More Libertarian facts about oil

[Lonestar]

Him: The reason why gas prices are so high is because the government won't let us drill for more.

Me: Not to say that we shouldn't drill for more, but whatever we would get out of it would really be a drop in the bucket.

Him: There are 10billion barrels of oil in that preserve in Alaska that the government won't let us drill.

Me:Really? *surfs on over to DoE website that says America consumes 20mil barrels of oil a day, breaks out MS calculator, and makes it to be 7.3bil a year* Dude, that would be a little more than a years worth of oil for this country, if we are lucky.

Him:That government site is wrong, we don't use that much oil.

[Shinova]

Did you ask him how it is that he knows better?

[Darth Ruinus]

Did you ask him how it is that he knows better?

Because the government always lies to you?

[Darth Wong]

Did you ask him how it is that he knows better?

He is not part of the government, therefore he is automatically more trustworthy.

This is what's annoying about libertarians; their deductive chain looks like this:

1) Government is imperfect.
2) Therefore, everything government does is harmful.
3) Therefore, the solution to every social problem is less government.

You can't argue with this sort of person, because there is such a gigantic leap in logic between steps 1 and 2. In fact, a typical libertarian's argument consists of simply repeating step 1 over and over and over, and then expecting you to accept step 2; if you don't accept step 2, simply go back to step 1 and start repeating it again. In this case, he goes one better: once he reached step 2, he had a convenient excuse to dismiss the most authoritative sources of information on trends in crime and the economy.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Even assuming that ANWR has 10 bill barrels, it's not as if we can pump that much out at one time anyway. I think the max product of the site was ~ 800,000 bpd, and that's after years of setting it up.

A study cited in MSNBC indicated it would, at most, drop the price of oil per barrel only roughly 50c.

It would last a while, but provide very little to do much of anything. Paltry.

[K. A. Pital]

That government site is wrong, we don't use that much oil.

...said he, parking his SUV along his McMansion

Seriously, "we don't use that much oil"? How much oil does he think the US uses? Why the fuck is price so high? Does he fail basic Econ 101, the price is dictated by demand which is indicative of the volumes of US consumption

[Rogue 9]

Eh. Seems just as good a thread to put this in as any. On another forum I post on, there are a few anarchocapitalists, and this response to a post asking how they define "government intervention" just struck me. The answer may be instructive. The original post of the thread that prompted this response is quoted in its entirety, though it's broken up.

What is considered to be "government intervention"?

Government regulations and prohibitions are enforced by aggression; the political means, not the economic, are used. Government "property" is obtained and government "services" are funded by armed robbery and extortion; again, the political means, not the economic, are used. Therefore, every activity of the government is an intervention.

Would the protection and recognition of private property fall under this rubric?

Yes. What the government protects and recognizes as property overlaps partly with legitimate property, but the means the government uses are criminal, and it isn't consistent in recognizing and protecting legitimate claims of property or in not recognizing and protecting illegitimate claims of property. It's likely that, with a proper libertarian analysis of all present claims of property, all or nearly all of the larger claims, and a great many of the smaller claims as well, would be found to be illegitimate.

The government is heavily involved in the protection of intellectual property, such as patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and rights to publicity -- not to mention non-tangible present and future land interests such as life estates, fee simple determinables, fee simple subject to conditions subsequent, executory interests, vested remainders, and contingent remainders. I have read a few anarchist critiques of government involvement in protecting IP, but I have never come upon any libertarian or anarchist critiques of state involvement in the protection of present possessory and/or future interests in real property (land). Are there any such critiques?

Yes, I'm frankly surprised that you haven't been able to find any. A good place to start would be here.

More to the point, should I be interpreting "government intervention" far more narrowly than the phrase is commonly understand? That is to say -- are libertarians only referring to "federal government intervention" in the economy (such as Public Health inspections of commercial meat) or are you referring to state and local regulations as well?

I'm sure some vulgar libertarians will chime in with a Randian-style defense of a hyper-thyroidal version of robber baron state capitalism, but real libertarians, consistent libertarians, are opposed to all government activity.

And if it's the latter, wouldn't this call for far higher taxes than we already pay, given that a larger sample of tax payers will soften the blow of confiscatory taxation as it would pertain to individual citizens?

No, I don't see how that follows. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you, because it's strange that I would have to explicitly state something as obvious as this, but abolishing the state doesn't mean raising taxes, it means getting rid of them entirely.

I have to give him one thing; at least he's consistent.

[Wyrm]

This is what's annoying about libertarians; their deductive chain looks like this:

1) Government is imperfect.
2) Therefore, everything government does is harmful.
3) Therefore, the solution to every social problem is less government.

