come straight from DOI so, I think folks can read the material from USGS.
You sir are a sad propagandist. Everything you've said here isn't true. We call that lying where I come from.
Here's some more bad news for shills like you:
Study Reconciles Data in Measuring Climate Change
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 3, 2006 09:28 AM
Well I see that the modicum of civility I attempted to maintain with you was wasted.
So let me tell you what I really think:
The Fish and Wildlife Service is nothing but a welfare program for hard left environmental extremists, most of whom could not get a real job.
They use the power of the Federal Government to create playgrounds of federal land for themselves and what few adherents to their environmental religion they care to admit.
You have demonstrated so clearly by your remarks and "factual" presentation, that the "science" undergirding what really are just your OPINIONS has been so politically corrupted by a desire to validate preconceived outcomes as to be worthless of any serious and rational consideration.
I'm certainly an advocate for my cause, a rational use of federal lands that after all belong to the American people, not some handful of appointed "guardians."
You're nothing more than another example of a rabid tye died hippie freak tree worshipping neo socialist caribou counter whose agenda is to do all possible to limit and curtail capitalism and sound economic development of our natural resources.
Other than exposing you for what you are, this discourse has been a waste of time. Your judgement is so clouded by extremism you are beyond reason.
I realize you are a legend in your own mind, but the worst form of deception is self deception.
It's just a shame I couldn't put you in a room with Senator Stevens for 15 minutes. I doubt the Senator would be as polite as I.
Posted by Mike's America at May 3, 2006 09:39 AM
I'll gladly hand Strevens his hat any time. "Go ahead, make my day." Set it up. You sir are a far right anti-conservation advocate. You've proven you wouldn't know a relevant fact from a farce. That's the take home message anyone with an IQ above a sea slug can see from a compare and contrast of our "sources." Yours remain "fictional."
Stevens can kiss my grits. He'll be dead before the refuge is drilled, if ever.
The latest accurate report on the economics is here. Like before none of the figures natches yours. What a surprise.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 3, 2006 01:20 PM
That last screed of yours was an example of nothing but "opinion." Ironicaly, everything in it pertains to the writer himself not I.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 3, 2006 01:26 PM
