AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (33 comments)

  1. MacDaddyWatch

    Can you imagine the nationwide energy boom that will exist soon right after the incompetent Obama is given the boot?

    Jobs, incomes, consumption, savings, investment, net worth growth, standard of living, wealth and prosperity will soon follow.

    1. The Unknown One

      The re-election of Obama, or the election of Romney, will have precisely zero effect on US oil production. None whatsoever.

  2. The Unknown One

    “At the current exponential pace of production increases, it’s possible that Texas will set new records for state oil output within the next year, surpassing the previous state records for oil output set in the early 1980s of 80,000 barrels of monthly output and 2.6 million bpd.”

    Texas’ oil production record was actually recorded in the early 70′s, when it reached nearly 3.5 million barrels/day.

    LINNK

    1. Thanks, the EIA data only goes back to the early 1980s, so I didn’t have easy access to the oil output in Texas in the 1970s. I’ve updated the post to reflect that information you provided, thanks again. Sorry for my mistake.

      1. Something a bit more credible than wikipedia:

        2005 Oil & Gas Map of Texas

        Bureau Of Economic Geology University of Texas…

        1. The Unknown One

          That showed the exact same production profile the Wiki article did. Early 70′s record production.

          1. Well then wiki on lad…

            LMAO!

  3. morganovich

    unknown-

    while you might be right in texas, how would opening the massive resource in ANWR not increase oil production?

    that is a truly huge reservoir of oil.

    1. The Unknown One

      If Romney tried to open ANWR to drilling, lawsuits would hold it back at least 5 years (maybe more), an exploration phase with just a handful of production would last another 5-10 years, and then maybe somewhere around 2025-30 or later you might see decent production numbers from the area, assuming exploration efforts are successful and there is as much oil there as currently assumed.

      Romney will be long gone by then, even if he’s elected to 2 terms.

      1. morganovich

        you seem to be moving the goalposts here.

        you said:

        “The re-election of Obama, or the election of Romney, will have precisely zero effect on US oil production. None whatsoever.”

        now you are hedging and saying immediate effect and postulating all manner of lawsuits etc and guessing how long they might take.

        opening anwr WOULD have a huge effect.

        when might be a matter of some complexity, but it’s high time we got started with anwr and a number of other promising sites.

        i think you are being far too hyperbolic in your claims.

        1. The Unknown One

          If you want to know the truth, I do not even think Romney would be able to open ANWR to drilling. Bush was unable to do so, so I have no reason to believe Romney would have any better luck. My description about Romney opening ANWR was merely hypothetical – a hypothetical I give a low probability of occurring. Thus, in a realistic scenario there will be zero difference in oil production if either Romney or Obama wins.

          1. morganovich

            translation:

            i am going to keep changing my argument until i find a way to wiggle out of having said somehting i cannot defend.

            now you claim “hypothetical”.

            it certainly would have been easier to just claim “i do not think he can do it” in the first place.

            this seems like a highly disingenuous discussion tactic.

            i think you are just wriggling around and trying to save face by changing your views, which means there is little point in continuing to converse with you.

          2. The Unknown One

            BTW, here’s another thought: If Romney is elected, he’s more likely to have a harder monetary and fiscal policy than Obama. Thus the dollar will be stronger under Romney than Obama. When the dollar goes up, the price of oil goes down. So oil prices are likely to be higher under Obama, which will encourage more exploration and production in areas which would be unprofitable with lower oil prices under Romney.

      2. morganovich

        that seems like a dodge that looks at only one factor.

        a stronger dollar might make imports cheaper, but then cheaper oil would also have a positive effect on the economy leading to more growth, which, in turn, might lead to demand for more energy and more oil as an input into chemicals and plastics etc.

        1. The Unknown One

          That doesn’t matter. Let’s say Romney got elected. Let’s say he drastically reduced the budget deficit, replaces Bernanke with a monetary hawk, and so on. The US dollar index would soar to, like, 100 from the current 80, but this also means the price of oil would tumble. $60/barrels seems about right. At $60/barrel, a lot of the projects resulting in the Texas oil production boom Mark has described in this article would be scaled back, and thus, the oil boom would come to a halt. You’d probably get more oil imports instead.

          1. morganovich

            maybe. or maybe the economy would perform so well as a result that the demand for oil would rise and bring price back up with it.

            you are making an awful lot of assumptions that are based on a small part of the picture.

            what you describe could happen, but then again, perhaps not.

            this extreme monetary tightening and the effects you posit are far more speculative than a simple opening up of anwr, some offshore drilling, and an increase in the number of available federal leases and a more accommodating epa.

            you are really all over the place on this with your claims and scenarios.

            you pick the ones that suit you and ignore the others and choose the effects of those polices that fit your narrative while ignoring the obvious ones that do not.

