Showing posts with label Petrobloggar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Petrobloggar. Show all posts

Sunday, August 03, 2008

Petroblogging: A Modest Proposal on Offshore

After several weeks of dueling on the supposed merits the political tide is turning for offshore drilling. The possibility of opening up most of the coastal U.S. for oil exploration looks more likely as of this week. This change in direction had nothing to do with sound economic strategy or a thorough technical review of the feasibility of increasing offshore drilling. The basis for the looming shift in energy policy is due to people (citizens, politicians, pundits) freaking out over a wrinkle (high gasoline prices) in their daily lives. As is often the case with wide reaching policy changes the patch for this problem is an over reach from policy actors who put offshore drilling into play.

Political Ramifications
At first the spillover from the offshore drilling debate was contained the floor of Congress and cable news shows. Then McCain took hold of the meme and sharpened his sword with it using it to go after Obama. The tactic has seemed to payoff. The latest round of polls from swing states in particular showed McCain gaining ground partially over the fear of high gas prices and Obama's lack of support for a supply side view of the oil world. Even polls on the average person's view of offshore drilling were working in McCain's favor. Who wouldn't take the advice of overly fanaticized and uninformed consumers looking for any magical form of relief from high gasoline prices. The Republican tizzy in the House of representatives on Friday afternoon was probably the last tipping point in the often ignored and seemingly mundane topic of drilling for oil out in the ocean.

The leading edge of the Democratic shift in offshore also came Friday when Obama announed he would suppport a compromise in lifting the offshore drilling moratorium. Obama made the policy statement to the Palm Beach Post in an interview and didn't sound to excited with the revised stance on drilling:
"Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always
supported," he said. "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling
will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce
our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the
establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling
decisions based on science and fact."
That last part about basing decisions on science and fact is a bit ambitious considering how the debate has transpired. Anyway allowing offshore drilling is not the end of the world. I think there is much to be gained in a compromise deal in the way of environmental protections and exploration related revenue.

Let Them Have It
So the oil companies will expand web of drilling platforms up and down the Eastern Seaboard. Does anyone think they are going to jump into the new exploration at full clip? Would it really behoove Exxon or Shell to layout perhaps billions of capital dollars in the near term and quickly begin delivering massive amounts of oil to the world market? Hell no. The last thing they would do is knowingly bottom out the market for crude oil by driving the price down. Did you see their quarterly earnings numbers that were announced last week? That's a cash cow that they aren't going to mess with. So give them a longer leash to explore and drill the entirety of the coastal waters of the U.S. They'll gladly accept the fortuitous turn of events and then sit on the newly available leases as they see fit.

The Compromise Is The Key
Both Obama and McCain are signaling that they would be agreeable to an energy compromise bill that lifts the ban on offshore drilling and throws in other policy objectives related to energy independence. My favorite is the requirement that all oil produced in the offshore sites be sold in the American market. Go right ahead and add that to the compromise. Any oil that does get produced (if they get around to it) will be used to supplant oil from other regions of the world that was destined for the U.S. I think a developing country like China may be interested in buying the redirected supplies of oil not destined to the U.S. markets.

The other key component that should be in the compromise would be the agreement to not open up ANWR as part of the deal. With the vastness of the offshore sites being offered dwarfing ANWR there may be some traction to keep the Alaskan wilderness untouched for the foreseeable future. I haven't heard any major rumblings about opening ANWR up as part of the latest offshore drilling proposals so maybe this would fly.

To achieve real compromise that is beneficial to the greatest number of stakeholders a deal on offshore drilling should include these nuggets:

Structure a revenue sharing system like that used between oil companies and other countries. These profit sharing agreements (PSA) devote a set rate of royalties that paid back to the Federal or state government for leasing the offshore sites for exploration and recovery. This would be on top of the normal leasing revenue.

The Federal portion of the PSA royalties would be directed to an alternative energy development fund. The dollars fed into the fund wold be dedicated to the ellusive Apollo type project for renewable energy that everyone keeps yammering about. The majority of the funding could be directed at spurring R&D through grants to public and private instituions.

The states that benefit from leasing offshore sites should sign a compact that defines their role in revenue sharing and use of the royalty payments. These states stand to benefit handsomely from the production of oil off their shores. Of course with that reward comes the risk of getting slimed and having beach tourism and fishing industry ruined by oil spills. The risk is commensurate with the return. This being the case the compact entered into by the states should require all costs related to oil spills be borne by those states. There should be no Federal bailout of an oil rich Florida or whatever other state decides to take a chance with oil drilling offshore.

Other odds and ends that could be included in the compromise would be requirements to offset carbon emissions from the additional exploration, revisiting CAFE standards and a review of any remaining tax subsidies oil companies are currently receiving to see if they can be phased out.

In the end a successful compromise package will remove offshore drilling from the arsenal of the McCain attack dogs during the campaign and they would be free to focus on other fluff material. The American people in turn get some temporary and psychological relief from their oil price angst. My guess is that in seven to ten years from now oil prices will not have subsided in the least and the once ballyhooed new drilling will not have delivered as promised. Most of the new leases will probably not be producing in the ten year time period. The good news is that the lack of production will have spared coastal states from nasty oil spills.

