PDA

View Full Version : Official Energy, Gas Prices, Oil, and Drilling Thread



Pages : [1] 2

jlohm1
06-28-2008, 05:16 PM
McCain's plan would break the back of that practice by doing what the traders think we won't: increase oil and gasoline inventories that would bring down the price of gas at the pump. He has also called for licensing 45 new nuclear-power plants, which would further reduce demand for coal and oil and lower fuel prices even more.

Sen. Barack Obama, on the other hand, wants none of this. He is flatly opposed to increased oil exploration and drilling. His energy agenda is all about slapping windfall-profits taxes on U.S. oil companies, and spending that money on new clean, un-invented technologies.

Equally worrisome, Obama sent an unambiguous signal last week that he was not that bothered by the run-up in gas prices. He wants prices to rise but just not as fast, he said.

whole story: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DonaldLambro/2008/06/26/offshore_drilling_a_potent_issue_for_mccain

townhall.com

and people want him to be our president.

CubsGirl
06-28-2008, 05:18 PM
You're being blatantly misleading.

jlohm1
06-28-2008, 05:23 PM
Tell me how im being "blatantly misleading" read the whole story then.

dbroncos78087
06-28-2008, 05:31 PM
I am by far not an expert on politics, however, my understanding of his policy is that if we look for more oil it will only increase our dependance on it, but if we force the country to look for new ways it will be tougher in the short term but better in the long term.

yaowowrocket11
06-28-2008, 05:33 PM
If we drill more oil here in the U.S., that means the oil will diminish quicker, since its not a renewable source. We are lowering prices now, but skyrocketing them in the future. Obama is keeping them where they are, and they won't skyrocket as faster as McCain's plan would.

jlohm1
06-28-2008, 05:36 PM
yah, but the more oil we have, the cheaper it will cost, and that could give us more time to make a good thing to run cars off of, besides ethanol. E-85 cars are not that good. They increase the prices on groceries and the cars get bad mpg. Ive been told that the amount of corn used to fill an SUV can feed a child for a year.

jlohm1
06-28-2008, 05:39 PM
If we drill more oil here in the U.S., that means the oil will diminish quicker, since its not a renewable source. We are lowering prices now, but skyrocketing them in the future. Obama is keeping them where they are, and they won't skyrocket as faster as McCain's plan would.

we have more oil than Saudi Arabia (? spell). They are not lowering now... barrels just set record high!

jlohm1
06-28-2008, 05:40 PM
He wants prices to rise but just not as fast, he said.
did u not read this?

jlohm1
06-28-2008, 05:44 PM
I am by far not an expert on politics, however, my understanding of his policy is that if we look for more oil it will only increase our dependance on it...

America is very dependent on oil. everything from lawn mowers, to cars need it. when u buy something at the store, how do you think it got there? a truck delivered it, which uses oil.

CubsGirl
06-28-2008, 05:45 PM
yah, but the more oil we have, the cheaper it will cost, and that could give us more time to make a good thing to run cars off of, besides ethanol. E-85 cars are not that good. They increase the prices on groceries and the cars get bad mpg. Ive been told that the amount of corn used to fill an SUV can feed a child for a year.
This is stereotypical American "instant gratification" behavior.

If we drill more gas now, it'll lower gas prices now, but in the end, say, five years from now, it'll cause prices to skyrocket even more than they are right now.

The problem isn't even all because of how much oil we're drilling. From what I've read, system that we set gas prices with is horrible.

The "gas prices are high, let's find more gas" attitude is going to cause a ton of problems down the road if that ends up being how we decide to deal with it.

jlohm1
06-28-2008, 05:50 PM
we have more than 5 years of oil left. we have more oil than Saudi Arabia. The article didnt mention Alaska, but Alaska has TONS of oil.

gcoll
06-28-2008, 05:57 PM
From what I've read, system that we set gas prices with is horrible.

That's the line right now. But I don't buy it.

I think a lot of it has to do with India and China. The demand for oil has gone up, due to them buying a lot more.....so the price really has to go up.

I see no reason why we shouldn't drill our own, while looking for other types of energy alternatives. That makes the most sense to me.

yaowowrocket11
06-28-2008, 06:00 PM
This is stereotypical American "instant gratification" behavior.

If we drill more gas now, it'll lower gas prices now, but in the end, say, five years from now, it'll cause prices to skyrocket even more than they are right now.

The problem isn't even all because of how much oil we're drilling. From what I've read, system that we set gas prices with is horrible.

The "gas prices are high, let's find more gas" attitude is going to cause a ton of problems down the road if that ends up being how we decide to deal with it.

Exactly. We can't waste all our oil now. If we do so, the prices go higher and higher until.........WHOOPS, there is no oil left. Obama understands that his job as President is to obviously lead the country now, but put the country into a good situation years on from now. McCain thinks that being President is all about the present, and it isn't.

jlohm1
06-28-2008, 06:01 PM
China and India are a main reason that they have gone up. Most people in those counties never owned cars, and now a lot of them do, which increases the world demand.

jlohm1
06-28-2008, 06:06 PM
Exactly. We can't waste all our oil now. If we do so, the prices go higher and higher until.........WHOOPS, there is no oil left. Obama understands that his job as President is to obviously lead the country now, but put the country into a good situation years on from now. McCain thinks that being President is all about the present, and it isn't.

McCain know what he's doing more than Obama. even Hillary new more. Obama hasnt even finished his FIRST term, and already he wants to be president??? By the time America comes close to running out, we will have an alternative method. We can always use coal. We are on top of one of the worlds largest sources for coal. and coal can be made into oil, it might costs a little more, but it could still be cheaper that $4 a gallon. they say we have about 150 years of coal left. dont tell me we wont have an alternative source by then.

rhino17
06-28-2008, 06:07 PM
I am by far not an expert on politics, however, my understanding of his policy is that if we look for more oil it will only increase our dependance on it, but if we force the country to look for new ways it will be tougher in the short term but better in the long term.

imo we are not anywhere close to having everyone in the country independent of oil, so I dont see why driling for some oil to holdus over untill then is a big problem, i dont see why we cant drill Alaska and stuff.

ari1013
06-28-2008, 06:42 PM
That's the line right now. But I don't buy it.

I think a lot of it has to do with India and China. The demand for oil has gone up, due to them buying a lot more.....so the price really has to go up.

I see no reason why we shouldn't drill our own, while looking for other types of energy alternatives. That makes the most sense to me.
Exactly. We're no longer the dominant buyer of oil in the global marketplace. That means when we make a price bid, China and India can outbid us -- and they have been doing so. China's been offering $150 a barrel to get exclusive contracts. That's pushing up global prices.

As I pointed out in the other thread, due to the high inelasticity of demand for oil, offshore drilling isn't likely to result in a dramatic price drop.

We're better off spending those billions on wind, solar, and nuclear reactors so that we can then start liquifying our coal (which is profitable at $80 a barrel and higher) without worrying about the resulting brownouts.

ari1013
06-28-2008, 06:44 PM
imo we are not anywhere close to having everyone in the country independent of oil, so I dont see why driling for some oil to holdus over untill then is a big problem, i dont see why we cant drill Alaska and stuff.
Sure we could do that, but it would be a waste of time and money. The reason we haven't gone in there is the same reason the Brazilians haven't drilled in the South Atlantic. The oil isn't very accessible. It's definitely there, but it's going to take a lot of work to get to it. The cost outweighs the benefit when you think about what else we could be doing right now in terms of generating energy.

I'd much rather see us start to convert oil shale similar to how the Canadians are converting tar sand to oil.

ari1013
06-28-2008, 06:46 PM
China and India are a main reason that they have gone up. Most people in those counties never owned cars, and now a lot of them do, which increases the world demand.
And therefore we have no control over prices like we used to. Drilling in ANWR isn't going to effect global prices by more than a few percent. That's a waste.

ari1013
06-28-2008, 06:47 PM
Tell me how im being "blatantly misleading" read the whole story then.
Maybe because you left out the whole section on making alternatives cost-effective.

yaowowrocket11
06-28-2008, 06:50 PM
McCain know what he's doing more than Obama. even Hillary new more. Obama hasnt even finished his FIRST term, and already he wants to be president??? By the time America comes close to running out, we will have an alternative method. We can always use coal. We are on top of one of the worlds largest sources for coal. and coal can be made into oil, it might costs a little more, but it could still be cheaper that $4 a gallon. they say we have about 150 years of coal left. dont tell me we wont have an alternative source by then.

If he is getting this much support, not by the voters, but by large, popular political figures, that means he knows what he is doing, and that he is ready.

Who knows if we would have an alternative source in 150 years? We can't assume anything when it comes to the future of the country.

dbroncos78087
06-28-2008, 07:41 PM
imo we are not anywhere close to having everyone in the country independent of oil, so I dont see why driling for some oil to holdus over untill then is a big problem, i dont see why we cant drill Alaska and stuff.

You make a good point that we are essentially hooked to an oil IV, but i think he is trying to push us to giving it up by stopping us from looking everywhere for it desperately. If we realize that we arent going to be allowed to look for it forever then we will start to work for something different. I am sure we will have to drill because we will need the oil but if we can help it i would like to not.

steelcityroller
06-28-2008, 08:19 PM
whole story: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DonaldLambro/2008/06/26/offshore_drilling_a_potent_issue_for_mccain

townhall.com

and people want him to be our president.

I like you how pulled certain points out of that and didnt post the rest.


You're being blatantly misleading.


Tell me how im being "blatantly misleading" read the whole story then.

The way your portraying it is as if he purposely wants the price of gas to go up for his own profit. You make it sound like he just said hey I want you to have to pay more for gas which isnt the case. He said that the plan was to start looking more into other alternatives (which could be alot more effective in the long-term) than simply drilling more oil (which is only a short-term fix). Obama is thinking along the right frame of mind whether or not people like it is another matter. McCain is just saying what people wanna hear which = lower gas prices.


McCain know what he's doing more than Obama. even Hillary new more. Obama hasnt even finished his FIRST term, and already he wants to be president??? By the time America comes close to running out, we will have an alternative method. We can always use coal. We are on top of one of the worlds largest sources for coal. and coal can be made into oil, it might costs a little more, but it could still be cheaper that $4 a gallon. they say we have about 150 years of coal left. dont tell me we wont have an alternative source by then.

You are right about the coal however that is something thats gonna require a ton of money to invest. A single plant that would produce .5% of what oil Americans use annually would cost an estimated $6 billion to build. The argument can be made that considering the relief that would offer long-term that would be a good investment.

There is already a plan in place by the US government to have Coal to Oil facilities in the US by 2025 that would be producing 10% of the oil we use however worth noting is that would use 40% of the United States annual coal production. So there you go it would take 40% of the coal we mine a year just to produce 10% of the oil we use so its likely that coal could never come close to taking the place of drilling for oil just work in addition to it. Also Ive read that 150 year figure is for the entire world and not just the United States.


If he is getting this much support, not by the voters, but by large, popular political figures, that means he knows what he is doing, and that he is ready.

Who knows if we would have an alternative source in 150 years? We can't assume anything when it comes to the future of the country.

Exactly. You cant bank the future of a country with hundreds of millions of people by depending on someone else to come up with something.

ari1013
06-28-2008, 10:32 PM
Exactly right. If we're going to convert 40% of our coal in less than 20 years, we would be better off with a plan to keep generic energy down in price rather than worrying about cars. In the end it will be much more important that we still have heat than that we still have $4 gas.

jlohm1
06-28-2008, 11:27 PM
And therefore we have no control over prices like we used to. Drilling in ANWR isn't going to effect global prices by more than a few percent. That's a waste.

I dont know how many times ive said this, we have more oil than Saudi Arabia. They are drilling a lot of oil and still have a lot left. It may not effect global prices a ton, but it will effect our prices a lot. the reason we purchased Alaska was for its natural resources.Yes, it will take a lot of time and energy to drill there. they say we wount see any of it for 3 years, but just us starting to drill will lower prices because its based on futures. Look at places that drill there own oil, like Venezuela, gas is 19cents/ liter. and there are 3.7 L/G, so they pay about .71c/G.

jlohm1
06-28-2008, 11:38 PM
McCain is just saying what people wanna hear which = lower gas prices.

Do you enjoy paying $4/ gallon? Obama is really just saying he wants them higher. We have a solution to cheaper gas prices, and that is drill our own. Obama is a tree hugger that doent wants hurt the environment. he says higher gas prices will forces us to car pull and cut back on driving. Many environmentalist OK drilling our own oil. Even Alaskan natives and native Americans OK it. We have the technology to safely drill w/o hurting anything. By the time we have come close to running out, we will more than likely have an alternate method. If we do run out, we can make it out of coal, like i mentioned earlier. We currently use it for electric, but if we build nuclear power plants, we can save that coal and unlike coal, they let off no carbon, just water vapor. So environmentalist should like them cuz they have no pollution.

steelcityroller
06-28-2008, 11:38 PM
I dont know how many times ive said this, we have more oil than Saudi Arabia. They are drilling a lot of oil and still have a lot left. It may not effect global prices a ton, but it will effect our prices a lot. the reason we purchased Alaska was for its natural resources.Yes, it will take a lot of time and energy to drill there. they say we wount see any of it for 3 years, but just us starting to drill will lower prices because its based on futures. Look at places that drill there own oil, like Venezuela, gas is 19cents/ liter. and there are 3.7 L/G, so they pay about .71c/G.

How much of a demand is there in Venezuela compared to the United States? Id sign a petition to drill some of the chicks in your sig.

jlohm1
06-28-2008, 11:51 PM
Id sign a petition to drill some of the chicks in your sig.

:up:. yah. those are the Reds cheerleaders. they go on top of the dugout between innings. I really like those seats.

cambovenzi
06-28-2008, 11:53 PM
i tell u what.
im broke.
i dont want to spend anymore money on gas than i have to.
mccain wants to build nuclear plants. thats good news.
he wants to lower prices. great news.

go mccain.

jlohm1
06-28-2008, 11:54 PM
If anyone wants to you can go to: http://www.americansolutions.com/. Thats where the petition is, but you can really learn a lot about it if you look around on the website.

jlohm1
06-28-2008, 11:56 PM
i tell u what.
im broke.
i dont want to spend anymore money on gas than i have to.
mccain wants to build nuclear plants. thats good news.
he wants to lower prices. great news.

go mccain.

yah! :clap: lowering prices is never a bad thing.

cubsofchicago
06-29-2008, 12:32 AM
McCain know what he's doing more than Obama. even Hillary new more. Obama hasnt even finished his FIRST term, and already he wants to be president??? By the time America comes close to running out, we will have an alternative method. We can always use coal. We are on top of one of the worlds largest sources for coal. and coal can be made into oil, it might costs a little more, but it could still be cheaper that $4 a gallon. they say we have about 150 years of coal left. dont tell me we wont have an alternative source by then.

LMAO $4 a gallon if that was possible they would be doing that already but it isnt it would probably cost a lot more. Obama wants higher gas prices? hes being realistic he knows there is no way gas prices will fall so hes going with the logical plan lets slow down the price increase for a period of time and by the time that period ends we will have a alternative fuel or alternative energy source which would have us stop worrying about Oil. opposed to McCain's plan of lets dig for oil for the next 4 years and lower prices now and then ummm go to mars for Oil???

cubsofchicago
06-29-2008, 12:41 AM
Do you enjoy paying $4/ gallon? Obama is really just saying he wants them higher. We have a solution to cheaper gas prices, and that is drill our own. Obama is a tree hugger that doent wants hurt the environment. he says higher gas prices will forces us to car pull and cut back on driving. Many environmentalist OK drilling our own oil. Even Alaskan natives and native Americans OK it. We have the technology to safely drill w/o hurting anything. By the time we have come close to running out, we will more than likely have an alternate method. If we do run out, we can make it out of coal, like i mentioned earlier. We currently use it for electric, but if we build nuclear power plants, we can save that coal and unlike coal, they let off no carbon, just water vapor. So environmentalist should like them cuz they have no pollution.

you forgot about nuclear waste which is a bigger problem when it comes to the environment

gcoll
06-29-2008, 06:58 AM
you forgot about nuclear waste which is a bigger problem when it comes to the environment

If you know anything about nuclear waste, you'd know that it is not a bad thing.

It doesn't hurt you.....it gives you super powers.


opposed to McCain's plan of lets dig for oil for the next 4 years and lower prices now and then ummm go to mars for Oil??
From what I've heard.....we've got a lot of oil. Could last quite a while while still looking for alternatives.

ari1013
06-29-2008, 10:51 AM
I dont know how many times ive said this, we have more oil than Saudi Arabia. They are drilling a lot of oil and still have a lot left. It may not effect global prices a ton, but it will effect our prices a lot. the reason we purchased Alaska was for its natural resources.Yes, it will take a lot of time and energy to drill there. they say we wount see any of it for 3 years, but just us starting to drill will lower prices because its based on futures. Look at places that drill there own oil, like Venezuela, gas is 19cents/ liter. and there are 3.7 L/G, so they pay about .71c/G.
Yeah I read that BS post of yours and I thought you were joking the first time, but now that I see you actually believe your own lies, let me give you the numbers:

Saudi Arabia has 262 billion barrels of oil
The United States has 21 billion barrels.

The number two country to Saudi Arabia is actually Canada -- with 179 billion barrels. We're ranked 11th in the world.

ari1013
06-29-2008, 10:54 AM
The longer we wait to get going on alternatives, the more expensive its going to get. That 5-10 cent drop in gas prices we're going to see from offshore drilling isn't going to make up for the increased taxes we're going to have to pay in 25 years to fund emergency actions by the government to finally get going on alternative energy products.

jlohm1
06-29-2008, 02:22 PM
The United States has 21 billion barrels.

whoever told you that is full of s@#*. if you include Alaska, the west coast, the gulf coast, and under the Rockie mountains, We have more than most people know. yah, a lot of it is hard to get to, but w/ all the technology we have, we can safely drill and is will still be worth it.

jlohm1
06-29-2008, 02:27 PM
u all who like Obama just refuse to accept the facts. It doesn't take rocket science. We can do this...... more oil= lower prices!!! I can find kindergartners that could figure that out.

jlohm1
06-29-2008, 02:29 PM
Whoever here wants to pay more for gas and enjoys paying $4+ for gas, please, let me know who you are... im yet to meet someone who does.

Shieldsz
06-29-2008, 02:29 PM
**** Obama ..if this is true.

Screw McCain as well

Both candidates suck. Time to move to a difference country before the 2nd great depression happens.

ari1013
06-29-2008, 07:17 PM
whoever told you that is full of s@#*. if you include Alaska, the west coast, the gulf coast, and under the Rockie mountains, We have more than most people know. yah, a lot of it is hard to get to, but w/ all the technology we have, we can safely drill and is will still be worth it.
Wow. Just wow. How old are you?

Wanna know who told me? That number's from the US Energy Authority's Annual Report.

It's something you might want to look at next time before you go around making stuff up.

ari1013
06-29-2008, 07:20 PM
u all who like Obama just refuse to accept the facts. It doesn't take rocket science. We can do this...... more oil= lower prices!!! I can find kindergartners that could figure that out.
It's really not worth arguing with someone who refuses to face reality, but here goes again. A 1% increase in global oil (as we would have via offshore drilling) would yield a little less than a 4% decrease in prices of oil -- or about a 2% decrease in gasoline prices. So that's where the 5 to 10 cent decrease comes from.

