Comments on: Hair of the dog http://rhinocrisy.org/2008/06/hair-of-the-dog/ Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:36:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Query http://rhinocrisy.org/2008/06/hair-of-the-dog/#comment-34242 Query Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:53:06 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=872#comment-34242 How does one delete a previous comment? (I can't figure it out, nor can I find your email so am leaving this new comment.) How does one delete a previous comment? (I can’t figure it out, nor can I find your email so am leaving this new comment.)

]]> By: hedgehog http://rhinocrisy.org/2008/06/hair-of-the-dog/#comment-34169 hedgehog Sat, 28 Jun 2008 03:30:57 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=872#comment-34169 They are building lots of new refineries, but they're putting them in India and China. It's true that they are all but impossible to build in the U.S. and Canada, but those refineries that exist there now have more capacity than they did a decade ago. In a decade world refining capacity grew from 76 to 85 million barrels a day according to that document I linked above. It has gotten very expensive to build new refineries, even in countries with weak environmental laws, as the steel and engineering have grown pricier along with all other oil-related goods. A 300,000 barrel a day refinery now costs $6 billion, which is real money even for a big oil company. About the argument of whether the U.S. should pump offshore or not, I hear what you're saying that more supply will quickly lead to more demand, and vice versa. That appears to be quite true -- note how additional pumping in Saudi Arabia in the last month has done little or nothing to halt the upward march of oil prices. But still, I would rather the U.S. buy its oil from Florida and California than from Nigeria and Venezuela. And also to use much, much less of the stuff. You know that the U.S. still uses 3x as much oil as China for 1/4 the population. They are building lots of new refineries, but they’re putting them in India and China. It’s true that they are all but impossible to build in the U.S. and Canada, but those refineries that exist there now have more capacity than they did a decade ago. In a decade world refining capacity grew from 76 to 85 million barrels a day according to that document I linked above. It has gotten very expensive to build new refineries, even in countries with weak environmental laws, as the steel and engineering have grown pricier along with all other oil-related goods. A 300,000 barrel a day refinery now costs $6 billion, which is real money even for a big oil company.

About the argument of whether the U.S. should pump offshore or not, I hear what you’re saying that more supply will quickly lead to more demand, and vice versa. That appears to be quite true — note how additional pumping in Saudi Arabia in the last month has done little or nothing to halt the upward march of oil prices. But still, I would rather the U.S. buy its oil from Florida and California than from Nigeria and Venezuela. And also to use much, much less of the stuff. You know that the U.S. still uses 3x as much oil as China for 1/4 the population.

]]> By: saurabh http://rhinocrisy.org/2008/06/hair-of-the-dog/#comment-34112 saurabh Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:50:44 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=872#comment-34112 Refineries affect the price of gas, not the price of oil. Refining capacity IS tight, but I, for one, don't believe that refineries are even mostly to blame for high gas prices. Refining capacity should be tight from a business perspective (idle refineries are just a waste of money), so it's hard to blame them for that. There's some claim that environmental regulation makes it impossible to build new refineries, but that's dumb, frankly. When the demand is there, they'll build the things, because they'll be able to make mone hand over fist anyway. About 75% of the price of a gallon of gas comes from crude oil. Refining contributes about 10% (according to the EIA), so it's hard to accept that the ballooning price is not due to the spike in oil prices. Refineries affect the price of gas, not the price of oil. Refining capacity IS tight, but I, for one, don’t believe that refineries are even mostly to blame for high gas prices. Refining capacity should be tight from a business perspective (idle refineries are just a waste of money), so it’s hard to blame them for that. There’s some claim that environmental regulation makes it impossible to build new refineries, but that’s dumb, frankly. When the demand is there, they’ll build the things, because they’ll be able to make mone hand over fist anyway.

About 75% of the price of a gallon of gas comes from crude oil. Refining contributes about 10% (according to the EIA), so it’s hard to accept that the ballooning price is not due to the spike in oil prices.

]]> By: BigSister http://rhinocrisy.org/2008/06/hair-of-the-dog/#comment-34111 BigSister Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:29:43 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=872#comment-34111 Okay, you know that I'm all about pulling statements out of my butt and not thinking them through, but here goes... I heard somewhere that no one needs to be drilling any more oil, that there's PLENTY of oil. The oil companies just need to be building more refineries, which they're not doing for some reason. And it's got nothing to do with government regulation, they're not even TRYING to build more refineries. If we had a few more refineries, we wouldn't have to drill any more, we'd be able to manage on what we're getting now. Or something. Okay, you know that I’m all about pulling statements out of my butt and not thinking them through, but here goes…

I heard somewhere that no one needs to be drilling any more oil, that there’s PLENTY of oil. The oil companies just need to be building more refineries, which they’re not doing for some reason. And it’s got nothing to do with government regulation, they’re not even TRYING to build more refineries. If we had a few more refineries, we wouldn’t have to drill any more, we’d be able to manage on what we’re getting now.

Or something.

]]> By: hapa http://rhinocrisy.org/2008/06/hair-of-the-dog/#comment-34042 hapa Wed, 25 Jun 2008 02:51:05 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=872#comment-34042 maybe we should buy nigeria. maybe we should buy nigeria.

