Oil, again

[Cyrus]

Interesting articles; I will print and read them.

Some quick remarks: Oil shale has been kicking around for years, especially every time "the price goes up". The now-oblivious Sheikh Yamani used to advocate high production, in general, which meant low prices, in order to discourage any serious search for alternative fuels.

In any case, all these things are no more than auxiliary features, of secondary importance. We should have been moving towards alternative sources of energy a long time ago, before the Asian economies picked up.

The free market is no help in such an endeavor. (One of the many factors why the price "ain't right" is the market's total discounting of future damages.) The western nations have to pull together and prepare the proper scientific framework which will allow us to move on - because, so far, no alternative source of energy is economically viable. Such an effort should be led by the United States, provided its leadership is able to look beyond small, petty objectives (eg "American Century", etc).

Answer in white : <font color="white"> Nuclear energy. </font>

[frizzfreeling]

OPEC members are not governed by the SEC. We have nothing other than their "word" stating how much they have in reserves. What is fishy to many people about this is the huge jump in the 80's of reported reserves by these countries. This came around just after OPEC decided to alot production of its members based on their reported reserves. So, if you are a member of OPEC and want to pump more than your fair share of oil, you just have to report higher reserves. Look at a graph of reserve history for OPEC countries and you will see this little "anomaly".

[Il_Mostro]

I'd say it's really a combination. OPEC has repeatedly said that it is producing at full speed, that there is no spare capacity.
Especially SA says that they will add a lot of capacity, but they have said many times over the last few years that they will increase production, and yet they have not done so.

[MtSmalls]

[ QUOTE ]
They're not making a lot of new investment in increasing their production.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure glad the Adminstration just gave them a ton of tax breaks to do just that!

[adios]

Obviously not enough [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. The new energy bill gave alternative energy production tax breaks too and also gave tax breaks to those who use energy effecient vehicles. Are you against these tax breaks as well? Whether or not government should use taxes to encourage domestic oil production is a matter open to debate (as well as using taxes to encourage alternative energy production and energy effeciency) but let's be fair about the tax breaks. Far be it from me to enthusiastically endorse the recent energy bill. The effects of that bill will probably raise gasoline prices in the short term due to the environmental issues that the bill addresses. So going back to my post awhile ago, emission standards raise the price of gasoline as well and this is a regressive tax that hits the less affluent the hardest. You don't have to be dirt poor to be less affluent and from all the hand wringing from the left wingers around here about how the middle class and below are losing ground to the most affluent citizens, I would think that it would become painfully obvious that the costs of clean air emissions in gasoline (automobiles as well) is hurting more and more people. Why aren't the left wingers screaming about how more and more people are getting hurt by these extra costs? Some might even state that this is an example of elitism [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[Triumph36]

You are being facetious, correct?

Even according to free-market dogmatists it's possible to argue that emission standards are clearly beneficial - the external costs of not having them are potentially far worse, for everyone. Pollution standards are not just for the sake of suburban liberals having open spaces to stare at.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
You are being facetious, correct?

Even according to free-market dogmatists it's possible to argue that emission standards are clearly beneficial - the external costs of not having them are potentially far worse, for everyone. Pollution standards are not just for the sake of suburban liberals having open spaces to stare at.

[/ QUOTE ]

Classic non sequiter. I didn't say that external costs of not having them didn't exist. I stated that the extra cost of gasoline due to clean air emissins standards is a regressive tax on the less affluent.