 | Tech Talk - The Oil and Gas of Southern Alaska | The Oil Drum | Low Carbon and Economic Growth: Are Both Compatible in Developing Economies? |  |
Keeping Michele Bachmann Honest on Gas Prices
Posted by Robert Rapier on August 22, 2011 - 11:10am
Like many of you, I am often unhappy with our political leaders. One thing that annoys me the most is that many will say or do just about anything to get elected. By now, you have surely heard the news that Republican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann has promised a return to $2/gallon gasoline if she is elected president:
GOP candidate Michele Bachmann: I'll bring back $2 gas
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- President Michele Bachmann has a promise: $2 gas.
"Under President Bachmann you will see gasoline come down below $2 a gallon again," Bachmann told a crowd Tuesday in South Carolina. "That will happen."
"The day that the president became president gasoline was $1.79 a gallon," Bachmann said. "Look what it is today."
My immediate reaction to that was to wonder whether she is really that naive, or simply making dishonest campaign promises that she knows she can't keep. Perhaps she truly believes deep down that she could achieve this. In that case, she has to be one of the most naive presidential candidates to come along in quite some time. (And for the record, I think cheap gasoline is a terrible idea in any case. We should not encourage consumption of depleting resources. I laid out my reasoning and a fair plan for raising gas taxes in How Much Are You Willing to Pay to be Nuke-Free?).
Let's first take a look at the basic claim. I have seen many people repeat her claim that gasoline was $1.79 a gallon when Obama took office, but I haven't seen anyone fact check that. So I went to the EIA statistics, and found that the week before Obama took office (his inauguration was on Tuesday, January 20, 2009), overall retail gasoline averaged $1.90 a gallon. The week of his inauguration retail gasoline averaged $1.89 a gallon. So, there was some slight context possibly needed to qualify the $1.79 a gallon remark (probably somewhere gasoline averaged that price) but the general claim is basically correct: Prices were much lower when Obama took office, and now the price of gasoline is $3.66 a gallon.
Just for fun -- and before we examine the claim in more detail -- I decided to check and see what gas prices were when Bush took office. When he first took office on January 20, 2001, gasoline prices averaged $1.51 a gallon. At the beginning of his second term in 2005, gasoline prices averaged $1.90. When Bush left office, gasoline prices averaged $1.90. However, as we know gasoline prices were hardly stable in between. During Bush's second term -- in the summer of 2008 -- gasoline ran up to over $4.00 a gallon. The price remained at that level for almost two months before a recession brought the economy crashing down -- and gasoline prices along with it.
But most families don't fill up for the entire year on a specific day, so a snapshot of prices on inauguration day isn't really that meaningful. Let's consider average annual gas prices over the past few years. Beginning in 2002, each subsequent year of Bush's administration saw higher average annual gas prices than the previous year. For six years in a row -- from 2003 through 2008 -- gas prices rose. Prices crossed the $2.00/gallon mark in 2004 and ultimately rose to an annual average of $3.30 a gallon in 2008, Bush's last full year in office. And the only reason gasoline prices weren't higher than $3.30 a gallon was due to the recession-induced price collapse in the price of oil in the second half of 2008.
So, to put it in context, Bachmann proposes to achieve not only something that Obama has failed to do, but something that Bush failed to do for most of his second term until a biting recession brought gas prices crashing down. It's also something political leaders around the world failed to do, so it was not limited to policies in the U.S. But maybe that's how she plans to do it: Send the economy into a deep depression. That would likely mean a return to sub-$2 gasoline.
The honest truth, though, is that the places in the world where gasoline is under $2/gallon tend to be oil-exporting countries that subsidize the price of gasoline for consumers. Given that the U.S. imports more oil than any other country, subsidizing consumers is out of the question. Further, the fact that we do import so much oil means that Bachmann would either have to put a stop to that while keeping domestic prices low, or would have to somehow cause world oil prices to fall to under $50/bbl (which usually translates to sub-$2/gallon gasoline).
But given the context of her later clarifying statements, it is clear that Bachmann believes that we can achieve $2/gallon by simply producing more:
“What Barack Obama has done is lock up America’s eneregy reserves. We’re the No. 1 energy-resource-rich nation in the world. We have more oil in three Western states in the form of shale oil than all the oil in Saudi Arabia. That doesn’t include the Bakken oil field in North Dakota or the eastern Gulf region or the Atlantic or the Pacific or Anwar or the Arctic region,” she said.
“We also have a brand-new natural gas find in Pennsylvania with over a trillion cubic feet of natural gas. We also have 25 percent of all the coal in the world. We just aren’t accessing or utilizing our energy. Energy could be one of the most stable, accessible forms of resources for business in the United States. …And we would create millions of high-paying jobs instantly,” she said.
There are many problems with those statements. First, shale oil has been right around the corner for over 100 years. It isn't going to be unlocked by $2/gallon gasoline when it wasn't unlocked by $4/gallon gasoline. In fact, the reason the resource is still there, undeveloped, is that the economics are poor -- mainly due to high energy requirements. This is the classic receding horizons problem (I did not coin that phrase, by the way, but I do believe it was first coined on TOD).
Second, the Bakken oil field has significantly increased production while Obama has been in office. In Bush's last month in office, monthly oil production in North Dakota (where most of the Bakken production is taking place) was 6.3 million barrels. The most recent cumulative monthly production was 11.2 million barrels. Shall we credit Obama? Well, I certainly don't, but neither do I blame him for current gas prices. But if Bachmann wants to cite statistics based on when Obama took office, certainly actual oil production should be an important one.
And for that matter, not only has North Dakota production almost doubled since Obama has been in office, but oil production for the country as a whole has risen. In Bush's last month in office, total monthly oil production in the U.S. was 157 million barrels. Today, monthly production is 174 million barrels -- the highest level in 8 years. Maybe we should start calling Obama an "oil man."
What about Bachmann's comment on natural gas? Again, let's look at the data. Over the two terms of the Bush Administration, natural gas production rose from 1.6 trillion cubic feet per month to 1.7 trillion cubic feet per month. In Obama's, second year in office, monthly production reached 1.8 trillion cubic feet -- something never achieved under Bush. In 2011 production has reached an all-time record of over 1.9 trillion cubic feet.
So what are we to make of this? I think very few people are going to credit President Obama for the increases in oil and gas production. In fact, those production increases are a function of high oil prices and of the development of shale gas technology -- not any sort of presidential mandate. Presidents simply don't control oil prices. Oil prices are set on the global market, and the best a president can do is to push for policies that ensure that demand doesn't outpace supply. But due to the global nature of the oil market, they are limited in the impact they can make. If Bachmann thinks she is going to increase supplies by flooding the market with shale oil, then she is exceptionally naive. If she is just making hollow campaign promises, then she is another dishonest politician. Neither trait is one I want in a president.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Thanks Robert!
The picture of Bachmann in the link you provide is priceless, though she seems to be holding a twenty dollar bill and not a two dollar bill in it. I guess that pretty much says it all.
Btw, one would never expect a conservative God fearing Christian woman to be dishonest...
Thanks, Robert, for addressing this issue. Sadly, many people will now have an unrealistic expectation about oil supply and pricing, and will ignore suggestions to prepare for PO. I tend to believe that she possesses the same level of knowledge on this matter as most other topics she makes pronouncements on, which is certainly less than sufficient to make informed Executive decisions. Could she bring about $2 gas? Perhaps, with the next Great Depression...
I suspect that gas would become closer to $20 than $2 under Bachman given the magnitude by which she would apparently mismanage our energy policies. Great article - unfortunately it seems that many of the voters (and certainly the media) in this country revile rational thought and are easily distrac...
SQUIRREL!!
"The picture of Bachmann in the link you provide is priceless, though she seems to be holding a twenty dollar bill and not a two dollar bill in it."
Ha! I wish I had noticed that. Would have been worth pointing out.
With God who needs math or physics?
This, I feel, is the real danger with creationists running the government. Why worry about reality when God would never let us run out of resources?
If the world was created just 6000 years ago, by God in 6 days, why would low oil reserves be a problem?
Since Rapture will be here way before we run out of oil, why bother worrying about it?
That is why having Ron Paul, the best GOP candidate, is a bad idea.
Sticking with Obama and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu is probably a much better idea.
The GOP stance on energy will be drill baby drill and more nukes, regardless that those are non-renewables and will just hurt our position down the road.
Finally, remember how Hitler got into power - promising a "fix" for Germany's problems.
With God who needs math or physics?
Hey you kids! get offa my lawn under the Apple tree!
That is why having Ron Paul, the best GOP candidate, is a bad idea.
Because? Ho do you get from where you started to where ya got here?
Sticking with Obama and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu is probably a much better idea.
What's next? Don't change horses in mid stream?
Finally, remember how Hitler got into power - promising a "fix" for Germany's problems.
Its a good thing that Reagan, Bush the Greater, Clinton, Bush the Lesser, and Obama only said they had the "fix" for America then.
Your whole screed has been a pitch based on emotion. Ya got some solid ground to stand on?
You didn't know Ron Paul is a creationist? Check out his YouTube videos on the subject. Dangerous stuff if you expect someone with those beliefs to make science based decisions about our resource problems.
If you can't make that connection, I understand why. ;)
Michele Bachmann quotes
OMG, how crazy is this world going to get on the down slope of PO!
Very crazy. If we go the God path rather than the science path it will get very ugly.
Whattdaya mean will, Kemosabe?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg
Uglier?