          2. morganovich

            further, let’s say romney gets elected and takes the tax rates lower, particularly capital gains. that would spur investment and up demand and exploration. how does that net out with higher rates etc? well, that’s very complex. i’m not sure anyone could say with any precision.

            but in that face of that, you claim of “precisely zero effect” seems absurd and indefensible.

            you simply cannot make that claim. it could have a very large effect. it could have a small one. it depends on a huge number of variables about which there is a great deal of room to disagree, but to claim “zero effect” just seems ridiculous.

            you are just trying to bluster your way out of having said somehting foolish and digging a deeper and deeper hole in so doing (and contradicting yourself to boot).

  4. Breaker Morant

    I have often wondered if the “Fracking Boom” and resultant jobs throughout the supply chain were removed from the economy how bad would things be on a nationwide basis.
    I think we would have tipped over.

  5. The Unknown One

    morganovich, it was you who first brought up the subject of ANWR. When I first said Romney or Obama would make no difference, I was assuming ANWR would not be developed under either president. Once you brought up the subject I entertained the hypothetical, but I do not believe that hypothetical is realistic. Thus, my original statement is the most likely outcome.

    1. The Unknown One

      Also, I was originally responding to this from MacDaddyWatch:

      “Can you imagine the nationwide energy boom that will exist soon right after the incompetent Obama is given the boot?”

      Given the timetable development of ANWR would require, there would not be any “soon right after” effect of Obama’s removal from office. I do not consider 2025-30 to be “soon right after.”

      1. morganovich

        but that’s not what you said.

        you said: ““The re-election of Obama, or the election of Romney, will have precisely zero effect on US oil production. None whatsoever.””

        if you had said “i’m not sure how soon it will occur” that would have been one thing, but that was not how you responded. you seem determined to move the goalposts here away from what you said.

        further, he said energy, not oil.

        i think that coal would soar on a romney election as it would get the EPA off their backs. all the coal fired plants that look to need to close in the coming years due to new regulations would be fine again preserving our electric generation capacity and making a vast domestic energy source more useful again.

        1. The Unknown One

          When I respond to someone who says an energy boom would occur right after Obama got booted from office, I see no need to explain every single caveat and possibility. Otherwise I could go on for paragraphs, which is unnecessary and no one would read the whole thing anyway. It is sufficient to state my expected result, directly in response to his statement, which is what I did. Furthermore, I cannot anticipate whatever objections someone might bring up; when you brought up the topic of ANWR, I entertained that possibility after the fact. But in all likelihood it’s not going to happen anyway, so it does not really need to be seriously considered. In the small chance it does happen, it won’t make a difference for at least 10 years, likely more. For other reasons, notably the stronger dollar you’d likely get under Romney, even if ANWR did happen in 5 years or so, the lower price of oil would curtail production elsewhere. So even with all the caveats, it would *still* make no difference.

          And speaking of moving goalposts, it’s awfully convenient of you to suddenly decide MacDaddyWatch was also talking about coal in an article about oil production.

          1. morganovich

            unknown-

            he specifically said energy, not oil. you seem to keep forgetting that this text is all there to be checked. now you want to blame me because you only answered part of his issue?

            i was just pointing out that you did not address his whole comment as well as the fact that you have not yet provided any valid arguments for your point of view and that you keep changing your story.

          2. morganovich

            i also note:

            you have now made 2 contradictory arguments.

            first you claimed ““The re-election of Obama, or the election of Romney, will have precisely zero effect on US oil production. None whatsoever.”

            then you claimed:

            “If Romney is elected, he’s more likely to have a harder monetary and fiscal policy than Obama. Thus the dollar will be stronger under Romney than Obama. When the dollar goes up, the price of oil goes down. So oil prices are likely to be higher under Obama, which will encourage more exploration and production in areas which would be unprofitable with lower oil prices under Romney.”

            which implies that a romney win WOULD affect oil production in the US.

            you can’t have it both ways. either he does have effect or he doesn’t.

            you are claiming both.

            then you make blanket statements like “this is fantasy” etc based on logical fallacy of “so and so could not do it, so he cannot either”.

            you could have said that both clinton and carter failed to pass a major healthcare bill too. it was a classic third rail in american politics. and then someone did it.

            you seem to be all bluster and no facts or logic. (and self contradictory to boot)

            does this sort of style usually work for you?

        2. Max Planck

          Uh, some of us thinking people don’t WANT “coal to soar” because it’s just raw poison. There is no such thing as “clean coal” and with Natural Gas prices being what they are, this is the Blockbuster Video of the energy complex.

