Quote:

---

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR ENERGY ECONOMICS IA
THE ENERGY JOURNAL EE
June 2, 2008
Our File: 08-047
R. Morris Coats
Nicholls State University
Thibodaux
Louisiana 70310
USA
Dear Professor Coats,
Subject: Editor's decision from The Energy Journal
Submission titled "The Effect of Opening up ANWR to Drilling on the Current Price of
Oil."
Thank you for your recent submission (with Gary Pecquet), “The Effect of Opening up
ANWR to Drilling on the Current Price of Oil.” I have received two reviews, which are
attached for your perusal.
Although the referees, and I, are in agreement with your basic argument, I regret to say
that we will not be able to publish this work. Basically, your main result (the present
impact of an anticipated future supply change) is already known to economists (although
perhaps not to the Democratic Policy Committee). If Hotelling didn’t exactly spell this
out in his original article, certainly Herfindahl and others had done so by the 1960s. It is
our policy to publish only original research that adds significantly to the body of received
knowledge regarding energy markets and policy.

Because your argument is on point, although not highly original, you might attempt a
shorter version (without the mathematics) for submission to a more policy oriented
journal, or perhaps one of the major op-ed pages (e.g., The Wall Street Journal).
Although I regret the outcome was not more favorable on this occasion, please keep us in
mind for your future work.
Sincerely yours,
Professor James Smith
Editor, The Energy Journal
http:/www.iaee.org/en/publications/journal.aspx
Dr. James L. Smith
Cary M. Maguire Chair in Oil and Gas Management
Edwin L. Cox School of Business
Southern Methodist University
Dallas, TX 75275
Enc.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Why ? Simple...It's so well known that just PLANNING to drill for oil would drop prices - TODAY, a concept which economist have known for at LEAST 40 years, if not 70 years!!

---

Quote:

---

So, you agree that drilling in ANWR would reduce the price of oil, and that the GOP is right in demanding House Leader Pelosi call Congress back for an up or down vote?

---

Quote:

---

The Democratic leadership is LYING to the American public for one reason - to keep a grip on the balance of power they enjoy in Washington D.C., and for no other reason. It's not to " save the planet " as Kooky Speaker Nancy says, but to keep any possible positive bump the GOP would get once everyone saw how right their plan was for America.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

If talking about it makes the price go down, then let's talk about steak and beer! :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:


So, 'Rap, you're saying that health insurance rates must necessarily go down, and should have been doing so for the past several years, because Congress is talking about addressing universal health care? Is that what you're saying? If talking about it makes the price go down, then let's talk about steak and beer! :)

Mike

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

The Republican losership is LYING to the American public for one reason - to keep a grip on their balance of wealth they enjoy in the world, and for no other reason. It's not "to lower gas prices" as Kooky Aucrapper says, but to keep any possible positive bump that would result from any REAL research into alternative energy sources.

Mike

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's a moot point, and to try to say anything to the contrary is either door knob stupid or blatent lying.

Pick one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's a moot point, and to try to say anything to the contrary is either door knob stupid or blatent lying.

Pick one.

---

Yes, it IS a moot point- whenever someone says something they've been paid to say it's inherently suspect. Call it door knob lying.
(I support drilling IN CERTAIN AREAS, by the way...)

*Here comes the "No one paid them to blah blah blah"*

Make a wish to the Tooth Fairy for me, eh pal?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
THEY DENIED THE REPORT!! How the hell can you say they were PAID for that answer ? It was a REJECTION LETTER, you moron!

---

Quote:

---

It is
our policy to publish only original research that adds significantly to the body of received
knowledge regarding energy markets and policy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
\
Ah - so since he didn't offer any original research or any new ideas, that proves that the left is responsible for it not being published...

I don't see where they "DENIED THE REPORT!!" What I do see is that they agreed with the basic points of the submitted research, but found it not original, and with nothing new or substantive to offer. But if it's your contention that that rejection proves a left-wing bias, then have at it. After all, in 'RappoWorld, EVERYTHING is a left-wing conspiracy.

It certainly seems as though you're making the connection that not publishing that report implies some sort of Democratic collusion...

Mike

---

Quote:

---

The GOP isn't lying

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WhoDied:
From the Energy Information Administration:

(emphasis added)
The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.



http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html


Subtracting four years to denote immediate drilling doesn't seem to change much.



--WhoDied


_______________________

All those secrets you've been concealing
Say you're happy now...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

The GOP isn't lying

---

Of course they are. Their lips are moving.

Mike

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WhoDied:

--WhoDied


_______________________

All those secrets you've been concealing
Say you're happy now...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Think of another one, pin head.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
But it was EXACTLY what the GOP has been saying all along about new sources of oil and us drilling on OUR own land.

---

Quote:

---

But it was EXACTLY what the GOP has been saying all along...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
I wonder how the professor would feel about having words attributed to him that he didn't actually write. Is that slander, or libel ?

I wonder if he could get damages for that ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not remotely a fact, it's just not."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


You mean THESE words? "Basically, your main result (the present
impact of an anticipated future supply change) is already known to economists

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


You mean THESE words? "Basically, your main result (the present
impact of an anticipated future supply change) is already known to economists

---

AU- surely you can see why this is laughably unprofessional...future events KNOWN???
I don't care if Einstein wrote this mess, at best it's highly speculative, at worst it's just nonsense.

isall
]

If that's what you need to do to justify it all, fine. Just a sad commentary on those who can't face facts.



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
S'wenways

Let's have a real discussion about a real topic of genuine importance.

Who wants to go first ?


***************************************************************
Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Rap

Do you even know the document is real ? If you do, prove it to everyone. Otherwise off.

***************************************************************
And why are we even talking about this anyway ? B/c the repubicans want us to ? Fuck that !

---

Quote:

---

Go fuck yourself, asshole.

It's a real letter, a real publication and a real study. If being a prick is your only response, that I've given you mine.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Go fuck yourself, asshole.

It's a real letter, a real publication and a real study. If being a prick is your only response, that I've given you mine.

---

Speaking of touching a nerve...

Relax, hotshot - Is it out of line to ask for verification on something like this? After all, it's not like we haven't been bullshitted by you guys before.


Mike

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
There's been no act of deception on my part, the conservatives , Republicans, etc...so I can't rightly know what it is you mean when you say " you guys ".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
There's been no act of deception on my part, the conservatives , Republicans, etc...so I can't rightly know what it is you mean when you say " you guys ".

---

OMG, LOL, just when I thought you couldn't get any funnier....I take it back AU- DON'T shut up!


Thisstuffispricelessisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Just for the record, who was it that signed the law banning drilling off Florida?


Mike

---