So, what you're saying is that we are almost a bunch of turkeys?
Csunyabb lesz. (Don't have hoszu vowels on this keyboard... sorry).
Craig
Even without hoszu vowels things are already quite ugly as it is!
Reminds me of this little Hungarian folksong about going to Debrecen to buy a turkey...
http://www.zeneszoveg.hu/dalszoveg/14099/nepdalok/debrecenbe-kene-menni-...
Cheers,
Fred
It does matter whose ox is gored. (the closest American English idiiom, I guess)
Craig
I sadly feel that these comments by Bachmann show in full color the tragic disconnect from reality that we as americans and american politics are having. We think that just because we want something to happen it will, despite all of the fundamental laws of physics and reality that we are breaking. But with our current educational system, who studies physics anyway.
I think the tragic part is that this woman is considered to serious candidate for President by one major party and that her comments need to analyzed and refuted by a serious commentators on a serious website.
this woman is considered to serious candidate for President by one major party
To be technically correct, "The Party" hasn't chosen yet, that's why all this corn'n around is going on in Iowa. "The Party" will pick at its thing in 2012.
What you have is what the *PRESS* is saying.
As one of the "press" (and he says he's just a comedian) said - "It's good old fashioned vote buying". Mrs. B spend 180,000 on tickets (votes) and to get into her air conditioned tent with seating, musicians of note, food, chairs and a petting zoo you had to vote for her.
Keep in mind that if Ames had "value" and the "press" was objective - there would be mention of the guy who was less than 200 votes/less than 1% from her. (Said not-talked-about guy got 1.5+ million in donations in one day last week. In small amounts it seems based on the few postings of what individuals gave) Instead the "press" talks about people who finished WORSE than the guy who dropped out after the Ames Iowa corn'n.
Unfortunately that is exactly what needs to happen everytime a politician mumbles some baloney. Otherwise people believe it. Maybe you and I don't, but the masses of dithering, innumerate, wandering, blindly following sheeple need to have the most basic of ideas completely explained to them in the simpliest of terms, and do it over and over again until it seeps into their dense ineptitude.
Remember, Kerry didn't think he had to dignify the absurd assertions of the Swiftboaters, and what resulted after some time passed was an acceptence by the dingdong populace of that information being true. When Kerry's people finally decided to respond it died out, but its effect bit Kerry at the election polls and he lost.
If some politician says 30,000 feet down is a gooey nugat of oil, and we can drill anywhere in the world to get at it, then it must be responded to with a counter explantion, over and over again until it gets stuffed down their ignorant throats and they get that the interior of the crust does not hold 100's of trillions of barrels of oil. They really are that stupid.
Kerry is and was the height of hypocrisy, I have seen men like him before, just call me a "dingdong" (proudly).
Oh and GWB was, instead, the great straight shooter, right? Yeah.
He was "America's CEO"...
That "pitch" didn't last long....less than a week as a talking point, wasn't it?
I believe the correct expression (hat tip @James Kunstler) is "creamy nugat center", but you are definitely on the right track here!
Just what did the swift boaters say that was untrue. Kerry is a glory hound and tried to use his service and metals for political gain after having thrown them over the white house fence for political gain. You either got to be one thing or the other.
As for someone believing the earth was created 6000 years ago...I think you take such beliefs to seriously. Most people can deal with both science and the scriptures just fine. Its a contradiction that must be pondered.
I am not sure backman would mismanage energy resources any worse then the current president.
You just might want to spend some time perusing this Pew article and especially the chart at the end. I suspect that all those folks who don't believe evolution explains the origins of human life take those beliefs pretty seriously. I'd be willing to bet that if you asked them they'd be happy to explain to you that there is no contradiction, that Darwin is just plain wrong.
Yes, that's exactly what they would say. And they would say that every man or woman of science since Darwin is just plain wrong also if they believe in biological evolution.
The problem is that most people who are not fundamentalists simply do not understand that mindset. They know that the Bible is correct and that any and all evidence that supports evolution, or even an ancient universe is just wrong... or designed that way by God.
For instance, I carried on a long time debate with a young earth creationist via email. I tried to explain the massive evidence of an ancient universe, like stars that exploded millions of years ago and their light is just arriving here today. His explanation was that God created the earth and the universe with "the appearance of age". He said if God created a man, Adam, fully grown with the appearance of age, then he could have just as easily created a universe with the appearance of age.
Now who can argue with logic like that? ;-)
Ron P.
"Now who can argue with logic like that? ;-)"
So then you ask "But wouldn't that be deceptive? Why would he create a universe with specific radioactive decay signatures that were intended to fool us? Isn't there perhaps a more straightforward explanation?"
Robert, obviously you have never argued with a young earth creationist. I used very similar arguments like, "Why would God create the appearance of an exploding star that never exploded. God would have to had created the apparent explosion in transit, just six thousand light years from earth. That would be deceptive?" But he would have none of that. Adam was created with the appearance of age therefore it was logical that God would create a universe with the appearance of age, even down to creating exploding stars that never really exploded.
Here is what you must understand. They believe, with every fiber of their being, that the Book of Genesis is literally true, it is totally impossible for it to be in error. Therefore there must be an explanation for the earth and universe appearing to be very old when in fact it is very young. Therefore the most absurd explanation, if it is the only explanation, must therefore be true.
Ron P.
Talk about scary; put yourself down in their imaginary rabbit hole. It is all warm and fuzzy as long as you tow the group line and follow the rote. Jump out of the hole into reality and you forgo all that support, not an easy thing for those susceptible to falling into such a hole in the first place.
"Robert, obviously you have never argued with a young earth creationist."
Ah, but I have. For years. Here is one account of some of my interactions: http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/lesson_cre_ethics_rr.htm
I posted a number of articles under my name, and a number under a pseudonym (Fedmahn Kassad) because I attracted a nutter who seemed very intent on giving me the ole abortion doctor treatment for leading people away from the flock.
Yeah, I understand them very, very well. What I would always do is walk them ultimately into contradictions in their positions. Force them to define terms (e.g., "information can't increase!" OK, defined information).
My entire extended family consists of YECs. My father-in-law is a Church of Christ preacher, and you don't get much more YEC than that.
I have two of them living with me!!! Assembly of God... even nuttier than CoC. My dear wife was raised with that. I was raised very Catholic... they have some special twists coming from their dogma. She has supported me, and I have supported her as we became skeptics, agnostics, and whatever. I have had some "interesting" conversations with young evangelicals, though I admit that talking with the in-laws not profitable. Fun at times, however.
Dad was a Baptist, but not very. I have family that cover the range of possible, from hard Athiest to wild eyed zealots. Unfortunately the numbers are about like Fred's sampling of America. Maybe 7-% are YEC. Once had an in-law very upset when I pointed out that the sun could not stand still for hours at a time, without repealing a few fundamental laws of nature (gravity, inertia, and some minor laws about properties of liquids). Same in-law could not understand why a worldwide deluge capable of bring sea levels to above mountains worldwide in 40 days and nights would be such a forceful flow that it would destroy everything, including any purported barge, ark or ship. And he is actually fairly intelligent. Just willfully ignorant where obvious balderdash in the Bible is concerned.
So, my question is: How did you (and I) come to your present rational state?
Strange, in a way, I've always felt.
Craig
So, my question is: How did you (and I) come to your present rational state?
Well, I was always a skeptic by nature. My Mom said that at the age of 5 I was convinced that the Santa at Sears was not the real Santa. She said I studied him up and down and asked him a few questions to trip him up.
But it is really hard to get a degree in the sciences, and not start coming face to face with contradictions. At one point I picked up a Creationist book and was appalled at the quality of the arguments. Here is an actual argument from the first Creationist book I read: The earth can't be billions of years old, because scientists have determined that its rotation is slowing down. That was it; end of argument. The flaw is obvious enough for a 10-year-old to see.
Once you get to that point, the whole thing starts to unravel. Creationists say that's because you are brainwashed, but actually it's a result of becoming very familiar with the evidence.
I never had any interest in trying to argue about the existence of God, but I spent years trying to keep Creationism out of the classrooms.
a.k.a. critical thinking
You indeed were an unusual 5 year old!
Yes, I have seen that one. Another is human population. One creationists book quoted the current rate of population growth and stated that if the humans had been on earth as long as scientists say they have then their numbers would be in the trillions.
Another was "Niagara Falls". Their argument was that Niagara Falls is moving upstream at a rate of over one mile every thousand years. Therefore if the earth was as old as claimed then that would be enough time for the falls to move around the world many times.
Ron P.
My dad, a Primitive Baptist, would never have argued with any non believer, though he dearly loved to argue with other fundamentalists. He just loved to argue with "Camelites" as he called them. (Campbellites... the Church of Christ which he said was founded by Alexander Campbell.)
Anyway his attitude was "The Bible is the word of God and that is not to be questioned." One could argue about the interpretation of of any passage in the Bible but not the truth of the Bible itself. That was simply not to be questioned.
Ron P.
My dad, a Primitive Baptist, would never have argued with any non believer, though he dearly loved to argue with other fundamentalists.
And within the Church of Christ, they will insist that the Baptists are all going to hell because they use instrumental music in their services. Their belief comes from a passage in the Bible that says something like "make a joyful noise unto the Lord" and the fact that it doesn't explicitly authorize the use of instruments in service. The counter-arguments are that God didn't seem too pleased with David and his harp.