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Petroblogging: Another Senator Drillmore

Senator Voinovich was in Mansfield today commiserating with constituents on the high (oh so very high) price of oil. The senior senator from Ohio has a multi-pronged approach to getting us out of our oily predicament. He's all for the ever popular "Manhattan Project" for developing new energy sources as well as using less of the black crud. The crux of his plan though is the "drill the shit out of the North America" strategy that resonates with conservative lawmakers and oil tycoons alike. From his remarks carried by the Mansfield News Journal:
Of the President going to Saudi Arabia asking for more oil, Voinovich said he remarked, “If I were King Abdullah, I would have said, ‘Mr. President, you have this great source of oil in ... Alaska — why haven’t you looked into that? And how about the shale oil out west? You’ve got 800 billion barrels of proven reserves. You’ve got vast amounts of shale oil.’ Then I would say, ‘Mr. President, you can get tar sand oil from Canada. And by the way, don’t you have a lot of coal in the U.S.? Why not turn coal into liquids?’"

George starts out sounding good but his talk usually degenerates into the safe for GOP prime time talking points pulled right from the day's memo. He's done the very same with Iraq at times. All very predictable. Why can't our congress peoples, regardless of party, stand up and say there will be no more additional large scale drilling. Furthermore we are all being punished for being shortsighted and letting the thirst for oil money drive our civilization into the ground. That would be refreshing.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Petroblogging: Speculating on Speculation

Once again our eyes and ears are being bombarded by the 24 hour Oil News Cycle. This latest iteration of the quickly evolving narrative has turned to the effects of speculation on oil prices. We still have not spent as much time on the real culprit - demand - as I would like to see.

If you have the time and want some nuts and bolts understanding of how speculation is not the primary cause of our oily woes read this brief paper by Paul Krugman. It comes with some graphs and sexy economic terms like "contango" but it gets to the science of what's going on with spot (short term) and future oil prices. Dr. Krugman has been one of the few liberal voices urging readers to resist the overly simplistic and unproven case that speculators are the root cause of increasing (I hate the word skyrocketing, it is way overused. I once had a finance professor ban the word from all writing assignments) oil prices in lieu of other factors.

In the end the only sure way out of this mess is to use less of the cruddy black stuff not blame traders. Conservation is more than just a virtue its part of the solution. If you still want to blame speculation for the current situation in the oil markets, that's fine. Just consider yourself in the same camp as our double crossing Saudi friends who also share this view.

Drive less, pay less.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sunday, June 01, 2008

Akron METRO's Rate Hike Deception

Not more than three months have passed since voters approved a sales tax increase for Akron METRO and there is already talk of a rate increase. A story in the ABJ that was intended to spotlight commuters switching to public transit to get to their jobs in Cleveland included this bit of news as an aside.

METRO's North Coast Express to Cleveland has see an increase in ridership as hapless commuters are giving up the keys to let METRO do the driving. The increase in use for the route that leaves from Ghent Rd has seen ridership up around fifty percent according to METRO sources quoted in the article. That all makes sense considering the impact that four dollar a gallon gas has on long distance commuters. Turning to public transportation is a win for METRO even when the changes in attitude are due to economic duress.

The snippet that caught my attention though was the admission that METRO is considering a 21% rate hike for the North Coast Express weekly rate:
Gas prices have Metro considering a price increase on the North Coast Express route from $4 to $5 each way. The 10-ride ticket would increase from $33 to $40. Those increases could go into effect in August.
We all understand that Akron METRO is feeling the same pain over rising fuel prices, no surprise there. That's why a proposed quarter percent sales tax increase was put before the voters and approved in March. METRO stated in the media, at its public hearings and in it's own printed election material that a fare increase for the Cleveland lines would be required if the tax increase didn't pass. With the passage of the sales tax increase an extra $18 million a year in revenue will be pouring into the bank in 2009. How long did this change in fortune hold off rate increases? By my count that would be four months.

Seems like the administration wasn't being completely honest with county voters or the riders of the Cleveland express line. One of the key threats to service that was dangled before the public was that same rate hike that is going to be implemented anyway (considering means a done deal). It appears as if METRO will use the source of our angst, high gas prices, as a means to ratchet up fares at will regardless of the approved tax increase. They couldn't possibly have been caught off guard by rising fuel prices so that reason seems tenuous at best. Why not raise the rate by $2 with the stated intent to phase in subsequent increases over time? Wouldn't this be a fairer and more even approach to managing the tax dollars that METRO utilizes?