It's not just economists who understand that. Even Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens (R) issued a report stating there would be about a 5-10 cent drop in 10-20 years.

BG7
06-29-2008, 10:33 PM
The price of gas has not gone up, the dollar you buy your gas has just become less valuable.

Obama will have us pull out of Iraq, we will stop borrowing money to pay for the God damned war from China...we will deflate the dollar some, and we will be able to buy more for our dollar.

The price of oil has stayed pretty much constant in gold.

papipapsmanny
06-29-2008, 11:28 PM
^^^ thats completely true

and drilling for oil in alaska would be the dumbest thing

1st the negative affects on the environment, 2nd our taxes would have to pay for a ridiculous system of piplines to get to and transport the oil

Im sure there is oil under my house somewhere, but it is so far undeground that it wouldnt even be nearly worth it to go try and attempt to drill it

The dollar is extremeely weak right now, unfortunately our president doesnt seem to care

ari1013
06-30-2008, 08:48 AM
The price of gas has not gone up, the dollar you buy your gas has just become less valuable.

Obama will have us pull out of Iraq, we will stop borrowing money to pay for the God damned war from China...we will deflate the dollar some, and we will be able to buy more for our dollar.

The price of oil has stayed pretty much constant in gold.
That's also untrue. The dollar has been appreciating relative to gold over the last 2 months -- the same time that gas prices have gone up over $1.

ari1013
06-30-2008, 08:56 AM
^^^ thats completely true

and drilling for oil in alaska would be the dumbest thing

1st the negative affects on the environment, 2nd our taxes would have to pay for a ridiculous system of piplines to get to and transport the oil

Im sure there is oil under my house somewhere, but it is so far undeground that it wouldnt even be nearly worth it to go try and attempt to drill it

The dollar is extremeely weak right now, unfortunately our president doesnt seem to care
Nope. Actually ever since the government finally recognized that the dollar was crashing, they've been doing a pretty good job of slowly bringing its value up. You can't simply double value overnight -- just as the Bush Treasury couldn't cut the value in half overnight.

Here's that graph again: http://delta100.com/wordpress/?p=2158

I'm sure I could find a newer graph if I looked, but I just pulled this out out of my old posting. As you can see, gold is on a steady decline as the dollar begins to appreciate once again. It's nowhere near the pre-Bush levels of about $240 an ounce, but at least it's off the Bush high of $1,030 an ounce last April. As of Friday (last trading day), gold is sitting at $931 (roughly 10% lower than 2 months ago). Oil, on the other hand, has increased steadily since then.

IndiansFan337
06-30-2008, 10:21 AM
Both candidates suck. Time to move to a difference country before the 2nd great depression happens.

That's pretty ignorant. If you truly think that will happen to the US then you need to get a better understanding of history & politics.

sboyajian
06-30-2008, 10:55 AM
If we begin exploration now, it will take at minimum 3 or 4 years before the oil that we have found to begin being used. That will not help us right now nor will it fix the problem we are having.

The major problem is demand for oil is up everywhere. Not just here, and Opec up until recently has denied the need for any increase in production.

When the supply remains the same, but the demand doubles or triples, prices double or triple.

Saudi Arabia increased production because they realized if we all look for new sources, it will hurt them in the long run. Opec historically follows suit of SA. They meet in September and I believe they will have a fairly substantial increase in production.

We will never see $30 - $40 dollars a barrel again.. however I'm fairly confident when production goes back up to more reasonable numbers, our price at the pump will drop to about $2.90 - $3.10 a gallon.

The government should not have to explore for the oil. Our money would be used for the exploration as taxpayers only for the oil itself to belong to the oil companies? No thank you. If we as taxpayers pay to find it, then the government as a whole can own it. Then sell it to the oil companies at affordable rates for use in our country. Profit made from the sale of oil to the Big 5, could be used to subsidize the governments budget and then decrease a need for higher taxes.

The fact remains, and both candidates know it. We need to find a powerful life altering solution to this.. and Oil can not be the solution. Whether it be vehicles that can run off of corn (there is a new type which costs pennies on the dollar to produce as compared to current Ethanol), Water (hydrogren), natural gas, chemically altered and safer propane.. whatever.. the solution can not be oil.

johnnylee722
06-30-2008, 11:00 AM
This is great. We need higher gas prices so people will stop driving gasoline powered cars. We can not use gas any more, we need to switch to electric or another car that can be fully dependent of oil.

I hope he becomes president so he can turn this country around. We can get out of the stone-age and stop using oil to power our cars.

sboyajian
06-30-2008, 11:04 AM
Yeah I read that BS post of yours and I thought you were joking the first time, but now that I see you actually believe your own lies, let me give you the numbers:

Saudi Arabia has 262 billion barrels of oil
The United States has 21 billion barrels.

The number two country to Saudi Arabia is actually Canada -- with 179 billion barrels. We're ranked 11th in the world.

You are actually both right.. (and wrong.. if you want to look at it that way).

Produced oil, you are right. We have 21 billion barrels (in reserves and production).

However, as a natural resource, the United States (mostly in part thanks to Alaska) has the most oil out of any other nation in the world. However, due to environmental protection BS, we have been unable to touch it. Our nation has access to approximately 5% of our oil resources due to legislation preventing it. That legislation may change now that it's become such a hot button issue.

I would even say it as a scare tactic.. just announce one day that there is a good chance in the next couple weeks that the US will begin using currently unused production sites of oil decreasing our dependancy on foreign supplies by 40% (or some other absurd number)..

I assure you within 48 hours you will see many public statements from OPEC announcing massive increases of production in an effort to prevent the US from doing so.

johnnylee722
06-30-2008, 11:15 AM
Its amazing how much we struggle with oil without changing. People always complain "Gas prices are too high." "Don't relay on other countries for oil." "don't drill in Alaska." How about this one "STOP USING OIL!"
There are so many cleaner, cheaper and safer options out there (solar, wind, geothermal, electric). America (as well as many parts of the world) are just too lazy to change. The only way to get them to change is by hurting their wallet. And thats what is happening and its only going to get worse.

sboyajian
06-30-2008, 12:08 PM
This is great. We need higher gas prices so people will stop driving gasoline powered cars. We can not use gas any more, we need to switch to electric or another car that can be fully dependent of oil.

I hope he becomes president so he can turn this country around. We can get out of the stone-age and stop using oil to power our cars.

We can not and should not move completely away from oil.

We should have a solid and good mix of vehicle types available. Oil, Electric, Oil/Electric, Hydrogen, Ethanol.

If you are dependant on any one item, you will drive the price of that item up.

If all cars could run on water and simply refuel by pulling out the garden house, the price people pay for water would go through the roof. You'd be using nearly twice as much water a month than usual. Likewise the issue with Ethanol is corn prices go up.

sboyajian
06-30-2008, 12:11 PM
Its amazing how much we struggle with oil without changing. People always complain "Gas prices are too high." "Don't relay on other countries for oil." "don't drill in Alaska." How about this one "STOP USING OIL!"
There are so many cleaner, cheaper and safer options out there (solar, wind, geothermal, electric). America (as well as many parts of the world) are just too lazy to change. The only way to get them to change is by hurting their wallet. And thats what is happening and its only going to get worse.A solely electric vehicle is not functional for the modern person. I spend 2 hours in my car a day. An electric vehicle, unless it was able to "recharge" via conductors in the road, is not feasible.. I'd run out before I got to my destination.

Solar, wind, etc is wonderful.. but again, not condusive to big industries which rely on oil as their industrial power supply. It does not produce enough energy over the short amount of time they would need.

Oil is a necessary evil.. it shouldn't, however, be the only one.

Padres Son
06-30-2008, 12:15 PM
Here's what pisses me off... we've been hearing this excuse from the oil companies for YEARS that the price of gas has been increasing because the demand keeps going up and up, but they can't increase supply because of our limited refinery facilities. They've claimed that it would take 10+ years to build new oil refineries and that it just isn't feasible. So, even if we had all the oil in the world, the amount they could refine and sell wouldn't increase.

But now that there's a possibility of drilling offshore, where's the concern about refinery capability? How are they going to lower prices if they can't increase the supply??

The fact of the matter is that it's not going to change anything at all if we drill offshore... not even one penny. There is a huge worldwide demand for oil, and the oil companies are not going to sell cheap gas to Americans if they can send it over to China for the worldwide going rate. I'm just waiting for that day to come... when the oil companies fool naive Americans into believing that it's necessary to drill offshore so they can benevolently sell them cheap gas -- and then watching as tanker after tanker takes our American oil to China and India.

I'm not necessarily saying it'd be a bad thing to drill offshore... but the reasons that are being presented are completely wrong. It will not affect gas prices, and will not increase our supply.

Randy West
06-30-2008, 12:34 PM
None of these politicos want prices to go up


But then again none of them are going to stand up to the oil companies and flat out say it.

Do you really want them to turn all those campaign dollars away by being against big oil???

Randy West
06-30-2008, 12:38 PM
Here's what pisses me off... we've been hearing this excuse from the oil companies for YEARS that the price of gas has been increasing because the demand keeps going up and up, but they can't increase supply because of our limited refinery facilities. They've claimed that it would take 10+ years to build new oil refineries and that it just isn't feasible. So, even if we had all the oil in the world, the amount they could refine and sell wouldn't increase.

But now that there's a possibility of drilling offshore, where's the concern about refinery capability? How are they going to lower prices if they can't increase the supply??

The fact of the matter is that it's not going to change anything at all if we drill offshore... not even one penny. There is a huge worldwide demand for oil, and the oil companies are not going to sell cheap gas to Americans if they can send it over to China for the worldwide going rate. I'm just waiting for that day to come... when the oil companies fool naive Americans into believing that it's necessary to drill offshore so they can benevolently sell them cheap gas -- and then watching as tanker after tanker takes our American oil to China and India.

I'm not necessarily saying it'd be a bad thing to drill offshore... but the reasons that are being presented are completely wrong. It will not affect gas prices, and will not increase our supply.


It will effect our economy though

Imagine a million barrels of crude a day coming out of Alaska @ 150+ per barrel

even though it is not a huge amount those are still dollars that will be spent here on the oil we are drilling. Not sent away to Saudi or Venezula helping them and there workers and economy

maddog1941
06-30-2008, 01:08 PM
We are at a crossroads, Americans. Energy independence SHOULD be our next great engineering feat on par with th APOLLO PROGRAM of the 60's, the HYDRO-ELECTRIC boom of the 30's-40's. $5 a gallon gas sucks and is one of the triggers for the hard times we are now in. Let's face it there are no easy fixes. Drilling up all of our oil is not THE solution, but should be part of a plan to ease short term woes. Over half of the off-shore areas allocated to oil drilling are not being used. Start there first before opening up any other off-shore spots. Having domestic control of refineriers would help in driving gas prices down, we need more and we knew it for years. Increase alternative energy strategies, increasing Nuclear power, Wind, and Solar, as well as developing new technologlies, these are sound methods for the future. In the meantime, we as Americans, are going to have to sacrifice, just as our ancestors did that were part of the "Greatest Generation". Just like the gluttony of the '20's helped push us to depression in the '30's. Our own gluttony in the '90's and the '00's are pushing us to the brink now.

maddog1941
06-30-2008, 01:15 PM
I am an OBAMA supporter. I, however, do not beileive he's the answer to all our problems, nor do i believe in everything he would like to do. I just think he can be a sound leader and one who would invite co-operation and usher in a post-partisan era in government in Washington.

ari1013
06-30-2008, 03:03 PM
If we begin exploration now, it will take at minimum 3 or 4 years before the oil that we have found to begin being used. That will not help us right now nor will it fix the problem we are having.

The major problem is demand for oil is up everywhere. Not just here, and Opec up until recently has denied the need for any increase in production.

When the supply remains the same, but the demand doubles or triples, prices double or triple.

Saudi Arabia increased production because they realized if we all look for new sources, it will hurt them in the long run. Opec historically follows suit of SA. They meet in September and I believe they will have a fairly substantial increase in production.

We will never see $30 - $40 dollars a barrel again.. however I'm fairly confident when production goes back up to more reasonable numbers, our price at the pump will drop to about $2.90 - $3.10 a gallon.

The government should not have to explore for the oil. Our money would be used for the exploration as taxpayers only for the oil itself to belong to the oil companies? No thank you. If we as taxpayers pay to find it, then the government as a whole can own it. Then sell it to the oil companies at affordable rates for use in our country. Profit made from the sale of oil to the Big 5, could be used to subsidize the governments budget and then decrease a need for higher taxes.

The fact remains, and both candidates know it. We need to find a powerful life altering solution to this.. and Oil can not be the solution. Whether it be vehicles that can run off of corn (there is a new type which costs pennies on the dollar to produce as compared to current Ethanol), Water (hydrogren), natural gas, chemically altered and safer propane.. whatever.. the solution can not be oil.
What are you basing that confidence on? Where are you getting your supply figures? We're not lagging on supply at all. The world has never produced as much oil as it is today. The problem is that demand continues to rise. That's what's raising prices. As I've said, following the Congressional Report's best estimate -- we'll be able to increase supply by 1 million barrels per day by increasing drilling efforts. That's only a 1% increase in supply.

v3n0m
06-30-2008, 03:07 PM
In the first place, there is a plan formt eh Arabians to cut down gas prices worldwide, and since they have control over the majority of the remaining existence of petroleum reserves, they can be pretty dominant when dealing with gas prices, so if the Arabians actually work something out, the tendency will be to go down and not the other way...

ari1013
06-30-2008, 03:09 PM
In the first place, there is a plan formt eh Arabians to cut down gas prices worldwide, and since they have control over the majority of the remaining existence of petroleum reserves, they can be pretty dominant when dealing with gas prices, so if the Arabians actually work something out, the tendency will be to go down and not the other way...
Right. The Saudis increased their supply by 800,000 barrels per day. That was a little less than a 1% increase in global supply. That led to about a 2% decrease in gas prices. But then the Chinese announced that they were going to be bidding $150 per barrel of oil, and prices rose right back to where they were before ($4.077 US average for gasoline and $143 for a barrel of oil).

gcoll
06-30-2008, 06:15 PM
None of these politicos want prices to go up


But then again none of them are going to stand up to the oil companies and flat out say it.

Do you really want them to turn all those campaign dollars away by being against big oil???

Big oil? It's not really their fault though.

Everyone wants to demonize someone. Either the oil companies, or the prospectors or whatever.....but maybe the price of gas is so high, because it's supposed to be that high. Maybe there really is no way to snap your fingers and make it decrease. Maybe the best bet is to invest in other types of technology, and decrease the need for gas and oil.

Basically. We've heard of a "gas tax holiday", but numerous economists have claimed that would have no impact on the price, and it's really just a gimmick.

And you've also heard that increasing the supply, via offshore drilling and drilling in the US. But, if what Ari says is true, the problem isn't with the supply. And, the United States doesn't have enough to make all that large of an impact on the market anyhow. So that would do nothing.

So.....perhaps there is nothing "they" can do about gas prices.

Randy West
06-30-2008, 06:24 PM
Big oil? It's not really their fault though.

Everyone wants to demonize someone. Either the oil companies, or the prospectors or whatever.....but maybe the price of gas is so high, because it's supposed to be that high. Maybe there really is no way to snap your fingers and make it decrease. Maybe the best bet is to invest in other types of technology, and decrease the need for gas and oil.

Basically. We've heard of a "gas tax holiday", but numerous economists have claimed that would have no impact on the price, and it's really just a gimmick.

And you've also heard that increasing the supply, via offshore drilling and drilling in the US. But, if what Ari says is true, the problem isn't with the supply. And, the United States doesn't have enough to make all that large of an impact on the market anyhow. So that would do nothing.

So.....perhaps there is nothing "they" can do about gas prices.

Exxon earned 40 billion last year.........so someone is making some money on oil.

My whole point with drilling would just mean that is a million barrels a day less we buy from someone else. Not that it would drastically lower prices at the pump........it would just be us buying a million barrels from ourselves instead of buying those million barrels elsewhere........150+ million spent here as opposed to Saud or Venezula


http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/02/high_oil.html


High gas prices may have cinched American consumers’ wallets in 2007, but they loaded the coffers of the big five oil companies: BP, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell. ExxonMobil, after record high profits in 2005 and 2006, smashed the record for highest profits ever made by a public U.S. company—previously held by Exxon—by posting a net profit of $40.6 billion in 2007.

To put these figures in perspective, Exxon’s $40.6 billion profit in 2007 is roughly equal to receiving “$30 for every person in China and $132 for every U.S. resident.” Another way of looking at it is that Exxon made $77,245 per minute in 2007—that’s more money generated per minute than 70 percent of Americans earned all year, according to the Census Bureau.

Padres Son
06-30-2008, 07:14 PM
^^ Pretty tough to argue that the oil companies aren't gouging consumers when they're making the largest profits ever seen by an American business. Maybe it wouldn't be so appalling if ExxonMobil was making any effort to develop sustainable energy. I can't remember the exact stats... but I remember reading somewhere that Exxon spent like $3 million on hydrogen research and $50 million on an advertising campaign about their hydrogen research. It's a puppet show.

Next time you're filling up your car with $4/gal gas, think about the Exxon/Shell/Mobil/whatever executives who are making $50 mil/yr or more. Think about the amount of money you're paying for them to live like gluttonous pigs. Think about the $500 million retirement packages that are being given to oil executives. These guys make A-Rod look poor in comparison.

Randy West
06-30-2008, 07:21 PM
^^ Pretty tough to argue that the oil companies aren't gouging consumers when they're making the largest profits ever seen by an American business. Maybe it wouldn't be so appalling if ExxonMobil was making any effort to develop sustainable energy. I can't remember the exact stats... but I remember reading somewhere that Exxon spent like $3 million on hydrogen research and $50 million on an advertising campaign about their hydrogen research. It's a puppet show.

Next time you're filling up your car with $4/gal gas, think about the Exxon/Shell/Mobil/whatever executives who are making $50 mil/yr or more. Think about the amount of money you're paying for them to live like gluttonous pigs. Think about the $500 million retirement packages that are being given to oil executives. These guys make A-Rod look poor in comparison.


Agreed

Did you get a look at the graph of when the price started going up??

I thought that was kind of amusing..............I mean since 2001 it has tripled??

jezzus

ari1013
06-30-2008, 08:23 PM
Exxon earned 40 billion last year.........so someone is making some money on oil.

My whole point with drilling would just mean that is a million barrels a day less we buy from someone else. Not that it would drastically lower prices at the pump........it would just be us buying a million barrels from ourselves instead of buying those million barrels elsewhere........150+ million spent here as opposed to Saud or Venezula


http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/02/high_oil.html


High gas prices may have cinched American consumers’ wallets in 2007, but they loaded the coffers of the big five oil companies: BP, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell. ExxonMobil, after record high profits in 2005 and 2006, smashed the record for highest profits ever made by a public U.S. company—previously held by Exxon—by posting a net profit of $40.6 billion in 2007.