My father-in-law has gone into Church of Christ services around the country and found them playing instrumental music in some locations. He literally stays afterward and chastises the preacher, telling him that they can't call themselves Church of Christ.
Szia!
Craig
+ <|>
--you get angel wings for that one
Fedmahn Kassad
I read that book recently - though I don't recall the name.
"Fedmahn Kassad"
Hyperion. Kassad was the man who sought to kill the Shrike when everyone else was terrified by it.
That's a nice one. What you actually can say is this:
"If you believe that, how do you know that God did not create everything just a second ago, with the memory of this conversation vivid, and all our memories, history scriptures, etc, all seeming to be correct!?"
At least one thing one can say is that if God created everything, he sure did a very thorough job of creating it like it appears that he did not.
But people's beliefs are hardwired into their brains through years of mutual confirmation. If they can be swayed, it takes a lot of time, at least.
As you implied, Bachmann is really not outside the mainstream view regarding oil supplies. Three quotes that I periodically post:
CERA:
Mr. Robert Esser
Senior Consultant and Director, Global Oil and Gas Resources
Cambridge Energy Research Associates
Huntington, NY,
Understanding the Peak Oil Theory
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
December 7, 2005
EXXONMOBIL:
ExxonMobil Advertisement in New York Times
June 2, 2006
OPEC:
Acting Secretary General of Opec, Mohammed Barkindo
July 11, 2006
Oh yes they do!!
Famous Arab saying which youve probably heard 1467 times:
"My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet airplane. His son will ride a camel."
I thought that the timing of the three quotes was interesting, all in 2006.
At the 2002 to 2005 rate of increase in global C+C production, we would have been at about 86 mbpd in 2010 (EIA), and this rate of increase was presumably what ExxonMobil was talking about when they said in early 2006 that there were "No signs of a peak." But note that the EIA* shows global annual C+C production at between 73 and 74 mbpd for 2005 to 2010, except for 2009.
Similarly, BP shows global annual total petroleum liquids production at between 81 and 82 mbpd for 2005 to 2010, again except for 2009.
*Ron has noted some significant differences between JODI numbers and the EIA for 2010. And I remain puzzled that the EIA is showing Texas 2010 annual crude production 20% higher than what the Texas RRC shows (my understanding is that they are both looking at C+C).
And then of course, we have the Global Net Exports (GNE) and Available Net Exports (ANE) situation, with ANE declining at an average rate of about one mbpd per year for the past five years, from about 40 mbpd in 2005 to 35 mbpd in 2010. (ANE = GNE less Chindia's combined net oil imports.)
And US oil consumption demand has dropped how much over the same period?
It would seem that the only real source for China to get their additional oil supplies is to cut into US supplies which seems to be just what is happening.
Yes, liquid fuels has become a zero-sum game. If China and India go up, others must go down.
The bad news is that it will only get worse as we come off the bumpy plateau and enter decline.
"Ye canna change the laws of physics"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vPWE2Ebz48"
Apologies for flippancy, but any other reaction to the American democratic/election process is wasted.
Awesome! Thanks for the dose of reality!
How about the Law of Diminishing returns as Hall and Tainter point out in their works.
re: Bachman's statement
"Empty carts make the most noise..."
or..."consider the source"
or..."idiots say idiotic things"
These people will do and say anything for your vote and power over much of the world. Psychopath, politician, what is it with these P words, anyway? Surely, she doesn't have a hope in hell of winning. I worried about Palin, but this person is over the top.
Maybe she can move to Libya.
Well..
The US election is a 2 horse race. Nomination can in theory be won by appeal to a committed segment of the population. So, given that there is no sane republican front runner... you could find a toxic combination of someone like Bachman getting nominated, and an election happening against a background of serious economic turbulence.
In other words, a replay of 2008 with the parties reversed.
Sadly, many of her supporters believe she can bring the price of gasoline below $2 with the old drill baby drill.
We may see $2 gasoline($50 oil) by the end of Obama's 1st term.
Edit:deepening recession or not.
Watching the US election run-up is extremely scary.
Robert, she is really that naive. She is one of the most naive people ever to run for the high office of President of the United States. I have been following Bachmann for years. That she would actually believe that she could bring back $2 oil with "drill baby drill" should not surprise anyone. I would bet she believes we could just drill those three Western states and produce all the oil we need.
Dumb Michele Bachmann Quotes Top 10 Craziest Michele Bachmann Quotes of All Time
1. "I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out under another, then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter.
2. "There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design."
3. "Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas."
Bachmann earned her law degree from Tulsa's Oral Roberts University in 1986 and a Master of Law degree in tax law from the College of William and Mary in 1988. Oral Roberts University, that explains it all.
Ron P.
Does it? William and Mary is a top law school(it's a very good college overall). Getting a master of law from that place means she has a capacity for intelligence.
But as we've seen through history, intelligence doesn't hinder some people from being utmost nuts. (Stalin, Mao, Hitler et al proves the point).
Hopefully she isn't that bloodthirsty but she is crazy.
And as for her claim...
If (Heavens forbid) she would get elected against fairly long odds, she could well begin her term with gasoline under $2. We could have a world-wide double dip by the time 2013 is starting. So it could actually be done, but not for the reasons she thinks.
The only guy in the Republican party I might even glance a second time at is Jon Huntsman, but he has zero chance of winning in a crazier and crazier party that is the GOP. And even he has serious flaws on social justice.
Leiten, neither Robert nor I said she was not intelligent. The word we both used was naive. And yes, that does explain a lot, if not all.
na·ive –adjective
1. having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous.
na·ive·té -noun
1. the quality or state of being naive; natural or artless simplicity.
Fits her to a tee. And no doubt I could say that about many Oral Roberts University graduates.
Ron P.
One of your opening salvos was "Dumb Michele Bachmann quotes".
Keep trying :)
Leiten, surely you must know that very intelligent people very often make very dumb statements. Or did you not know that?
All it takes for an intelligent person to make a dumb statement is that said person have very little or no knowledge about the subject of which they are speaking. I would say that Michele Bachmann had very little knowledge about subjects of, oil production, the causes of the swine flu epidemic, evolution or Carbon Dioxide and the environment.
Just curious but what is your opinion of her expertise in those fields? You objected to me calling those statements dumb, from that one could infer that you thought those statements were smart because they came form a very intelligent woman.
Ron P.
I would say that Michele Bachmann had very little knowledge about subjects of, oil production, the causes of the swine flu epidemic, evolution or Carbon Dioxide and the environment.
And yet, Mrs. Bachmann is presented on being knowledgeable on things like "intelligent design".
So how does one turn square corn'rs on your position that:
Dumb Michele Bachmann Quotes Top 10 Craziest Michele Bachmann Quotes of All Time 2. "There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design."
and "dumb statement is that said person have very little or no knowledge about the subject of which they are speaking"
Or is statement number 2 just crazy and thus avoids the issue of her professed knowledge on the topics tied to intelligent design?
The topic tied to intelligent design is biological evolution. I would not say the statement avoids her professed knowledge of the subject, in fact that was the very point. I would say she is very ignorant on the subject of biological evolution.
But if you think she is very smart on that subject, then you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
Ron P.
Absolutely correct, Leiten. Wm. & Mary is in the top 25 law schools, and is the oldest law school in the U.S. Its reputation in law is top notch. (Disclaimer: my daughter graduated from W&M, #5 in her class a few years ago.)
The problem, as you recognize, is not stupidity. She is obviously smart. She is, however, ignorant. Not the same thing at all. Ignorance is a willful condition. Aside from going to school, which is not the same thing as learning, she refuses to study or learn... like Bush before her, she actually believes that whatever she believes becomes fact. Her law degree was a means to an end. For the extreme religious right, school is that, and only that. They have literally sent people to school - obviously smart folks, but ones with an unfortunate agenda - for the purpose of obtaining a Ph.D in biology, just so they can say that there are PhD level scientists who believe in 'intelligent design.' Not so strangely, papers supporting that position do not find their way into peer reviewed journals, though efforts are made in that direction.
Other than the normal craziness of religious zealots, she is not crazy either. She is simply saying what she believes. What she believes is crazy, but she wants to believe it.
What is truly frightening is that she is probably the best of a whole lot of people who are smart, yet believe crazy stuff. On purpose! It is really sad is the number of people who are not smart, and believe crazy stuff. Barking mad, the whole lot!
Craig
edit: I think she, like the rest of the RR, are brainwashed. He parents, her pastors, all of the people she grew up trusting, believed the same crazy shit, and convinced her it was "God's Word", amd not to be questioned. Most of us have a bit of that problem. It is why we see Israelis and Palastinians at each others throats. It is why our history includes religious wars, the inquisition, and the crusades. Barking Mad!
I couldn't agree more.
I couldn't agree less. To say that a person is willfully ignorant is to say that they know they are ignorant and simply choose to be in that condition. No, Bauchmann thinks she is very smart. She has absolutely no idea that she is ignorant. Therefore she is not willfully ignorant.
Now just wait a cotton picking minute here. Being brainwashed is not a wilful condition. You can't have it both ways Craig.
Ron P.
Being brainwashed is not willful, Ron. However, choosing to avoid facts, turning away from studies that disprove your assertions, refusing to read or consider anything contrary to your opinion. That is willful.
Climate change deniers come to mind. Willfully ignorant people fund studies, not to discover truth, but to locate some evidence, or if none is there to invent some argument, or if that is impossible to create some 'controversy where there is none, in order to obfuscate and confuse others. Cigarette manufactures come to mind, as well as proponents of 'intelligent design.'