1) People are imperfect.
2) Therefore, everything people do are harmful.
3) Therefore, the solution to every social problem is less people.

Identical form of logic.

[MKSheppard]

Me: Not to say that we shouldn't drill for more, but whatever we would get out of it would really be a drop in the bucket.

That's the same argument you know, which has continually held off new oil exploration and production in the US for the last couple of decades.

"We could find some, but it wouldn't be enough to achieve total energy independence, so we shouldn't try at all!"

You can see a variant of it in effect with the space program: "We'll never be able to do blah blah, so why should we waste money on it?"

Total energy independence is a massive strawman that too many idiots subscribe to, because it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

My simple formula for lowering prices and stabilizing them at a more reasonable level, are the following things, which have actually been proposed in congress, but killed each time:

• ANWR Exploration
• Coal-to-Gasoline Pilot Projects
• Oil Shale Exploration Pilot Projects
• Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Exploration
• Increasing Refinery Capacity

And remember people; the mindset of "whatever we would get out of it would really be a drop in the bucket" is not being followed by the Cubans and Chinese; who are using horizontal drilling etc to reach the oil fields between Florida and Cuba, while we do nothing, not even low level exploratory drilling.

"I drink your milkshake!" says Daniel Plainview.

[Surlethe]

And the really hardcore lolbertarians, of course, would conclude that the solution to all social ills is the extinction of Homo sapiens sapiens.

[Surlethe]

That's the same argument you know, which has continually held off new oil exploration and production in the US for the last couple of decades:

"We could find some, but it wouldn't be enough to achieve total energy independence, so we shouldn't try at all!"

Nevermind that total energy independence is a total pipedream, but too many idiots subscribe to it.

My simple formula for lowering prices and stabilizing them at a more reasonable level, are the following things, which have actually been proposed in congress, but killed each time:

• ANWR Exploration
• Coal-to-Gasoline Pilot Projects
• Oil Shale Exploration Pilot Projects
• Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Exploration
• Increasing Refinery Capacity

And remember people; the mindset of "whatever we would get out of it would really be a drop in the bucket" is not being followed by the Cubans and Chinese; who are using horizontal drilling etc to reach the oil fields between Florida and Cuba, while we do nothing, not even low level exploratory drilling.

I agree with your proposed plan of action (save increasing refinery capacity - more on that in a moment), but disagree with the goal you have and the conclusion that your plan will achieve your goal. The problem is that we will be initiating this search while oil imports and production are plateauing and declining. It will take decades for these new fields to come online, the expenses will be high, and the relative output will be low. While they will provide a cushion to the fall, they're not a solution.

As far as refineries, there's no need to build new refineries. Instead, keep maintaining the current ones and use them as imports drop and these new fields ramp up.

[aerius]

My simple formula for lowering prices and stabilizing them at a more reasonable level, are the following things, which have actually been proposed in congress, but killed each time:

• ANWR Exploration
• Coal-to-Gasoline Pilot Projects
• Oil Shale Exploration Pilot Projects
• Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Exploration
• Increasing Refinery Capacity

Weak. Really, really weak. You gotta get serious and break out the power of the atom.

Shell has in situ methods for extracting oil from oil shale using heaters and freeze wall technology, problem is it eats a shitload of power. So you go build 50-100 nuke plants and drill the Colorado oil shale into swiss cheese, then put the heaters in there to cook the oil shale and go pump out a trillion barrels or so of oil. And when you're done you can hook up the nuke plants to the grid to give cheap electricity for everyone. And in the meantime you're electrifying all rail lines and building craploads of new electric rail transport, cause even a trillion barrels runs out eventually.

Your proposal gets a few billion barrels, breaking out the nukes gets you a trillion. If you're gonna do it, go big and do it right, don't dick around with dinky little baby steps.

[MKSheppard]

The problem is that we will be initiating this search while oil imports and production are plateauing and declining. It will take decades for these new fields to come online, the expenses will be high, and the relative output will be low.

That's the same argument that was used ten years ago to defeat ANWR drilling: "ANWR will take ten years to come online even if we give the go-ahead." along with "It's too tiny!"

Well, that extra oil would have been mighty fine now, would it now?

As far as refineries, there's no need to build new refineries.

Why? You're still going to need to refine all the new oil you're going to drill from ANWR and off the US Continental shelf; and to refine the precious oil we find into gasoline without building new refineries, we're going to have to run our refineries at virtually total capacity, which is a nice recipe for disastrous refinery explosions, etc. Building a few new ones would provide significant cushion in the event of refinery explosions, or accidents.

[MKSheppard]

Weak. Really, really weak. You gotta get serious and break out the power of the atom.

No, your suggestions are weak. Using nuclear powered plants is utilizing the POWER OF THE ATOM?

