Dec. 2000 Vol. 221 No. 12  Editorial

Thomas R. Wright, Jr.,  Publisher

Who lost?

As most of the world waits to see who will be the next President of the United States, we had to go to press with this column so that the entire issue would not be delayed. So, instead of speculating whether a President George W. Bush would be good for the oil industry, or whether a President Al Gore would be able to force his goofy ideas through a Republican-controlled Congress, we are left to comment about the incredible events taking place in Florida. Nobody knows yet how long it will take to get this all straightened out, but by the time you read this, one of these men most likely will have been elected. Scary, isn’t it?

Since we figured that the American election would be only mildly interesting to our readers outside of the U.S. (OUS), our initial intent was to do a quick analysis of what was ahead for the industry with the new president, and then move on to more worldly topics. But wow, were we wrong. Based upon what we’re seeing in the OUS press, there is considerable interest in what is happening here. The trouble is that it seems to be manifested as delight over our current ineptitude rather than interest in what will finally happen.

For example, a French newspaper said, "America woke up Wednesday morning to discover there was no president-elect and that the election of Nov. 7 was mired in a mixture of banana-republic farce and suspense worthy of a World Cup final decided by penalty kicks." Obviously, the soccer analogy was meant for the European reader, since the concept of a penalty kick doesn’t mean beans to most Americans (double overtimes, yes; but penalty kicks, no). If the paper wanted to compare the election to a game in a way Americans would understand, it should have posed the question, "How can those Florida seniors manage to handle eight Bingo cards simultaneously, but can’t read one ballot?"

When we read that a German analyst called the Electoral College "idiotic," we had to wonder what he would think of a wisecrack that quoted Al Gore as having said, "Wow, now I’m really sorry that I invented the Electoral College."

But if it’s not the college that’s idiotic, then it must be the state. Somebody suggested we refer to it as Flori-duh.

A Cuban paper (just a bit sarcastically) said, "That while nobody was sure who had won the presidency, it was clear that a dead man had won a Senate seat in Missouri." Well, that was just plain mean, since everybody in Missouri knew that if the late Mel Carnahan was elected, then his widow would be appointed to the Senate seat by the governor. Besides, electing a dead man is no big deal; in Texas we blissfully elect convicted felons to office on a semi-regular basis.

The Times of India said, ". . . in the world’s richest country, where more and more people are shareholders of the economic cake, political divisions can, and are often, bridged by a commonly acknowledged affirmation of overall American interests, which on a day-to-day basis, transcend Democrat-Republican sectarianism." We think a much simpler way of saying this appeared on a bumper sticker in Florida: "If you can read this, you must be a Republican."

The harshest commentary seemed to come from the UK where the Times of London said, ". . . this bizarre election . . . has been a parody of democracy." Another paper said, "The Electoral College is the swollen appendix of the American body politic." Now, that’s really strong stuff considering that it came from a country, which until recently, had a legislative body that dressed up in powdered wigs and Depends^® only to nod off during a raging (actually, mind-numbing) debate.

Lost in all the mayhem above is the unreserved disdain some Americans hold for both candidates. An example was a sign displayed at a Houston flea market: "GoreBushOff." If you read it out loud quickly, you’ll soon learn how the designer feels about the establishment candidates. It was also interesting to note that the proprietor’s late model Suburu Outback was equipped with a U.S. Green Party sticker.

Despite all the rhetoric, our OUS friends shouldn’t worry about the U.S. surviving this mess – we’ve gotten through a lot worse. And as for the Electoral College, the current chaos is a prime reason to maintain it. Just imagine if the popular vote was as close nationally as it is in Florida. This would precipitate a recount in every state, which could take forever.

SUVs’ reputation unfair. Sports utility vehicles have been blamed for rising gasoline consumption and increased pollution. However, a recent report from the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston says that if U.S. drivers switched from SUVs to high-mileage cars, the fuel savings would only reduce U.S. oil consumption by 170,000 bpd, which is less than 1%.

Kenneth Medlock, energy research fellow at the Baker Institute said, "U.S. energy security concerns and the fate of gasoline prices derive from a host of complicated issues. The SUV craze is only a small factor."

The U.S. DOE generally counts SUVs within the class of light trucks, which also includes pickups, vans and minivans. When SUV growth rates are projected to year 1999, the vehicles will account for around 25% of the light truck category, for a total of some 18 million vehicles. In addition, the number of pickups and vans is estimated to be 37 million and 12 million, respectively.

Currently, SUVs consume the equivalent of about 690,000 bopd, based upon their average mileage of 17.4 mpg. But cars average 21.5 mpg, so even if all SUVs were eliminated or brought up to car mileage standards, then the net savings would be roughly 170,000 bopd.

Instead of blaming the SUV craze, it might be more constructive to focus on the following causes of the growth in U.S. fuel demand during the last decade:

• Total number of vehicles registered in U.S. has increased some 12%
• Number of miles driven per vehicle has risen 10%
• The average on-road fuel efficiency for all motor vehicles has been stagnant at about 17 mpg.