I submit that I was brainwashed, at one time believing some part of the craziness that most of the RR believes. I went to college, and amazingly I learned critical thought at a bible school, of all places. If only they knew!
The point is, being brainwashed did not force me to remain ignorant. As a child, I may have believed in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. As the evidence surfaced, and the craziness of the concepts became self evident, my ignorance was overcome by knowledge. By learning. And that, as I said in my earlier post, is what the Bachmanns of the world lack. They go to school, not to learn, but with an agenda. They already know what they believe, so facts do not disturb them. If the facts are not in line with their believes, the facts must be wrong.
And that, my friend, is barking mad!
Craig
It's all OK, guys. We've got Kunstler on the case this morning:
...Oh,,,, jeez! Boggles the mind.. But wait, there's more!
Bachmann may end up being the brains behind the brawn: Perry-Bachmann, 2012 :-/
Perry-Bachmann 2012 - The Republic of Gilead is at hand!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_This_Goes_On—
Re-read it not long ago, and it hasn't lost it's currency. Neither has C.M. Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons"(and given a re-do by "Idiocracy"). "Couldn't happen in this country" some say. I hope they're right, cause' they (i.e "The Majority) seem to be charging down that particular path, being beckoned by a Pocket Full of Miracles promised by the major contenders...
even better.
Kunstler can really turn a phrase, and he doesn't pull any punches.
No, willful ignorance implies, despite your efforts to show otherwise, still implies that a person knows they are ignorant. Yes, people ignore facts that could prove their belief wrong. But they ignore then because they believe they are not facts at all but mistakes at best and lies at worst. They never ignore facts that they believe to be true.
I give you credit Craig, you are trying hard to show it is a person's own fault that they are ignorant. That is that they are blame worthy because of their ignorance. It is a hard illusion to give up and most people never do. "People must be to blame for their own wrong beliefs, and they must be punished for such wrong beliefs. That is dogma dictated by Holy Writ."
Ron P.
Still and all, hearing that the world's experts on the subject, whether it be evolution or economics, nearly all hold an opinion different to one's own, should prompt one to investigate further.
Rational people allow that they could be wrong. Refusing to allow that is wilfulness.
Some people have asserted that the problem is the Religious Right's isolated "echo-chamber". The only news they hear comes from others with the same convictions.
Wrong about what? Could we be wrong that the earth is round? Could it be flat after all? I am willful in my refusal to believe in the possibility of a flat earth. I feel the exact same way about an earth centered universe. Willfulness... absolutely. Willful ignorance? I think not.
Refusing to allow that we are wrong may be willfulness but it is not willful ignorance. Some people will not allow that they could be wrong because they so strongly believe they are right. True, they may be wrong but this is not willful ignorance by any stretch of the imagination.
To strongly believe that you are correct and at the same time know you are wrong is an impossible contradiction. How hard is that to understand?
Ron P.
That is no barrier to it occurring. People do it all the time.
There's no contradiction in having an absolute belief about something, and at the same time knowing that you know little about the subject, and further, knowing that acknowledged experts hold a different opinion. People do that all the time, too. Refusing to investigate further is choosing to be ignorant: wilful ignorance. And people do that all the time, too.
Fascinating discourse....
I tend to agree with you but Ron is probably logically correct.
Religious people are the biggest offenders, it boils down to a faith they don't want tested, so they choose to remain ignorant. Like investigating an incident but only looking for causes which confirm your suspicions.
A good book if you can get a hold of it.....The Psychology Of Judgement and Decision Making.
I really think we are all guilty of purposefully remaining ignorant to some degree. Being honest with myself, I know I am and I even try to find excuses.
Ron, I concede. They are not willful about it. They are, as stated several times in this edition, barking mad!
Craig
Thanks Craig. Of course they are barking mad. They know what is true and they are going to ram it right down your throat until you see the light. ;-)
You know of course that I believe we are all victims of circumstance. That is we are the product of our heredity and environment. And by environment I mean prenatal environment as well as everything that has happened to you since birth. That's all that we are because there is nothing else.
Ron P.
I am not sure that you mean it, but your position is totally deterministic. I don't know how, but it seems to me that we are capable of making actual decisions. I have argued with deists who present the ontological argument for the existence of
God. And, of course, that leads inescapably to predetermination, no choice and a deity who is amoral at best, immoral as a median, and horribly malevolent at worst. Considering than that there is no logical argument or empirical evidence that either proves or disproves God, I do what most do and adopt a position that provides the least possible cognitive dissonance. For me, it is no less logical or likely that the Universe has no beginning that to postulate a God that has no beginning. And, it fits known facts and observable phenomena far better.
Having said that, everyone is entitled to believe what they want... they should recognize and agree, though, that it is their choice, and allow others to have different beliefs. The madness is that those who hold to all of these strange (to me) flights of fancy, seem to think that it is not only their right, but their Holy duty to press their world view onto you and onto me, and that there are many such views pressing contrary positions, and willing to kill others to force them to accept.
Then, adding insult to injury, the far political right co-opts the lunatics, and postures as though in agreement with any and every wing nut maxim, all to garner their votes. And their Pastors go along with it! (My theory: the far political right 'tithe', and the Pastors LOVE those gifts and offerings.) Best evidence against a benevolent God: Pat Robertson is still on the air! Second best: Michell Bachmann is running for President, and no one is laughing.
Craig
It could be that her statements are not simply a result of ignorance, willful or otherwise. I think it is quite probable that she willfully lies about these subjects to meet her primary agenda which is to appeal to the moronic Republican base, the Tea Party base. She is desperate to achieve as much power as possible to accomplish her real agenda, which is the furtherance of the evangelical right wing agenda on social issues like regarding gays, guns, and God. She also wants to dismantle anything having to do with the new deal, to destroy social security and medicare for starters. She also wanted the press to investigate members of congress to determine if they were anti American. She is a very determined, vicious, hateful, homophobe who also wants to shut down the EPA and all regulations which hinder business.
She has no interest in pursuing the truth about issues like global warming, gays, and the environment. Revelation of the truth on these issues would interfere with her needs to have as much power as possible, destroying what is left of the progressive agenda.
Sadly, however, she is just one of many wacked out crazy science denying Republicans who are waiting in the wings. Perry may even be scarier than she is, especially because he has a very good chance of being nominated.
The fact that so many of them insist that every established scientific body that has made a statement about it is wrong about global warming is the really scary part.
Of course, our dear president, in spite of strong campaign promises to make it a priority, has missed many opportunities to push for effective policy changes that address climate change.
He now faces a decision that will tell us all if he really has a clue--the Keyston XL pipeline.
He alone can decide on whether it goes through.
If it does, it will insure that every bit of sludge in Canadian soil will be scraped out, cooked up, and shipped away to Texas (which happens to be baking in a record-breaking drought that GW will make commonplace).
If it goes through, we are all cooked. As Hansen said, it is game over.
Many are putting their bodies on the line in DC as we speak, being carted off to jail in front of the White House. I know some here, like RMG, have skin in the game and are going to support oil extraction from Tar Sands no matter what--they will have to deal with their own consciences at some point.
For the rest, if you don't plan to go to DC to get arrested, please at least join me in writing and calling the White House to express strong opposition to building this pipeline.
Right on!! Stop the damn pipeline. Obama has some decidin' to do when he gets back from the Vineyard.
dohboi - "...like RMG, have skin in the game and are going to support oil extraction from Tar Sands no matter what...". I suppose we'll have to wait for Rocky to respond but if I recall correctly he doesn't have skin in the tar sands. I beleive he's like me: I would greatly benefit if they never produced another bbl of oil from the tar sands and DW GOM or another mcf from the Marcellus. I only drill for onshore conventional oil/NG. Anything that inhibits production from these other plays will greatly increase my profits.
So all I can say is: RIGHT ON, BROTHER! NO MORE TAR SANDS...NO MORE SHALE GAS FRAC'NG...NO MORE DW DRILLING!
ROFLMAO.
And if you do go to DC you had better be walking or biking. 'cause taking mechanized transport would be pretty hypocritical.
simkin - Hypocritical how? If I went to DC I would drive up in an F-350 that gets 9 mpg. I drill for oil/NG for a living. I never said I would stop. Just said I'm all for other folks to be limited in competing against me. If we shut down the tar sands fields tomorrow my income would go up. I ain't be hypocritical...just laying out the hard facts. As I've said many times before: Me and the oil patch ain't the public's momma. We don't drill for oil/NG to make our society better. We do it to earn a living. If folks don't like us producing oil/NG then that's an easy problem to fix: stop using so dang much of it. And if they don't? Then they are being hypocrits.
Obviously your concerns are different from the AGW protestors :p
You need to realize, simkin, that Rockman is a rare individual. He is totally honest, and he does not pull any punches. He and I disagree on many particularities, but in general, I sort of like the dude. Never any doubt about where he stands!
So, my advice: if you have any questions about how the drilling is done, and the economics of the oil patch, Rockman is your source. He knows about AGW, and figures it is a problem for society, and he does not cop out on his part in that. Meanwhile, though, he is earning a pretty damned good living.
Disclaimer: daughter of mine works in the oil patch, and also making good bucks! I encourage her to stay with it. I don't know of an industry today where the future is so good.
Now, for the rest of us, what happens in oil/NG is going to make our lives more difficult as we slide along the downward path of Hubble's curve. I just hope a few of my descendents make the cut!