I shall use thermoatomic initations to cook the oil shale into oil via buried multi-megaton devices; and smaller multi-kiloton devices to force limping wells to produce again.

These were all proposed during PLOWSHARE.

[Surlethe]

The problem is that we will be initiating this search while oil imports and production are plateauing and declining. It will take decades for these new fields to come online, the expenses will be high, and the relative output will be low.

That's the same argument that was used ten years ago to defeat ANWR drilling: "ANWR will take ten years to come online even if we give the go-ahead." along with "It's too tiny!"

Well, that extra oil would have been mighty fine now, would it now?

You're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that the new oil stream will not lower and stabilize prices; it will simply make them go up more slowly. Hence, cushioning the blow instead of evading it. EDIT to clarify: That is to say, I do agree with you that we should be pushing offshore drilling and opening ANWR.

As far as refineries, there's no need to build new refineries.

Why? You're still going to need to refine all the new oil you're going to drill from ANWR and off the US Continental shelf; and to refine the precious oil we find into gasoline without building new refineries, we're going to have to run our refineries at virtually total capacity, which is a nice recipe for disastrous refinery explosions, etc. Building a few new ones would provide significant cushion in the event of refinery explosions, or accidents.

Because, as I said, the new oil production will not entirely offset the decrease in imports and current field production. Right now, we're running our refineries at the highest capacity they will ever run; in ten years, even with the new oil, we won't be using them at this rate because of the decrease in the rest of the world's production and our imports. There's a reason we haven't been adding to our refinery capacity: the oil companies know the peak is here, and that in a decade or two, they simply won't be able to use all the refineries they already have.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Weak. Really, really weak. You gotta get serious and break out the power of the atom.

No, your suggestions are weak. Using nuclear powered plants is utilizing the POWER OF THE ATOM?

I shall use thermoatomic initations to cook the oil shale into oil via buried multi-megaton devices; and smaller multi-kiloton devices to force limping wells to produce again.

These were all proposed during PLOWSHARE.

Okay, when I'm President, Shep gets to be Secretary of Energy, or whoever it is that runs the DoE.

[Coyote]

But wouldn't high oil prices be struck down by what Adam Smith called "The invisible blood-encrusted two-by-four of the market," in the form of competition?

[Darth Wong]

Adam Smith's arguments work better if you make a lot of rather silly assumptions, like:

1) Every consumer is omniscient and perfectly rational.
2) There are no barriers to entry or competition.
3) There are no scientific factors limiting production: the only limiting factor is human labour.

[Lonestar]

That's the same argument you know, which has continually held off new oil exploration and production in the US for the last couple of decades.

I didn't say I was against it, I pointed out that that wouldn't do much for the current gas prices.

[Uraniun235]

So you go build 50-100 nuke plants and drill the Colorado oil shale into swiss cheese, then put the heaters in there to cook the oil shale and go pump out a trillion barrels or so of oil.

There's seriously a trillion barrels of oil in the Coloralo shale?

jesus

Of course 100 nuclear reactors would be a big BIG investment (albeit an incredibly awesome one)... are there any oil companies with $200 billion lying around to chuck at nuclear?

[Surlethe]

Of course 100 nuclear reactors would be a big BIG investment (albeit an incredibly awesome one)... are there any oil companies with $200 billion lying around to chuck at nuclear?

Are there any who don't?

[aerius]

There's seriously a trillion barrels of oil in the Coloralo shale?

jesus

Yup, give or take a hundred billion or two. It just takes ridiculous amounts of energy to cook the kerogen into oil and pump it from the ground.

[K. A. Pital]

I'm sure some vulgar libertarians will chime in with a Randian-style defense of a hyper-thyroidal version of robber baron state capitalism

But real libertarians are not like that. The robber barons don't exist in la-la land. Honestly, Randians are more honest.

They have a vile, repugnant social-darwinist ideology, but they are true to themselves and admit that "the strong survive and the weak perish", and that a violent oligarchy as a result is good. A broken moral view, but a consistent one.

The "la-la-landians" are far worse - they deny reality and are incapable of assessing realistically the results of their proposals.

[Phantasee]

How applicable are nukes to getting oil out of the Alberta oilsands?

Man, nukes solve everything!

[Darth Wong]

After a while, talking about different ways to get oil becomes a bit ridiculous. I'm sure that somebody could concoct a way of squeezing oil out of cockroach bodies if he really tried, and then trumpet his new cockroach oil process as a way of solving the energy problem. The problem is not the ability to get oil; it's the ability to do so cheaply enough that the present-day ratio of the value of oil to (for example) textiles is maintained. And that just ain't gonna happen. The future trend is for oil to become a much bigger part of the economy, thus sucking vitality away from other parts of the economy.