To put these figures in perspective, Exxon’s $40.6 billion profit in 2007 is roughly equal to receiving “$30 for every person in China and $132 for every U.S. resident.” Another way of looking at it is that Exxon made $77,245 per minute in 2007—that’s more money generated per minute than 70 percent of Americans earned all year, according to the Census Bureau.
Of course they made a record profit. Demand in Asia is soaring. But on a marginal basis, each gallon of gas is only giving a few cents of profit to the oil companies.

I'm not a big fan of Big Oil for a different reason. But you can't get on them for this. It's clearly not price gouging when oil is increasing in price. Now if a barrel of oil falls to $80 and gas is still $4+, then I'll buy into those conspiracy theories.

ari1013
06-30-2008, 08:24 PM
^^ Pretty tough to argue that the oil companies aren't gouging consumers when they're making the largest profits ever seen by an American business. Maybe it wouldn't be so appalling if ExxonMobil was making any effort to develop sustainable energy. I can't remember the exact stats... but I remember reading somewhere that Exxon spent like $3 million on hydrogen research and $50 million on an advertising campaign about their hydrogen research. It's a puppet show.

Next time you're filling up your car with $4/gal gas, think about the Exxon/Shell/Mobil/whatever executives who are making $50 mil/yr or more. Think about the amount of money you're paying for them to live like gluttonous pigs. Think about the $500 million retirement packages that are being given to oil executives. These guys make A-Rod look poor in comparison.
Yes exactly. That's what I don't like about them. If they're making that much money, they should be investing it in alternative energy. After all, in a couple of decades, that's the only fuel we've got.

ari1013
06-30-2008, 08:26 PM
Agreed

Did you get a look at the graph of when the price started going up??

I thought that was kind of amusing..............I mean since 2001 it has tripled??

jezzus
We knew global demand was going to start increasing. We should have been investing in alternatives way back then. But instead the only alternative we looked at was ethanol -- and even then it was just to pander to the Midwest (helped Bush take Iowa).

deftonesrule
06-30-2008, 08:54 PM
OBAMA WANTS to reduce our dependance on oil by investing in renewable resources. fossils fuels will not be here forever and we are getting just a tiny taste of what would happen when all the oil runs dry.

obama is actually looking toward the future of the country rather then his own wallet. how about, dont drill for oil anymore, invest in electric and hydrogeen cars ?

sboyajian
06-30-2008, 09:33 PM
What are you basing that confidence on? Where are you getting your supply figures? We're not lagging on supply at all. The world has never produced as much oil as it is today. The problem is that demand continues to rise. That's what's raising prices. As I've said, following the Congressional Report's best estimate -- we'll be able to increase supply by 1 million barrels per day by increasing drilling efforts. That's only a 1% increase in supply.1 million barrels a day is almost nothing. It wouldn't even drop the price by 1 penny.. hell.. if it all went to California, it wouldn't even drop the price in california by a penny.

I am aware "production has never been higher".. however, they have the ability to increase production by leaps and bounds and they simply are not. It's not in their best interest. Until, as Saudi Arabia pointed out, we'll do what we are now doing. Look for alternatives.. which means eventually as our dependancy drops, the demand drops, which means the price drops and it hurts them.

We all know demand is raising the price, but the lack of production is also. OPEC has the ability to raise production so much that it could drop the price at the pump by at least $1 .. and they could do it so quickly we'd see the difference within 1 or 2 weeks time. At this point they have not had any reason to. They also, will not decide this kind of thing until September. Even if they decide to, they won't until then.

sboyajian
06-30-2008, 09:35 PM
Right. The Saudis increased their supply by 800,000 barrels per day. That was a little less than a 1% increase in global supply. That led to about a 2% decrease in gas prices. But then the Chinese announced that they were going to be bidding $150 per barrel of oil, and prices rose right back to where they were before ($4.077 US average for gasoline and $143 for a barrel of oil).

When did they announce that? Last I heard 2 days ago China said they felt the price per barrel was very overpriced and they felt it should be about $60 - 80 a barrel.

ari1013
06-30-2008, 10:23 PM
1 million barrels a day is almost nothing. It wouldn't even drop the price by 1 penny.. hell.. if it all went to California, it wouldn't even drop the price in california by a penny.

I am aware "production has never been higher".. however, they have the ability to increase production by leaps and bounds and they simply are not. It's not in their best interest. Until, as Saudi Arabia pointed out, we'll do what we are now doing. Look for alternatives.. which means eventually as our dependancy drops, the demand drops, which means the price drops and it hurts them.

We all know demand is raising the price, but the lack of production is also. OPEC has the ability to raise production so much that it could drop the price at the pump by at least $1 .. and they could do it so quickly we'd see the difference within 1 or 2 weeks time. At this point they have not had any reason to. They also, will not decide this kind of thing until September. Even if they decide to, they won't until then.
You said it yourself. 1 million barrels per day is only going to be a penny or so. To get $1, that's going to have to be about 80-100 million barrels per day. That means you want global oil production to double. Please tell me that you realize that's absolutely impossible.

johnnylee722
06-30-2008, 10:29 PM
We can not and should not move completely away from oil.

We should have a solid and good mix of vehicle types available. Oil, Electric, Oil/Electric, Hydrogen, Ethanol.

If you are dependant on any one item, you will drive the price of that item up.

If all cars could run on water and simply refuel by pulling out the garden house, the price people pay for water would go through the roof. You'd be using nearly twice as much water a month than usual. Likewise the issue with Ethanol is corn prices go up.

Have a house run on solar, have geothermal to heat and cool the house and an electric car that plugs into the house (switch is powered by solar). There you go... no oil used there.

ari1013
06-30-2008, 10:30 PM
When did they announce that? Last I heard 2 days ago China said they felt the price per barrel was very overpriced and they felt it should be about $60 - 80 a barrel.
They've been doing stuff like that for years:

2005 - http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GI29Df01.html

2006 - http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=939076

2007 - http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=16851

2008 - http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/19/africa/19iraq.php

CNOOK is always outbidding everyone else by a long shot. They locked up a large portion of Iraqi oil this past week with a bid over market price. I'm not sure if that last link has the prices in it, but the latest GER that I got stated China's bid at $150 per.

gcoll
06-30-2008, 10:31 PM
Exxon earned 40 billion last year.........so someone is making some money on oil.
Of course. The price of oil has gone up.

The oil companies will make more profit, if oil is worth more.

About where we get our oil. I think we get a lot of it from Mexico and Canada.

ari1013
06-30-2008, 10:33 PM
Of course. The price of oil has gone up.

The oil companies will make more profit, if oil is worth more.

About where we get our oil. I think we get a lot of it from Mexico and Canada.
Yup you're correct. Thanks to NAFTA, Canada and Mexico are 1 and 2 respectively among nations that export oil to us.

EDIT: Wow I stand corrected. When the Saudis increased production last Fall they actually surpassed Mexico: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

EDIT2: One other surprising thing. We import 10 million barrels per month from the Virgin Islands -- which we own. I wonder how that works.

johnnylee722
06-30-2008, 10:35 PM
A solely electric vehicle is not functional for the modern person. I spend 2 hours in my car a day. An electric vehicle, unless it was able to "recharge" via conductors in the road, is not feasible.. I'd run out before I got to my destination.

Solar, wind, etc is wonderful.. but again, not condusive to big industries which rely on oil as their industrial power supply. It does not produce enough energy over the short amount of time they would need.

Oil is a necessary evil.. it shouldn't, however, be the only one.

The Tesla roadster is a sport car (which uses more energy) and gets 220 miles for a single charged battery. I'm sure that enough to get you where you need to go.

And factory can switch to solar. As long as the building is big enough you can put enough solar panels to power it.

ari1013
06-30-2008, 10:49 PM
Very weird...

From www.vienergy.org


The Congressional Subcommittee on Insular Affairs and the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources will hold a hearing in Frederiksted Saturday.
Energy issues facing the Virgin Islands will be discussed and federal officials, local officials, and alternative energy providers will testify.
The potential for energy efficiency measures and alternative energy to address energy challenges will be discussed. Residents of the Virgin Islands pay far higher electricity rates than the rest of the United States, and are almost entirely dependent on imported foreign fuel sources. The hearing will begin at 10 a.m. at the Frits E. Lawaetz Conference Room, Legislature of the Virgin Islands, St. Croix.
"With the cost of energy being a worldwide problem that is exacerbated in the territories, it is necessary to get our specific needs before the Congress, so that we can be a part of any solution that is crafted by the body," said Congresswoman Christensen, who chairs the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs. Energy Subcommittee. Chair Jim Costa (D-CA) and member Bill Schuster (R-PA) are expected to attend.
The Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) share a number of severe energy problems. As islands, they lack interconnection to larger electrical grids that would provide emergency backup power or economies of scale. Lacking indigenous sources of fossil fuels, they are almost entirely dependent on imported oil or refined petroleum products for electricity generation. This dependence causes electricity prices to track with petroleum prices, contributing to electricity rates that are higher than anywhere else in the United. In addition, the tropical marine environment of the insular areas creates maintenance difficulties for energy equipment, as corrosion is accelerated in humid salty air, while the frequency of tropical storms on the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the CNMI makes the installation of renewable energy generating equipment more troublesome and expensive. The general public is invited to submit testimony for the record. The record will remain open until two weeks after the hearing date.
Invited local witnesses include Usie Richards, president, of the V.I. Legislature; Bevan Smith, director, V.I. Energy Office; Hugo Hodge, executive director, V. I. Water and Power Authority; and Daryll Miller, president, St. Croix Alliance to Protect Utility Ratepayers.

Also testifying will be a panel of energy providers and a panel of federal officials.

How could that possibly be when we're importing close to half a million barrels of oil per day from them?

jlohm1
06-30-2008, 11:07 PM
Wow I stand corrected. When the Saudis increased production last Fall they actually surpassed Mexico

they increased production to equal it out b/c Mexico cut back. They just did it to keep the world oil equal.

papipapsmanny
06-30-2008, 11:09 PM
That's also untrue. The dollar has been appreciating relative to gold over the last 2 months -- the same time that gas prices have gone up over $1.

it is true u have to understand that everything in the economy is delayed, so if the dollar has gained some value now it will help gas prices in like a month or 2

jlohm1
06-30-2008, 11:15 PM
OBAMA WANTS to reduce our dependance on oil by investing in renewable resources. fossils fuels will not be here forever and we are getting just a tiny taste of what would happen when all the oil runs dry.

obama is actually looking toward the future of the country rather then his own wallet. how about, dont drill for oil anymore, invest in electric and hydrogeen cars ?

Electric cars dont really exist any more. there might be a few out there, Im not sure. That would just increase our dependence on electric and raise those prices. Unless we switch to the no polution alternative, nuclear plants.

papipapsmanny
06-30-2008, 11:20 PM
yes electricity is so hard to come by.....................

sboyajian
07-01-2008, 12:23 AM
You said it yourself. 1 million barrels per day is only going to be a penny or so. To get $1, that's going to have to be about 80-100 million barrels per day. That means you want global oil production to double. Please tell me that you realize that's absolutely impossible.More things effect the price at the pump than supply. If supply rises even by about 20 - 25%, speculation becomes less of an issue and the value of the dollar becomes much stronger.

Even if it drops 80 cents at the pump, it would feel like $1 to your pocket. You can't just look at the price.

Not to mention they have the largest Reserve, they claim it's so vast. They could raise production without even having all of it come off the line.

ari1013
07-01-2008, 09:47 AM
it is true u have to understand that everything in the economy is delayed, so if the dollar has gained some value now it will help gas prices in like a month or 2
That's also not true. If the US dollar has more purchasing power, we should see commodities falling in price. Gold has done that. Even corn has done that (despite a good chunk of the crop getting flooded out). Oil has continued to rise.

ari1013
07-01-2008, 09:47 AM
Electric cars dont really exist any more. there might be a few out there, Im not sure. That would just increase our dependence on electric and raise those prices. Unless we switch to the no polution alternative, nuclear plants.
Nope. They're all off the market. See "Who Killed the Electric Car" documentary for more info.

johnnylee722
07-01-2008, 09:51 AM
Electric cars dont really exist any more. there might be a few out there, Im not sure. That would just increase our dependence on electric and raise those prices. Unless we switch to the no polution alternative, nuclear plants.

Yes there are. My friend has the Telsa Roadster. He also has a solar powered house. He plugs his electric car into his solar powered house and no oil is used there.
By the way the Roadster is the fastest car on the market I believe. It is amazing. It goes from 0-60 in like 4 seconds. Pure electric. So whoever said that electric cars don't have power, their wrong.
Tesla will be releasing a sedan in couple of years as well.

ari1013
07-01-2008, 10:07 AM
Yes there are. My friend has the Telsa Roadster. He also has a solar powered house. He plugs his electric car into his solar powered house and no oil is used there.
By the way the Roadster is the fastest car on the market I believe. It is amazing. It goes from 0-60 in like 4 seconds. Pure electric. So whoever said that electric cars don't have power, their wrong.
Tesla will be releasing a sedan in couple of years as well.
I find that pretty hard to believe that he has a Tesla... Those things are so freaking expensive.

Anyway, the consumer electric car, the EV-1, was taken out of production shortly after it began.

ari1013
07-01-2008, 10:07 AM
More things effect the price at the pump than supply. If supply rises even by about 20 - 25%, speculation becomes less of an issue and the value of the dollar becomes much stronger.

Even if it drops 80 cents at the pump, it would feel like $1 to your pocket. You can't just look at the price.

Not to mention they have the largest Reserve, they claim it's so vast. They could raise production without even having all of it come off the line.
Speculation is not an issue at all though. Here look:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/speculative-nonsense-once-again/

Krugman says it better than I can.

As for increasing production, estimates of the absolute maximum long term increase that the Saudis could pump is 2.5 million barrels per day (more than doubling their current production). But that's a 2.5% increase -- not a 25% increase in global supplies. So that'll give us about a 5% drop in oil prices = 20 cents.

And that would be the absolute maximum we could get from them. At the same time, you better believe that demand will continue to rise throughout that entire time as China and India each surpass us in total vehicles on the road. So that slight increase in supply will be more than made up for by increases in demand.

johnnylee722
07-01-2008, 10:12 AM
I find that pretty hard to believe that he has a Tesla... Those things are so freaking expensive.

Anyway, the consumer electric car, the EV-1, was taken out of production shortly after it began.

He has a lot of money hahaha. He leaves in the Hamptons, it cost him about 100K.

johnnylee722
07-01-2008, 10:15 AM
Oil companies don't want there to be electric cars so they prevent it from being made. Its ridiculous and that shouldn't be allowed to happen. Hopefully the price of gas keeps going up and Americans will realize that there are other alternatives out there and they will switch to them and stop using oil and draining their pockets, supporting foreign countries and destroying the environment.

sboyajian
07-01-2008, 10:43 AM
Speculation is not an issue at all though. Here look:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/speculative-nonsense-once-again/

Krugman says it better than I can.

As for increasing production, estimates of the absolute maximum long term increase that the Saudis could pump is 2.5 million barrels per day (more than doubling their current production). But that's a 2.5% increase -- not a 25% increase in global supplies. So that'll give us about a 5% drop in oil prices = 20 cents.

And that would be the absolute maximum we could get from them. At the same time, you better believe that demand will continue to rise throughout that entire time as China and India each surpass us in total vehicles on the road. So that slight increase in supply will be more than made up for by increases in demand.
Right.. but I was not referring to the Saudi's.. they have already increased their production. My point is.. history shows that when Saudi Arabia increases production, OPEC generally follows their lead. Saudi Arabia is not a member of OPEC, so, if OPEC increased production, the way they can, especially with the massive reserves, they could drop the price of oil itself by about 60 cents. With the value of oil being down, and lessening the tightness on our wallets, the value of the dollar goes up.. while the price at the pump may have only dropped 60 cents, with the dollar being up, it would feel like 80.

With more production to match demand, speculation would have very little effect on it and would likely prevent massive jumps (even if it doesn't drop the price at all).

While speculation is not the problem, it has affected the price some. Everytime a new report comes out, the price soars and eventually settles down from it's daily high, but still at a record price.

Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Libya, Algeria, Nigeria, Angola, Venezuela and Ecuador are what makes up OPEC, and I am 100% positive when they meet in Vienna in Sept.. they will release a statement of increased production.

ari1013
07-01-2008, 11:30 AM
Saudi Arabia is the dominant member of OPEC actually.

Here's the list in size order:
Saudi Arabia
Iran
Venzuela
UAE
Nigeria
Kuwait
Angola
Libya
Algeria
Qatar
Ecuador
Iraq (should be higher but they're not pumping much)

EDIT: point being, Saudi Arabia has about a 40% stake in OPEC. So using Saudi Arabia's 2.5 as their max increase, we can assume that OPEC on the whole could increase by 10 million total barrels == 10% of global supply. That would yield a 40 cent price drop. Still nowhere close to $1. And still not even close to enough to offset demand.

Doc Fluty
07-01-2008, 03:55 PM
i wont pretend to be a oil expert, but if

1. saudi arabia pumps more oil (they already said they are concerned about people moving away from oil over concerns about the price)
2. we allow offshore drilling
3. open up anwr
4. keep developing fuel efficient cars and trucks
5. fix iraqs oil probs
6. put some money up for wind, solar, nuclear and other renewable resources..
7. do something with the gas tax

now im sure no 1 solution would bring down prices. but little by little if we did all of these couldn't we get gas below $2 a gallon again? but even if all this amounted to a 25% drop... wouldnt that take gas again under $3?

and that dollar means alot to someone filliing up a 20 gallon tank a week... a extra $80 would be nights at the movies, dinners and the difference between a ok and great christmas

the market dictates the price of crude, so if investors saw all of these being implemented they would sell their oil stock quik... dropping the price.

am i over simplifying it?

and for the other Einstein bragging how his friend uses no oil (even though as someone else pointed out that oil is used in many everyday items like trash bags)... with his $100,000 Tesla and solar powered house... you wanna tell me how/why an average American who is having trouble at the pump with $4 gas would buy a $100,000 car? and no its not the fastest production vehicle... check your facts before you post. we all dont live in the hamptons and invest in making a house solar powered.

Beno7500
07-01-2008, 05:26 PM
I hate Obama. i hope mcCain wins. though i would have like giuliani to be prez

ari1013
07-01-2008, 06:27 PM
i wont pretend to be a oil expert, but if

1. saudi arabia pumps more oil (they already said they are concerned about people moving away from oil over concerns about the price)
2. we allow offshore drilling
3. open up anwr
4. keep developing fuel efficient cars and trucks
5. fix iraqs oil probs
6. put some money up for wind, solar, nuclear and other renewable resources..
7. do something with the gas tax

now im sure no 1 solution would bring down prices. but little by little if we did all of these couldn't we get gas below $2 a gallon again? but even if all this amounted to a 25% drop... wouldnt that take gas again under $3?

and that dollar means alot to someone filliing up a 20 gallon tank a week... a extra $80 would be nights at the movies, dinners and the difference between a ok and great christmas

the market dictates the price of crude, so if investors saw all of these being implemented they would sell their oil stock quik... dropping the price.

am i over simplifying it?

and for the other Einstein bragging how his friend uses no oil (even though as someone else pointed out that oil is used in many everyday items like trash bags)... with his $100,000 Tesla and solar powered house... you wanna tell me how/why an average American who is having trouble at the pump with $4 gas would buy a $100,000 car? and no its not the fastest production vehicle... check your facts before you post. we all dont live in the hamptons and invest in making a house solar powered.
No, because the problem isn't supply. It's demand. And all those little bumps in supply might very well boost supply by 25%, but demand will have doubled in that time period as well. Get used to it. Gas prices will continue to rise (albeit at a slower pace -- we were basically going through a correction) for the unforseen future.