Craig
Oh, I think he's one of the most valuable contributors here. And not only for his extensive knowledge.
Believe it or not, I actually wanted a Republican to beat Obama just so that the public can see that the GOP can't get us out of this mess through traditional conservative policies anymore than the Democrats could using traditional Liberal ones.
I may have to reconsider my position depending on who makes it through the scary GOP field.
Huntsman does seem sane.
I have a few friends who have said "I feel I have no choice but to vote for an extremist in the next election, just so that we can get it over with. Let them have the Oval Office and Congress, let them run the show, let them drive the country over the cliff. Let's put "crazy" in the Whitehouse!", they said.
I have been feeling lately that I have to agree. That's not so much a confession as it is a statement of fact. It's not going to matter who's in power next election cycle.
I've also been hoping that would happen. In fact I still think McCain/Palin was a planned loss because they knew the economy was about to collapse. This could even be the same approach. We know the PTB are aware of Peak oil. Might the rightwing think tanks want to lose the election to allow the other side to take the blame?
When have traditional Liberal solutions been tried? Obama has perpetuated wars, bailed out the rich and the private-sector "health care" thieves, and sat firmly on his hands about unemployment. It's a myth that he has any relationship to anything but the status quo of corporate politics, which is babysitting while Rome burns.
You're very brave, Les. And so bold. Must be tough sticking your neck out like that and all......
I really hope the Republicans get elected so they get the blame for the biggest train wreck in global history that is just over the horizon.
Unfortunately what the American public want is a leader that will lead them safely over the red sea. Only this time there will be no parting. A Tsunami is coming, and it doesn't care who the leader is.
OOoooohhhhh I sounded so apocryphal there...!!!!!!
Marco.
Perhaps that's Michele's point: her election would stall out the global economy so severely that oil demand will plummet and, lo, gas prices return to sub-$2/gallon. I wish she would explain it that way so that people would know what they are doing at the poll :)
It'd be interesting if she were elected, for "Chinese curse" values of interesting.
"her election would stall out the global economy so severely that oil demand will plummet and, lo, gas prices return to sub-$2/gallon"
Those were my thoughts, too. The deep irony is that for those of us in the know what she is promising is a totally crashed economy, since in a world passed peak that will be the only way to get gas prices down that low for any amount of time.
So I guess I believe her--she just might have the capacity to make so many decisions that are so catastrophically bad that they bring down the whole world economy and leave so few people in a position to pay anything for gas (since they are all unemployed) that the price plummets to lows not seen in years. This, indeed, seems to be her great promise, and she may be just the person to pull it off.
Exactly. I think most of us here understand that we will not get cheap gas if the economy gets back to growth, if that is even possible for any real length of time.
In fact, if she gets elected I think she has a very good chance of reaching her "goal". It is not just her but her entire science-phobic entourage that will help reach global economic collapse.
Marco my friend...have you not been watching the system evolve? If the new R prez is elected he'll just explain how he inherited the energy mess. And when he's defeated the new D prez will explain that he inherited the mess de jour. IMHO it appears the public is about to go into full knee jerk reaction. Which ever party is at the helm will be replaced by the next flight of politicians. And this will continue as long as both parties dishonestly promote the potential for maintaining BAU.
how he inherited the energy mess. And when he's defeated the new D prez will explain that he inherited the mess de jour
Same as it ever was.
http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/87/7589.html
On occasions someone makes a stand and claims ownership of the problems with phrases like "the buck stops here".
You stole my opinion.
I've had thoughts along that line too, but then again that would be an awfully expensive "lesson" and I have grave doubts that most of em' would "get it". I'll also grant that no matter who has the reigns at the moment, the destination will be the same; it will just happen sooner depending on how the vote is cast...
I think very few people are going to credit President Obama for the increases in oil and gas production.
Because President Obama is not Dear Leader from whom all things flow.
The big O isn't drilling them thar holes, nor is he figuring out new technological ways to get the gas out.
He has some say as who's in charge of the various regulation bodies but the bump in gas now is the result of paperwork 'back then'. About all he can do is try to stack the agencies with "different thinkers" and hope that the new staff will do things different so the effect can be seen 5+ years later.
But both political parties are seen as "pro growth" and the way growth is done 'round these parts is on the back of old sunlight. So the expansion of consumption will continue.
From today's Drumbeat:
There is a lot of fanciful, crazy thinking in the Republican field.
Barking mad, the whole lot of them!
Craig
They have a particular goal - elimination of certain regulations and wanting to keep the BAU party going.
With respect to the EPA - flank them. Start pushing for the 'big social change' as Constitutional Amendments. The equal rights acts/EPA were because of such pushes back 'in the day'.
But lets try to keep this tied to Mrs. Bachmann. Say the EPA went "Poof!" - how is that going to get her sub $2 a gal gas? I'm rather sure at least one of the regulars (looks in a Texas direction) can spitball the cost of EPA compliance?
What about when oil depletion happens in an uncontrolled manner - BP and the Gulf. Is BP paying/doing all the EPA laws/regulations require?
It might be useful for those who track the claims of subsidies in the price of gas to weigh in in this FPP.
The really insane part is, it could actually happen. China and India's growth are driving demand for oil right now. But China is suffering a massive bubble on the back of an opaque, wretchedly corrupt financial system (huh, that sounds familiar...). Should the Chinese bubble pop, oil demand would plunge, as would the price. We could see $2/gal. gas.
Weirdly enough, this would be a massive stimulus to the American economy and might actually get us back to growth, or at least stop contracting. Though not caused by her, Pres. Bachmann would get credit for a huge drop in the price of oil and gas and the recovering economy, and she'd win a 2016 re-election in a landslide.
Stranger things have happened.
Quote: "Should the Chinese bubble pop, oil demand would plunge, as would the price. We could see $2/gal. gas." Not for long though because oil production would decrease for all those wells that cannot produce $50 oil, giving rise to a shrtage.
Thank you, Robert, for writing some good, thoughtful commentary on Backmann's naive statement about fuel prices.
"But maybe that's how she plans to do it: Send the economy into a deep depression."
Exactly my thought the first time I heard her statement.
-best
R^2, great insights. I fear people think she is right. In a way, Obama is painted into a corner. If he brandishes his OIL/NG stats relative to Bush/Cheney--two oil men--his "green" base will shun him. LOL. A bad predicament for him. We are unfortunately in a sorry state, when we vote for people to try to get something for nothing. What happened to the idea that you need to work toward your goals rather than hope someone else will be there to bail you out?
I still think Obama should lay out the statistics on oil and natural gas for these poor naive folks to chew on.
"I fear people think she is right."
I get lots of e-mails from people saying "Isn't it true that there are a quadrillion barrels of oil in the (insert formation here) to keep the U.S. running forever, and the environmentalists are just blocking development?" So I am sure that a lot of people believe her. In fact, one person commented on this article on my blog and accused me of political propaganda -- and said I have no idea whether she is right. As I pointed out, I have had plenty to say about Obama and the Democrats as well. Neither party has a monopoly on simplistic energy thinking or pandering.
"I still think Obama should lay out the statistics on oil and natural gas for these poor naive folks to chew on."
It would serve him well politically I believe. If I was taking a beating for holding the industry back, I would say "Now just a minute. Have you looked at the numbers?" After all, what is his "green base" going to do? Vote for the other side?
Robert
Good to challenge wishful thinking.
1) What rate of increase in fuel production is required?
Getting back to reality, it would help to lay out what level of increased alternative oil or fuel production would be needed to indeed bring the price of gasoline down to $2/gallon or the equivalent $/bbl.
e.g. international crude oil demand grew by about 20 million bbl/day from ~65 million bbl/day to ~ 85 million bbl/day between 1985 and 2005, or about 1 million bbl/day each year. That unconstrained growth started at ~ 1.5%/year declining to ~ 1.2%/year. That is about the world population growth rate - with little per capita economic development.
Then Non-OPEC production plateaued and OPEC cut back to a similar plateau. By 2011, this resulted in 7 to 9 million bbl/day shortfall from historical 1.1%/year growth to 1.5%/year growth. Consequently we saw the oil price increase, unemployment increase, precipitating the mortgage crisis, and the economic crisis.
If we increase production by this missing 9 million bbl/day, and grow at 1.5%/year or about 1.3 million bbl/day each year, is there any reason for that not bringing the price of gasoline back down to $2/gallon?
(Obviously this will need to increase production to replenish the decline in conventional fields.
E.G. see IEA World Energy Outlook 2010, graphs, slide 7/10. See Gail IEA World Energy Outlook 2010 Now Out; a Preliminary Look)
Then the challenge is:
2) What actions/effort would be needed to accomplish that task.
If the resource were unconstrained*, the selling price would be the cost of producing the marginal barrel. I've seen lots of figures for that, from $50 to $90. $2 gasoline seems to correspond to a marginal barrel cost of about $35 - $45.
How do we get back to $45 oil?
The only way I can see is by a sharp fall in consumption. Increasing production won't do it, because all the oil left in the ground costs more to produce than the oil that's already being extracted. If it didn't, producers would be completely irrational.
So increasing production would drive up the cost of the last barrel produced, and therefore the price. You can't get to $2/gallon that way.
Then there are currency movements to consider. The US dollar has been in a steady decline; it seems likely that this will continue. Foreigners, with harder money, will be able to pay more in US dollar terms for oil. So you'd have to crash the world economy.
