« Maybe not dead so much as completely different | Main | Why do we let THESE people run our country? »
Thursday, 15 May 2008
Did Joe Wilson do a brave and smart thing? Critic says he did
A Democrat who wants to oppose U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson in the fall put out this release yesterday:
Beaufort, SC – Today, Democratic Congressional Candidate Rob Miller released the following statement concerning incumbent Joe Wilson's vote yesterday against legislation that could lower gas prices as much as 24 cents a gallon. Wilson was one of only 25 members of Congress to vote against H.R. 6022, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act. Majorities in both parties voted in favor of this legislation to provide Americans some quick relief from record high gas prices.
"Joe Wilson owes people back home an explanation on why he sided with big oil and voted against providing families much needed relief at the gas pump. People are struggling simply to pay for the gas that gets them to and from work these days. Joe Wilson seems to be too busy cozying up to oil executives to even notice," Miller said.
"This is just another reason I'm running for Congress to bring change to Washington and give the voters of the Second District the representation they deserve."###
I have yet to see a statement from Joe himself on the subject, but Rob Miller is a recent captain in the United States Marine Corps, and they're not trained to lie, so I'm going to take him at his word on this.
Now if Joe were running on the Grownup Party (a.k.a. UnParty, a.k.a. Energy Party) ticket, he'd be bragging about doing this. But since he's a mere Republican, he's not boasting.
But from this account, it sure sounds like he did the right thing.
Posted by Brad Warthen at 05:51 PM in Energy, Energy Party, Environment, The Nation, UnParty
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/337487/29133264
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Did Joe Wilson do a brave and smart thing? Critic says he did:
Comments
Joe Wilson has always been a complete sellout. This vote is no surprise. Like all of the Bush Republicans, Wilson loves the Billion dollar Big Oil profits.
Wilson also has openly praised spending a $TRILLION$ in waging the Bush/Cheney war in Iraq.
Yet, good old Joe Wilson denounces, as "pork," money spent on Americans in America.
Wilson needs to move to Fallujah since he seems to think that everything is so great in Iraq.
Posted by: Florida Evans | May 15, 2008 6:42:14 PM
Even though I am not and will never be a member of the Grownup Party / UnParty / Energy Party, I too applaud Rep. Wilson for his principled stand and refusal to pander in this instance.
It’s called the Strategic Petroleum Reserve because it’s a strategic petroleum reserve designed to mitigate future temporary supply disruptions. It’s a national security resource with critical economic, energy, and psychological foundations.
Today’s oil futures market is characterized by uncertainty. Should the fears plaguing the market gradually abate, prices will drift down a bit. OPEC is not entirely pleased with prices at today’s levels because they make recovery worthwhile from oil fields previously abandoned for economic reasons and spur development of deposits where the $40 - $65 per barrel cost had previously deterred exploitation. OPEC is creating future competition.
Tapping the reserve sends the message that we’re willing and able to manipulate the world price. The only problem with that is that we can’t and it’s too durned easy to call our bluff. There’s not enough oil there to have much of an impact over even the middle term. As for short term impact, any and all OPEC producers can and likely will reduce their output based on the amount we draw down.
Okay, not everybody studies economics, but don’t any of you play poker?
Posted by: Mike Cakora | May 15, 2008 8:18:31 PM
As usual,critics of Joe Wilson are in with the quick fix and the gimme crowd. They want instant feel-good solutions to problems that have taken decades to create. I do not use the word "create" lightly because our politicians in BOTH parties have created this enery fiasco by listening to a bunch of hysterical greenies that are ALWAYS claiming that the sky is falling.
What needs to be done is to build more fuel efficient cars and trucks as well as more refineries, more nuclear power plants,drill more oil wells and also build more coal fired and hydro-electric power plants.
I for one DO NOT buy into this "interdependency"BS!!! That is nothing but code used by our "allies" for "let's screw the American taxpaying public."
Posted by: Bob | May 15, 2008 8:42:20 PM
Someone get Mr. Miller a calculator.
Here's the savings he proposes: A person drives 20 miles a day, every day for a month - 600 miles. He gets 20 mpg - 30 gallons. At 24 cents per gallon, that's $7 for the month.
Mr. Miller, there's a reason Mayor Bloomberg, who knows a little more about economics than you, called it "one of the dumbest ideas he ever heard."
Posted by: Randy E | May 15, 2008 8:50:31 PM
If Rob Miller really believes diverting 70,000 barrels of oil from the SOR will lower gas prices by 24 cents a gallon, then this alone should disqualify him from public office. Do those that support this measure, like Rob Miller, realize that the U.S. uses 20.6 MILLION barrels of oil a day? Do you really think 70,000 barrels will make even a 2 cent difference in the price of gas? This is a .003384% increase in supply. If you actually believe this increase would lower gas prices then OK, let's assume a .003384% increase in oil supply equates to a .003384% reduction in gas prices. Great Rob Miller-you just saved us hard working Americans a whopping 1.1844 cents per gallon. Damn, I can't wait to buy me a steak dinner with those savings!
