May 2000 Vol. 221 No. 5  Editorial

Thomas R. Wright, Jr.,  Editorial Director

Gasoline price follies

While gasoline prices have increased for most consumers around the world, the price rise in the U.S. probably has caused the most brouhaha. Reasons include we Americans’ dependence upon, and love affair with, our cars, plus the fact that the new prices represent a large percentage increase over our normally low prices (when compared with the rest of the world).

Since the run-up, there have been all sorts of half-baked ideas to bring down prices or, at least, get even with those seen as causing the whole mess. Remarkably, President Clinton has resisted the dim-witted idea of drawing oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But he did spend some mega-bucks sending his Secretary of Energy around the world to cajole OPEC into a production increase.

In addition, a few other politicians (of both parties) have stepped up to wave the flag of fools. Senators Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) and Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) proffered one of the silliest ideas we’ve heard so far. The two want to file a lawsuit against OPEC for "antitrust conspiracy in the sharp increase in gasoline prices." And apparently, the fact that most of Washington D.C. would view such a suit as silly and diplomatically risky doesn't faze our two East Coast hereos. They instead see a "cutting-edge lawsuit, making new law at the international level."

Neither did they let some earlier court decisions deter their nonsense. When reminded that, in 1979, a district court ruled that OPEC, as a group of nations, is immune from suits in U.S. courts (later upheld on different grounds by an appeals court), Senator Specter acknowledged that sovereign immunity is "a problem." But he went on to say that it should be possible to "hold OPEC liable for ‘economic’ activities that are separate from governmental roles."

Another goofy idea was the e-mail we’ve seen calling for something called the "Great American Gas Out." Whoever hatched this plan wants everybody in the U.S. (and Canada) to refrain from buying gasoline over a designated period of time. We can’t relay the exact dates because of an over-zealous finger on the delete key, but we believe that it was to have taken place last month. If it did, then you’ve probably noticed that its effect was infinitesimal. Here’s why.

Supposedly, the gas out was to punish both Big Oil and OPEC at the same time. The problem with this scheme was the word buying – the proponents didn’t say anything about ceasing driving or consuming gasoline; they just said don’t buy it. This meant that everybody participating in the gas out would either purchase their gasoline prior to or after the event (unless, or course, they were on a long trip and therefore had to layover somewhere until the embargo was over). Thus, even if the gas out was subscribed to in significant numbers (which we don’t think happened anywhere), the net effect would be only a tiny drop in gasoline sales. Any net sales reduction would have resulted from folks with too little gas to complete a trip and who therefore had to cancel it. On the other hand, because Americans are Americans and aren’t about to give up their cars, gasoline sales before and after the gas out may have actually been higher than normal. Overall, if you saw anything out of the ordinary, it may have been less activity at the gasoline station – but we doubt it.

Give ’em an inch and they’ll take a kilometer. While the U.S. has all but abandoned its government-mandated conversion to the metric system, Britain appears to be giving in to the European Union and will banish its 800-year-old system of imperial weights and measures in favor of metrics. Under legislation that took effect Jan. 1, it is a criminal offense to sell most packaged or loose products in imperial measures. However, we understand that beer may still be sold in pints and that road signs will still show miles.

But we have to wonder how extensively the above will apply to oil and gas operations. Will it now be illegal to specify drill pipe using inches for diameter and pounds per foot for weight?

Well, just in case it does get that serious, we offer some newly refined conversion factors to help the metric-deficient get up to speed:

Walking threatens forests. Heavy automobile traffic within forests and other "wild" areas is a legitimate concern and is being addressed in most areas of the world. However, a new proposed rule by the U.S. Forest Service might be considered a bit extreme. As currently written, it begins with, "Unwanted or non-native plant species can be transported on vehicles and clothing by users of (forest) roads, ultimately displacing native species." Then, the proposed regulation goes on to establish guidelines for how the agency will manage road building, which critics say is actually an excuse to halt all future road building, even for foot traffic.

Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources subcommittee on forests and public lands management, said this "new-age thinking in forest management would result in ice-age management." Neither does he think that most people would want to sleep in a cave during their visits to a national forest merely to "assure that we are replicating pre-settlement conditions."

If the Forest Service isn’t redirected, we can just visualize the new entrance facilities – all visitors will be required to enter through one of those vacuum rooms normally associated with computer chip manufacturing. They will also be required to wear sterilized, disposable coveralls. These won’t be white; however, they will be the appropriate camouflage so as to avoid startling the wildlife.