About Me

Name: Matthew
Location: Woodstock, GA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

The Ike Spike - It's a Gas, Gas, Gas

The focus of the media regarding the aftermath of Hurricane Ike is, and should be, on the rescue and repair operations. Ike may not have been a killer anywhere near the extent of other historic storms, but my brother in central Illinois had flooding in his house and my mom lost some trees outside Cincinnati. This storm made a lot of noise for being Cat 2 at landfall.

We here in Atlanta are experiencing a different side effect. Over the weekend I saw long lines at gas stations, and increasing numbers on the signs in front of the stations. On my way to the gym and work this morning, I passed a dozen gas stations with gas nozzles wrapped in plastic, the universal sign for "no dice" at the pump. The pipeline that runs from the Houston shipping channel and across the Gulf states, the one which feeds our fuel fixes here, is shut down.

This happened when Rita went through a couple of years ago. She did what mighty Katrina could not do to the southeast and the eastern seaboard. We went on a starvation diet, though short-lived.

This brings up something I've been advocating for the last few years. I know this is impractical, that no one would approach this seriously...but that's never stopped me before.

The southeastern section of New Orleans should be levelled, and turned into a new refinery.

I have a family member who grew up there, who has as strong of an attachment to that bit of flood-prone bog as any. She has been back since Katrina; she knows it is not the same place it once was, and likely never will be. Should not be, is really more to the point.

The factors that make New Orleans' southeastern residential area such a likely target for devestation are largely the same factors that would make it near ideal for increasing our national refinery capacity.

Easy access to the navigable Mississippi could take some of the strain off the Houston refineries, and spread the risk over a much larger area in case of a weather tragedy. I don't know the exact course of the Colonial pipeline, but I know it is not far from NO. Connecting into that network would be a minimal cost relative to building in some area that is far from existing pipe. Floridans are now beginning to join the chant to allow off-shore - how much would transport risks be minimized if the refinery were just down the coast rather than across the gulf?

I understand that many have an attachment to homes in the area in question, and I would not encourage the government to force this action. I think it would be in the selfish interests of one of the majors in the oil industry to consider and pursue such a course.

It would be easy to dismiss the idea as the musings of another oil-addicted whiner. Or one could think about the implications of having so many of our energy eggs in one proverbial basket, and easily think through the national security implications of having a large section of the nation completely tied to one major source.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Supply and Demand - a primer for GenNext

Somehow your Intro to Econ classes must have skipped over this basic principle in economics. Maybe the professor is a free-market-denier. Maybe you were busy texting the chick three seats over that day. Who knows.

But somehow, this concept didn't get through. So I'm here to help. And no, I'm not from the government. I'm from that old school of thought that ordinary citizens can be helpful.

Let's start with why I think this concept needs to be addressed. I read a story this morning in the Washington Post in which presidential contender Barack Obama's spokesperson said,
"John McCain's plan to simply drill our way out of our energy crisis is the same misguided approach backed by President Bush that has failed our families for too long and only serves to benefit the big oil companies."
 This is faulty logic on two fronts (at least), as well as an awkward and predictable attempt to wed McCain to Bush in an area where they have held different views. But let's focus on the economic reality of supply and demand.

The iPod was once a unique device. When they first came out, people paid hundreds for ten dollars worth of parts. Apple could charge an arm and a leg because they were nearly alone in the digital jukebox business. Now you can find a knockoff of the iPod at any number of stores for $15.

Why are they so cheap? Multiple reasons, but the primary reason is that now there are more.

The iPhone is experiencing similar downward price pressure because there are other phones coming to market with similar features.

The more of something there is, the less people are willing to pay for it.

Oil comes from a limited set of suppliers. The US sits on a huge stockpile of oil, but environmental groups have pressured the Congress to prevent us from tapping those resources. The environmentalists' view is that the deer and the antelope won't have as many places to play if we put in some drilling rigs. But the majority of Americans are a little less concerned about the deer and the antelope at the moment than they are their own livelihoods.

There are plenty of arguments to be made about whether our lifestyle is a little out of control, but the focus here is on the pressure that a limited supply has placed on the price of oil.

In short, less supply equals higher price.

The current price structure in the US is in part a response to speculation about oil futures. Every article I've read about the futures market cites "supply fears" as what is fueling the higher bidding on oil futures.

So what does one do to alleviate fear about future supplies? You increase future supplies.

Think of it this way: Suppose you had expressed your concern about being able to afford college to your parent(s) or legal gaurdian(s) back when you were in sixth grade. If he/she/they had said, "Don't worry. I'll take care of it," you may have felt some assurance. How much more assured would you have felt if he/she/they had established a savings account with regular deposits to cover your college expenses? In this case, the supply of money would ease your fear of future calamity, reducing your tension and letting you get back to your baseball card empire.

Similarly, if the US were to ease restrictions on drilling within our borders and territorial waters, the futures traders would no longer have fears about our future supply. And in a short time, we would have a greater current supply. Oil has proven itself to be supply-elastic, meaning that the price of oil has been affected, dramatically, by the supply on the market. See the Arab oil embargo of the 70's for details.

One other thing that I want to point out about the comment from Obama's campaign staff: Read it slowly and you'll see that it makes no sense.

Logic fault 1: 'misguided approach ... that has failed our families for too long'. We haven't tried this yet. When did this approach fail?

Logic fault #2: 'that only serves to benefit the big oil companies'. How does big oil benefit from lower prices?

Class dismissed.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Windfall Profits Tax: A Really, Really Bad Idea Whose Time Should Never Come

Those evil, rich oil companies. How dare they make a really big profit? Let's stick it to them by taxing the obscene part of their profits.

I see a couple of problems with the opening paragraph here, not counting grammar and punctuation.

1) Big profit. Whenever someone starts using non-specific measures for what is acceptable or not, I get nervous. What is the magic number where profits move from acceptably large to grotesquely huge?

The old business joke's punchline says, "We may sell at a loss, but we'll make it up in volume." I would not suggest that the oil companies are selling at any kind of loss, but I would suggest that their margin is low. It is a high-volume business, and an expensive one to run. Look at profit margin, not just net profit.

2) Let's stick it to them. So let me understand; these companies are soulless slaves to profit, who can charge us whatever they want because they deal in a commodity we all need. Does that sum it up?

Okay, so let's say we tax them 50% on their profits above some magic number, say $2B just for argument. Um, what keeps them from just charging us more to cover the tax?

Congress has sticks (taxes) and carrots (tax breaks) to modify behavior. Every time it uses the stick of taxation to beat some evil company into doing the will of the Congress, one of two things happen; either the company/industry goes belly up, or the prices paid by the companies' customers raise to cover the tax.

Since it seems unlikely that anyone but a few in the 'green' army would really like to see the oil companies cease to exist, we are left with
 two plausible explanations for why Congress would consider raising the taxes on big oil. Either the members of Congress want to try to refocus the national disgust off of their own incompetence and get us unified and angry against someone, anyone else ... or else they just don't have a clue as to who really gets hurt when they pull the trigger on a new tax.

I'm guessing 'clueless' is the answer for the majority of those who would support such a tax.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »