« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Ban All Domestic Drilling NOW!

Warning: The following is Satire.

I am an economists and now I must admit after reading an CBS/AP story that the oil industry is unlike any other market. In other markets, increasing the supply of a good decreases its price because of increased competition. But according to a statistical analysis by the Associated Press, this does not apply.

A statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production by The Associated Press shows no statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump.

Of course politicians have been using our false understanding of economics to persuade us that drilling would actually reduce prices. But as the AP points out:

If more domestic oil drilling worked as politicians say, you’d now be paying about $2 a gallon for gasoline. Instead, you’re paying the highest prices ever for March.

In fact, U.S. oil companies have been fooling us. Not only does increasing supplies NOT reduce prices, it ACTUALLY INCREASES THEM! (Who knew??)

Sometimes prices increase as American drilling ramps up. That’s what has happened in the past three years. Since February 2009, U.S. oil production has increased 15 percent when seasonally adjusted. Prices in those three years went from $2.07 per gallon to $3.58. It was a case of drilling more and paying much more.

And they prove the point by indicating how much we have been increasing our production compared to the past:

U.S. oil production is back to the same level it was in March 2003, when gas cost $2.10 per gallon when adjusted for inflation. But that’s not what prices are now.

WOW! Oil production has increased so MUCH we are producing more oil than we ever have. We now are….producing…eh….the same as…..2003? The rest of their evidence is just as convincing.

When you put the inflation-adjusted price of gas on the same chart as U.S. oil production since 1976, the numbers sometimes go in the same direction, sometimes in opposite directions. If drilling for more oil meant lower prices, the lines on the chart would consistently go in opposite directions. A basic statistical measure of correlation found no link between the two, and outside statistical experts confirmed those calculations.

There you have it conclusive statistical analysis that domestic production has no influence on price (other than as already stated to actually increase it) Actually, thinking about it, this behavior may even occur in other markets. I remember how production of SUVs went up dramatically in the 1990s…and guess what???? So did prices!!! Will the greed of U.S. companies never end? I mean not only do they get an increase in sales but geez then to put a price increase on top of it to boot!

Of course the AP, determines the root of these mistaken theories about increased supplies lowering prices and as you might have guessed it is those Republicans:

Drill, baby, drill has nothing to do with it,” said Judith Dwarkin, chief energy economist at ITG investment research. Two other energy economists said the same thing and experts in the field have been making that observation for decades.

The statistics directly contradict the title of GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s 2008 book “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less,” as well as the campaign-trail claims from the GOP presidential candidates.

The AP shows that many Republicans continue to poison the political debate with this nonsense:

Earlier this month, GOP front-runner Mitt Romney said of his solution to higher gas prices: “I can cut through the baloney … and just tell him, ‘Mr. President, open up drilling in the Gulf, open up drilling in ANWR (the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge). Open up drilling in continental shelf, drill in North Dakota, drill in Oklahoma and Texas.’”

Senator Lisa Murkowski, clearly giving aid to these clearly greedy oil companies, tries to sell this idea:

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said on the Senate floor last week, “With oil prices above $100 a barrel and gasoline soaring toward $4 a gallon, greater production is not a political opportunity, it is a legislative imperative.”

Shame on you Senator! Have we not paid enough for oil with your crazy ideas to increase supply?

We tried Senator Murkowski’s way just last year. As the AP indicates, domestic oil production increased in one month last year ‘as much as the Keystone XL pipeline would produce each month. Guess what happened?

    You guessed it! Prices increased by 10 cents per gallon!

In fact, statistical analysis by several current and former college professors even using “several complicated formulas” came to the same conclusion. As one of these professors concluded:

When U.S. production goes up, the price of gas “is certainly not going down,”

The AP even points out the greed of Former President George Bush and his former oil executive vice President campaigned in 2000:

When Bush and running mate Dick Cheney campaigned in 2000, they argued that as oil executives they could get oil prices down, with Bush saying, “I would work with our friends in OPEC to convince them to open up the spigot, to increase the supply.”

Ah oil buddies. Sure prices fluctuated between a high of $3.11 (of course oil executives claim this was a result of the domestic “supply disruption” due to Hurricane Katrina but we now know if that had been true prices would have fallen with the reduced supplies!) and a low of $2.11 with an average over his term of less than $2.86. But Bush and Cheney were being very clever. They kept prices low until it was clear that they would not be re-elected. As the AP shows:

Yet it was during the last few months of Bush’s term in 2008 that gas prices hit their highest: $4.27 when adjusted for inflation.