Most economic and security experts state we should DOUBLE our Strategic Oil Reserves not do stupid election year stunts like this.
Posted by: Richard in Irmo | May 16, 2008 3:46:36 AM
Nobody is asking the right question, so I'll ask it.
CAN the Saudis ramp up production in order to manipulate the market? Many oil experts are suggesting that the Saudis really don't have excess capacity at all and that they are running all-out now. If that's true the entire debate is put into a completely different perspective. The Saudis may just be maintaining the allusion that they have excess capacity.
That leads to the next question. If the Saudis are at peak production now, how long can they sustain it? And how fast will they fall from the peak? 2%/year, 5%. Just take a look at Mexico for some scary comparisons. Mexican oil production is dropping fast, perhaps as much as 5%/year. Given their increased use of oil they will almost certainly be a net oil importer in less than 10 years. If the Saudis can't ramp up production the gig is up. No amount of posturing about the ANWR, the strategic reserve or anything else will matter. We will be using far less than 20 million barrels of oil per day very quickly. It's just a matter of how we'll get there.
Posted by: bud | May 16, 2008 7:18:07 AM
How many of you people actually believe that a 24 cent a gallon tax decrease is actually going to help? Are you really that hard up for a $4-$6 decrease everytime you fill your tank? How long before that 24 cents is replaced by gas companies increasing their price because they know we'll pay it? Decrease the gas tax by 24 cents and all that will happen is people will drive less because the roads will be in such poor shape you won't be able to drive on them.
Posted by: Bill C. | May 16, 2008 7:53:25 AM
The common sense solution ( not that common sense is a viable argument in modern politics ) to our energy problems would be to do it all. Conserve, drill, alternative sources, mass transit, coal, etc. I am surprised that some politician hasn't declared a war on energy dependency. They have declared a war on everything else. To solve this problem we need major surgery not just nip and tuck solutions.
Posted by: Richard L. Wolfe | May 16, 2008 7:54:29 AM
Wolfe is 100% correct.
Posted by: bud | May 16, 2008 8:12:14 AM
Marines may not be trained to lie but shame on Mr. Miller for a CLEARLY one sided statement. This is exactly the type of person we don't need in DC! Any politician promising he can lower gas prices is an out and out liar. Politicians don't control gas prices, oil traders do. The falling value of the dollar is one reason for the increase in gas prices, that is not Rep. Wilson's doing. If Mr. Miller is sincerely interested in helping the constituents he should go back to school and get his PhD in economics.
Posted by: Charlotte W. | May 16, 2008 8:58:58 AM
The U.S. can't have any impact on it supply of petroleum products until it increases refining capacity.
Refineries are running at 98% capacity.
We cannot import any more oil. OPEC would be dumb to produce more oil into a world that is at its refining capacity, because that surplus will only lower the price of crude.
We have to build new refineries at the same time we are drilling in ANWR and off our coasts.
The US never should have allowed uncontrolled immigration to increase out population from 170,000,000 to 300,000,000, which increased our oil consumption by so much that we had to import oil.
Posted by: Lee Muller | May 16, 2008 9:02:28 AM
Since Brad likes to talk about partisan politics this seems like a good issue to discuss it. Both parties are irresponsible in this energy calamity that is unfolding. The price of diesel fuel is signaling a genuine shortage of that important commodity. This could unfold as a true economic catastrophe if we don't act. Here is what I would say to members of both parties.
To the Democrats and liberals. This is not a conspiracy by the oil companies to make huge profits. They are simply the beneficiaries of a geological situation that is unfolding before our very eyes. The quantity of oil that can be pumped out of the ground is peaking. The oil companies did not create this situation. Also, conservation alone will not solve this problem. We need to look at the ANWR, Nuclear and even coal. Sadly we could face an economic collaspe of a profound nature if we don't look at the domestic supply side of energy.
To Republicans and conservatives. Drilling in the ANWR absolutely, positively with 100% certainty will not make a major contribution to solving this problem. I believe we should drill there provided we do so responsibly. But it really won't help much. It is just too little to make up for losses elsewhere in the world. And for all you SUV owners out there understand this. You WILL be paying more gasoline and diesel fuel. That is a given. Whining about environmental wackos will not bring about cheaper fuel. You may as well consider downsizing whatever it is you're driving and stop all this pie in the sky dreaming of a return to the days of cheap gasoline. This situaion is only going to get worse and you can help by cutting back, way back on what and how you drive.
