A barrel of oil costs a lot less than it did a few months ago.

The high was about $147 in about June, now it’s down to $92 dollars a barrel for light sweet crude. Keep in mind, that’s roughly the top high before the run up. Also keep in mind that’s a drop of over 50%. (Of course, that’s not translated to savings at the pump. Yes, someone’s making money here. If you don’t like it, buy less gas.)

But where’s the rhetoric celebrating this lower price per barrel? We spent months listening to the media lambaste America’s trip to hell in a handbasket because of oil prices. America’s quick trip down according to them is now because of banking collapses. You see, the media needs a new moment of hysteria or you won’t watch anymore.

You see, America has to be headed to hell before voters switch party allegiances.

McCain needs to continue to push alternative energy plans, but acknowledge that oil’s spike, just as the the banking “crisis” now, is how the market does business. Just like America didn’t collapse on the price of oil, it’s won’t collapse on this week’s news either. It the media, stupid (or should one say, “the stupid media?”) that demands America’s knee jerk response to every market change.

America, stop it. Recognize how you are being manipulated in order to sell ad revenues.


  1. And the band played, “Nearer, My God, To Thee.”

  2. Is the word “crisis” in quotes because you don’t believe that it is, in fact, a “crisis”? If so, you might want to examine the situation a bit closer. The Amercian financial system is enduring the worst crisis since the Great Depression.

    P.S. you might not want to keeping trumpeting the American economy as not being in recession. Global economic growth has hit a brick wall in the last couple of months and it’s only a matter of time. Healthy economic growth is unsustainable, giving current market conditions. It’s a matter of damage control at this point.

  3. “given”.

  4. Yes, and someday the world will come an end. You still don’t have a recession to champion.

  5. The liberals believe we’ve been in a recession since Clinton left office.

    There is a technical definition of a recession. It’s had that definition as long as I can remember.

    The problem with the definition is that we don’t know we were in one until it’s over, or heading into it’s thrid quarter. The definition can be changed, but what should be included.

    Otherwise we have a subjective, ideologically driven definition that we will continue to argue over.

  6. J. Strupp – it took me a while to figure out “given.” I’m going to upgrade the blog software soon and will hopefully be able to implement a plugin that lets you have a little time to edit comments.

    Stay tuned!

  7. Yes – I would agree McCain should continue to push alternative energy plans.. but Mr.Maverich after being so “angry” on June 13 changed his battle cry a bit after having had lunch with the oil boys in San Antonio.. 1.3 million dollars later ..by June 16 he was chanting -Drill boys drill. Way to stand up to special interests JM. And another republican halt on progress and an order to about face and rear- ward march.

  8. How is “drill baby drill” mutually exclusive from developing alternatives including renewables?

    Let’s face it, the FASTEST way to get more domestic energy is drilling. Gov’t’s role in alternatives is streamlining the red tape to nukes, wind generator installs, etc. They can spur technology with tax incentives. That’s one of the FEW things gov’t does well.

    A comprehensive energy plan both addresses NOW and 10, 20,30 50 years from now. Why are the Obots so against drilling? To me it makes no sense.

  9. Exactly- we need to look forward – not back onto old technologies and resources. According to the EIA there is significant uncertainty as to the amount of oil that will be found and or recoverable..and nothing would flow offshore or from ANWR for 20 -30 years.
    Is John McCain really “angry” and supportive of development of alternatives?? http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00425&long=1

  10. BV…you are greatly misinformed. At worst case ANWR will produce within 10 years (most estimates are ~7 years. Where would we be if we started 7 years agom when we should’ve?

    This is assuming it’s not fast-tracked, with all current regulatory obstacles in place. 25 years for complete build-out, to a mean expectation of 700+ million barrels per day. That’s just ANWR…then add offshore.

    No one has said to rest on that laurel. There’s plenty of good reasons to invest in nuke, gas and renewables. But I haven’t heard ONE good reason to not drill.

  11. From the EIA
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/analysisdiscussion.htmlSeven to 12 years are estimated to be required from an approval to explore and develop to first production from the ANWR Area.
    The USGS estimates that there is a 5 percent probability (a 1 in 20 chance) that 16.0 billion barrels of oil, or more, may be technically recoverable from the ANWR Coastal Plain of the Alaska North Slope.

  12. I agree- if we had started 60 years ago when the first electric cars were introduced- where would big oil companies- I mean we- be now. What is to say that when Exxon etc start to pump oil from ANWR and offshore that they will not sell some of it on the open market to countries in need of lots of oil -like China as opposed to keeping and using it domestically. and what is there to stop China from bidding on leases to set up their own wells off shore and send the oil back to their own country – then sell it back to us.

  13. BV,

    Have you been able to support the claim that ANWR won’t see a drop of oil for 20-30 years?

    You EIA link doesn’t work. But my own EIA documents state otherwise. Again, peak production in that timefram.

    I fully expect any oil from ANWR to be sold on the “world market”. The Feds require it, so they can make their $6/bbl import tax. It matters no that the oil never left our shores.

    At any rate, every bbl produced domestically is 1 barrel not purchased from OPEC, et.al. I don’t see a downside, though I keep asking what it is.

    I’m not purporting ANWR or even OTC oil to be a panacea. Just one of many medicines we need to get America back on the right track of being more self sufficient…keeping money and jobs here and having that money make its way through OUR economy.

    By my estimates , using a convenient, but somwhat established 7 x (each dollar spent producing gets spent 7 times before it finds its way offshore)…the $700BB per year we now send offshore for oil constitute $5 Trillion per year of economic impact.

    Our economy (or any economy for that matter) relies on money changing hands. That’s one of the big problems with aggressive taxation. If you rob from the rich and give to the poor…the poor go to “Walmart” and send the $’s to China without the money changing hands nearly enough. If you tax even more, those with money take it offshore, or otherwise shelter it, before the gov’t can get their mits on it..

  14. As for electric cars, the current hybrids were being developed while oil was relatively cheap. This tells us right there that 4150/bbl isn’t a requirement for development of alternatives.

    The biggest problem with electric only cars is range. The battery technology just isn’t there and I doubt it ever will be accommodating to many of us. They’re fine for certain lifestyles and scopes of employment and utterly unsatisfactory for others. They’re also fine for those that can afford/justify a separate vehicle for where they are applicable (say a 30 mile or less commute or local shopping).

    I drive upwards of 1000 miles per week for work. On top of that is any driving of my own vehicles. As a sportsman, many of my haunts are 100 or more miles away from home and not to any metropolis where I can plug in or even rent a hotel. So whille electric cars may have their place in the equation, they aren’t the panacea either.

    Interestingly enough. Tesla Motors just arranged to build a $250MM facility in my town. Personally, I hope they succeed beyond their dreams.

  15. Thanks B’dad.

    That’s the EIA document I refer mostly to.

    Excerpt 1:

    “Seven to 12 years are estimated to be required from an approval to explore and develop to first production from the ANWR Area. This study uses 9 years to 2010 for the state of potential production. The time to first production could vary significantly based on time required for leasing after approval to develop is given. Environmental considerations and the possibility of drilling restrictions also could significantly affected projected schedules to reach first production.”

    Excerpt 2:

    “Comparing the two charts shows how the production would respond to the rate of development. Production peaks around 20-30 years after the onset of development in all cases.”

    As I’ve said before…how this affects the “world price” is inconsequential IMHO. Every barrel produced domestically is 1 barrel not purchased from outside. It keeps the money (and jobs) here. It reduces our exposure to the whims of others and geopolitical conflict (which we know affects the price of oil).