*The resource is constrained, though, so Hotelling rents are being added to the cost of production.
gregvp
Good point on pricing at the marginal cost of oil. Cautions on your limiting presuppositions. Yes reducing demand would do it. e.g., the 2009 crisis dropped oil from $147 to $33/bbl before OPEC cut production to bring it back up to $100/bbl. However, abundant fuel < $45/bbl will also bring down the cost of fuel.
On getting back to $45 oil, here are a few clues:
Australian company hopes to do Alaska underground coal gasification
Israel May Hold the World’s Third Largest Reserve of Shale Oil
PS Harold J. Vinegar is a world expert on hydrocarbon fuels. See his patents
Re: Israel May Hold the World’s Third Largest Reserve of Shale Oil
Most people, including most of the talking heads on CNBC, seem to routinely equate shales like the Bakken and the Eagle Ford, which produce thermally mature oils ready for the refinery, to fine grained "shales" like the Green River Formation in Colorado, which contain thermally immature kerogen deposits, which have to be heated to produce a liquid which can be sent to a refinery. Based on the article's description, it appears that they are talking about kerogen type deposits in Israel.
So the comparison, e.g., on CNBC, that is frequently made is that Kerogen type deposits are like the Bakken and therefore Kerogen type deposits are like Saudi Arabia.
A 2008 essay on kerogen type deposits:
http://knol.google.com/k/oil-shale#
The discovery of large amounts of natural gas is likely the breakthrough to heating the shale to recover the oil. The other key is having a major barrier between the oil shale and the aquifer.
They may be better off just using the natural gas as an energy source for CNG fueled transportation and for power generation.
or turn that natural gas into DME. This can be burned in diesel engines.
1) Belief is a fine and noble thing. Reality is ornery, obstreperous, and full of pitfalls, though.
2) 20,000 barrels? What happened to nine million new barrels, plus replacement?
Comparing original oil(-equivalent!) in place to reserves => snake oil salesman.
When Harold J. Vinegar, previously Shell's chief scientist, is involved, I will believe those numbers over any superficial objections. Especially considering he is the world's foremost expert on in situ hydrocarbon recovery. See patents on Harold Vinegar hydrocarbon heat shale
It is certainly true that people believe what they want to believe.
The fact remains that insofar as I know the only commercial use of kerogen deposits is in the FSU, where it is used basically as a very low grade coal in power plants. As an article on the Energy Bulletin website noted, we have been five years away from commercially producing liquid fuels from kerogen for the past 60 years. But time will tell I suppose.
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-08-24/michele-bachmann-petrol...
Michele Bachmann Petroleum Geologist
David - I'll take your word on Harold's abilitites. But that leaves one question; if they can build a plant that will deliver oil at $28/bbl why didn't they start constructing multiple plants years ago when oil was selling for twice that price? There are 100's of thousand of acres of privately owned shale oil leases available. Harold may beleive his words are true...and maybe they are. But apparently Shell Oil hasn't bought the idea yet. If they had they would be producing a lot of shale oil today. They have all the capex needed...all they ever had to do was pull the trigger. And apparentl oil over $100/bbl wasn't incentive enough.
There is a lot more natural gas.
Guess I'm not so naive as to believe Bachman, or any other politician for that matter, doesn't know exactly what they are saying. May the best liar win is the rule in American politics. These folks spend considerable time carefully analyzing the public mood/knowledge level and like amount of time preparing what they say. Politician rely on the ignorance of the masses to get elected. I don't know a soul that researches anything. They rely on Fox News and BS Internet sites for their information.
I sure chuckled when Palin said "I can see Russia from my house". Americans thought she didn't know the difference. Nope, she relied on Americans not knowing the difference. These folks are simply revealing their true opinion of us.
A million monkeys sitting at a million typewriters for a million years might produce Hamlet. Though humans can be crafty, uncanny brilliance requires a large measure of ignorance. It's easy to brave the cave of monsters if you never knew it was inhabited and never happened to bump into one.
CodeMonkeys76
The probability of even producing "TO BE OR NOT TO BE, THAT IS THE QUESTION." is astronomically remote, even with billions of monkeys over the entire life of the universe. i.e. not in any rational consideration of "probability". See The Mathematics of Monkeys and Shakespeare. The probability of producing the simplest self reproducing cell is remote beyond all the particles in the universe mixing for the fastest possible speed (inverse Planck time) for the entire life of the universe. To claim otherwise is to believe contrary to all scientific evidence of chemical probability. e.g. See No Free Lunch
Right. The analogy was weak. The monkeys are merely a source of entropy, like cosmic rays etc that produce random mutations. You also need a fitness function, and reuse/recombination of successful ideas.
So if you had the monkeys typing away and a human selecting the most Hamlet like manuscripts, discarding the worst, copying the best, snipping the copies in half, and then had the monkeys choosing which fragments would be pasted together and how, sometimes typing/changing a letter here and there it might take less than a million years for the monkeys to produce Hamlet.
But although producing Hamlet is an uncannily brilliant achievement for a group of monkeys, nobody would say the monkeys in question are particularly good playwrights.
People each apply their own selection function to the ideas they find around them, pasting them together, often with little regard to overall consistency. The smart ones may be good at guessing which ideas have a good chance of being worthwhile, but to act *uncannily* brilliant almost requires a fortunate error. Luck is sometimes smarter than you.
Watch evolution in action:
http://www.qubit.devisland.net/ga/
http://www.obitko.com/tutorials/genetic-algorithms/example-function-mini...
CodeMonkey76
Those are cute to mimic math function optimization.
However, they are deceptively simple for a functioning cell, let alone an organism or mammal.
For a quantitative professional modeling of the impact of mutations on genomes with full population dynamics modeling see: Mendel's Accountant. "Mendel's Accountant (MENDEL) is an advanced numerical simulation program for modeling genetic change over time . . ."
zeke was saying that it's naive to think that politicians don't know what they are saying, that often they lie. While they no doubt lie, I was making the analogy between politicians saying apparently unreasoned things, and monkeys typing random letters on paper - sometimes the troglodytes type something that works as a play. ( though rarely ). I was trying to make the point that it happens more than one might guess at first.
'Never assume malice where stupidity will suffice,' was the general thrust.
I really wasn't trying to make a point about evolution in biology let alone theological implications. I was addressing evolution of ideas and behavior in people ( esp politicians ). Although anyone having trouble believing that evolution could develop randomness into orderly forms might find the genetic algorithm/evolutionary computation toy demos I linked to food for thought.
And those monkeys would have produced a few Dr. Seuss books, maybe a Crichton work, and some pulp romance novels along the way too.
Remember, each teaspoonful of the primordial soup offered billions of opportunities for molecules to link up. And there were billions of teaspoons of primordial soup. And with a million lightning strikes each day for a billion years to start things off.
So it isn't all that unlikely that we crawled out of the slime.
Organic molecules form spontaneously under all kinds of conditions. The Miller-Urey experiment was a huge success, and 7 amino acids and 11 nucleobases formed in a frozen ammonium cyanide mixture held in a lab freezer for 25 years. Whether the Earth had open water or was an iceball at the time (the Sun was ~30% dimmer 4 billion years ago), organic molecules will form where there are the raw materials and energy.
Palin never said she could see Russia from her house. That was Tina Fey (Saturday Night Live)
You're right...
"You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXL86v8NoGk
But the joke was that she felt that gave her foreign policy credentials.
It's either ironic or brilliant that you illustrated your point with Palin's quote. Why? Because, actually, Palin never said it. It was Tina Fey portraying Palin on Saturday Night Live.
Palin did say you can see Russia from Alaska, which is both true and meaningless, since the area is desolate.
Palin never said "she could see Russia from her house". That was from Saturday night live. She said Russia can be seen from parts of Alaska on a good day. both of which are very remote.
This post inspired me to do a little more digging into how the demand side fits into the picture, including the correlation of gasoline price with crude oil supply and demand. The result is that there is no correlation. Gasoline is highly correlated with global oil prices, period. If anything, the WTI - Brent spread could be seen to imply that we are relatively oversupplied vs. global markets.
Further, additional drilling in untapped areas would have only marginal results. Opening the entire outer continental shelf to drilling would create as much additional daily supply twenty years from now as has been created in the last two years under the Obama administration. It didn't make a difference in gasoline prices now, and it won't in twenty years once production from this new source approaches its peak. The same argument applies to opening up more drilling in Alaska or the Arctic.
Fantastic! I'll vote for her; at last somebody who believes in America and ordinary people....loving her.
Thanks again RR - this pretty much sums it up.
I'm just puzzled with all them strange people who like to become your Prez... I , at this stage, actually believe a lottery would produce a fine Prez for you.
Coming from Europe:All repub candidates(excluding Ron Paul/Huntsman) should be sent to a mental asylum.Sometimes I wonder how did USA become a world leader with such idiots as a product of your society.
"Sometimes I wonder how did USA become a world leader with such idiots as a product of your society."
I think the question is whether we can remain a world leader with the recent and current crop of political candidates. I for one believe that over the past decade or so we are running the country into the ground and alienating countries around the world.
Coming from Australia: The answer may simply be that you won't remain "world leaders" with your current crop. Good grief, this whole post is about some looser who thinks they can control the price of oil with the inspiring policy of simply sucking/digging more oil/coal out of US soil. What a pity.
To hole-in-head: Hey, what about Colin Powell???? What a cool dude, when he said "just believe me" in those Iraq War "battlefied report" press conferences, I did.