A bipartisan approach is the only way to go. As Richard Wolfe points out everything must be on the table. And we need to act NOW!
Posted by: bud | May 16, 2008 9:15:52 AM
Lee, refineries are running at about 81% of capacity. Please try to get your facts right.
Posted by: bud | May 16, 2008 9:46:58 AM
According to the EIA synopsis.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_unc_dcu_nus_m.htm
the % utilization of operable capacity has been around 98.1%.
When you add in the idle capacity (which may not be available due to repairs), the percentage drops to 96.33%.
EIA gets their data from a monthly report mailed in from each of the refineries.
If you look at the API reports, capacity utililization is running 98%.
Although over 170 refineries have been shut down, remodeling of the better facilities has added processing capacity of 150,000 to 300,000 barrels a day for the last 15 years.
It is still not enough.
Domestic refineries can process about 17.5 million barrels of crude oil each day, much of which is imported. But with consumption near 21 million barrels a day, more imports of refined products are also needed.
Posted by: Lee Muller | May 16, 2008 10:25:41 AM
Here’s a direct quote from the 2004 EIA report that Lee keeps referencing:
In the AEO2004 reference case, total U.S. crude oil production is projected to grow from 5.8 million barrels per day in 2002 to 6.1 million barrels per day in 2008. After 2008, domestic oil production is projected to decline during the remainder of the forecast period, reaching 4.6 million barrels per day in 2025.
In the reference case, Alaska oil production is projected to continue at about 0.9 million barrels per day through 2016, with a projected drop in North Slope oil production offset by new oil production from the NPRA. After 2016, total Alaska oil production is projected to decline to 0.5 million barrels per day in 2025. The decline in Alaska oil production is expected to occur in all regions, including the State lands on the North Slope, the NPRA, and the southern Alaska oil fields of Cook Inlet.
In all three resource cases, ANWR coastal plain oil production begins in 2013 and grows during most of the forecast, In the mean oil resource case, ANWR oil production peaks at 876,000 barrels per day in 2024. The low resource case production peaks at 639,000 barrels per day in 2024, while the high resource case production peaks at 1,595,000 barrels per day in 2023.
-EIA
What this report is saying is that if we bring all potential oil resources on-line (not just ANWR but others as well) we could be pumping about 6.5 million barrels of oil domestically by 2025 after which production will decline. That optimistic appraisal assumes new oil to augment the 4.6 million base oil from existing sources.
I find this report extraordinarily optimistic. Even so, at 6.5 million barrels per day, about 1 million of which comes from the ANWR, we would STILL need to import 14.5 million barrels per day just to maintain current consumption levels. With Mexico in decline and Russia likely to follow soon where is this going to come from? OPEC of course. So how does drilling in the ANWR help us break our dependence on OPEC oil?
Posted by: bud | May 16, 2008 10:31:05 AM
Lee, your data is old. Here's some current information from a recent article in the NY Times:
In response to falling gasoline demand and rising costs, refiners have cut their production rates. Refining utilization rates, for example, slumped to a low of 81.4 percent in the second week of April, compared with 90.4 percent at the same time last year. Earlier this month, refineries were running at 85 percent of their capacity.
- NY Times
Posted by: bud | May 16, 2008 10:39:19 AM
bud! Richard! Looks like we've got an Energy Party consensus developing here. As bud says, the answer is to do it all: raise CAFE standards, drill in the ANWR and off our coast, raise taxes on gasoline to suppress demand and fund research, fill up the strategic reserve, support and expand mass transit, explore alternative fuels for the short (methanol, wind, solar, whatever we can engineer to work) and long (hydrogen) terms, build nuclear plants, tax Hummers, use flourescent bulbs.
In other words doing anything that will reduce dependency on some of the world's worst regimes for our energy. If we don't do BOTH -- conserve and produce -- we don't even begin to make the situation better.
And we're never going to get this solution from either the Democratic or the Republican parties. This is what I keep saying, over and over, and it's why I started saying "Energy Party" to begin with.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | May 16, 2008 10:57:53 AM
Joe Wilson is safe in this state despite the continued flip flopping of the GOP presidential candidate and his Double Talk Express.
Posted by: Randy E | May 16, 2008 11:29:57 AM
Wilson, and Clyburn have both missed the mark on energy. SC has the inside position on Nuclear power. Yet, we do nothing to take advantage of it. GE in Greenville makes Nuclear Generators & Power Plants (when asked), Westinghouse in Columbia makes Nuclear fuel, Barnwell can handle Nuke waste & recycling, and Charleston can ship world wide. Why havn't these two elected officials done anything to put SC into the Nuke business. Politics, Politics, we sit on the sidelines while China, and Russia build Nuclear & Hydro Power plants on our doorstep in Central & South America. They vote against bringing in Brazil's Sugar Cane Ethanol. Both are so disappointing as SC representatives. But, both are great politicians. Everybody just keeps drinking the Cool aid!