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Appeasing the Saudis

There are those who would say that groveling to the Saudi King to increase oil production is a job below the pay grade of the US President. The Prez was in Saudi Arabia Friday doing just that because he has always touted his good relationship with the Saudis as leverage when it comes to oil prices. The visit with King Abdullah turned out to be a showcase of how the current administration is appeasing the Saudis. He just wanted one small thing to hold up as a reason why he is not as irrelevant as the rest of the world believes him to be. After reading the headlines yesterday I can't tell what actually transpired. The Saudis announced that they had already boosted produciton after Bush left but that move was not in response to the President's request. The Financial Times reported on the visit as a success with this quote:
The move came as Mr Bush faced intense political pressure at home provide relief from soaring petrol prices ahead of the summer driving season, but he received little credit for the Saudi announcement on Friday.
There were other MSM sources taking that angle including the Washington Times (surprise) and Reuters. The other side of the petrodollar was that the Bush was actually rebuffed by the Saudis. The balance of the reporting I read was that he was blown off. The BBC reported this when it came to a new production increase:
Saudi officials said they were already meeting demand, and had
increased production by 300,000 barrels per day earlier this month.
We are in such a bad position when it comes to oil dependency and respect in the Middle East that having to depend on what mood a Saudi king is in has become a big foreign policy deal. Until things change we'll have less and less leverage. With that in mind your government did manage to reach a deal on allowing the Saudis to develop a nuclear program for energy production. I can't shake the feeling that this is a subtle way of allowing the Saudis to accidentally acquire a nuclear capability to counter the moves being attempted by Iran to do the same thing. In the end you'll still pay $4.00 for a gallon of gasoline.

In review Bush went to Saudi Arabia and was rebuffed on his oil production request but the Saudis got assurances from your government on its continued support of Saudi hegemony in the region. They ended up with US support of a nuclear program, more weapons sales and continued protection from Iranian influence on the backs of the US military. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me. They may not be the our enemies but they're hardly our staunchest ally in the Middle East.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Petroblogging: Greed's Oily Residue

Oil and all the woes it has been causing us seem to be ingrained in the collective conscious of America right now. I think the McClatchy news website will need to add a separate section just for oil stories the way things are going. Fighting for oil, crying about the price of gas and abject paranoia about speculative plots are just some of the noise we're getting inundated with lately. These things speak to the power of the petrodollar which leads to my attempt at petroblogging.

There Will Be Blood in Congress
Big Oil and steadily increasing gas prices have created all sorts of problems for the average minivan driver. On the legislative and policy side there are multiple "fixes" being thrown into the mix in Congress. The Dems are thinking of a multi-faceted approach that includes a windfall profits tax on oil companies (this makes no sense), capping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, taking away tax breaks and cracking down on energy market speculation. A windfall by definition is a one-time increase in profits. The profits Exxon and company are seeing are the normal thing now. So why would a windfall profits tax be applicable in today's situation?

The GOP is looking almost exclusively from the supply side with proposals that call for increased drilling (including in ANWR) and refinery building and the normal emphasis on converting resources to cash. The only proposal that will get widespread support is the cap on the strategic reserve. Politico has a really good run down on the various legislative proposals that are presented in a Factcheck.org fashion.

Is the Gas Tax Holiday Dead?
File this one under Panderer in Chief or When Economists Attack. The McCain/Clinton plan to lower gas prices for the summer driving season using voodoo economics has been fading in popularity, and that's not just my impression. Does it have to do with every economist in the world calling it a bad idea? It seems that the McCain advisers that hatched the plan ignored the cold hard facts of tax incidence theory and went straight for the lame gimmickry of the appeal of a tax holiday. Hillary of course glommed on to the gas tax holiday looking for anyway to get an edge on Obama. Now that she is all but cooked in the race for the nomination, her support of a holiday from gasoline reality doesn't mean much. Enough rational introspection from the media and even average citizens has appeared to relegate this one to the silly season column.

Bush Off to Visit His Saudi Overlords

While we are left to guess what the price at the Circle K station will hit tomorrow the Prez heads off to the Middle East to survey the damage of seven years of failed foreign policy. Every Bush or Cheney Mid East trip of course ends with the requisite stop in Saudi Arabia to engage in royal ass kissing. maybe this trip will be different. It would be nice to see someone going to bat for us and maybe ask the Saudis to increase oil production. Is it possible that W. will threaten to pull out of Iraq and let the crazy Iranians increase their influence even more? Will King Abdullah be scared shitless about growing Shia influence in the region stirring up unrest amongst the population of Shias that inhabit the oil rich eastern part of his kingdom? Maybe the King will choose to hold hands with W. and buy his allegiance with another shiny sword.

It's Not a Bubble

Professor Krugman takes the speculation on speculation to task in yesterday's NYT column. The theory that energy speculators are behind the rapid increase in oil and gas prices has taken hold recently and for good reason. The guys making all of the money on the oil boon are the ones closely connected to the markets and traders that seemingly create the frenzy that is pushing up the price of oil. Krugman refutes this notion with sound economic reasoning. His contention is that speculation requires hoarding of supply to be effective and currently the supplies of oil are at normal or below average levels. Sorry, the oil companies are easy to hate but our dilemma is driven by good ol' supply and demand principles. If we could only get that Iraq occupation thing to work maybe the price would go down.

We're Americans and we ain't drivin' 55 or taking the damn bus to work.