]]> By: saurabh http://rhinocrisy.org/2008/06/hair-of-the-dog/#comment-34030 saurabh Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:31:11 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=872#comment-34030 I don't like the 'replace more polluting producers' argument. No one is suggesting that when we start ruining our shores the Nigerians will stop ruining theirs... we'll just drink more oil. I don’t like the ‘replace more polluting producers’ argument. No one is suggesting that when we start ruining our shores the Nigerians will stop ruining theirs… we’ll just drink more oil.

]]> By: hedgehog http://rhinocrisy.org/2008/06/hair-of-the-dog/#comment-34006 hedgehog Tue, 24 Jun 2008 06:28:29 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=872#comment-34006 PS look what was released today, one of my favorite annual reports. <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/aer.pdf" rel="nofollow">U.S. Energy Department Annual Review 2007</a> (PDF) PS look what was released today, one of my favorite annual reports. U.S. Energy Department Annual Review 2007 (PDF)

]]> By: hedgehog http://rhinocrisy.org/2008/06/hair-of-the-dog/#comment-34005 hedgehog Tue, 24 Jun 2008 06:21:55 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=872#comment-34005 There is way too much oil. If we use anywhere near all of it we're doomed. Venezuela alone could feed the world's current 85 million barrel a day diet for how many years? 85 million barrels/day * 365 days = 31 billion barrels a year, so with about 300 billion barrels of reserves, that's about 9 or 10 years. Saudi Arabia has about that much as well. Russia, the U.S. and Canada together have at least that much. So at current consumption, with no help from new finds, we can go 30 years just puffin away. I'm increasingly in favor of offshore U.S. drilling, though, for two reasons. First, I think if people want to use a polluting resource, they should live near its source so they have to live with the consequences. Today, those consequences are outsourced to Nigeria and elsewhere. Second, the U.S. has among the strictest environmental rules of the top 10 oil producing nations. I mean really, who do you trust with your oceans: Saudi Arabia Russia United States Iran China Mexico Canada United Arab Emirates Venezuela Norway We U.S. residents get so used to condemning our government that it becomes easy to forget how bad the others are. Canada, for example, has destroyed its oceans with salmon farming, which is still not widely practiced in the States. And finally, there's the minor issue of eating locally. There is a small efficiency gain in not having to ship oil around the world before burining it. There is way too much oil. If we use anywhere near all of it we’re doomed. Venezuela alone could feed the world’s current 85 million barrel a day diet for how many years? 85 million barrels/day * 365 days = 31 billion barrels a year, so with about 300 billion barrels of reserves, that’s about 9 or 10 years. Saudi Arabia has about that much as well. Russia, the U.S. and Canada together have at least that much. So at current consumption, with no help from new finds, we can go 30 years just puffin away.

I’m increasingly in favor of offshore U.S. drilling, though, for two reasons. First, I think if people want to use a polluting resource, they should live near its source so they have to live with the consequences. Today, those consequences are outsourced to Nigeria and elsewhere.

Second, the U.S. has among the strictest environmental rules of the top 10 oil producing nations. I mean really, who do you trust with your oceans:

Saudi Arabia
Russia
United States
Iran
China
Mexico
Canada
United Arab Emirates
Venezuela
Norway

We U.S. residents get so used to condemning our government that it becomes easy to forget how bad the others are. Canada, for example, has destroyed its oceans with salmon farming, which is still not widely practiced in the States.

And finally, there’s the minor issue of eating locally. There is a small efficiency gain in not having to ship oil around the world before burining it.

]]> By: aram http://rhinocrisy.org/2008/06/hair-of-the-dog/#comment-33935 aram Sat, 21 Jun 2008 09:52:17 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=872#comment-33935 Oh, I don't necessarily think there's a bubble now and my reference to "evil speculators" was meant to be tongue-in-cheek: I think the high prices represent genuine pessimism about future supply that represents the best guesses of the most-informed traders. But yeah, they're noisy guesses and could well be wrong. All I was saying is that the future's market does provide a mechanism for predictions about the future to influence prices today. But.... probably too weak a mechanism in this case. Oh, I don’t necessarily think there’s a bubble now and my reference to “evil speculators” was meant to be tongue-in-cheek: I think the high prices represent genuine pessimism about future supply that represents the best guesses of the most-informed traders. But yeah, they’re noisy guesses and could well be wrong.

All I was saying is that the future’s market does provide a mechanism for predictions about the future to influence prices today. But…. probably too weak a mechanism in this case.

]]> By: hapa http://rhinocrisy.org/2008/06/hair-of-the-dog/#comment-33932 hapa Sat, 21 Jun 2008 06:58:09 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=872#comment-33932 overall i'm against developing those wells. they'll still be there later if we can't live without them. right now we have no self-discipline and no plan to avert disaster. when we've proven we can control our appetites i'll reconsider it. overall i’m against developing those wells. they’ll still be there later if we can’t live without them. right now we have no self-discipline and no plan to avert disaster. when we’ve proven we can control our appetites i’ll reconsider it.

]]>