Looking at your list:
1. saudi arabia pumps more oil -- as I said, even at their max, that's 2.5% increase over current global supply

2. we allow offshore drilling
3. open up anwr

The two of these amount to an additional 1%


4. keep developing fuel efficient cars and trucks

This wouldn't affect the supply of oil at all (or price for that matter), but it would save Americans money at the pump.


5. fix iraqs oil probs

Getting Iraq back online would yield an additional 2.5 million barrels per day assuming they can get supply back to pre-1990 levels (the wars destroyed a lot of the supply lines). So being as optimistic as possible, that's another 2.5%

6. put some money up for wind, solar, nuclear and other renewable resources..

That would decrease US demand for oil as an energy source -- but that's only a tiny portion of our oil usage. Let's be generous and say that would decrease US demand by 5% which means global demand would fall by 2%.

7. do something with the gas tax

Sorry this one's all pipe. An excise tax applied to a good with very inelastic demand means that almost the entire burden falls on the producers. Gasoline has an elasticity of -0.26 meaning we consumers are getting 20% of the burden of the tax. If you remove that tax, 20% times 18 cents = about a 3.6 cent drop in gas prices. The cost of that meanwhile is 18 cents per gallon to Federal roadways. I'd rather drive on safe roads and bridges than save 3.6 cents per gallon.

So all in all, we're talking about a 6% increase in supply, which would yield 11.5% savings on our gas bill which equals 46.2 cents per gallon (using $4 gas), then another 3.6 from the tax = 49.8 cents, then global demand falling by 2% (assuming China and India don't increase demand -- which would be a miracle), yielding another 8 cents...

In the end gas would fall by a little less than 58 cents per gallon if all of this happened AND India and China didn't continue overbidding on oil due to their growing demand.

jlohm1
07-01-2008, 06:32 PM
i wont pretend to be a oil expert, but if

1. saudi arabia pumps more oil (they already said they are concerned about people moving away from oil over concerns about the price)
2. we allow offshore drilling
3. open up anwr
4. keep developing fuel efficient cars and trucks
5. fix iraqs oil probs
6. put some money up for wind, solar, nuclear and other renewable resources..
7. do something with the gas tax


all these together would GREATLY decrease gas prices. If McCain become prez, these might happen, except for the first one. Just under the Rockie mountains alone we have more than Saudi Arabia. If we open up ANWR, we would have more than enough oil.

jlohm1
07-01-2008, 06:34 PM
I just dont see why the countries that liberals idolize, like Canada and Australia, are drilling there own oil and using nuclear power plants, but Liberals appose all that.

Randy West
07-01-2008, 06:38 PM
There is really no one thing that is going to drop oil prices.

Do some of the things discussed here and combine them and it would be a start.

IF they would have allowed ANWR 10 or 13 years ago gas might be less expensive than it is now

jlohm1
07-01-2008, 06:39 PM
It's really not worth arguing with someone who refuses to face reality, but here goes again. A 1% increase in global oil (as we would have via offshore drilling) would yield a little less than a 4% decrease in prices of oil -- or about a 2% decrease in gasoline prices. So that's where the 5 to 10 cent decrease comes from.

It's not just economists who understand that. Even Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens (R) issued a report stating there would be about a 5-10 cent drop in 10-20 years.

then explain why places that drill there own oil can keep it under $1/ gallon?

jlohm1
07-01-2008, 06:40 PM
There is really no one thing that is going to drop oil prices.

Do some of the things discussed here and combine them and it would be a start.

IF they would have allowed ANWR 10 or 13 years ago gas might be less expensive than it is now

yah.

jlohm1
07-01-2008, 06:44 PM
Whoever here wants to pay more for gas and enjoys paying $4+ for gas, please, let me know who you are... im yet to meet someone who does.

anyone? please, speak up and let me know who you are!

Doc Fluty
07-01-2008, 07:02 PM
ok.. i listed 7 things that could help.. not solve but help the problem.

so far i have seen mccain at least talk about doing somehting about it. including drilling for more oil, offer reward for developing a electric car, build 45 nuclear reactors... and im sure he has a few green ideas as well...

but all i hear from obama is NO.. no to doing away with the gas tax, no to this and that.. i seen he wants to throw like 150 billion at wind and stuff which is good... but the main thing i still here from him is "we cant drive our SUVs and keep our thermostats at 72, cause the world wont let us"

good ideas or bad... at least i see mccain wanting to try damn near anything to help.. but obama just sits in a chair leaning back saying nope... nope... nope... hes just given up already and decided the rest of the world will dictate what we do and drive...

the ****ed up part about it is... i like obama.. let me rephrase that... i saw his speech at a church from a few weeks ago,and it really was powerful. the guy is electrifying.he would be someone who i think would represent America well to the rest of the world, BUT the big problem is hes a liberal lol

ari1013
07-01-2008, 11:57 PM
all these together would GREATLY decrease gas prices. If McCain become prez, these might happen, except for the first one. Just under the Rockie mountains alone we have more than Saudi Arabia. If we open up ANWR, we would have more than enough oil.
Are you seriously that blind to reality? You really think there's more oil in the Rockies than under the Arabian desert? And even if that was the case, wouldn't the most-Big-Oil-friendly President we've ever had want to drill there?

Enough with the BS.

ari1013
07-01-2008, 11:59 PM
then explain why places that drill there own oil can keep it under $1/ gallon?
The UK drills and exports oil. Gas there is higher than it is here. Canada is the number 1 exporter of oil to the US. Gas there is more expensive than it is here.

As I said, enough of your complete and utter BS. Do us all a favor and get some real facts before you run your mouth again.

ari1013
07-02-2008, 12:02 AM
ok.. i listed 7 things that could help.. not solve but help the problem.

so far i have seen mccain at least talk about doing somehting about it. including drilling for more oil, offer reward for developing a electric car, build 45 nuclear reactors... and im sure he has a few green ideas as well...

but all i hear from obama is NO.. no to doing away with the gas tax, no to this and that.. i seen he wants to throw like 150 billion at wind and stuff which is good... but the main thing i still here from him is "we cant drive our SUVs and keep our thermostats at 72, cause the world wont let us"

good ideas or bad... at least i see mccain wanting to try damn near anything to help.. but obama just sits in a chair leaning back saying nope... nope... nope... hes just given up already and decided the rest of the world will dictate what we do and drive...

the ****ed up part about it is... i like obama.. let me rephrase that... i saw his speech at a church from a few weeks ago,and it really was powerful. the guy is electrifying.he would be someone who i think would represent America well to the rest of the world, BUT the big problem is hes a liberal lol
Investing in alternatives really is our best shot at this point. Both Obama and McCain have said that. McCain's trying to score some cheap political points with the tax holiday and drilling -- when in actuality they're really not going to do much for the price of gas, and yet, they'll distract us enough to forget about alternatives for a while.
Just because it makes a nice soundbite doesn't make it true.

Obama's right -- we need to focus 100% of our efforts on alternatives. Throwing billions at ANWR and road repairs that are going to be left unpaid isn't going to help us one bit.

Redsoxin09
07-02-2008, 12:17 AM
Everyone in America needs to start doing what we did before we had cars, biking and walking places. You can throw figures around and argue this forever but if we car pool, bike, and walk to places it will help us with our effort to get more bang for our buck, plus it would help the obesity epedemic we have in our country.

ari1013
07-02-2008, 09:05 AM
Everyone in America needs to start doing what we did before we had cars, biking and walking places. You can throw figures around and argue this forever but if we car pool, bike, and walk to places it will help us with our effort to get more bang for our buck, plus it would help the obesity epedemic we have in our country.
Mass transit? A train is much more efficient than a car. Unfortunately, people don't like trains. Out here they won't let the train run into the suburbs. the suburban counties routinely vote it down because they don't like certain "elements" in Saint Louis county. Gotta love not-so-veiled-racism.

sboyajian
07-02-2008, 10:14 AM
Are you seriously that blind to reality? You really think there's more oil in the Rockies than under the Arabian desert? And even if that was the case, wouldn't the most-Big-Oil-friendly President we've ever had want to drill there?

Enough with the BS.Have you read anything a bout the Rockies oil?

A study by the Rand Corporation estimates the sedimentary rock in the corner where Utah borders Colorado and Wyoming holds about 800 billion barrels. That's three times the size of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves.

Estimates by the company currently working with certain types of retorts believe they can produce oil for about $33 a barrel in the early days, and that, over time, production costs will fall to less than $20 a barrel.

You are right Saudi is in OPEC.. I actually forgot that because it's not typical for one country to increase production while the rest don't. Since they did, the rest likely will however.

It was never developed before.. they've known the Shale to have oil since the 30's when the government deemed it Federal land prohibiting anyone from using it. There was never a great method of getting it out of the shale efficiently though. Now there are methods and Shell and Exxon are actually working on more methods (which would appease environmentalist)..

That will will be taken advantage of and hopefully very very soon.. that would cause a huge shift in not only dependancy but also price.

You have made many good points, but you should keep in mind.. just because production increases, doesn't mean demand does.

If I made 1000 hats and I sell them all, it doesn't mean if I make 2000 hats I will. I might have 500 left over.. to say 25% production increase will see a 25% demand increase, is simply not likely... because of recent events you will see a surge of people using alternate methods, so demand will remain high, but it may remain constant as well and not grow.

ari1013
07-02-2008, 10:31 AM
Have you read anything a bout the Rockies oil?

A study by the Rand Corporation estimates the sedimentary rock in the corner where Utah borders Colorado and Wyoming holds about 800 billion barrels. That's three times the size of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves.

Estimates by the company currently working with certain types of retorts believe they can produce oil for about $33 a barrel in the early days, and that, over time, production costs will fall to less than $20 a barrel.

You are right Saudi is in OPEC.. I actually forgot that because it's not typical for one country to increase production while the rest don't. Since they did, the rest likely will however.

It was never developed before.. they've known the Shale to have oil since the 30's when the government deemed it Federal land prohibiting anyone from using it. There was never a great method of getting it out of the shale efficiently though. Now there are methods and Shell and Exxon are actually working on more methods (which would appease environmentalist)..

That will will be taken advantage of and hopefully very very soon.. that would cause a huge shift in not only dependancy but also price.

You have made many good points, but you should keep in mind.. just because production increases, doesn't mean demand does.

If I made 1000 hats and I sell them all, it doesn't mean if I make 2000 hats I will. I might have 500 left over.. to say 25% production increase will see a 25% demand increase, is simply not likely... because of recent events you will see a surge of people using alternate methods, so demand will remain high, but it may remain constant as well and not grow.
That's oil shale, not oil. There's a difference.

Just as the Canadian tar sands have a vast reservoir of energy, but it's still not technically petroleum.

Now if we do tap into it and turn it into oil, then yes, that would be a good idea. But again, that's an alternative to oil.


As for demand, it's not anything I'm just blatantly assuming. Prices have been increasing because demand is increasing at an increasing rate. That's a point of fact. India and China are each on pace to surpass us in automobiles in the next couple of years. There's no way you can tell me that demand isn't going to rise during that period of time.

sboyajian
07-02-2008, 11:05 AM
That's oil shale, not oil. There's a difference.

Just as the Canadian tar sands have a vast reservoir of energy, but it's still not technically petroleum.

Now if we do tap into it and turn it into oil, then yes, that would be a good idea. But again, that's an alternative to oil.


As for demand, it's not anything I'm just blatantly assuming. Prices have been increasing because demand is increasing at an increasing rate. That's a point of fact. India and China are each on pace to surpass us in automobiles in the next couple of years. There's no way you can tell me that demand isn't going to rise during that period of time.
The end product is the end product. It is oil (which can be used for heating homes, running cars, etc).. it's simply not Crude oil in it's original form.

It's not a "lake of oil".. it needs to be superheated out, basically evaporated into vapors and then collected.

The final product is still that of burnable functional oil with no chemical difference from what started as pure liquid.

The problem has always been getting it done in a cost effective manner. It was abandoned when oil dropped to less than $10 a barrel. That was a mistake. It should have been continued, unfortunately we didn't look in the future and lived in the current.

I wasn't trying to sound like a jerk, I am sorry if I did.. my asking if you have read about it was more a question of curiosity and not that of a dig.

jlohm1
07-02-2008, 04:25 PM
watch this vid of Newt Gingrich. click here to watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOpcPfAarjY&eurl=http://www.afa.net/newtvideo.html)

jlohm1
07-02-2008, 04:32 PM
That's oil shale, not oil. There's a difference.

your point? its still oil we can use. and yes, we have 3x the amount of Saudi Arabia in just the Rockies. We also have Alaska, the gulf coast, and the west coast

PHX-SOXFAN
07-02-2008, 05:24 PM
your point? its still oil we can use. and yes, we have 3x the amount of Saudi Arabia in just the Rockies. We also have Alaska, the gulf coast, and the west coast

:jumpy::jumpy::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Wow all in the Rockies!:rolleyes: Try to drill and put some pumps in an area like that which relies heavily on tourism and let me know:
1. What people think of it
2. how far you get
3. how many hard core conservatives turn away from the idea of drilling in a highly visited, beautiful place like the rockies

you'd have a lot more luck with the anwr argument since no one goes there. How did the offshore drilling argument go back when JEb was up for reelection? Oh that's right everyone backed off in Florida because those that live there don't want to deal with the repercussions. I love how people are volunteering locations that they have never even been to, don't affect them, but still would greatly affect others.:speechless:

Randy West
07-02-2008, 06:15 PM
:jumpy::jumpy::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Wow all in the Rockies!:rolleyes: Try to drill and put some pumps in an area like that which relies heavily on tourism and let me know:
1. What people think of it
2. how far you get
3. how many hard core conservatives turn away from the idea of drilling in a highly visited, beautiful place like the rockies

you'd have a lot more luck with the anwr argument since no one goes there. How did the offshore drilling argument go back when JEb was up for reelection? Oh that's right everyone backed off in Florida because those that live there don't want to deal with the repercussions. I love how people are volunteering locations that they have never even been to, don't affect them, but still would greatly affect others.:speechless:


Yeah and for all you know about it could be in the Rockies nowhere near any of the tourist areas.

the rockies do encompass a very large area

PHX-SOXFAN
07-02-2008, 06:50 PM
Yeah and for all you know about it could be in the Rockies nowhere near any of the tourist areas.

the rockies do encompass a very large area

I've heard this crap about drilling in Colorado from the infinite wisdom of blowhards like Hannity before. Find a spot that won't impact tourism and local economy in a negative way then talk about. Don't just throw out talking points about drilling everywhere. Colorado is one of the places I hear quite often and there is no way that state, it's people, and it's visitors are letting it happen. I would venture that every other state with a mountain range is going to say "stay out" when it comes down to it. Just like Florida did with offshore drilling when Jeb was up for reelection.

sboyajian
07-02-2008, 06:58 PM
I wish you guys would educate yourself before speaking about it.

Most of the land is protected and off limits to anyone else. It is not part of the park or surrounding areas and most had to have roads built with the specific purpose of getting to it (35 miles of the main road).

You also can't drill shale. It's inside the rock. The rock will be heated and the oil released and captured by a retort.

The impact will have minimal impact on water and air pollution. The only concern they actually have is how much the area will grow in terms of development and population.

It's not like they are sticking this in the middle of the walking trails. The land is government owned and once was populated heavily by the oil companies to get the oil shale. Once oil dropped it was abandoned.. there is now only 1 company left working on it.

ari1013
07-02-2008, 07:16 PM
The end product is the end product. It is oil (which can be used for heating homes, running cars, etc).. it's simply not Crude oil in it's original form.

It's not a "lake of oil".. it needs to be superheated out, basically evaporated into vapors and then collected.

The final product is still that of burnable functional oil with no chemical difference from what started as pure liquid.

The problem has always been getting it done in a cost effective manner. It was abandoned when oil dropped to less than $10 a barrel. That was a mistake. It should have been continued, unfortunately we didn't look in the future and lived in the current.

I wasn't trying to sound like a jerk, I am sorry if I did.. my asking if you have read about it was more a question of curiosity and not that of a dig.
Yeah if you can turn coal into liquid you have a petrol-like substance as well. I'm definitely for any type of alternative like that. The problem is that it's a lot more expensive than the Rand Corp would have you believe (though at the current price of oil, it's still VERY profitable). We just have to get moving on those types of initiatives. Offering subsidies to companies that actually invest in alternatives would be a good start.

And no worries on the misunderstanding.

ari1013
07-02-2008, 07:20 PM
your point? its still oil we can use. and yes, we have 3x the amount of Saudi Arabia in just the Rockies. We also have Alaska, the gulf coast, and the west coast
Fine, if you want to believe that we really do have triple the oil that the Saudis have, then please tell me why you support the party that's been so against funding oil shale and CTL initiatives that it's actually cut back alternative energy subsidies?

ari1013
07-02-2008, 07:21 PM
Yeah and for all you know about it could be in the Rockies nowhere near any of the tourist areas.

the rockies do encompass a very large area
But that is the problem. We don't know exactly where it is. A lot of the oil shale is in the Colorado River basin. I'm guessing it's going to be an expensive and dirty job to get it out. That's why the cost estimates are much higher than what the Rand Corp has published.

ari1013
07-02-2008, 07:22 PM
I wish you guys would educate yourself before speaking about it.

Most of the land is protected and off limits to anyone else. It is not part of the park or surrounding areas and most had to have roads built with the specific purpose of getting to it (35 miles of the main road).

You also can't drill shale. It's inside the rock. The rock will be heated and the oil released and captured by a retort.

The impact will have minimal impact on water and air pollution. The only concern they actually have is how much the area will grow in terms of development and population.

