Place the blame for the oil crisis on George Bush

We all remember back to 2001, when George Bush spoke to the nation after 9/11. We were a united nation with the backbone to pursue al qaeda to punish them for the attack. At that moment, if George Bush had told the nation we were going on a crash diet and cutting the use of oil by 90% in ten years, the resources would have been there and the country would have been united.

Oil has always been a national security issue. It is one of the many failings of George Bush... He could have had class, he could have been a contender. He could have been somebody. Instead of a bum, which is what he is...

Oh, Arizona Republic how do you get it wrong so often

This article about offshore oil drilling from the Arizona Republic shows just the kind of problems that exist with reporting today. The Republic has a default bias towards Republicans, but it is not too egregious. The real problem with the Republic is that they no longer have the resources or inclination to take a comprehensive look at an issue.

Oil is a pretty simple issue and I don't understand why the paper payed attention to the least important aspect of the opposition to offshore drilling. Yes, there are tons of environmental problems that go along with drilling for oil. But how can they write an article and not even point out the highly unlikely nature of his ideas suceeding. Primarily, that most experts agree that it will not change oil prices anytime soon, if ever. At best, it probably slows the increase in prices. If George Bush announced he was going to flap his arms for future air travel would the Republic point out that Democrats oppose his wing flapping because they are afraid he would be drunk when he flies or the fact that he cannot really fly?

How about saying that Democrats oppose it for environmental reasons and expert agree that it will do little to change oil prices. Ah, yes the truth...

The oil production myth

Just yesterday George Bush said that he wanted to increase domestic oil production to elevate gas prices. Unfortunately, the idea is laughable. I suspect our oilmen in chief know it...

Here is the basic problem:

• World oil production is 82,532,000/day. The US currently produces 5,102,000/day. The US alone consumes 20,687,000/day. World-wide consumption is 83,607,000/day.

Let's assume that we extract significantly more of than our current output, lets say we make it back to our peak oil production in 1986 of about 10.2 million barrels/day. Since oil would be sold on the open world market it would increase world oil production to 87,634,000/day or an increase of 6%. If you make the likely incorrect assumption that demand does not increase (doing simple math I know) you at best could expect a 6% decrease in oil prices. That would reduce today's price from $136 to $127/barrel. Unless my small government friends want to nationalize all remaining oil reserves and keep them in the country, this will only serve to help oil companies.

• Untapped reserves will take years to begin producing.

Even if we begin today it is likely that market forces will change the game before any of this oil comes on the market.

• Finally, we have picked the low hanging fruit world-wide as far as oil reserves are concerned. The remaining oil reserves are more expensive to extract. Increasing production costs lead to you guessed it, higher prices. It is not inconceivable that we could see the new oil reserves makes their way onto the market with a significant additional cost component (greater than say 6%?).

Want more info: go here and here

So, my Republican friends please spare me your non-sense. BTW -- if you want to advocate off shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, please do it before the election, so we can lock up the state in the Democratic column.

Update: I just ran across this timely article on Salon.com and this one from the NY Times.

This is Fascinating...

This article about the Iraq war in Slate is fascinating. You don't hear much talk about this in the old corporate media centers...