GOT A QUESTION? Got a question about environmental economics? Why do economists like benefit-cost analysis? Tradeable permits? Ask an environmental economist at the Answer Desk.
Why is it that Paris Hilton is able to speak more substantively on the
issue of energy than John McCain? There is much more substantive energy
policy in this than in McCain's ad.
I never thought I'd say this, but Paris Hilton makes sense, and she's hilarious. Could she possibly have as much influence as Oprah?
Comments
Yeah, that's the kicker of the 'comedy' spot, that the comedian is serious, and understands what she's saying.
While I loved the rise of The Daily Show, I was always aware of the dark subtext, that we needed comedians to tell truths. It's a painful echo of Soviet humor.
Too bad the Corporate Media won't get it and spread the word that the man is a doddering old fool and he hired the hard-core Swift Boaters and Vote Deniers to run his team.. Ah, well, that's what new media is for, right?
How does offshore drilling 'tide us over in the short term' again?
Because future prices go down in response to expected future demand and supply. How else would you explain the price of gas dropping when the executive order on offshore drilling was repealed (in anticipation of expiration of the congressional order), or when oil has jumped on not actual supply disruptions, but threats of supply disruptions due to "war with Iran becoming more likely in six months," or so people have claimed? (Though I do note that the Straits of Hormuz threat does not seem to have raised prices.)
On another level, surely the price of oil would go up if speculators believed that we were going to run out in ten years compared to a hundred years, even if the level of current production and demand remained the same. It would be irresponsible for it not to go up, for us not to conserve.
a) we already drill and pump offshore. Even in CA. Those platforms off the ventura coast ARE active.
Sure, in existing platforms. But new exploration is forbidden.
b) lead time for a platform is 5-10 years.
Part of which is that the leases are sold in five year blocks. The EIA report that seems to be cited so much assumes that leases would not be signed until 2012. It's true that the 2007 study says it wouldn't reduce prices or add much supply compared to the reference case. However, the reference case in the 2007 report involved oil prices rapidly declining from 2007 to below $60 a barrel by now and being around $50 a barrel in 2012. It's certainly true that most of this unexplored and undiscovered US oil is not cost-effective to recover when the price of a barrel of oil is $50-$60 / barrel, and so offshore drilling would be very unlikely to drive the price below $50-$60 / barrel. However, the situation is different with oil at $100 - $150 / barrel. In that scenario, which is considerably different from the reference scenario from 2007 but looks fairly plausible now, there would be significant US production.
US production cannot reduce the oil price below its marginal cost of production. Since that marginal cost is above $50 / gallon but below $100-$120 for most of the oil we're talking about, the claimed production is very different in the two scenarios.
In any case, if it's not cost-effective to produce the oil, then I don't see a tremendous amount of problem in the government making a few bucks from leasing the rights that then doesn't have platforms built on it.
c) unused current leases.
Well, yes. Some areas that were leased for exploration turned out not to contain enough oil to pump after exploration was done. They couldn't have determined it until signing the lease for exploration, though. Do you think that oil companies should build platforms in areas that don't contain enough oil to make it worthwhile? It seems to me that that would be bad for the environment. The government should just pocket the money and auction off exploration in other areas.
Besides, if the lead time for a platform is so long, as you claim, wouldn't a pretty hefty proportion of current leases always be unused, since they would be in that lead time?
The EIA report notes that "a significant portion of the additional resource would not be economically attractive to develop at the reference case prices," which is the reason that additional production under the 2007 report would be so small. But reference case prices were below $60/barrel from now through 2030, something that seems quite unlikely now.
Too bad the Corporate Media won't get it and spread the word that the man is a doddering old fool and he hired the hard-core Swift Boaters and Vote Deniers to run his team.. Ah, well, that's what new media is for, right?
Don't forget he thinks we need to do something about global warming.
prices are determined by perceptions of future supply.
It might surprise you to know that 5-10 years from now is today's future.
Weird how that works.
What is even stranger is how often those who think AGW which is projected to change the climate 50-100 years from now think it is effecting us now yet cannot get their minds around how knowing what we will get 5-10 years from now can effect markets now.
;-), maybe she was just squinting in the sun, but when she made the argument for coastal drilling as a bridge to more efficient cars, it looked to me like she understood it.
What are we getting from the mainstream candidates? Gas tax holidays and $4B(?) kicked to Detroit for their votes, er, for their development of PHEVs?
The link between hurricanes and global warming severed....Record ice in the arctic...Global temps plummeting...Climate model predictions debunked* [hyperlinks added]
Not on planet earth. Maybe on planet wingnuttia.
On earth, the italicized exist only in the small-minority fringe and hapless denialists' minds.
Meanwhile, while small-minority fringe denialists continue to lack access to decision-makers (who know the italicized is FUD), the decision-makers continue to work on the direction society turns in order to adapt to and mitigate man-made climate change.
Poor hapless joshua.
Always on the outside looking in, parroting long-ago refuted FUD. Hello, out there denialists! Are you saying something? The world isn't listening to wingnuttia! What?
Best,
D
* A six-year old preemptive debunking of the italicized.
Yeah, that's the kicker of the 'comedy' spot, that the comedian is serious, and understands what she's saying.
While I loved the rise of The Daily Show, I was always aware of the dark subtext, that we needed comedians to tell truths. It's a painful echo of Soviet humor.
Posted by: odograph | August 05, 2008 at 10:18 PM
(I still wanna hold out a little longer on coastal drilling though. Paris' seduction notwithstanding.)