It's not like they are sticking this in the middle of the walking trails. The land is government owned and once was populated heavily by the oil companies to get the oil shale. Once oil dropped it was abandoned.. there is now only 1 company left working on it.
Which company is that?

jlohm1
07-02-2008, 09:35 PM
But that is the problem. We don't know exactly where it is. A lot of the oil shale is in the Colorado River basin. I'm guessing it's going to be an expensive and dirty job to get it out. That's why the cost estimates are much higher than what the Rand Corp has published.

thats cuz congress passed a law that wont let us search for oil.

jlohm1
07-02-2008, 09:45 PM
Fine, if you want to believe that we really do have triple the oil that the Saudis have, then please tell me why you support the party that's been so against funding oil shale and CTL initiatives that it's actually cut back alternative energy subsidies?

i think it would be best to drill in ANWR, but i dont c it happening any time soon. The oil in ANWR is easier to get to than oil shale in the rockies. Alaska would be the best place in my opinion to drill. Shale oil wasnt really an option until now that gas prices are so high. Im also support the conservatives cuz they are pro life, support our troops and would handle the war in iraq well. they are also for drilling domestic oil, unlike liberals who are trying to make alternative methods, which is good, but we can just wake up tomorrow and drive all water, ethonal, or whatever they can use, it takes years to completely switch and have it run smoothly.

ari1013
07-02-2008, 10:44 PM
thats cuz congress passed a law that wont let us search for oil.
What law is that? Was it just passed recently? Could the Republicans have done something about it between 2000 and 2006?

ari1013
07-02-2008, 10:46 PM
i think it would be best to drill in ANWR, but i dont c it happening any time soon. The oil in ANWR is easier to get to than oil shale in the rockies. Alaska would be the best place in my opinion to drill. Shale oil wasnt really an option until now that gas prices are so high. Im also support the conservatives cuz they are pro life, support our troops and would handle the war in iraq well. they are also for drilling domestic oil, unlike liberals who are trying to make alternative methods, which is good, but we can just wake up tomorrow and drive all water, ethonal, or whatever they can use, it takes years to completely switch and have it run smoothly.
Ethanol's a failed Bush plan that was executed just to help him win Iowa. Democrats are the ones pushing for alternatives like CTL and oil shale. They're against drilling in Alaska because it's kind of pointless since there's really not much oil in there and it's not worth destroying the habitat over a few pennies per gallon.

Also, I really hope you don't think we've handled the War in Iraq very well. After all, part of the reason gas prices have gone up as fast as they have is that Iraqi oil has decreased since the invasion. Something you might want to think about.

gcoll
07-03-2008, 12:01 AM
They're against drilling in Alaska because it's kind of pointless since there's really not much oil in there and it's not worth destroying the habitat over a few pennies per gallon.
It wouldn't destroy the habitat. There's nothing even up there. It's a wasteland.

**** the caribou.


What law is that? Was it just passed recently? Could the Republicans have done something about it between 2000 and 2006?
Possibly. But this wasn't as big of a problem during that time...so I think that's a moot point.

sboyajian
07-03-2008, 08:30 AM
It wouldn't destroy the habitat. There's nothing even up there. It's a wasteland.

**** the caribou.
Agreed!

I am tired of bowing to the environmentalists every chance we get. They are the first to complain the government isn't doing enough and they are the first at a picket line to complain that the new ideas will affect some random bird that no one gives a **** about.

If there is oil and it won't affect the quality of life.. drill it. If it's in a rock, cook it. If it's in a lake, seperate it.. I don't care what you do to get it.. just get it.

sboyajian
07-03-2008, 08:39 AM
Which company is that?Byron G. Merrell, a former Uintah County commissioner, and his company, Oil Tech.

Merrell actually spent the past 15 years developing the retort that is being used right now to test extraction of the shale., and eventually went into business with local former business owner to open Oil Tech in 2000.

The main reason it was abandoned previously was because there wasn't enough of reward for the price. Originally companies like Shell and Exxon would spend about 400 million per retort and it would give them 1,000 barrels a day

The prototype that Merrell built right now can handle 1,000 tons of rock a day (each ton produces about 1 barrel). The claim the single machine can actually handle about 20,000 tons of rock a day, however due to not having a underground mine that can produce more rock, they are limited to 1,000.

ari1013
07-03-2008, 09:34 AM
It wouldn't destroy the habitat. There's nothing even up there. It's a wasteland.

**** the caribou.


Possibly. But this wasn't as big of a problem during that time...so I think that's a moot point.
gcoll -- I know the answers to my questions. I want to see what this guy knows.

ari1013
07-03-2008, 09:36 AM
Byron G. Merrell, a former Uintah County commissioner, and his company, Oil Tech.

Merrell actually spent the past 15 years developing the retort that is being used right now to test extraction of the shale., and eventually went into business with local former business owner to open Oil Tech in 2000.

The main reason it was abandoned previously was because there wasn't enough of reward for the price. Originally companies like Shell and Exxon would spend about 400 million per retort and it would give them 1,000 barrels a day

The prototype that Merrell built right now can handle 1,000 tons of rock a day (each ton produces about 1 barrel). The claim the single machine can actually handle about 20,000 tons of rock a day, however due to not having a underground mine that can produce more rock, they are limited to 1,000.
That's what I assumed the problem was going to be. Nobody wants to invest in the startup costs of the operation. So a subsidy would indeed move things along.

I wasn't sure if it was going to be like that, or like the Kansas situation where local farmers are now running "oil farms" as they pump 1-2 barrels per day out in the middle of their corn fields with limited equipment.

sboyajian
07-03-2008, 09:46 AM
That's what I assumed the problem was going to be. Nobody wants to invest in the startup costs of the operation. So a subsidy would indeed move things along.

I wasn't sure if it was going to be like that, or like the Kansas situation where local farmers are now running "oil farms" as they pump 1-2 barrels per day out in the middle of their corn fields with limited equipment.

Not so much that no one is investing.. they are still just testing and working out any kinks. Merrell basically built the thing with his own funds. He founded Oil Tech with an already successful financial back in 2000. They have the startup costs as well as finances from other assorted investors.. just sadly these things take time. The advantage is they built the first one a hop skip and jump away from a refinary.. so once they are good to go, the process can be streamlined fairly quickly.

But yeah they are getting a lot of oil out of it, and the advantage is there is the ability, not the potential, to actually get it. I hope it works out.. we could surely use 800 billion barrels of oil. :)

ari1013
07-03-2008, 12:29 PM
Not so much that no one is investing.. they are still just testing and working out any kinks. Merrell basically built the thing with his own funds. He founded Oil Tech with an already successful financial back in 2000. They have the startup costs as well as finances from other assorted investors.. just sadly these things take time. The advantage is they built the first one a hop skip and jump away from a refinary.. so once they are good to go, the process can be streamlined fairly quickly.

But yeah they are getting a lot of oil out of it, and the advantage is there is the ability, not the potential, to actually get it. I hope it works out.. we could surely use 800 billion barrels of oil. :)
thanks for the info.

PHX-SOXFAN
07-03-2008, 12:51 PM
i think it would be best to drill in ANWR, but i dont c it happening any time soon. The oil in ANWR is easier to get to than oil shale in the rockies. Alaska would be the best place in my opinion to drill. Shale oil wasnt really an option until now that gas prices are so high. Im also support the conservatives cuz they are pro life, support our troops and would handle the war in iraq well. they are also for drilling domestic oil, unlike liberals who are trying to make alternative methods, which is good, but we can just wake up tomorrow and drive all water, ethonal, or whatever they can use, it takes years to completely switch and have it run smoothly.

democrats support the troops as well. The troops don't fight for the democrats or republicans, they fight for americans, just like Jim Webb said this week. They also have a balanced split on supporting democrat or republican policy regarding the war, they aren't 90% republican, it's about 45-35, again just like Jim Webb said. Stop insinuating that democrats don't support the troops.

Also, how exactly can you assume that the conservatives would handle the war better. They have a piss poor track record on it to date, and have had to fire numerous people who were incompetent, yet didn't listen to the one man who would have helped them with a logical strategy. That same man, from my understanding, just met with Obama yesterday!:clap::clap::clap::speechless::speechles s:

jlohm1
07-04-2008, 12:58 AM
Also, how exactly can you assume that the conservatives would handle the war better. They have a piss poor track record on it to date, and have had to fire numerous people who were incompetent, yet didn't listen to the one man who would have helped them with a logical strategy. That same man, from my understanding, just met with Obama yesterday!:clap::clap::clap::speechless::speechles s:

cuz pulling out, which is what the Dems want us to do, would not solve the war. If u have ever talked to someone who has faught there, which i have, will tell you that the war is nothing like you c on tv. Liberal media just want Bush to look bad and make the war sound like a bad thing. Im sorry that u had to meet Obama....

jlohm1
07-04-2008, 01:01 AM
Agreed!

I am tired of bowing to the environmentalists every chance we get. They are the first to complain the government isn't doing enough and they are the first at a picket line to complain that the new ideas will affect some random bird that no one gives a **** about.

If there is oil and it won't affect the quality of life.. drill it. If it's in a rock, cook it. If it's in a lake, seperate it.. I don't care what you do to get it.. just get it.

exactly. They have even said that if they would open up ANWR for drilling, the would do it onto of "ice deserts" (best way i could describe them). they would do it on land that is full of ice and nothing else. it not going to hurt anything.

jlohm1
07-04-2008, 01:04 AM
What law is that? Was it just passed recently? Could the Republicans have done something about it between 2000 and 2006?

I dont know a whole lot about it. (o! sumthing jlohm1 doesnt know!!!...lol). watch that video i posted earlier.

jlohm1
07-04-2008, 01:10 AM
why not drill on all ice? even during the summer, its all barren land.

BADizzleBoY
07-04-2008, 01:17 AM
obama is nuts!

Apophis
07-04-2008, 02:23 AM
It wouldn't destroy the habitat. There's nothing even up there. It's a wasteland.

**** the caribou.


Possibly. But this wasn't as big of a problem during that time...so I think that's a moot point.

This reminds me of an article I read recently about California and some dams being shut down, leaving people without water because of an endangered fish.. I said **** the Fish...

I had a huge argument with my girlfriend because she was like, but the fish are endangered. I asked her whats is more important and she said the fish were.. I was like what, how would you feel if your daughter was left without water, she changed her stance then..

It amazes me how humans value the life of a fish or a crab more than the life of another human being.. I can understand if we were killing the fish to make some new fish shoes or some crap, but damn... People need water...

Game_Over
07-04-2008, 05:12 AM
Obama is all showing his lack of experience, maybe he wants whats best but you can't change the industrial revolution overnight!! Some people have said if we drill here were going to run out and yeah that maybe true but it isn't going to happen anytime soon.. Has the middle east ran out of oil? I don't think so and we have tons of oil here that we can drill and tell the middle east and Venezuela to take thiers and stick it up thier ***!! It can be a quick solution to the high gas prices untill we finally quit being oil dependant!! Obama wants us to quit driving SUV's and eating so much and not turn on the heater or AC?? Who is this guy to tell us that? More important Europe doesn't have as much SUV's and they pay way more for gas why?? They don't drill/have thier own oil which we do.. Telling us how to live our lives doesn't seem to much like a free nation to me.. Controlling what we do and how we live is like what someone else had in his master plan, Hitler had a plan for all his people to be the "perfect" race, one that didn't smoke or do anything bad to themselves.. Ohh yeah and he was a great public speaker aswell!!

sboyajian
07-04-2008, 07:26 AM
Obama is all showing his lack of experience, maybe he wants whats best but you can't change the industrial revolution overnight!! Some people have said if we drill here were going to run out and yeah that maybe true but it isn't going to happen anytime soon.. Has the middle east ran out of oil? I don't think so and we have tons of oil here that we can drill and tell the middle east and Venezuela to take thiers and stick it up thier ***!! It can be a quick solution to the high gas prices untill we finally quit being oil dependant!! Obama wants us to quit driving SUV's and eating so much and not turn on the heater or AC?? Who is this guy to tell us that? More important Europe doesn't have as much SUV's and they pay way more for gas why?? They don't drill/have thier own oil which we do.. Telling us how to live our lives doesn't seem to much like a free nation to me.. Controlling what we do and how we live is like what someone else had in his master plan, Hitler had a plan for all his people to be the "perfect" race, one that didn't smoke or do anything bad to themselves.. Ohh yeah and he was a great public speaker aswell!!get over yourself..

1. Obama isn't telling you what to do. He's telling us what we should do as a nation to get out from under the hard economic hold that oil producing nations have on us, so, as a free nation we can depend more on ourselves than others.

2. You think it's a lack of experience for Obama that is what causes him to not want to drill in Alaska? Check your facts.. McCain is against it to.

3. Obama doesn't want to explore for more places to drill because he knows that's not going to solve the problem. Sure it might solve it for 10 - 20 years, but then we'll be right back in the same place we are now (unless we can find enough of it to set us for hundreds of years).

Even if we found some, it would take at least 3 years for a drilling refinary to even get their oil into the supply chain.. It most certainly is not a "quick solution to high gas prices" as you describe it.

4. We need to do both things. That being go after the Shale, which neither candidate is opposed to and discover new methods, again which both candidates endorse.

FearAD
07-04-2008, 09:13 AM
I am hoping you're some young craze McCainiac kid.

Simply drilling for more oil simply won't lower gas prices.

sboyajian
07-04-2008, 11:43 AM
I am hoping you're some young craze McCainiac kid.

Simply drilling for more oil simply won't lower gas prices.

you talking to me or the original poster?

jlohm1
07-04-2008, 02:47 PM
I am hoping you're some young craze McCainiac kid.

Simply drilling for more oil simply won't lower gas prices.

:pity: ive already explained why it would a million times!!!! maybe you should read some of the other posts ive posted b4 u come here and run your mouth!!! watch the video i posted early, which you probably havent viewed any of the pages except for this one. Im not explaining the same thing again. just watch the video. :pity: I dont c why i should waist my time explain this to u if u dont research things first. Read the rest of the forum!

jlohm1
07-04-2008, 02:49 PM
you talking to me or the original poster?

i would think he's talking to me

jlohm1
07-04-2008, 02:51 PM
I am hoping you're some young craze McCainiac kid.

call me what you want, its not like m going to support Obama... I cant stand him!

jlohm1
07-04-2008, 02:54 PM
Obama is all showing his lack of experience, maybe he wants whats best but you can't change the industrial revolution overnight!! Some people have said if we drill here were going to run out and yeah that maybe true but it isn't going to happen anytime soon.. Has the middle east ran out of oil? I don't think so and we have tons of oil here that we can drill and tell the middle east and Venezuela to take thiers and stick it up thier ***!! It can be a quick solution to the high gas prices untill we finally quit being oil dependant!! Obama wants us to quit driving SUV's and eating so much and not turn on the heater or AC?? Who is this guy to tell us that? More important Europe doesn't have as much SUV's and they pay way more for gas why?? They don't drill/have thier own oil which we do.. Telling us how to live our lives doesn't seem to much like a free nation to me.. Controlling what we do and how we live is like what someone else had in his master plan, Hitler had a plan for all his people to be the "perfect" race, one that didn't smoke or do anything bad to themselves.. Ohh yeah and he was a great public speaker aswell!!

exactly... he hasnt even finished his first term yet and he has no military experience. He wants us all to suffer, like 3rd world countries. He wants us to not use electric and what not. He wants to punish the successful and drop huge taxes on CEO's of big corporations.

LeoGetz
07-04-2008, 03:18 PM
:pity: ive already explained why it would a million times!!!! maybe you should read some of the other posts ive posted b4 u come here and run your mouth!!! watch the video i posted early, which you probably havent viewed any of the pages except for this one. Im not explaining the same thing again. just watch the video. :pity: I dont c why i should waist my time explain this to u if u dont research things first. Read the rest of the forum!



exactly... he hasnt even finished his first term yet and he has no military experience. He wants us all to suffer, like 3rd world countries. He wants us to not use electric and what not. He wants to punish the successful and drop huge taxes on CEO's of big corporations.


I could really careless what party you support, but when you type like this on a political board its just sad.

jlohm1
07-04-2008, 07:57 PM
^^^ why is it sad? awwwe... is it confusing u?

gcoll
07-04-2008, 08:22 PM
Simply drilling for more oil simply won't lower gas prices.

Uhh...yes it would.

The question is by how much. Not if it would.

ari1013
07-05-2008, 10:16 AM
This reminds me of an article I read recently about California and some dams being shut down, leaving people without water because of an endangered fish.. I said **** the Fish...

I had a huge argument with my girlfriend because she was like, but the fish are endangered. I asked her whats is more important and she said the fish were.. I was like what, how would you feel if your daughter was left without water, she changed her stance then..

It amazes me how humans value the life of a fish or a crab more than the life of another human being.. I can understand if we were killing the fish to make some new fish shoes or some crap, but damn... People need water...
Well... that whole thing wouldn't have been a problem had that community not sold off their water supply to a private bottling company. To me, those people were asking for it.

ari1013
07-05-2008, 10:20 AM
Obama is all showing his lack of experience, maybe he wants whats best but you can't change the industrial revolution overnight!! Some people have said if we drill here were going to run out and yeah that maybe true but it isn't going to happen anytime soon.. Has the middle east ran out of oil? I don't think so and we have tons of oil here that we can drill and tell the middle east and Venezuela to take thiers and stick it up thier ***!! It can be a quick solution to the high gas prices untill we finally quit being oil dependant!! Obama wants us to quit driving SUV's and eating so much and not turn on the heater or AC?? Who is this guy to tell us that? More important Europe doesn't have as much SUV's and they pay way more for gas why?? They don't drill/have thier own oil which we do.. Telling us how to live our lives doesn't seem to much like a free nation to me.. Controlling what we do and how we live is like what someone else had in his master plan, Hitler had a plan for all his people to be the "perfect" race, one that didn't smoke or do anything bad to themselves.. Ohh yeah and he was a great public speaker aswell!!
Here's the thing. If we start the ball rolling today, we'll have increased the oil supply in about 5 years. By that point in time, oil will have continued increasing in price and we probably wouldn't have progressed anywhere with regards to alternatives (assuming a McCain presidency).

Meanwhile if we start the ball rolling on alternatives (and yes it's mutually exclusive due to budget limitations), then we might actually get somewhere by the time Obama leaves office in 2016.

ari1013
07-05-2008, 10:21 AM
Uhh...yes it would.

The question is by how much. Not if it would.
Well... drilling wouldn't, finding oil would. I'm not sure if that was what he meant though.

jlohm1
07-05-2008, 01:29 PM
^^^ Drilling WILL lower prices a lot.

sboyajian
07-05-2008, 03:29 PM
Uhh...yes it would.

The question is by how much. Not if it would.
The problem is, as it's been pointed out, the additional drilling will require new facilities. We have not built a new drilling refinary since the 1970's. If we made a new one it would take about 3 or 4 years before the production even began to get used. So while yes, it would lower prices because it would increase supply.. if we wait 4 years for it to happen, we'd be up to about $6 or 7 a gallon and most people would have already moved on to something new out of necessity.

There was a time I would pay as much per gas a month as I did for my cable bill. Now my total gas comes to about 1/2 of my rent.

The best solution is not to get more oil and continue to depend on oil.

It is to find a new method and have two things you can count on. If you find a new thing and half the people decide to adopt that method, you just drove demand for oil way down. The price drops and you have two successful options with demand way below supply. Instead of one option with demand way higher than supply.

ari1013
07-05-2008, 07:07 PM
^^^ Drilling WILL lower prices a lot.
No, finding oil will.

Here's a hypothetical example:

Exxon spends $10 billion on drilling and finds nothing. Their average cost has now increased while their average return has decreased (less oil per dug well). That cost then translates to higher prices.

Finding oil, on the other hand, increases costs, but increases returns from the digs and therefore will lower prices.

See the difference?

Again, I'm not sure if that's what he was implying but you clearly didn't get the point.

ari1013
07-05-2008, 07:08 PM
The problem is, as it's been pointed out, the additional drilling will require new facilities. We have not built a new drilling refinary since the 1970's. If we made a new one it would take about 3 or 4 years before the production even began to get used. So while yes, it would lower prices because it would increase supply.. if we wait 4 years for it to happen, we'd be up to about $6 or 7 a gallon and most people would have already moved on to something new out of necessity.

