Just a quick thought on this drilling business. I haven't spent a lot of time researching this, so I'm speaking from a somewhat limited base of knowledge. However, from what I have heard and read.. it is going to take quite a bit of oil discovery to give us any relief at the pump. I'll go out on a limb and say that Exxon or whoever isn't going to discover enough oil to make a difference. And I'm sure that I can't be the only one that knows this. That would reasonably mean, that we have another politically motivated push by that joker up there on Pennsylvania Ave. Some might be inclined to call him president or perhaps the leader of the free world.
By no means, do I think that he is the only one that makes politically motivated moves, but to say that this particular move is ABSURD would be a gross understatemnt.
If we expect to get any real relief at the pump, we are going to have to make some serious lifestyle changes. We're going to have to stop buying gas guzzlers and then complaining about the high cost of gas. Hey, I don't have all the answers and I certainly don't claim to. But, I do know that the answer doesn't lie in producing another line of Hummers or H4's.
Enough of all this B.S. about drilling. We need to put some real time and energy in developing transportation that does not rely so heavily on oil.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
You wrote:
I'll go out on a limb and say that Exxon or whoever isn't going to discover enough oil to make a difference.
Energy policy is a complex subject that I'm personally not qualified to speak to in any meaningful way. However, my feeling is that it's in the interest of the United States to be as energy independent as is at all possible; that less dependence on foreign oil means proportionally less kowtowing to foreign will.
Now, in the grand long-term (national) scheme of things you may well be right that Exxon or whoever isn't going to find enough oil reserves to make a significant difference as to our overall dependence on foreign supplies of oil. But on the other hand, the less we have to rely on the good graces of the Hugo Chavezes of the world, the better off we are.
So, let's speculate and say, for instance, that in the interim between discovering a viable alternative energy source and the current level of dependency we have on oil, Exxon or whoever, given access to untapped reserves on this continent, finds enough oil to displace our dependence on ol' Hugo's good graces by half. Can it then be said that granting Exxon the right to explore these areas hasn't made a difference, even a significant difference?
I feel quite sure about this: If Exxon didn't think there are vast amounts of oil reserves yet to be tapped on this continent, they wouldn't waste their time and efforts and money trying to convince the public that there are.
Excellent points and points that are well taken. But, in response to the statement about Exxon... "If Exxon didn't think there are vast amounts of oil reserves yet to be tapped on this continent, they wouldn't waste their time and efforts and money trying to convince the public that there are." With corporate greed running rampant the way that it is, I'm not sure that we can trust the judgement of any oil company. I wouldn't put it past any of them, to bias the numbers in their favor. Even if the chances of success are slight, I think they would be more than willing to take the risk.
I don't understand your statements on corporate greed. Are you saying that the oil execs are so blinded by their greed that their collective judgment is impaired to the point of acting against their own financial interests?
I'm saying that the potential to hit the jackpot financially, far outways the prospects of failure. They are making money hand-over-fist. So if they're estimates (about finding oil) are wrong, they are more than willing to take the hit. Not unlike a degenerate gambler who is going to turn ten bucks into a thousand or a million.
Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree with respect to your comparison between a "degenerate gambler" and oil companies. There's a huge difference between someone who takes a risk with his money when the odds are wildly against his even as much as breaking even, and someone who risks his money on a business venture where the odds in his favor are greatly increased toward the 'guaranteed success' end of the spectrum. The former (the casino gambler) I would describe, in a word, as stupid; the latter in much more positive terms.
But any time we enter upon a discussion of this sort, we musn't neglect the principal ingredient which ultimately determines the price of gas at the pump, of lumber at the lumber yard, of a can of beans at the grocery store, and so forth and so on -- supply and demand.
The reason gas is four dollars a gallon (and bread is two dollars a loaf, and etc.) is because demand is pushing the limits of supply, irrespective of how much actual profit the actual oil companies themselves are making per gallon. Therefore, there are only two effective ways that I know of to provide the consumer with any significant long term relief, either increase supply, or reduce demand, which, when you boil it all down, are essentially or effectively the same things; meaning they produce the exact same net results per the consumer. I've put it in these terms before:
"When demand exceeds supply, prices are high; when supply exceeds demand, prices are grand."
And by the way, I've complained about this before, but have you ever considered the all-around stupidity of forcing oil companies to publicize their annual profits? When you get down to where the rubber meets the road, what sense does this policy make for you or me or Joe Blow or anyone? How can such a policy end in anything less than the general public despising the oil companies because "they're making too much profit", unless and until their annual profit margin meets up with what the general public (lacking a great deal of knowledge on the subject) thinks is reasonable, which is to say, unless and until the oil companies literally under-price themselves out of business?
Also, I forgot to point out in my previous post that I think you're on the right track when you say that we're going to have to make some major lifestyle changes... This is one way to solve the supply and demand issue. It isn't the only way, but it is one way.
Ultimately, though, if the current trend continues and the oil companies are prohibited further exploration (which means there's literally no chance in hell that they'll find a single additional drop of oil, much less a significant amount), then adjusting our lifestyles in a major way (i.e., greatly reducing the amount of oil we use on an individual basis; traveling less, and/or, driving more gas efficient vehicles) will be forced upon the American public. Indeed, I'll guarantee you that the American public is at this very moment in the process of making these adjustments. But as with anything else, it takes a little time for the effects of these changes to come to the surface.