I cannot believe how foolish I have been thinking that increasing supplies reduced prices and thinking that suppliers supplied more when prices went up. Clearly, it is increased supplies that cause prices to rise.

Now the world makes so much more sense to me. No wonder electricity prices go up in the summer: Electricity companies are producing more of it! And Disney should be ashamed of how they have expanded the number of attractions at Disney World (EPCOT, Hollywood Studios, Animal Kingdom) I’m sure the price has gone up a result. And we all know how expensive airline travel is around certain holidays…now we know why: I remember reading about how airlines increased the number of flights around certain holidays. Have they no shame?

Clearly, there is only one thing to do. We know how dirty oil is to produce and the environmental damage it can do. We need to ban all domestic drilling. We can save the environment and as the AP analysis shows prices will probably go down!

 

 

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • APA Guy

    That way I can continue to:

    1. subsidize the lazy (overspending = deficits = weak dollar = high oil/gas prices)

    2. save the planet

    3. drain the free market of my resources ($4-5/gal instead of $1-2) – and thus weaken capitalism

    4. give all praise to Obama and the honorable Saul Alinsky

    Did I leave anything out?

    • quill67

      5. Equalize wealth (we’ll all be poorer)

      6. Force people into more densely populated cities so…

      7. Dependent on government for transportation and the government can subsidize transport so more are dependent on government.

  • rsgp

    No offense, Quill, but are you really an economist, or was that part of the satire?

    I have to ask, because I find it quite odd that an economist would make the obvious error you’ve made: implicitly equating directional effect with some substantial magnitude of effect.

    This is simple. The experts (not just those quoted in that article, but generally in my search for non-partisan expert views on this question) say that the expanded drilling that a president could enable would not have a substantial magnitude (size) of effect on prices (not in the short, medium, or even long term). They are NOT saying that, other things equal — i.e., ceteris paribus, one of the most fundamental concepts of economics — more supply (from the U.S. or anywhere else) wouldn’t mean lower prices. On the contrary, I assume they would say that, other things equal, more supply means lower prices. But the question is whether or not the increase in supply in question would lower prices significantly or negligibly, and their point is that it would be negligible, or at least not anywhere near the kind of magnitude many seem to think.

    ok, so there’s direction of effect, and there’s magnitude of effect. Hopefully (particularly if you are indeed an economist) you understand the difference, and won’t continue to mischaracterize an assertion that there wouldn’t be substantial effect with an assertion that there wouldn’t be any effect, other things equal.

    It’s going to hurt the Republican (and conservative) brand if our side continues to push this bogus claim that presidential policy opening up more drilling could bring down gas prices substantially (e.g., Newt’s claim). Eventually, swing voters and young people still forging their political identities/affiliations will learn that it’s bogus, and our side will look like a mix of people who are dishonest and people who fit what Reagan (rightly) said about liberals: “the trouble with our liberal friends is not [just] that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

    So please: Let’s make the case for drilling based on job creation, tax revenues from domestic production, and improving our balance of trade. Those are valid arguments.

    And let’s stop with the baloney that a president opening up more domestic drilling can make a big difference in the price at the pump.

    • quill67

      I am indeed an economist and if the AP had simply written an article saying that domestic production is insufficient to make up for drops in production from other parts of the world then that would have been fine.

      But at every turn they were making it sound like domestic production had no influence on price (because it was insignificant) First, as any energy economist will be fond to tell you, small changes in demand or supply have big impacts on market prices (this is why prices fluctuate so dramatically and why the Core CPI excludes them from their calculations)

      You are absolutely wrong to say that opening up more drilling will not bring down gas prices substantially. It has NEVER been tried. We have more oil resources that now can be tapped than Saudia Arabia so your comment here shows you have been reading too much of the popular press or claims from so-called energy experts who either 1) have green agenda or 2) assume that the political will to open areas to production will never happen.

      You are correct about the ceteris paribus discussion below.

      Basically, a lot of U.S. production has made up for the drop from oil producers elsewhere.