Hey, what about Colin Powell?
*coff* My Lai Massacre *coff*
you've gone and wrecked my day
http://www.usvetdsp.com/story13.htm
We all have leaders who are in total denial of all our problems. Here in Britain government policies have actively encouraged the disintegration of the traditional family and its replacement by an unsocialised mess of lost inadequates who are totally dependant on state largess for survival. Still the government, through the tax and benefits systems, encourages them to breed, and still the government blames them, and society at large, for their problems. Talk about idiots running the show. In America there is a morphing belief system which is replacing a property owning democracy with an oligarchy of the mega rich ruling an ever impoverished and unrepresented mass. Different mechanisms ending with the same result in other words, a huge dependent mass of people ruled by a small wealth owning elite.
Interestingly some of the very rich in France have just signed a petition asking to pay MORE tax. Perhaps they remember 1789?
I have been reading oil drum for about a year now at least once a week..I am a journeyman electrician with about two years to become a master electrician. I thought with the new administration that the U.S would have an "energy revolution" in which I would be able to find tons of work in my field...solar and a/c and d/c electric who knows possibilities could be endless etc...that has not happened but I did see a recruiter in my area and they are looking for people to go to Williston North Dakota to work in the oil wells. I could make three years wages in one year, would be gone from my family a lot and be in the cold a lot and maybe lose some of my contacts here. I am also a frequent reader of Automatic earth and they are stating that with an economic slowdown oil prices will fall below what they were in 2008; with my luck that would be right about after my required training. I am wondering have I missed the train on the wrong train or should I sit tight and be right?
"I am wondering have I missed the train on the wrong train or should I sit tight and be right?"
As far as jobs go, North Dakota has a pretty bright future with respect to oil production. If you are looking for stable income, that isn't a bad way to go.
That's sort of why I initially went to work for ConocoPhillips. I thought that an oil company was likely to be a stable place even as oil supplies depleted, because then people are going to seek oil at an even greater rate. This industry has always been cyclical, but it does employ a lot of people.
I think that it's useful to consider the 1930's case history. Oil prices hit a monthly low in the summer of 1931, and rose at an average rate of 11%/year from the summer of 1931 to the summer of 1937. It appears that global oil consumption only declined one year, in 1930, rising thereafter. There were reportedly three million more cars in the US in 1937, than in 1929. China of course it to our current predicament as the US was to the Thirties, and there are hundreds of millions of people in developing countries who want to buy their first car, and many of them are able to buy them.
My bet is that we will continue to see, on an annual basis, a cyclical pattern of higher annual highs and higher annual lows in oil prices. For example, the annual low of $62 that we saw in 2009 exceeded all prior annual (nominal) oil prices before 2006, and was about twice the low reached during the previous year over year decline in oil prices, in 2001. But my opinion is worth what you are paying for it.
As Robert noted, the oil & gas industry is quite cyclical, but the key point is to position yourself on the non-discretionary side of the economy and I think that two of the best non-discretionary sectors are food & energy. We are hearing stories of tanker truck drivers in the oil patch being offered six figure starting salaries.
The most, the biggest and the best equipped whaling ships were launched after the whale catch peaked.
You've probably got twenty or thirty good years in the oil industry, if you want it (and if BAU holds together that long, of course).
Some people find that their conscience won't let them work in destructive industries, though. They're happier working with something they believe in, even at a tenth the pay.
North Dakota in general may be an interesting prospect for you if you are having difficulty finding sufficient work where you live.
Its economy has been good for years...oil, farming, military bases, and also lignite mining and wind farms, and all the economic multiplying activity that flows from that.
The city of Minot has lost ~4,000 houses in a city of 40,000 folks from the floods this summer.
MInot, before the floods, had no available housing...the Baaken oil workers have rented the hotel rooms, apartments, houses..there were even 'man-camps' set up on the Western outskirts if Minot to house these folks in trailers/shacks.
Also, the USAF tore down all the base housing at Minot AFB and replaced it with new housing, losing a net of 600 housing units in the process, as it replaced four-plexes with duplexes and single-family units (not very smart energy-usage-wise, even thought the new houses are better insulated). The agreement was that the city of Minot would step up and build more housing for the military folks to live in town.
Then the AF opened a second B-52H squadron at Minot AFB, adding to the military housing need...then the oil workers came...then more businesses opened down town attracting more people, then the floods came and destroyed ~ 4,000 houses.
I would hazard a guess that you may find sufficient work in Minot as an electrician.
Of course, on problem with moving up there right now is finding a place to live...
If the Wind farms continue to sprout in ND, perhaps you could use your electrician skill in that field...oil, hosuing replacement, wind farms...perhaps many opportunities for you there...
Robert, I think you underestimate Michele. She may very well tell the truth. Because even for dumb politicians - or rather because they are dumb - it is easy to bring the gas price down to USD 2.
How? It is so simple: Just make sure that the US gets a snappy economical crash. You can be sure that with the world's largest oil consumer on the floor the oil prices will smack down as well - just like they did in 2009. Why shouldn't this trick work again? So don't trust too much in the stupidity of our leaders. They might in fact fail to fail!
Why shouldn't this trick work again? Posted by Drillo
It will work for maybe a couple of months. But an economic downturn capable of reducing the price sufficiently to allow $2 gasoline will leave the producers sitting on a few MBD of spare capacity. I see no reason that they will not cut production to bring the price up to the $75-$85 range. Apparently this is the upper price range before visible negative economic fallout becomes apparent. And $80 oil will likely translate to around $3 gasoline.
Antoinetta III
I was listening to NPR this morning on the way to class (getting myself hence to the non discretionary medical side of the economy-the farm is superb as a homestead but heading toward worthless as a source of income).
They had an obviously high class energy analyst talking about oil prices.He sounded like a guy who would have dozen parchments on his office wall testifying to his expertise and membership in lofty professional organizations, not to mention an Oxford diploma.
He attributed the price spread between Brent and WTI to worries about the American economy.
Now I read this three possible ways:
The guy is a polished professional liar-a mouth piece for hire;
He is a professional dunce;
Or all the very knowledgeable industry professionals here on TOD who have explained the price spread as being due to a lack of pipeline capacity from the interior to the coast are themselves dunces.
My money is on him being a mouth piece, except for the fact that over the years I have learned that insiders in any profession are all too apt to be dunces incapable of thinking independently, or else spineless collecters of salaries and speaking fees unwilling to publicly utter the truth.
So maybe he IS a dunce;or maybe he just doesn't want to say anything controversial , so as to be invited back onto the show again-this speculation being based on my personal opinion that the show is deliberately shoveling out the pablum to it's listeners.This of course indicates that the producers have (gasp!) an agenda of THIER OWN -Who'd a thunk it???????!!!!
Shades of RUSH LIMBAUGH!!!!
My point is that there is but very little said in public by anybody that can be taken literally.
Of course Michele is , to put it as kindly as possible, a poor choice as a presidential candidate.She may actually be as dumb as a fence post,but the odds are that she is fairly bright, if uninformed.
She would still be saying the same things even if she WERE to be scientifically literate.
Remember that only a minor fraction of the public actually knows anything about the sciences-meaning biology, chemistry, physics, geology and so forth.
All professional political operators dealing with campaigns recognize and take cognizance of this fact.
You will never for instance hear a democratic operative making fun of fundamentalists/evangelicals in any forum that is popular with the black voter for -simply because a heck of a lot of blacks are fundamentalists/ evangelicals who happen to vote-like a lot of my own relatives.
Everybody else, excepting the literate handful, IS operating on faith.
My old Daddy puts his faith in the KJB and his pastor-this has worked out perfectly well for him, as he has led a long, productive and happy life and stands an excellent chance of breaking the century mark.It is not his fault that he was born in the heart of one of the poorest parts of the country and grew up the child of hard working but hard up and uneducated parents during the thirties.He could have been a lawyer, or an engineer, had he had a mentor of any sort to encourage him.
Now it happens that I know a bunch of young people who are ALMOST totally ignorant of the sciences-maybe they learned a LITTLE bit in junior high school or by watching tv, although tv is more about dilithium crystals than knowledge.Nevertheless they do believe in climate change and protecting the environment-if either issue ever crosses thier mind.
If you will stop and think about this for a minute, you simply must realize that these young people, being wholly incapable of evaluating the evidence for themselves, are accepting climate change as a MATTER OF FAITH. The fact that they have put thier faith in a superior new sort (ahem!) of priesthood which can actually predict the future and work miracles on occasion( ranging from steam engines to cell phones and organ transplants ) is a very good thing of course-BUT THEY ARE STILL OPERATING ON FAITH.
Just like my old Daddy.
Our minds work this way-were created to work this way by that old blind watchmaker evolution.
There is an old lawyer in the nieghborhood who graduated with distinction from the Unviersity of Virginia.He doesn't believe in either peak oil or climate change;he simply puts his faith in a different set of "authorities".Nobody can accuse him of being either stupid or ignorant-except possibly in this particular area of knowledge.
Successful political operatives never forget this basic truth, even if they don't savvy evolution......
Those of us who really have a serious grasp of what is really going on in the world are few and far between-consider for instance that while this site is a very popular one, and one that sets very high editirial standards, as sites of this type go, there are probably not over a couple of dozen university faculty members who post comments here on a fairly regular basis-out of the many thousands who should have visited had they made even a cursory effort to explore the topics of ff depletion and peak oil.
I myself found this site in just a few minutes by searching "peak oil".