Let me just say this... You give far, far too much credit to business and business men. Human nature dictates, that we do not always do what is in our best interests. Smoking, drinking and drug use are not in anyone's best interests. However, I think we can agree that those are multi-million dollar industries.
CEO's are human like anyone else. And as evidenced by ENRON and all the other high profile business busts of late... CEO's are just as likely as anyone to engage in behavior that is not in their best interests.
As far as supply and demand goes... that is kind of a no brainer. However, part of what is driving the cost of food up is the high price of gas. The demand for food is not going up as much as has the demand for gas. And quite naturally, when it costs a business more to conduct their business, they pass it on to the consumer.
You wrote:
"However, I think we can agree that those are multi-million dollar industries."
What does this mean? How is it not in the financial interests of these companies to promote and sell their products?
I think you have misunderstood my meaning.. either that or you are intentionally playing dumb (which I would hope is not the case).
My statement about people not always doing what is in their own best interests was in response to "I don't understand your statements on corporate greed. Are you saying that the oil execs are so blinded by their greed that their collective judgment is impaired to the point of acting against their own financial interests?"
When I say that people don't do what is in their best interests.. I am using drinking, smoking and drug use, as an example of that.
I'm referring to the consumers of drink, drug and smoke, not the business people that market and sell them. I hope that that is clearer now.
I think you have misunderstood my meaning.. either that or you are intentionally playing dumb (which I would hope is not the case).
No; I wasn't intentionally playing dumb, not in this particular case.
I've been known to use that tactic before, but only in extreme cases when I was willing to put in the mental effort to "think six moves ahead" of my opponent. That's not the case here. I'm not trying to outthink you or set a trap or anything of the sort. I do that only in special cases with particularly irrational people who are generally a bit cocky t'boot.
Some people have been told how great they are all their lives until they reach the point when they actually start to believe it without having ever achieved anything. That's the kind of person I use those kinds of tactics on; they need a good dose of humility and someone needs to oblige them. But there's still not much satisfaction in it, so those occasions are very rare for me. In other words, there wouldn't have been any reason for me to "play dumb" in this case.
That said, there's no way in hell that you could ever convince me that CEOs and drug abusers are equally incapable of controlling their impulses to act contrary to their own interests, financial or otherwise. That's like saying that you or I or any other decent respectable law abiding self respecting person is just as likely to hold a gun to his head and blow his brains out as someone who has a psychological problem that makes him wish to kill himself. This is simply false.
Yes; we're all human, but that commonality does not make us equal in all things all the time. So, in answer to your charge that I'm giving business people a double portion of far too much credit, I would simply reply that as long as you're going to continue to make these kinds of comparisons then you are giving business folk far too little credit.
The differences between a surgeon (not to mention the EMT) and the gang member whose life he's trying to save are striking, at the risk of stating the obvious.
So, I reject the notion that oil executives are equally disposed to put a knife to their own throats as are your average run-of-the-mill alcohol abusers or whatever, the case of ENRON notwithstanding. Speaking of which, I don't know enough about the ENRON case to say one way or the other. But I can say this, for every ENRON out there, there are probably fifty examples of lesser business failures. We don't hear much about them because they're not, as you say of ENRON and the like, "high profile."
But let me ask you something, given your statement that oil companies are "making money hand over fist," which I take to mean that they are making way too much money, what kind of a practicable solution do you think should be applied in their particular case to remedy this evil?
There is no judgement in the statement that oil companies are making money hand over fist. That is a fact. A fact, that I am not bothered by in the least. We live in a capitalist society and I have not one thing against that. If they have the wherewithal to make the money, then by golly let them make it.
I only bring up the fact that they are making money hand over fist, to support my claim that they are willing to take a risk.
So, if a high profile CEO is an alcohol abuser... is he a run-of- the-mill acohol abuser or is there some other more esteemed title for him?
So, if a high profile CEO is an alcohol abuser... is he a run-of- the-mill acohol abuser or is there some other more esteemed title for him?
LOL.
No, he's not a run-of-the-mill alcohol abuser; he's an exception to the rule.
You said, by implication, that CEOs are just as likely to be alcohol abusers as anyone else. And I challenged that assertion as false, and I stand by that challenge. That there exist CEOs that are also alcohol abusers has no bearing on the question unless you can prove your assertion that they are indeed as likely as, say, native Americans, to be alcohol abusers, or as inner city blacks to be drug abusers and murderers, and so on and so forth.
Assuming, of course, that we are not talking about an African American or Native American CEO. Or, are you saying, by implication, that all CEO's are white?
Also, it is somewhat of a stretch to say that I "implicate" that CEO's are as likely to be drug users or alcohol abusers. My assertion is that CEO's are subject to human nature, as is every other human. Human nature dictates that we do not always do what is in our best interests, as I have already stated. However, not doing what it is in ones best interest does not imply drinking or drug use. There are any number of things that are not in a persons best interest.
Post a Comment