      Finally, part of the reason many econonmists believe that oil prices are going up is that oil producers believe they will get much higher prices in the future because of our money printing. The theory goes: oil producers could sell oil today and take those revenues to invest but with market uncertainty and low returns combined with the prospect of inflation, they decide they are better off holding their oil in the ground rather than selling it today. (This is true as long as they do not need this oil revenues for some immediate domestic purpose.)

      • rsgp

        First, a reasonable reading of the article would not be that the point is that all those experts (and the statistical analysis) are saying that there wouldn’t be a directional effect of an increase in global supply. You put that assertion in their mouths. It’s a straw man you set up, then ridiculed.

        Second, although I think the EIA studies that are widely referred to as authoritative analyses on this question do assume that OPEC would reduce production to at least partly offset an increase in U.S. production (and estimated that the impact of a very open OCS drilling policy even by 2030 would be only 3 cents per gallon of gas), I have read many quotes by non-partisan, private sector experts (investment analysts focused on the oil/energy sector) saying that the effect of increased U.S. drilling in areas under the president’s control would be negligible even if there were no such offset at all by OPEC. And no, I’m not speaking of experts “with a green agenda”, nor am I speaking of experts who are assuming a lack of political will to open up such areas to production (on the contrary, they are all commenting on the hypothetical that assumes such a scenario of opening up all such areas).

        I have searched for non-partisan experts saying otherwise — saying that if we had presidents with more open drilling policy it would at some point have a substantial effect on prices — and all I find are experts saying the opposite. Can you provide me links to non-partisan experts saying what you’re saying? If yes, please do. If not, how is it reasonable for you to reject the consensus of non-partisan experts with no apparent green agenda or other agenda, and instead just go with the opposite assumption that no (or perhaps very few) non-partisan experts agree with? Isn’t that irrational — just force-fitting your assumptions to what you want to believe?

        Again, if you do what I did and make a good-faith effort to Google around and search for comments on this question by experts who don’t seem to have any ax to grind — no political agenda, no issue agenda, not on one or the other “side” of the broader ideological or party battle — I think you’ll find what I found: they’re all saying what I’m saying, and explicitly disagreeing with what you’re saying.

        Again, I’m very open to new information that challenges what I’ve concluded, so if you can find non-partisan expert sources that support what you’re saying (that presidential policy opening up more drilling is likely to have a substantial impact on prices), please provide links (and point out any particular quotes you wish that you think support your assertion).

        • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

          You forgot your sig line,jermane2020:

          “We can win on facts, reason, freedom and responsibility, and we should win no other way. Expose BOTH sides? invalid talking points, and we?ll win.”

          Bad, bad troll!

  • rsgp

    …or deliberate deception. This one by the Obama Administration and its supporters.

    One of their arguments in response to the charge that gas prices are higher due to Obama restricting drilling is to point out that domestic drilling/production is up under his administration. This is a misleading argument on multiple levels, but they haven’t been called out on all the ways it’s misleading.

    It has been pointed out that lead times mean Obama doesn’t deserve credit for new drilling enabled by presidential policy.

    It has also been pointed out that the increase in domestic drilling is up mainly (or perhaps entirely) because of increased drilling outside of the areas relevant to presidential policy on drilling, meaning that it’s wrong for the administration to argue (explicitly or by implication) that higher domestic drilling means they haven’t restricted domestic production. Remember our friend — ceteris paribus. Here the “other things equal” is what happens to drilling outside the president’s ability to open or restrict it. And other things equal, if the president hadn’t restricted production, domestic production would be even higher than it is. In other words, the president’s policies have (apparently) caused lower domestic oil production, ceteris paribus.

    But there’s another obvious fundamental conceptual (analytical) error, one I haven’t seen pointed out, and it, too, relates to ceteris paribus. The Dems’ argument is that domestic production is up, yet prices are also up, and imply that this proves we can’t lower prices with more drilling. Obviously that’s a non sequitur. Speaking generically (not just about oil), if supply of something increases, the effect (ceteris paribus) is to reduce price, but this effect can be overridden by increased demand, resulting in higher prices. That dynamic in no way refutes the notion that the effect of increased supply was downward pressure on price, meaning lower price than we’d have without that increase in supply (i.e., price is indeed lower, ceteris paribus, but “all other things” of course did not stay unchanged before vs. after; demand went up.)

  • texastaxpayer

    Lol… I was thinking WTF…… Quill must have been abducted by armed liberals and forced to blog at gun point……