Remember the basic rules of human behavior, as revealed by scientific study-particularly evolutionary psychology. One of those rules is that the mid brain is basically the boss-not the neocortex.
Most people would rather die than think-Betraand Russell iIrc.
What's misleading is for the media to assert that "Oil prices" are below $90, when every index of consequence except for WTI is over $100. And in any case, as Undertow has shown, Mid-continent refiners are simply pocketing the spread between WTI and global oil prices as higher refining profits.
Actually, it is our Reptilian brain who is the boss.
If you use your neo-cortex to think about it some, it has to be so; from an evolutionary survival point of view.
There are certain aspects to survival that must take precedence over all other brain functions.
Fight or flight is one of them.
If you spot a snake in the grass or a tiger behind the bushes, all other thinking functions have to shut down immediately so that full energy can be given to the immediate danger.
The amygdala is activated, thus placing the brain in fright mode. Parts of the primitive or reptilian brain then make the instantaneous decision to freeze like a deer in head lights or run for your life or stand and fight.
"You" are not even involved in the decision making process.
The "you" in you can make up excuses for how brave it was later on. But at the instant of danger, it was completely taken out of the loop.
Politicians love to activate the amygdala= fright/hate hijack center in the midbrain because that shuts down all rational thought. Heaven forbid that voters should actually think!
You are correct at the most basic deep level about the reptilain portion of the brain and our behavior -I was thinking more about the next level up wherein the social impulses begin to make themselves felt.Reptiles are mostly rather solitary and don't interact much as compared to mammals in general and apes in particular.
So in most day to day situations for modern humans the amyglada is only seldom activated -when we are about to get run down crossing the street or getting mugged for instance.
Or as you point out-when we are being manipulated by politicians;also by preachers, advertisers, insurance salesmen, drill sargeants........
Actually it still gets a lot of stimulation, doesn't it? ;-)
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence, clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary." - H.L. Mencken
This one makes it around every election cycle.
http://www.jumbojoke.com/do_you_have_a_thinking_problem.html
Pretty funny on one level. Sad on another, especially given the lack of thinking on all sides of the political spectrum in the USA.
the farm is superb as a homestead but heading toward worthless as a source of income
When, in the lifetime of anyone on this board, has 'the farm' been a good source of income?
depends on the size of the farm.and the and crop planted there.
Useful knowledge is often co-opted by religions. There's no cosmic copyrights/patents.
Thou shalt not sticketh thy screwdriver into thy light socket lest thou getteth electrocuted.
(unrelated) My favorite article of faith: That which will happen will resemble that which has happened. I.E. there will be no miracles.
I don't think so, not quite. They trust the sources, but one of the things they trust is that the evidence and reasoning behind the conclusion are good. Matters of pure faith have no evidence.
As I pointed out in Drumbeat when Bachmann first made this statement, it's not enough to just crash the economy into recession/depression. You also have to have strong dollar policies to support its value against world currencies. Otherwise the price of oil in dollars rises as the demand cut forces a fall.
Of course, as a good teabagger, Bachmann does support strong dollar policies - which means a rise in interest rates to ensure the value of the dollar is maintained. That would also push more companies and individuals to the wall, making the depression worse and further cutting demand.
So yep, looks like she's all set up to deliver, just not in the way the teabaggers would like.
My own sense is that the demand situation is changing a lot faster than a BAU situation would indicate, in that there are a tremendous number of cars being purchased in China (now nearly 20 million per year, mostly representing net increases in the automotive population)as well as, presumably, in some other places. So we may get to a situation where demand melts away in the old USA (and Europe)and gets slurped up at an equal rate elsewhere in the world, so prices don't particularly decline even in a deep double dip.
As far as NPR goes, it seems in the last couple years for their national programming they have been particularly careful to mostly parrot the "accepted main stream beliefs" regarding resource and economic issues, as reflected in their wise words from various experts. However, I seem to remember one of the NPR hosts recently stating categorically that science shows there is global warming, which was, in my mind, a cooling breeze (at least metaphorically.)
- it is easy to bring the gas price down to USD 2.
How? It is so simple: Just make sure that the US gets a snappy economical crash.
One could also redefine (or perhaps just go back to the Coinage Act) the Dollar.
or the us military could generate their own fuel using nuclear power. They are the biggest uses of oil.
You mention the 1930's as a barometer of the future but I think you are forgetting what was going on in the rest of the world..WW2? I think the Germans, Japanese and the rest of the world needed lots of oil to make tanks and planes etc...While I agree it is important to look back at history it is not always the same...."history doesn't repeat itself,,, it rhymes. It is going to take something big to knock this ball into the other side of the field, war or something similar I believe. With the politicians we are left with does not look good.
Maybe fuel will be made synthetically by using coal and nuclear power. Or perhaps taking natural gas and making DME for transportation fuel. If the Chinese would do this then the price of oil would drop.
WW2? I think the Germans, Japanese and the rest of the world needed lots of oil to make tanks and planes etc
This is TOD. Here the world is looked at via oil-coated lenses.
Thusly the argument was made that WWII was won on Texas Oil and the Liberty Ships that moved that oil to the battlefields.
These same lenses then point out Ammonia production for explosives + oil production needed a market - and with a hand wave - here we are.
You can add Donald Trump to the list. He claims all he has to do is go to OPEC and they will immediately drop the price of oil. All it takes is leadership. Apparently he is unaware of that little shop down the street from his offices called, MYMEX. Hmmmm, I wonder what they do in NYMEX?
I already took on "The Donald's" silliness:
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2011/04/21/i-cant-take-donald-trump-...
Possible methods to decrease the price at least temporarily:
1. Wait for another oil price shock to occur and do nothing. The price will collapse probably sending the retail price of gasoline below $2 / gallon.
2. Flood the market with oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).
3. Apply a large tariff to imports crashing demand and thus reducing transportation.
4. Drastically devalue the U.S. dollar making imports expensive and thus reducing demand.
5. Apply a price control to gasoline creating shortages.
6. Rapidly invade several oil producing nations and take their oil.
Only skimmed , but no one noted this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-leadership/post/with-call-me-cr...
Huntsman calling the Republican crazies on oil prices and the the FED.
The fact that someone like Bachman can run for the highest office of the number one country in the world totally explain why any counter measure to peak oil is doomed to fail. That a parts of the population is ready to vote for her shows the complete lack of understanding on how complex system works and how our modern world function.The problem is that in a social group the average capacity of the leader to act is bound to the lowest common denominator idea people can grasp.
Her candidacy fully highlights the flaws of our current BAU democratic system which breeds the majority as individualistic, egocentric , consummers with no idea of whatever is going on.
It truly fits the premonition of Winston Churchill "The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter."
Furthermore the system with its short term election process tends to simplify issues and reduce the possibility of long term heavy solutions to be implemented.
Would be interesting to see a country implementing a law that in order to have the right to vote you must own solar panels on all your property to see how it might change the approach to politics, a photovoltaitocracy ;)
Dictators, like Chavez, can control the price of oil and gas in their country - Venezuela. President of the US has no control over the price of oil and gas in the US. It is that simple.
Sure they can lower gasoline tax, but who would do that?
So the conclusion must be that our dear Michelle is planning on becoming a Chavez-like dictator.
Some dictator - Chavez has been elected three times now, the last time with over 60% of the vote. Sure the government of Venezuela can set the price that the state-run oil company sells gasoline at, but that doesn't make Chavez a dictator any more than imposing wage and price controls made Nixon a dictator in the 1970s.
The elections Chavez wins are not exactly clean. He goes after the press anytime they are critical of him. He also persecutes his political opponents. And Chavez buys votes with social programs . . . mostly above-board but it isn't all above-board.
All of that happens everywhere else too.
No. The USA courts don't tell a newspaper to stop publishing because it is criticizing the president.
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-venezuelan-weekly-must-stop-publishing-02355...
If Chavez was really such a protector of democracy then why would he be defending a 42+ year reigning dictator in Libya?
But we do have politicians that go after the press anytime they are critical. And some law makers that target right wing radio and some that try to defund some media such as NPR.
I think Chavez' primary concern here is limiting economic imperialism.
I'm not denying any of that...but I don't think it's any more undemocratic in Venezuela than in the US or other nominal democracies, say Italy, for example. Hell, the Carter Center went down there in 2004 and found the recall vote (an attempt by the opposition to recall Chavez) was counted cleanly and fairly. Wish I could say the same thing about the 2000 US presidential election.
Social programs are no more buying votes than boondoggle defense programs or lowering the tax on capital gains, IMHO. Somehow it seems to get labeled as such when poor people are the beneficiaries, though.
It is not being a dictator that matters, it is being the leader of major oil exporter that matters.
Voters should be required to take a test on the powers and duties of the American president before being allowed to vote. What they expect the president to do, and thus what candidates promise, is not what presidents do.
> What they expect the president to do?
Starting more pre-WWIII undeclared wars?
Anti-war petition, just in case... --
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/free-libya
In the event of another 30's style deflationary depression, $2 gasoline remains a possibility. Of course the vast majority of us won't have the $2 to buy a gallon...
There is a third possibility, which is that she has no clue about the math, but that the intended message is "if you belong to the oil and gas industry, I will do everything in my power, if elected, to remove whatever legal and regulatory constraints you desire to see gone. So give my campaign lots of money. (In return, don't stop me from forcing rape victims to give birth to their babies.)" And that may be a promise she fully intends to keep.