There was a time I would pay as much per gas a month as I did for my cable bill. Now my total gas comes to about 1/2 of my rent.

The best solution is not to get more oil and continue to depend on oil.

It is to find a new method and have two things you can count on. If you find a new thing and half the people decide to adopt that method, you just drove demand for oil way down. The price drops and you have two successful options with demand way below supply. Instead of one option with demand way higher than supply.
:clap:

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/

Game_Over
07-05-2008, 08:16 PM
What you guys need to realize is gas prices are so high because people are pushing them up betting on the future.. If you start building more the prices will drop before they are even finished since they bet on the "future" of oil!! It is wrong and they shouldn't be able to do it with the market but it happens and that is a big reason oil is so much now!!

sboyajian
07-06-2008, 12:05 AM
What you guys need to realize is gas prices are so high because people are pushing them up betting on the future.. If you start building more the prices will drop before they are even finished since they bet on the "future" of oil!! It is wrong and they shouldn't be able to do it with the market but it happens and that is a big reason oil is so much now!!Incorrect. The price goes up when they bet on the future.. however, when the future is positive the price does not drop.

This is why when oil jumps $2 a barrel on Tuesday you are paying for it already on Wednesday (You're paying more for oil they already bought). However if the price dropped $2 on Tuesday they won't begin to decline for a couple days. They always price oil predicting for the worst.

Game_Over
07-06-2008, 02:48 AM
Incorrect. The price goes up when they bet on the future.. however, when the future is positive the price does not drop.

This is why when oil jumps $2 a barrel on Tuesday you are paying for it already on Wednesday (You're paying more for oil they already bought). However if the price dropped $2 on Tuesday they won't begin to decline for a couple days. They always price oil predicting for the worst.

Your making my point, if we drill more and get more refinery's the price will drop and if they are betting on the fututre and in the future is more oil then yeah it might take longer but it will drop!!

ari1013
07-06-2008, 09:00 AM
What you guys need to realize is gas prices are so high because people are pushing them up betting on the future.. If you start building more the prices will drop before they are even finished since they bet on the "future" of oil!! It is wrong and they shouldn't be able to do it with the market but it happens and that is a big reason oil is so much now!!
Speculators aren't raising prices. That's just BS from the media and from the McCain campaign. Compare the spot prices to the futures to the actual end-of-day prices. You'll see that there's really little difference.

Foreign demand is the number 1 cause of the increase.
The falling dollar is a distant number 2 cause (probably accounting for about 15-20% of the hike at this point in time).

jlohm1
07-06-2008, 11:36 AM
No, finding oil will.

Here's a hypothetical example:

Exxon spends $10 billion on drilling and finds nothing. Their average cost has now increased while their average return has decreased (less oil per dug well). That cost then translates to higher prices.

Finding oil, on the other hand, increases costs, but increases returns from the digs and therefore will lower prices.

See the difference?

Again, I'm not sure if that's what he was implying but you clearly didn't get the point.

i c your point, but finding oil will only lower prices if you drill it.

jlohm1
07-06-2008, 11:42 AM
What you guys need to realize is gas prices are so high because people are pushing them up betting on the future.. If you start building more the prices will drop before they are even finished since they bet on the "future" of oil!! It is wrong and they shouldn't be able to do it with the market but it happens and that is a big reason oil is so much now!!

they are also high b/c demand has gone up in China and Most of Asia. But correct, they are based on futures. If we do drill our own oil, we wont see it at the pumps for about 3 years, but since they are based on futures, we will see a price decrease right away.

sboyajian
07-06-2008, 04:40 PM
Your making my point, if we drill more and get more refinery's the price will drop and if they are betting on the fututre and in the future is more oil then yeah it might take longer but it will drop!!

You aren't seeing my point and I didn't make yours at all.

If we find oil, it will take 3 years or so before it would affect us. The price would not reflect that until it went into use. If a refinary went down, even if production wasn't hurt by much, it would affect the price twofold.

ari1013
07-06-2008, 06:24 PM
You aren't seeing my point and I didn't make yours at all.

If we find oil, it will take 3 years or so before it would affect us. The price would not reflect that until it went into use. If a refinary went down, even if production wasn't hurt by much, it would affect the price twofold.
It's tough to argue with people that really have no comprehension of how a commodity gets priced.

gcoll
07-07-2008, 12:20 AM
Well... drilling wouldn't, finding oil would. I'm not sure if that was what he meant though.
I assumed he meant the "finding oil" part.


The problem is, as it's been pointed out, the additional drilling will require new facilities. We have not built a new drilling refinary since the 1970's. If we made a new one it would take about 3 or 4 years before the production even began to get used.
All the more reason to start right now.

The best solution is not to get more oil and continue to depend on oil.

It is to find a new method and have two things you can count on. If you find a new thing and half the people decide to adopt that method, you just drove demand for oil way down. The price drops and you have two successful options with demand way below supply. Instead of one option with demand way higher than supply.

The people want drilling. We got some oil. Let's drill it out, AND look for alternatives. You don't have to have one solution.

Throw a bunch of **** at the wall and see what sticks.


Foreign demand is the number 1 cause of the increase.
The falling dollar is a distant number 2 cause (probably accounting for about 15-20% of the hike at this point in time).
A Ron Paul supporter I know...insists that high gas prices are the fault of the Fed. Claims that gas should be $2.50 a gallon if it weren't for the Fed "printing money out of thin air"


It's tough to argue with people that really have no comprehension of how a commodity gets priced.
Why attempt to learn about an issue, when you can just blame someone? Be it those greedy oil companies who are price gouging. Or those speculators..who are.....you know. Speculating, and whatnot.

ari1013
07-07-2008, 10:13 AM
It used to be just the wingnuts on the left that would blame capitalism for high prices. But now it seems like it's all over the political spectrum. Wingnuts on both ends, mainstream liberals, mainstream conservatives, and moderates. Everyone wants to blame investors and oil companies. People really need to take about 10 minutes to just think about it.

We've had oil speculation for a long time and yet oil has never increased in price like this before. We've had recessions and booms in the past. Oil prices tend to increase during booms and decrease during recessions. But now we're approaching a recession and oil prices are going up. Could it be that a surge in demand from Asia has boosted prices? Hmm.

As you said, it's always easier to scapegoat. If it turns out there's really nobody to blame, then you actually have to start looking for solutions. Until then, everyone from Ralph Nader to Larry Kudlow is going to be blaming the investors.

Mziolkow
07-07-2008, 10:26 AM
Exxon earned 40 billion last year.........so someone is making some money on oil.

My whole point with drilling would just mean that is a million barrels a day less we buy from someone else. Not that it would drastically lower prices at the pump........it would just be us buying a million barrels from ourselves instead of buying those million barrels elsewhere........150+ million spent here as opposed to Saud or Venezula


http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/02/high_oil.html


High gas prices may have cinched American consumers’ wallets in 2007, but they loaded the coffers of the big five oil companies: BP, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell. ExxonMobil, after record high profits in 2005 and 2006, smashed the record for highest profits ever made by a public U.S. company—previously held by Exxon—by posting a net profit of $40.6 billion in 2007.

To put these figures in perspective, Exxon’s $40.6 billion profit in 2007 is roughly equal to receiving “$30 for every person in China and $132 for every U.S. resident.” Another way of looking at it is that Exxon made $77,245 per minute in 2007—that’s more money generated per minute than 70 percent of Americans earned all year, according to the Census Bureau.

And there is nothing to keep big oil in check when our president is in their pockets. For a current president to be so highly allied with oil is a blatant conflict of interest. Bush and his families business interests are predominantly rooted in the petroleum industry, so why would he fight for the common American that has to pay 4.50 for a gallon of gas when in the long run it is fattening his pockets?

jlohm1
07-08-2008, 12:30 AM
^^^ i dont think he would be going to Saudi Arabia and asking them to drill more oil so he gets more money. Bush himself doesnt own gas companies. I think his friends do though.

gcoll
07-08-2008, 01:34 AM
It used to be just the wingnuts on the left that would blame capitalism for high prices. But now it seems like it's all over the political spectrum. Wingnuts on both ends, mainstream liberals, mainstream conservatives, and moderates. Everyone wants to blame investors and oil companies. People really need to take about 10 minutes to just think about it.

We've had oil speculation for a long time and yet oil has never increased in price like this before. We've had recessions and booms in the past. Oil prices tend to increase during booms and decrease during recessions. But now we're approaching a recession and oil prices are going up. Could it be that a surge in demand from Asia has boosted prices? Hmm.

As you said, it's always easier to scapegoat. If it turns out there's really nobody to blame, then you actually have to start looking for solutions. Until then, everyone from Ralph Nader to Larry Kudlow is going to be blaming the investors.

That's what politicians do. They scape goat.

If there is a problem, the last thing people want to hear is the truth. There always has to be someone to blame, and an easy fix.


Bush and his families business interests are predominantly rooted in the petroleum industry, so why would he fight for the common American that has to pay 4.50 for a gallon of gas when in the long run it is fattening his pockets?

What do you want Bush to do to "fight the oil companies"? What specific action do you believe he should take? And how would it lead to a decrease in oil prices?

LeoGetz
07-09-2008, 02:14 AM
^^^ why is it sad? awwwe... is it confusing u?

You think this **** is funny?!? Here is a picture of you in about 10 years after some Chinese owned company buys the factory you work in. Just switch out the Cardinals shirt for a Reds one and there you go.

http://i27.tinypic.com/2v15htl.jpg

jlohm1
07-14-2008, 01:40 AM
You think this **** is funny?!? Here is a picture of you in about 10 years after some Chinese owned company buys the factory you work in. Just switch out the Cardinals shirt for a Reds one and there you go.

sorry if i offended you or anything, and im not going to start anything. I just dont see why u were complaining about it in the first place. Im not the greatest typer to begin w/.




im working in a factory now?

God of War
07-14-2008, 01:20 PM
whole story: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DonaldLambro/2008/06/26/offshore_drilling_a_potent_issue_for_mccain

townhall.com

and people want him to be our president.

I hope crude is trading over $300/barrel and the price of fuel hits $8/gallon. That'll boost my renewable biodiesel business.

jlohm1
07-14-2008, 02:18 PM
I hope crude is trading over $300/barrel and the price of fuel hits $8/gallon. That'll boost my renewable biodiesel business.

:( sorry not everyone here is rich... but i dont have money to spend $8/gallon.

sboyajian
07-15-2008, 12:02 AM
:( sorry not everyone here is rich... but i dont have money to spend $8/gallon.If it goes to $8 a gallon with no mass produced alternative on the market, expect a global shift of life.

Companies will begin to increase the amount of time you can work from home to compensate, because it will mean less energy consumed in the office, which means savings for them. People will call in "out of gas" instead.. they will get nothing done if they don't..

if so many people begin working from home more often, demand will drop heavily.

blenderboy5
07-15-2008, 02:18 AM
It's the liberal tactic of "let's ruin peoples lives so they do exactly what we want to protect the environment." Admittedly, it must take balls to gripe about raising gas prices after instituting taxes on gasoline or not allowing us to drill years ago when said oil benefits would be taking effect right about now.

Cubs Fan 4Ever
07-15-2008, 05:05 AM
hey...i know this doesn't belong in this thread..but can somebody help me find some rhetorical devices used by John McCain..(I need to find some for a summer assignment)

jlohm1
07-15-2008, 06:13 PM
If it goes to $8 a gallon with no mass produced alternative on the market, expect a global shift of life.

Companies will begin to increase the amount of time you can work from home to compensate, because it will mean less energy consumed in the office, which means savings for them. People will call in "out of gas" instead.. they will get nothing done if they don't..

if so many people begin working from home more often, demand will drop heavily.

Demand will, but in other countries, like china, the demand is going up every year. so we should just drill ANWR, the Rockies, and off the west coast dry and get cheaper gas.

ari1013
07-16-2008, 11:29 AM
If it goes to $8 a gallon with no mass produced alternative on the market, expect a global shift of life.

Companies will begin to increase the amount of time you can work from home to compensate, because it will mean less energy consumed in the office, which means savings for them. People will call in "out of gas" instead.. they will get nothing done if they don't..

if so many people begin working from home more often, demand will drop heavily.
Many are already doing that. I'm only going into my office twice a week now. I'm doing most of my research from home or from Wash U's library which is much closer than school.

Several states are pondering switching to a 4-day work-week with longer workdays to reduce transportation costs.

blenderboy5
07-16-2008, 12:41 PM
I know some county offices in my area are doing a 4 day week, with employees expected to schedule appointments on those days and save gas and energy at the offic and en route to the office.

Drucifer
07-17-2008, 10:05 PM
yah, but the more oil we have, the cheaper it will cost, and that could give us more time to make a good thing to run cars off of, besides ethanol. E-85 cars are not that good. They increase the prices on groceries and the cars get bad mpg. Ive been told that the amount of corn used to fill an SUV can feed a child for a year.Heard that line during the last oil crises. What happen? Everyone went back to our wasteful ways as soon as the crisis passed.

J-E-T-S
07-19-2008, 11:50 AM
The reason why gas is expensive is simple economics. Its actually the first rule:

supply vs. demand

I mean if you guys dont know that, then it really shows how insular and ignorant we have come to as a society to foreign issues. I mean its easy for us to say fill-up my tank. Yet not realize how far that gallon of gas came o be consumed by your Hummer.

sboyajian
07-19-2008, 02:46 PM
The reason why gas is expensive is simple economics. Its actually the first rule:

supply vs. demand

I mean if you guys dont know that, then it really shows how insular and ignorant we have come to as a society to foreign issues. I mean its easy for us to say fill-up my tank. Yet not realize how far that gallon of gas came o be consumed by your Hummer.Yes.. it is the biggest factor.. but we're also being gouged.. there are many factors to our high oil prices.

jlohm1
07-19-2008, 03:19 PM
Asia is a main contributor... many people in china who never owned a car now own one. same for indea

iam brett favre
07-19-2008, 05:31 PM
My bio teacher said he hopes the gas prices go up because he feels thats the only way people will find an alternative option.

Raider_Vet
07-19-2008, 05:55 PM
we have more than 5 years of oil left. we have more oil than Saudi Arabia. The article didnt mention Alaska, but Alaska has TONS of oil.I think this post speaks volumes about jlohm1's knowledge of the oil situation in the world. Very ignorant statement if you ask me.

sboyajian
07-20-2008, 12:46 AM
I think this post speaks volumes about jlohm1's knowledge of the oil situation in the world. Very ignorant statement if you ask me.why? We actually have enough untouched oil in Alaska to run 60 million cars and 150 million homes for 60 years. However due to protective laws we can not touch it.

We also, according to studies, have 4 times more oil in oil shale in the rockies than Saudi Arabia has in their massive reserves.

Like it or not, but property owned by the US is the richest and largest supply of oil in the world. It's just either it's been a law that we can't touch it or we haven't found good methods to get it.

ari1013
07-20-2008, 09:33 AM
why? We actually have enough untouched oil in Alaska to run 60 million cars and 150 million homes for 60 years. However due to protective laws we can not touch it.

We also, according to studies, have 4 times more oil in oil shale in the rockies than Saudi Arabia has in their massive reserves.

Like it or not, but property owned by the US is the richest and largest supply of oil in the world. It's just either it's been a law that we can't touch it or we haven't found good methods to get it.
I'm pretty sure that stat the politicians throw around (60 million cars for 60 years) refers to total potential domestic production, not just Alaska.

sboyajian
07-20-2008, 10:09 PM
I'm pretty sure that stat the politicians throw around (60 million cars for 60 years) refers to total potential domestic production, not just Alaska.

I believe it is all protected land oil.. which you would be right, is more than just Alaska, but not all domestic oil.

ari1013
07-20-2008, 10:18 PM
I believe it is all protected land oil.. which you would be right, is more than just Alaska, but not all domestic oil.
Yeah that's what I meant. That's the potential oil that we could be drilling across the entire nation.

Raider_Vet
07-21-2008, 04:18 PM
why? We actually have enough untouched oil in Alaska to run 60 million cars and 150 million homes for 60 years. However due to protective laws we can not touch it.

We also, according to studies, have 4 times more oil in oil shale in the rockies than Saudi Arabia has in their massive reserves.

Like it or not, but property owned by the US is the richest and largest supply of oil in the world. It's just either it's been a law that we can't touch it or we haven't found good methods to get it.If this were ture we would of been drilling a lon g time ago. I put no merit in this statement or any link to info that you would post on it.

sboyajian
07-21-2008, 08:53 PM
If this were ture we would of been drilling a lon g time ago. I put no merit in this statement or any link to info that you would post on it.

I didn't ask you to believe me.

PHX-SOXFAN
07-31-2008, 03:37 PM
Just to bring back up the gas, oil, offshore drilling issue......

I can't stop laughing at the conservative talking point about pushing for offshore drilling to help bring down prices. Just a few weeks ago when I was ranting about Rush and his "jets can't slow down to save fuel because it would cost the airlines too much" eplanation, Rush also was talking about how there is no supply problem and slowing down planes, or lowering the speed limit to 55 won't help. all because we do not have a supply problem. He kept repeating how there was always gas when we went to the pump, so there was obviously no supply problem.

Now if there is no supply porblem, how exactly will oil from offshore or anwr drive down the price? Even rush admitted that the speed limit and slowing planes wouldn't lower the price, so he is basically answering his own talking point. I doubt his listeners have connected the dots between his "lowering the speed limit won't lower costs" and "offshore drilling will lower costs". This is just another example of the complete hypocrisy of this man and this conservative agenda in general. They openly admit that there is no supply problem and these other steps we could take will not help, but on the other hand offshore drilling and anwr will?:confused: Nice argument neocon blowhard.:clap::clap: They have cut there own legs out on this argument but still try to push it on the uneducated.

jlohm1
07-31-2008, 04:40 PM
I think this post speaks volumes about jlohm1's knowledge of the oil situation in the world. Very ignorant statement if you ask me.

:pity:

jlohm1
07-31-2008, 04:43 PM
PHX-SOXFAN, drilling domestically will lower gas prices. :pity:
when we asked Saudi Arabia to drill more oil, do you know what they said? "Why dont you"?

PHX-SOXFAN
07-31-2008, 05:42 PM
PHX-SOXFAN, drilling domestically will lower gas prices. :pity:
when we asked Saudi Arabia to drill more oil, do you know what they said? "Why dont you"?

please tell me how this will lower prices and provide research. Basic economics states that it won't (feel free ari!). Rush even backed this up with his statements, but ignores them when it comes to allowing offshore drilling because of course, it will benefit oil companies, corporations, and all the other beneficiaries of conservative policy.

ari1013
07-31-2008, 06:04 PM
Just to bring back up the gas, oil, offshore drilling issue......

I can't stop laughing at the conservative talking point about pushing for offshore drilling to help bring down prices. Just a few weeks ago when I was ranting about Rush and his "jets can't slow down to save fuel because it would cost the airlines too much" eplanation, Rush also was talking about how there is no supply problem and slowing down planes, or lowering the speed limit to 55 won't help. all because we do not have a supply problem. He kept repeating how there was always gas when we went to the pump, so there was obviously no supply problem.