Posted by: Paul | May 16, 2008 12:17:04 PM
bud, my data is from February 2008, the latest from EIA. Anyone can click on the link
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_unc_dcu_nus_m.htm
and see that the US had a capacity of 17,916,000 barrels and ran 17,219, for 96.33% capacity utilization.
If you remove the 328 idle, utilization calculates to 98.1%.
I am tired of your dishonest prevarications, which is so common among Democrats.
Posted by: Lee Muller | May 16, 2008 12:29:23 PM
bud,
You are not qualified to declare the EIA estimates for ANWR to be "optimistic".
In fact, the EIA already used a factor of .45 on the geologists' estimates, in order to make their projections conservative.
The DOE, by the way, grossly underestimated the production from Alaska's North Slope, and revised it up every year. That's why they work as bureaucrats, instead of for oil companies.
Posted by: Lee Muller | May 16, 2008 12:34:55 PM
So, Lee -- from your web-page, the numbers are: Gross input = 14,950, operable capacity = 17,588, operating = 17,259, idle=328, operable utilization rate=85%.
Why is operating/(operating+idle) better than gross/(operating+idle) for the percentage that is being reported? (e.g. Why does the DOE use the latter, while you use the former? Is it that some of those operating at the beginning of the period don't run full out for the whole time?)
Posted by: just saying | May 16, 2008 1:22:05 PM
bud,
You are not qualified to declare the EIA estimates for ANWR to be "optimistic".
-Lee
Fair enough. Actually I was suggesting total U.S. production estimates to 2025 are optimistic. So let's look at actual data. In the 2004 EIA report you cited the EIA predicted U.S. production of 6.1 million barrels of oil per day in 2008, up from 5.8 million in 2002. Actual daily production in the latest month for available data, February, 2008 - 5.1 million barrels. And guess who the source is for that figure. You got it big guy, THE EIA.
So there own estimate for oil production in the U.S. is off by a whopping 12%. That's in spite of the fact that North Slope oil is still flowing. In spite of $120+ prices. In spite of extrodinary measures to recover oil from older wells newly profitable because of the high prices.
Face it Lee, you are just plain wrong on this issue. We cannot drill our way out of this mess. Your own data sources support that conclusion. The price of oil supports that claim and common sense indicates we're in trouble. By continuing on this ridiculous campaign to blame environmentalists for this problem is a fools game.
And by the way, the environmentalists have been completely right in their concern for environmental damage from this messy oil business. Millions of gallons of oil have spoiled the pristine environment of Alaska. The area damaged by the Exxon Valdez mess has never fully recovered. All so a bunch of red neck fools can run around in big pickups and pretend to be men. It's really a disgusting spectacle.
Posted by: bud | May 16, 2008 1:35:00 PM
Until the 1970s, refinery utilization ran about the same as our other factories, about 70%.
No one has said, "We can drill our way out of".. high fuel prices, or shortages. That is a straw man repeated by those who don't want to produce more energy, for whatever reasons:
* hatred of oil companies
* want to downsize everything
* think mandatory conservation is the only solution
* worship some technology promise
* want to punish America.
But part of the increased production of crude oil and gas, along with increased refinery capacity in order to not have to import 30% of our refined products.
ANWR's project output is close to what we import from Saudi Arabia. That is significant, both in supply and as a bargaining tool.
The simplistic ignorance of "liberals" on energy matches their unrealism of negotiating a peace in Iraq and the Mideast without a military presence as a bargaining tool. It's delusion arrogance.
Posted by: Lee Muller | May 16, 2008 2:37:48 PM
Lee / bud – you forgot about the shale!
Ooops! Never mind.
The Senate Appropriations Committee today [5/15/2008] narrowly defeated Sen. Wayne Allard's attempt to end a moratorium related to oil shale development in ColoradoAre these guys on the Saudi payroll, or what? (h/t Glenn
…
The moratorium prevents the Department of Interior from issuing regulations so that oil companies can move forward on oil-shale projects in Colorado and Utah. Allard said the moratorium has left uncertainties at a time when companies need to move forward and in the long term make the United States more energy independent."If we are really serious about reducing pain at the pump, this is a vote that would make a difference in people's lives," Allard argued.
But in a 14-15 vote, the committee spilt strictly on party lines and rejected the amendment.
Posted by: Mike Cakora | May 16, 2008 2:48:20 PM