Posted by: odograph | August 05, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Too bad the Corporate Media won't get it and spread the word that the man is a doddering old fool and he hired the hard-core Swift Boaters and Vote Deniers to run his team.. Ah, well, that's what new media is for, right?
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | August 05, 2008 at 10:46 PM
How does offshore drilling 'tide us over in the short term' again?
a) we already drill and pump offshore. Even in CA. Those platforms off the ventura coast ARE active.
b) lead time for a platform is 5-10 years.
c) unused current leases.
Posted by: Wy | August 06, 2008 at 09:20 AM
How does offshore drilling 'tide us over in the short term' again?
Because future prices go down in response to expected future demand and supply. How else would you explain the price of gas dropping when the executive order on offshore drilling was repealed (in anticipation of expiration of the congressional order), or when oil has jumped on not actual supply disruptions, but threats of supply disruptions due to "war with Iran becoming more likely in six months," or so people have claimed? (Though I do note that the Straits of Hormuz threat does not seem to have raised prices.)
On another level, surely the price of oil would go up if speculators believed that we were going to run out in ten years compared to a hundred years, even if the level of current production and demand remained the same. It would be irresponsible for it not to go up, for us not to conserve.
a) we already drill and pump offshore. Even in CA. Those platforms off the ventura coast ARE active.
Sure, in existing platforms. But new exploration is forbidden.
b) lead time for a platform is 5-10 years.
Part of which is that the leases are sold in five year blocks. The EIA report that seems to be cited so much assumes that leases would not be signed until 2012. It's true that the 2007 study says it wouldn't reduce prices or add much supply compared to the reference case. However, the reference case in the 2007 report involved oil prices rapidly declining from 2007 to below $60 a barrel by now and being around $50 a barrel in 2012. It's certainly true that most of this unexplored and undiscovered US oil is not cost-effective to recover when the price of a barrel of oil is $50-$60 / barrel, and so offshore drilling would be very unlikely to drive the price below $50-$60 / barrel. However, the situation is different with oil at $100 - $150 / barrel. In that scenario, which is considerably different from the reference scenario from 2007 but looks fairly plausible now, there would be significant US production.
US production cannot reduce the oil price below its marginal cost of production. Since that marginal cost is above $50 / gallon but below $100-$120 for most of the oil we're talking about, the claimed production is very different in the two scenarios.
In any case, if it's not cost-effective to produce the oil, then I don't see a tremendous amount of problem in the government making a few bucks from leasing the rights that then doesn't have platforms built on it.
c) unused current leases.
Well, yes. Some areas that were leased for exploration turned out not to contain enough oil to pump after exploration was done. They couldn't have determined it until signing the lease for exploration, though. Do you think that oil companies should build platforms in areas that don't contain enough oil to make it worthwhile? It seems to me that that would be bad for the environment. The government should just pocket the money and auction off exploration in other areas.
Besides, if the lead time for a platform is so long, as you claim, wouldn't a pretty hefty proportion of current leases always be unused, since they would be in that lead time?
Posted by: John Thacker | August 06, 2008 at 11:41 AM
The EIA report notes that "a significant portion of the additional resource would not be economically attractive to develop at the reference case prices," which is the reason that additional production under the 2007 report would be so small. But reference case prices were below $60/barrel from now through 2030, something that seems quite unlikely now.
Posted by: John Thacker | August 06, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Yeah, that's the kicker of the 'comedy' spot, that the comedian is serious, and understands what she's saying.
The link between hurricanes and global warming severed.
Record ice in the arctic.
Global temps plummeting.
Climate model predictions debunked
and now amateur porn stars are the new experts on energy policy.
Yup, you have lost.
Posted by: Joshua Corning | August 06, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Too bad the Corporate Media won't get it and spread the word that the man is a doddering old fool and he hired the hard-core Swift Boaters and Vote Deniers to run his team.. Ah, well, that's what new media is for, right?
Don't forget he thinks we need to do something about global warming.
Posted by: joshua corning | August 06, 2008 at 12:23 PM
b) lead time for a platform is 5-10 years.
prices are determined by perceptions of future supply.
It might surprise you to know that 5-10 years from now is today's future.
Weird how that works.
What is even stranger is how often those who think AGW which is projected to change the climate 50-100 years from now think it is effecting us now yet cannot get their minds around how knowing what we will get 5-10 years from now can effect markets now.
Posted by: joshua corning | August 06, 2008 at 12:28 PM
I've lost or we've lost?
;-), maybe she was just squinting in the sun, but when she made the argument for coastal drilling as a bridge to more efficient cars, it looked to me like she understood it.
What are we getting from the mainstream candidates? Gas tax holidays and $4B(?) kicked to Detroit for their votes, er, for their development of PHEVs?
Posted by: odograph | August 06, 2008 at 03:53 PM
The link between hurricanes and global warming severed....Record ice in the arctic...Global temps plummeting...Climate model predictions debunked* [hyperlinks added]
Not on planet earth. Maybe on planet wingnuttia.
On earth, the italicized exist only in the small-minority fringe and hapless denialists' minds.
Meanwhile, while small-minority fringe denialists continue to lack access to decision-makers (who know the italicized is FUD), the decision-makers continue to work on the direction society turns in order to adapt to and mitigate man-made climate change.
Poor hapless joshua.
Always on the outside looking in, parroting long-ago refuted FUD. Hello, out there denialists! Are you saying something? The world isn't listening to wingnuttia! What?
Best,
D
* A six-year old preemptive debunking of the italicized.
Posted by: Dano | August 06, 2008 at 05:03 PM