Now if there is no supply porblem, how exactly will oil from offshore or anwr drive down the price? Even rush admitted that the speed limit and slowing planes wouldn't lower the price, so he is basically answering his own talking point. I doubt his listeners have connected the dots between his "lowering the speed limit won't lower costs" and "offshore drilling will lower costs". This is just another example of the complete hypocrisy of this man and this conservative agenda in general. They openly admit that there is no supply problem and these other steps we could take will not help, but on the other hand offshore drilling and anwr will?:confused: Nice argument neocon blowhard.:clap::clap: They have cut there own legs out on this argument but still try to push it on the uneducated.
Slowing down planes and cars deals with the demand side of the equation.

Increasing oil deals with the supply side of the equation.


So he's completely wrong.

ari1013
07-31-2008, 06:08 PM
please tell me how this will lower prices and provide research. Basic economics states that it won't (feel free ari!). Rush even backed this up with his statements, but ignores them when it comes to allowing offshore drilling because of course, it will benefit oil companies, corporations, and all the other beneficiaries of conservative policy.
Well I've said that it will, and I stand by that. The thing is that it's going to take 5-10 years before the effects of the drilling are actually felt in the supply lines, and then another month or so before we really start seeing prices fall from that.

That's not to say that when prices change in the intermediary period that politicians won't take credit for drilling being the reason, but in actuality it really won't be until the oil actually starts hitting the pipelines.

Regardless, most estimates put the increase in supply that we can provide at about 1% of global production. I don't feel like calculating it again (it's at the beginning of this thread), but that really isn't going to drop prices by more than a few cents overall. A Congressional report found the same thing.

PHX-SOXFAN
07-31-2008, 06:17 PM
Well I've said that it will, and I stand by that. The thing is that it's going to take 5-10 years before the effects of the drilling are actually felt in the supply lines, and then another month or so before we really start seeing prices fall from that.

That's not to say that when prices change in the intermediary period that politicians won't take credit for drilling being the reason, but in actuality it really won't be until the oil actually starts hitting the pipelines.

Regardless, most estimates put the increase in supply that we can provide at about 1% of global production. I don't feel like calculating it again (it's at the beginning of this thread), but that really isn't going to drop prices by more than a few cents overall. A Congressional report found the same thing.

you just say it better. oil prices won't fall if we start drilling right now. In ten years when the effects are felt, more efficient technologies should also be in place.

PHX-SOXFAN
07-31-2008, 06:18 PM
Slowing down planes and cars deals with the demand side of the equation.

Increasing oil deals with the supply side of the equation.


So he's completely wrong.

of course rush is wrong. the man's hypocrisy has no limits.

sboyajian
07-31-2008, 09:29 PM
I paid $3.49 today.. so hopefully this trend where we stop driving as much and it continues to drop, will keep going.

DenButsu
07-31-2008, 10:06 PM
I paid $3.49 today.. so hopefully this trend where we stop driving as much and it continues to drop, will keep going.

The last time I owned a car was in 1995 when I was delivering pizzas in Boulder.

If I remember correctly, gas was usually about $1.59 a gallon "back then". (And I put "back then" in quotes because 13 years is really not such a very long time).

And now, people are feeling "lucky" when gas prices "drop" to $3.49. :laugh2:


And McCain wants to do offshore drilling and drill in Alaska, which is a move that only serves to help the very companies who are profiting the most from this situation.

And when I say "the most", I mean the most that ANY companies have EVER profited, EVER:


Exxon posts record $11.68 billion profit

Exxon Mobil once again reported the largest quarterly profit in U.S. history Thursday, posting net income of $11.68 billion on revenue of $138 billion in the second quarter.

That profit works out to $1,485.55 a second.

That barely beat the previous corporate record of $11.66 billion, also set by Exxon in the fourth quarter of 2007.

"The fundamentals of our business remain strong," Henry Hubble, Exxon's vice president of investor relations, said on a conference call. "We continue to capture the benefit of strong industry conditions."cnn.com (http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/31/news/companies/exxon_profits/index.htm?postversion=2008073112)


Meanwhile,
John McCain's connections (http://progressiveaccountability.org/2008/07/08/john-mccain%E2%80%99s-big-oil-policies-driven-by-big-oil-lobby/)
to the big oil (http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/03/27/mccain-oil-contributions/)
lobby are very clear (http://nacla.org/node/4817)
and well documented (http://priceofoil.org/2008/07/16/shell-lobbyist-is-top-mccain-donor/):



Industry Gushed Money to McCain After Reversal on Drilling

Campaign contributions from oil industry executives to Sen. John McCain rose dramatically in the last half of June, after the senator from Arizona made a high-profile split with environmentalists and reversed his opposition to the federal ban on offshore drilling.

Oil and gas industry executives and employees donated $1.1 million to McCain last month -- three-quarters of which came after his June 16 speech calling for an end to the ban -- compared with $116,000 in March, $283,000 in April and $208,000 in May.

McCain said the policy reversal came as a response to rising voter anger over soaring energy prices. At the time, about three-quarters of voters responding to a Washington Post-ABC News poll said prices at the pump were causing them financial hardship, the highest in surveys this decade.

Opening vast stretches of the country's coastline to oil exploration would help America eliminate its dependence on foreign oil, McCain said.

"We have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production," he said. "It is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions."

McCain delivered the speech before heading to Texas for a series of fundraisers with energy industry executives, and the day after the speech he raised $1.3 million at a private luncheon and reception at the San Antonio Country Club, according to local news accounts.

"The timing was significant," said David Donnelly, the national campaigns director of the Public Campaign Action Fund, a nonpartisan campaign finance reform group that conducted the analysis of McCain's oil industry contributions. "This is a case study of how a candidate can change a policy position in the interest of raising money."washingtonpost (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/26/AR2008072601891_pf.html)


And some people continue to think that McCain actually has the interests of consumers at heart rather than the success of his campaign fundraising and the welfare of his friends in the oil and gas industry?

Man, what a joke.

It would be funny if it weren't so damn sad that people actually buy that crap.

gcoll
07-31-2008, 10:09 PM
And some people continue to think that McCain actually has the interests of consumers at heart rather than the success of his campaign fundraising and the welfare of his friends in the oil and gas industry?
Are these things mutually exclusive?


And McCain wants to do offshore drilling and drill in Alaska, which is a move that only serves to help the very companies who are profiting the most from this situation.
Oil prices go up.....oil companies make more profit.

I've never understood why people get angered by that, or are dumbfounded by that.

DenButsu
07-31-2008, 10:35 PM
Are these things mutually exclusive?

No, but I think in McCain's case in pretty clear where his priorities lie:

Money for himself first, money for the oil companies second, and the interests of the people somewhere on the list after that.



Oil prices go up.....oil companies make more profit.

I've never understood why people get angered by that, or are dumbfounded by that.


In a phrase that's as simple as your breakdown of the situation, "economic fairness".

But this guy explains it better than I could:


“They’re killing us,” said Altadena resident Andrew McAllister, 48, as he filled his 1989 Honda Accord. “I can’t afford to drive, and I make a decent living.”

Like others I spoke with, McAllister said he favored a windfall profits tax. “If they’re making record profits again and again, they need to give some of it back,” he said.

Do they? I too got caught up in the outrage during an appearance last week on the cable channel CNBC, where I’d been asked to comment on what the oil companies should do with all that money.

My proposal: Some sort of levy – call it a windfall profits tax, call it something else – that would raise billions of dollars annually for public transportation projects so that drivers would have viable alternatives to using their cars.

This prompted a gusher of e-mail from CNBC viewers asking why I was seeking to punish oil companies for doing what companies are supposed to do – make money and enrich shareholders.

It was a fair question.

I took up the matter with Philip Verleger, an economist who, as an official in the Carter administration, was one of the architects of a windfall profits tax imposed on the oil industry in 1980.

The eight-year levy on domestic production was intended to provide a sense of economic fairness to consumers as politicians lifted price controls imposed in 1971. It basically taxed all profits above a base price linked to the cost of oil in 1979, with annual adjustments for inflation.

“Unless we tax the oil companies, they will reap huge and undeserved windfall profits,” President Carter declared at the time.

Verleger said the windfall profits tax he helped devise had a clear purpose – to compensate for the lifting of price controls. He isn’t sure as clear a rationale exists today.

“How would you measure the windfall?” Verleger asked. “If you can’t measure it, you can’t tax it.”

The trick is setting the base price. Just three years ago, a windfall was seen as anything surpassing $40 a barrel for oil. Now we’re at almost three times that level, and Verleger said he believes oil will be at $200 a barrel by the end of the year.

So where do fair (albeit high) profits end and windfalls begin?

The oil industry already pays billions of dollars a year in taxes, but it also receives billions in government subsidies.

The exact amount of tax breaks is difficult to calculate because of the variety and complexity of programs involved, but Greenpeace estimates the figure could be as high as $35 billion.

Meanwhile, the perception remains among many drivers that the industry is taking advantage of people because, well, it can.

“There’s nothing you can do,” La Cańada Flintridge resident Vanessa McEwen, 39, wearily declared as she filled her 2000 Jeep Cherokee in Pasadena and prepared to chauffeur her kids to an after-school activity.

After thinking about it a bit, I suppose I have to grudgingly acknowledge that a windfall profits tax isn’t the solution. Like many people, I find the oil companies’ profits obscene. But they don’t control the market, and, yes, they’re in business to make money for shareholders.

But that doesn’t mean they’re totally off the hook. Subsidies? Sayonara. The last thing these guys need are tax breaks. Lawmakers should immediately terminate all government programs that give the oil industry unfair (and unnecessary) advantages.

And like Spider-Man says, with great power comes great responsibility. The oil companies should be required to devote a specific amount of their annual profit to public transportation and alternative energy projects.

Call that a tax if you like. I see it as a recognition of the companies’ enormous potential to have a positive effect on society, rather than just being first-class riders on the economic gravy train.

How much should they give? I don’t know. But I do know that the oil industry reaped more than $155 billion in profit last year, according to the Congressional Research Service. Exxon Mobil alone accounted for a quarter of the take.

Something tells me these firms would somehow scrape by with a few billion less.latimes (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/04/business/fi-lazarus4)

Lady's Man
08-01-2008, 02:02 AM
what exactly does "economic fairness" mean??

im not trying to defend exxon or anything, but last year they made 20.2 billion in revenues.... their total income tax on that was 49%.... 49%!!!!

And from 2003 to 2007, Exxon's earnings grew by 89% (mostly from china and india), while income taxes grew by 170%. as you can see, they are taxed heavily.

so what % more would you think would be "fair?" or do you propose something else?

gcoll
08-01-2008, 03:05 AM
Money for himself first, money for the oil companies second, and the interests of the people somewhere on the list after that.
Yup. All Mccain cares about is money. And all Obama cares about is the people.


In a phrase that's as simple as your breakdown of the situation, "economic fairness".
Yes. And I take an article seriously, that references Spiderman as some kind of model to admire.


How much should they give? I don’t know.
I'm sure tons of research went into that piece this guy wrote.....very impressive. "I have no conclusions....I talked to a guy from the Carter administration....but the oil companies make too much money!!! The lady in the Jeep Grand Cherokee agrees with me."

And yes. Absolutely. The way to bring down the price of gas, is to impose costs onto the oil companies. Brilliant. Let me ask this question. How much money does the Federal Government receive from the oil companies, and what exactly are they doing with it?

Or, you know what. We can "crack down on speculators"....which seems to be the phrase of the day for some reason.

DenButsu
08-01-2008, 04:42 AM
First of all, gcoll, the spidey reference was tongue in cheek. But I think you already knew that.


Yanking the subsidies sure seems like a good place to start, though. Conservatives should be able to agree with that since it's just welfare for oil corporations and all kinds of welfare are bad, right?


But more than that, and this goes far beyond simply the price of gas, it's important that the next presidential administration NOT be beholden to big oil interests and big energy interests who they allow to shape and drive their agenda. From the war in Iraq to the rape of the environment to the deliberate railroading of cleaner energy policies to the free passes for companies like Enron to screw the public and their employees to the even freer passes for companies like Halliburton and Blackwater to raid the U.S. treasury and rob our future blind - all of this damage is the direct result of a presidential administration that is bought, paid for, and staffed by big oil interests. And with his major push for offshore and ANWAR drilling, John McCain has made an announcement that's loud and clear to the oil companies:

"I'll be your *****, too, fellas, I'll suck right up to you."


So without getting into cheesy cliches, that's one area of executive policy where change is desperately needed but only one candidate will deliver it, and that's Obama.

gcoll
08-01-2008, 05:49 AM
First of all, gcoll, the spidey reference was tongue in cheek. But I think you already knew that.
Yeah. But asking some random guy at the gas pump, about a windfall profits tax totally deserves to be taken seriously.

I'm gonna go ask Linda in the Trans Am, what she thinks about tariffs.


Yanking the subsidies sure seems like a good place to start
To achieve what?

ari1013
08-01-2008, 07:59 AM
I paid $3.49 today.. so hopefully this trend where we stop driving as much and it continues to drop, will keep going.
I paid $3.619 out here. My gas dropped fast then leveled off. It looks like yours took a while to catch up but then went down faster.

ari1013
08-01-2008, 08:13 AM
what exactly does "economic fairness" mean??

im not trying to defend exxon or anything, but last year they made 20.2 billion in revenues.... their total income tax on that was 49%.... 49%!!!!

And from 2003 to 2007, Exxon's earnings grew by 89% (mostly from china and india), while income taxes grew by 170%. as you can see, they are taxed heavily.

so what % more would you think would be "fair?" or do you propose something else?
Well that's not true. Their revenue stream in one quarter was $138 billion.

ari1013
08-01-2008, 08:20 AM
First of all, gcoll, the spidey reference was tongue in cheek. But I think you already knew that.


Yanking the subsidies sure seems like a good place to start, though. Conservatives should be able to agree with that since it's just welfare for oil corporations and all kinds of welfare are bad, right?


But more than that, and this goes far beyond simply the price of gas, it's important that the next presidential administration NOT be beholden to big oil interests and big energy interests who they allow to shape and drive their agenda. From the war in Iraq to the rape of the environment to the deliberate railroading of cleaner energy policies to the free passes for companies like Enron to screw the public and their employees to the even freer passes for companies like Halliburton and Blackwater to raid the U.S. treasury and rob our future blind - all of this damage is the direct result of a presidential administration that is bought, paid for, and staffed by big oil interests. And with his major push for offshore and ANWAR drilling, John McCain has made an announcement that's loud and clear to the oil companies:

"I'll be your *****, too, fellas, I'll suck right up to you."


So without getting into cheesy cliches, that's one area of executive policy where change is desperately needed but only one candidate will deliver it, and that's Obama.
I agree that reevaluating the subsidies would be a good thing. I really don't know what they go into -- if it's tax credits for local drilling, that really makes no sense. But if it's subsidies used to encourage them to develop alternative fuel, then that should stand.

At the same time, due to the inelasticity of supply, imposing a slightly higher Federal tax per gallon of gasoline, would put the bulk of the burden on the gas companies. If the government increases the Federal tax from $0.18/gallon up to $0.30/gallon and then offers that back to consumers as a "gas rebate" or as a tax incentive for buying a fuel efficient car (30 MPG or higher), then that would serve to increase consumption without seriously crowding out investment.

sboyajian
08-01-2008, 10:02 AM
I paid $3.619 out here. My gas dropped fast then leveled off. It looks like yours took a while to catch up but then went down faster.

Well it was actually 3.69.. I had been paying 3.89 (others in area were more, but where I go it never got over 3.89). It didn't drop for about a week and went down to 3.84, then 2 days later to 3.79 and then yesteday it dropped to 3.69 (I get .20 cents off at Safeway)..

PHX-SOXFAN
08-01-2008, 10:30 AM
Now McCain, Hannity, Gingrich, and the rest of the talking point blowhards are ridiculing Obama for saying that the american people can help by getting regular tune ups and checking their tire pressure. Last night Gingrich claimed this was all Obama's plan included. Rush even went so far as to say he got a tune up and inflated his tires but he didn't see the price of gas drop.

IT's humorous how these guys just shrug off something that does need to be addressed. People without access to compressors don't fill up their tires regularly. If everyone did it, it would save a lot in fuel economy and ultimately help demand and price of fuel. I don't see why they shrug this off as a "barely making a dent idea" when at least it's right in front of us as opposed to mobilizing for more drilling that people in coastal states don't even want.

ari1013
08-01-2008, 06:18 PM
Now McCain, Hannity, Gingrich, and the rest of the talking point blowhards are ridiculing Obama for saying that the american people can help by getting regular tune ups and checking their tire pressure. Last night Gingrich claimed this was all Obama's plan included. Rush even went so far as to say he got a tune up and inflated his tires but he didn't see the price of gas drop.

IT's humorous how these guys just shrug off something that does need to be addressed. People without access to compressors don't fill up their tires regularly. If everyone did it, it would save a lot in fuel economy and ultimately help demand and price of fuel. I don't see why they shrug this off as a "barely making a dent idea" when at least it's right in front of us as opposed to mobilizing for more drilling that people in coastal states don't even want.
You have to realize they're going to bash everything he says. I listened to Hannity the last few days to hear if he was going to say anything about Ted Stevens. Not surprisingly he had some BS about Obama being arrogant for saying that attack ads are beneath him.

Doc Fluty
08-01-2008, 06:43 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080801/ap_on_el_pr/obama;_ylt=AofmmjkYciFbq78.BMLlMIph24cA

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.

but.....

June 20 2008

At a stop in Jacksonville today, Sen. Barack Obama plans to tell reporters that he continues to support the federal ban on off-shore drilling. His Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, said this week he would like to lift the ban and let states decide whether to drill.

“And when I am President, I will keep the moratorium in place and prevent oil companies from drilling off Florida’s coasts,” Obama says. “That’s how we can protect our coasts and still make the investments that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and bring down gas prices for good.”

http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2008/06/obama-no-offsho.html

AND...

June 20th

(AP) Barack Obama said Friday that presidential rival John McCain's proposal to allow offshore drilling "makes absolutely no sense at all"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/20/politics/main4198831.shtml

b1e9a8r5s
08-01-2008, 06:47 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080801/ap_on_el_pr/obama;_ylt=AofmmjkYciFbq78.BMLlMIph24cA

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.

Obama's changing positions? No way!

gcoll
08-01-2008, 11:42 PM
If the government increases the Federal tax from $0.18/gallon up to $0.30/gallon and then offers that back to consumers as a "gas rebate" or as a tax incentive for buying a fuel efficient car (30 MPG or higher), then that would serve to increase consumption without seriously crowding out investment.
A lot of times **** like that can backfire. We had a plan here in AZ...by our moron Governor a few years back...that was similar. Gave tax incentives to people for buying hybrid cars. Lots of people used that to buy a brand new truck that was hybrid....but then they'd just disable the "hybrid" capabilities...and drive around in a cheap brand new truck. Cost the state a lot of money. I really hate Janet Napolitano.

I am curious to know what the government does currently with the money they get from the oil companies.