          This pandering to the coal industry by Romney is another reason no thinking American should vote for him- you don’t poison your population just to satisfy your energy needs, or keep prices down.

          It’s not worth it. The death of the coal industry is as much due to “creative destruction” as policy.

        3. Max Planck

          ““If Romney is elected, he’s more likely to have a harder monetary and fiscal policy than Obama. Thus the dollar will be stronger under Romney than Obama. When the dollar goes up, the price of oil goes down. So oil prices are likely to be higher under Obama, which will encourage more exploration and production in areas which would be unprofitable with lower oil prices under Romney.”

          Another phony argument- do you really believe that something as volatile as currency rates will affect the production plans of an oil drilling and exploration enterprise?

          You’re playing with yourself.

      2. MacDaddyWatch

        Once the path is cleared to drill and intentions are announced by a new administration and anxious drillers, the news will spread throughout the USA in a heartbeat. Every stock and commodity trading desk will be aware of the change in less than 10-seconds. The impact on pricing will be immediate and come years before the first drop is ever pumped.

        2035? Get serious. You have no idea–you are clueless–how quickly the desired impact and change will occur.

        1. The Unknown One

          You live in a fantasy world. The lawsuits alone will stall anything for at least 5 years.

    2. morganovich

      for which you have provided zero evidence except one argument by logical fallacy.

      to claim GB could no do it says nothing. lots of presidents have done what others could not. that’s not even an argument, just shoddy thinking masquerading as one.

      the house has repeatedly passed resolutions on anwr. so has the senate committee. it’s just harry reid not letting it onto the floor.

      romney would have the political capital and basic horse trading skills to go after reid and hold up something he wanted to get the anwr bill debated on the floor.

      it’s quite possible, even likely that the deadlock could be broken. sure, nothing is certain in politics, but you seem to have no basis for your opinion. it’s just bluster to try to get out from under the statement you first made which you cannot defend.

      you are just digging a hole for yourself here.

      1. The Unknown One

        “romney would have the political capital and basic horse trading skills to go after reid and hold up something he wanted to get the anwr bill debated on the floor.”

        This is 100% political fantasy.

        “sure, nothing is certain in politics, but you seem to have no basis for your opinion”

        If you think Romney would magically have more political clout and suddenly and magically be able to get things done that the past 3 republican presidents were unable to do, then you’ve got even less basis for your opinion.

        1. Max Planck

          +1

  6. The issue or non issue of access to federal lands does not apply in Tx or in Nd, in Tx the federal government never owned the empty lands since it was never a territory, as part of annexation Tx got to keep its land. In Nd it appears that 90% of the land is privately owned including the mineral rights. The only place federal lands and the current hot plays interact would be in eastern Mt. Most of the gas hot plays are again on private land. Here of course the issue of do you own the minerals comes up, if you do you want the drilling if you don’t its at best an annoyance and at worst a major hazard. Just like wind turbines in Tx if you are a rancher the turbines take up a little land but provide to you what amounts to free money, and the cows don’t really care one way or the other.

  7. The Unknown One

    “what you describe could happen, but then again, perhaps not.”

    The same is true of the opening of ANWR! You have no real idea whether Romney would be successful in an attempt to allow drilling in ANWR; you’re just speculating he would.

    —————————–

    Let’s get some facts straight:

    FACT: US oil production has increased under Obama, more than any president since Nixon or Johnson. Not Ronald Reagan, and not George Bush were able to accomplish that. Given that fact, one can hardly say Obama is stifling oil production. Since Obama has not been stifling oil production over the past 4 years, there is little reason to believe he will stifle it in the next 4 years.

    In fact, people who study US oil production trends are forecasting a possible re-visting of the early 70′s US oil production record by 2016, or at least around 7.5 million barrels/day, with a possible breaching of the early 70′s record in later years (source, PDF pg. 11). Note in that study that politics aren’t even considered (they’re smart enough to know they need not be). The fact that some people are even *thinking* the old record could be reached or at least approached even under a supposedly anti-oil president should tell you presidents have little or no control over oil production in the US; it’s all about the price of oil and oil extraction technology. Especially since all these new shale plays are overwhelmingly on private land which the federal government has little to no control over, makes the president’s control all the more inconsequential. The president of the US at this point is so inconsequential to US oil production for at least the next 10-20 years, it’s not even worth considering. The only thing that could happen to stop these would be a long-term crash in the price of oil.

    So I repeat: The election of Obama or Romney is going to have zero effect on US oil production. There’s nothing Obama can do to stop it, and given recent production increases there’s no indication he desires to. Those same steep rises in production also indicates the oil industry has been ramping up production at historically unprecedented rates (or nearly so), and thus there is little reason to believe Romney could speed it up any more.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content