Now McCain, Hannity, Gingrich, and the rest of the talking point blowhards are ridiculing Obama for saying that the american people can help by getting regular tune ups and checking their tire pressure. Last night Gingrich claimed this was all Obama's plan included.
No he didn't. Gingrich didn't claim that was his entire plan, he just thought it was a silly thing to say.....which it is.


Rush even went so far as to say he got a tune up and inflated his tires but he didn't see the price of gas drop.
See. I can't stand Rush...so I hardly ever listen to him. You on the other hand, appear to be some sort of masochist.

I can see the appeal of watching someone you really dislike. I have done it with Olbermann from time to time. But eventually...I can't stand it, and I have to look away. Change the channel. I'm just saying...if you stopped paying attention to Hannity and Rush...it might do good things for your blood pressure. (if Hannity and Rush have the same effect on you, that Olbermann does on me)


I don't see why they shrug this off as a "barely making a dent idea" when at least it's right in front of us as opposed to mobilizing for more drilling that people in coastal states don't even want.
The reason I'd shrug it off is because government can't control what people do with their tires. They can control where they choose to limit drilling, the taxes on oil...that type of thing. That's the type of thing that a politician should be talking about.

ari1013
08-02-2008, 01:19 AM
They disabled the hybrid capabilities? Why exactly would they want to do that? The engine on a hybrid is a lot weaker than on a normal version of the vehicle because it relies on the battery for part of its power.

Regardless, that plan was still good for consumers even if it failed to deliver higher mpg.

ari1013
08-02-2008, 01:22 AM
more convergence... these guys are going to have identical platforms by the time all is said and done.

gcoll
08-02-2008, 01:24 AM
They disabled the hybrid capabilities? Why exactly would they want to do that? The engine on a hybrid is a lot weaker than on a normal version of the vehicle because it relies on the battery for part of its power.

Regardless, that plan was still good for consumers even if it failed to deliver higher mpg.

They weren't hybrids. They were "alternative fuel vehicles"

Here's an article on the situation:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_2_33/ai_75099630

DenButsu
08-02-2008, 02:26 AM
I am curious to know what the government does currently with the money they get from the oil companies.

Well the current government uses it at least in part to pursue plans which would help the oil companies, in part to block environmental actions which would harm the oil companies and in part to finance a war which will further enrich the oil companies. So when Bush and Cheney are at the controls, even the taxes the oil companies pay are an investment that they get some return on.

ari1013
08-02-2008, 09:04 AM
They weren't hybrids. They were "alternative fuel vehicles"

Here's an article on the situation:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_2_33/ai_75099630
Thanks for the article.

Out here, people love AFVs. Ethanol costs about $0.80 less than gas per gallon. The highest it got was $3.95 and now it's back under $3.

blenderboy5
08-02-2008, 12:32 PM
Quick question... what's Obama's position on the emergency oil reserve we have? Does he want to tap into that too?

ari1013
08-02-2008, 03:03 PM
Quick question... what's Obama's position on the emergency oil reserve we have? Does he want to tap into that too?
Yes he wants to reduce the size of the Strategic Oil Reserve to increase supply by about 3 million barrels in the shortrun while we wait for the longrun solutions (drilling, exploring, alteratives) to pan out.

tomno00
08-02-2008, 05:26 PM
The reason gas prices are rising is because the value of the dollar is falling at a very fast rate, due to the government printing money out of thin air. It's called inflation. If there were less restrictions, we'd have plenty of alternative fuels, such as ethanol from hemp and the like.


Exxoin was taxed at a 49% rate for income tax (keep in mind that is just income tax)
You guys do realize that if higher taxes are placed on oil companies, they will just add it to the price of the gasoline and you will end up paying it, not the oil companies. Our government is building oil monopolies with their environmentalist inspired regulations. They have essentially killed the market by making it impossible for other oil companies to compete. Because of this you are force to buy the oil products from the companies still in the game. They know you cannot go somewhere else, where the price is lower. This is why they would be able to get away with just adding the tax onto the price of gas. Taxes do not hurt oil companies. The only people you would be hurting with these proposed taxes is the common man. When will people learn that throwing money at the government is not the answer

arkanian215
08-02-2008, 05:40 PM
That's pretty ignorant. If you truly think that will happen to the US then you need to get a better understanding of history & politics.

it's pretty ignorant to say that the 2nd depression won't happen soon, or even that it hasnt already begun. i believe it takes about 5 years to collect the data to analyze the economic conditions for certain, not because we have to search for it but because it takes time for the symptoms to show in the data. for now people are calling it a economic slowdown (when it's really a recession).

arkanian215
08-02-2008, 05:47 PM
Everyone in America needs to start doing what we did before we had cars, biking and walking places. You can throw figures around and argue this forever but if we car pool, bike, and walk to places it will help us with our effort to get more bang for our buck, plus it would help the obesity epedemic we have in our country.

surely no one would do that even though that would definitely help our country. this country is based on individualism. the house and the car epitomize what it is to be american, along with massive consumption.

arkanian215
08-02-2008, 05:52 PM
Right. The Saudis increased their supply by 800,000 barrels per day. That was a little less than a 1% increase in global supply. That led to about a 2% decrease in gas prices. But then the Chinese announced that they were going to be bidding $150 per barrel of oil, and prices rose right back to where they were before ($4.077 US average for gasoline and $143 for a barrel of oil).

that's interesting. that would kind of explain why it's expensive to buy gas these days. the real price of gas might not actually have gone up compared to last summer but there is a massive decline in the value of the dollar that warrants other countries to out bid the US when it comes to acquiring natural resources. if i were the saudis i would be less inclined to work with the US just because of the value of the dollar isnt what it used to be. i'd look for more stable, or growing nations to export to. as for the bidding thing, i think China is trying to remove itself from its reliance on coal to heat and power the country.

arkanian215
08-02-2008, 05:56 PM
Many are already doing that. I'm only going into my office twice a week now. I'm doing most of my research from home or from Wash U's library which is much closer than school.

Several states are pondering switching to a 4-day work-week with longer workdays to reduce transportation costs.

mhm i heard that earlier on the news. some schools already have 4 day school days. however, i think both schools and employers should have this. then again a lot of people work all 7 days and it definitely would be unfair to them to require them to find a babysitter for an extra day, especially when theyre not earning enough to work only 5 days.

arkanian215
08-02-2008, 06:03 PM
The reason gas prices are rising is because the value of the dollar is falling at a very fast rate, due to the government printing money out of thin air. It's called inflation. If there were less restrictions, we'd have plenty of alternative fuels, such as ethanol from hemp and the like.


Exxoin was taxed at a 49% rate for income tax (keep in mind that is just income tax)
You guys do realize that if higher taxes are placed on oil companies, they will just add it to the price of the gasoline and you will end up paying it, not the oil companies. Our government is building oil monopolies with their environmentalist inspired regulations. They have essentially killed the market by making it impossible for other oil companies to compete. Because of this you are force to buy the oil products from the companies still in the game. They know you cannot go somewhere else, where the price is lower. This is why they would be able to get away with just adding the tax onto the price of gas. Taxes do not hurt oil companies. The only people you would be hurting with these proposed taxes is the common man. When will people learn that throwing money at the government is not the answer

i agreed with you on the first point. however, we cannot totally discount the role of increased demand from developing nations such as China and India that encourage oil exporters to sell to the highest bidder. and with the way the dollar value is falling, countries with stronger currency will easily charge up the price.

arkanian215
08-02-2008, 06:06 PM
Now McCain, Hannity, Gingrich, and the rest of the talking point blowhards are ridiculing Obama for saying that the american people can help by getting regular tune ups and checking their tire pressure. Last night Gingrich claimed this was all Obama's plan included. Rush even went so far as to say he got a tune up and inflated his tires but he didn't see the price of gas drop.

IT's humorous how these guys just shrug off something that does need to be addressed. People without access to compressors don't fill up their tires regularly. If everyone did it, it would save a lot in fuel economy and ultimately help demand and price of fuel. I don't see why they shrug this off as a "barely making a dent idea" when at least it's right in front of us as opposed to mobilizing for more drilling that people in coastal states don't even want.

i watch fox news as if it was my comedy central. and i dont watch stewart and colbert because theyre not as funny.

arkanian215
08-02-2008, 06:09 PM
I paid $3.49 today.. so hopefully this trend where we stop driving as much and it continues to drop, will keep going.

the cheaper prices will encourage people to drive more. that price isnt going to budge too much (but then again theres still at least a month on the summer travel season). i think the prices will largely reflect how our economy is doing. if bernanke cuts rates again, i doubt people will be happy with the price of plane tickets in december.

ari1013
08-03-2008, 12:11 AM
The reason gas prices are rising is because the value of the dollar is falling at a very fast rate, due to the government printing money out of thin air. It's called inflation. If there were less restrictions, we'd have plenty of alternative fuels, such as ethanol from hemp and the like.


Exxoin was taxed at a 49% rate for income tax (keep in mind that is just income tax)
You guys do realize that if higher taxes are placed on oil companies, they will just add it to the price of the gasoline and you will end up paying it, not the oil companies. Our government is building oil monopolies with their environmentalist inspired regulations. They have essentially killed the market by making it impossible for other oil companies to compete. Because of this you are force to buy the oil products from the companies still in the game. They know you cannot go somewhere else, where the price is lower. This is why they would be able to get away with just adding the tax onto the price of gas. Taxes do not hurt oil companies. The only people you would be hurting with these proposed taxes is the common man. When will people learn that throwing money at the government is not the answer
Actually you're wrong on two accounts:

1. The supply of oil is more inelastic than demand so the oil companies will bear the bulk of the tax burden.

2. The government isn't magically printing money. I really wish people would stop believing anything Ron Paul says. And the value of the dollar has been INCREASING lately.

ari1013
08-03-2008, 12:12 AM
it's pretty ignorant to say that the 2nd depression won't happen soon, or even that it hasnt already begun. i believe it takes about 5 years to collect the data to analyze the economic conditions for certain, not because we have to search for it but because it takes time for the symptoms to show in the data. for now people are calling it a economic slowdown (when it's really a recession).
more like 6 months, but I get what you're saying.

ari1013
08-03-2008, 12:13 AM
that's interesting. that would kind of explain why it's expensive to buy gas these days. the real price of gas might not actually have gone up compared to last summer but there is a massive decline in the value of the dollar that warrants other countries to out bid the US when it comes to acquiring natural resources. if i were the saudis i would be less inclined to work with the US just because of the value of the dollar isnt what it used to be. i'd look for more stable, or growing nations to export to. as for the bidding thing, i think China is trying to remove itself from its reliance on coal to heat and power the country.
The dollar is hitting 2-year highs...

gcoll
08-03-2008, 03:44 AM
Well the current government uses it at least in part to pursue plans which would help the oil companies, in part to block environmental actions which would harm the oil companies and in part to finance a war which will further enrich the oil companies. So when Bush and Cheney are at the controls, even the taxes the oil companies pay are an investment that they get some return on.

I thought the war was financed by China?


The reason gas prices are rising is because the value of the dollar is falling at a very fast rate, due to the government printing money out of thin air. It's called inflation. If there were less restrictions, we'd have plenty of alternative fuels, such as ethanol from hemp and the like.


Exxoin was taxed at a 49% rate for income tax (keep in mind that is just income tax)
You guys do realize that if higher taxes are placed on oil companies, they will just add it to the price of the gasoline and you will end up paying it, not the oil companies. Our government is building oil monopolies with their environmentalist inspired regulations. They have essentially killed the market by making it impossible for other oil companies to compete. Because of this you are force to buy the oil products from the companies still in the game. They know you cannot go somewhere else, where the price is lower. This is why they would be able to get away with just adding the tax onto the price of gas. Taxes do not hurt oil companies. The only people you would be hurting with these proposed taxes is the common man. When will people learn that throwing money at the government is not the answer
I'm with you man. Ron Paul '08.


The dollar is hitting 2-year highs...
Do you have any links on that? The article I found said "2 week high"....

ari1013
08-03-2008, 09:12 AM
It's not from an article. Just look at the price of gold. The last time gold was valued this low was back in September-October 2007. If the dollar strengthens as much as expected (about 20% more), then we're going to see gold hit a 2-year low, going back to May 2006 (when gold was $760).

It's projections at this point, but so far the trend has been holding true over the last 2 months. At the low point, gold was close to $1100 an ounce. Now it's just over $900.


EDIT: Here's a link -- http://www.xe.com/ict/

You can see that gold is down to $910 an ounce.

DenButsu
08-03-2008, 10:16 PM
Thread title changed to:

Official Gas Prices, Oil, and Drilling Thread



Obviously, this is a major issue that people will want to keep talking about here, and this thread is where that conversation has mostly been centered. I just wanted the title to reflect the breadth of the issues being discussed here.

ari1013
08-03-2008, 10:19 PM
Thread title changed to:

Official Gas Prices, Oil, and Drilling Thread



Obviously, this is a major issue that people will want to keep talking about here, and this thread is where that conversation has mostly been centered. I just wanted the title to reflect the breadth of the issues being discussed here.
you're so biased! you only renamed it because it was rightwing propaganda. I bet if it was McCain favors higher gas prices it would still have that title. ;)

DenButsu
08-03-2008, 10:20 PM
you're so biased! you only renamed it because it was rightwing propaganda. I bet if it was McCain favors higher gas prices it would still have that title. ;)

Shhhh! :mad: Don't tell anybody!

DenButsu
08-04-2008, 07:36 AM
I'll probably end up merging this into the Gas Prices, Oil, Drilling thread eventually, but this will probably be fairly big news early this week, with Obama hitting the issue on Monday and McCain following suit on Tuesday.



Obama to unveil energy plan Monday

Barack Obama travels to battleground Michigan Monday to unveil details on his energy policy.

Obama speaks at 11am ET in the Lansing, where the campaign said he will announce his “New Energy for America” plan. He will discuss an energy rebate to help with gas prices, creating five million “green” jobs and trying to eliminate the need for Middle Eastern oil in 10 years.

The campaign said the speech will launch their “Energy Week” effort with trips planned to Ohio and Indiana to discuss gas prices and rising heating bills.

John McCain, who will discuss small business issues Monday in Pennsylvania, also plans an energy event in Michigan this week. On Tuesday, he will visit the Fermi 2 nuclear power plant outside Detroit, for an event promoting his call for an increase in similar plants.

The energy week emphasis comes days after Obama shifted towards a compromise on offshore drilling. He talked in Florida about a willingness to accept offshore drilling as part of the bipartisan energy bill. He told reporters while he remains “skeptical of some of the drilling provisions”, he said he believes the deal includes enough alternatives to “move us in the direction of genuine energy independence” On whether it’s another example of him softening positions, Obama said, “what I'm interested ultimately is going to be governing…we've got a plan on the table that I think meets the goals that America has to set and there are some things in there that I don't like, then obviously that's something that you know I would consider because that's the nature of how we govern in a democracy.”cnn (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/04/obama-to-unveil-energy-plan-monday/)

DenButsu
08-04-2008, 10:59 PM
Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html?cnn=yes):

The Tire-Gauge Solution: No Joke

ari1013
08-05-2008, 01:35 AM
Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html?cnn=yes):

The Tire-Gauge Solution: No Joke
Of course it's serious, but the Right is going to attack and spin everything he says. That's how Rovian Politics work.

DenButsu
08-05-2008, 07:14 AM
Of course it's serious, but the Right is going to attack and spin everything he says. That's how Rovian Politics work.

Agreed, but I thought it was worth pointing out in the context of the discussions in this thread that the merits of the idea are actually solid.

PHX-SOXFAN
08-05-2008, 10:51 AM
Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html?cnn=yes):

The Tire-Gauge Solution: No Joke

exactly. Imagine if public service announcements addressed this issue instead of "click it or ticket"? and imagine of compressors were actually available at every gas station. this would not take much to get people to pay more attention to this and take care of it.

I love how the blowhards just want to dismiss this when the facts and numbers support obama's plan far more than the oil company supporting conservatives plan to drill anywhere they want. I hate it when math gets involved to trump poorly educated blowhards who don't know economics:rolleyes:

PHX-SOXFAN
08-05-2008, 10:54 AM
No he didn't. Gingrich didn't claim that was his entire plan, he just thought it was a silly thing to say.....which it is.


how silly does it seem now that the numbers are presented in an article in Time magazine? not exactly a scientist on msnbc:speechless:. Looks like Obama's plan would decrease demand three times as much as McCain/Exxon's plan would increase supply:speechless:

PHX-SOXFAN
08-05-2008, 01:54 PM
Oh Bill..................

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,398002,00.html

O'Reilly railing against windfall profit tax, then asking the oil companies to "donate" percentages of their profits to struggling families. I'm sure they'll be lining up for this one.:rolleyes: good to see conservative hypocrisy back in full force with O'Reilly and not just exclusive to Rush and Hannity:clap:

ari1013
08-05-2008, 05:59 PM
how silly does it seem now that the numbers are presented in an article in Time magazine? not exactly a scientist on msnbc:speechless:. Looks like Obama's plan would decrease demand three times as much as McCain/Exxon's plan would increase supply:speechless:
Yeah but one doesn't necessarily replace the other. There's no connection to your argument.

PHX-SOXFAN
08-05-2008, 06:11 PM
Yeah but one doesn't necessarily replace the other. There's no connection to your argument.

what I'm trying to point out is that one side is dismissing the other side's ideas by brushing it off as BS when it completely holds water. I'm not saying one is the end all solution, only that the spin machine, talking point, blowhards are a bunch of hypocrites that are ignoring facts and numbers. Obama makes a great point and it should be taken seriously instead of laughed off by limbaugh and gingrich. what a bunch of clowns

ari1013
08-05-2008, 06:26 PM
what I'm trying to point out is that one side is dismissing the other side's ideas by brushing it off as BS when it completely holds water. I'm not saying one is the end all solution, only that the spin machine, talking point, blowhards are a bunch of hypocrites that are ignoring facts and numbers. Obama makes a great point and it should be taken seriously instead of laughed off by limbaugh and gingrich. what a bunch of clowns
gotcha. it looked to me like you were just being the lefty version of them.

gcoll
08-06-2008, 12:25 AM
how silly does it seem now that the numbers are presented in an article in Time magazine? not exactly a scientist on msnbc:speechless:. Looks like Obama's plan would decrease demand three times as much as McCain/Exxon's plan would increase supply:speechless:

It's not a plan.

I thought Ann Coulter made a funny joke about this issue today, when she announced her solution to health care would be "An apple a day"

If people ate healthier....health care costs would go down. Heart attacks would decrease...etc. etc.

That doesn't matter though, because that's not the realm of a politician. It's not Barack Obama's concern, about people's tire gauges. That's their own business. A politician should be more concerned with the laws against drilling, the taxes on the oil companies, the strategic oil reserve. That type of thing.

Would tires being inflated reduce the amount of oil used on a large scale? Sure. Is it possible to institute this type of thing on a large scale? Of course not. It's not a plan. It's just a stupid thing to say. If everyone stopped eating fast food, there'd be less heart attacks, hence less of a burden on health care. But if Mccain came out and answered a question about the lack of health care with "Eat more fruit" you guys would be all over him, and rightfully so.