[Y3a]

Do you think we would be in better shape if we had started drilling for oil IN OUR OWN BACKYARDS years ago, instead of buying the foreign stuff?? Have the Environmental wack-o's really done us a 'service'?

I sure don't think we should have EVER listened to them. However, politicians are stupid and cowardly and don't wanna go against the opinion polls and risk their 'jobs'

[von Wrangell]

The reasons for the rise in oil prices is because of events in the ME. US invasion of Iraq, US threats towards Iran, Israeli actions in Palestine and Lebanon and US support of those actions.

Rise in oil prices is something your own government created. Congratulations.

[RAILhead]

Yup, it's all bush's fault.

[kobi]

ok then tell me how it's not Bush's fault??

[PBG4 User]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Do you think we would be in better shape if we had started drilling for oil IN OUR OWN BACKYARDS years ago, instead of buying the foreign stuff?? Have the Environmental wack-o's really done us a 'service'?

I sure don't think we should have EVER listened to them. However, politicians are stupid and cowardly and don't wanna go against the opinion polls and risk their 'jobs'

The majority of oil left undrilled in US territory is not light sweet crude. It is a heavier and more sulfur laden variety of crude oil which would make it more expensive to refine into gasoline and other petroleum products. Right now most Alaskan oil is exported, we don't even use it.

[analogika]

Actually, this same discussion comes up EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

IT'S YOUR HOLIDAY SEASON, FOLKS!

America has, IIRC, about 1/3 the refinery capacity it would need to distill enough gasoline from crude.

Holiday season means that the US goes on a gas-guzzling spree and regularly buys every drop of pre-refined gasoline in Rotterdam, which hikes up prices like crazy.

The Mid-East crisis is definitely part of the current extreme (heading for 80 dollars/barrel), but it's primarily your holiday season - as every year.

[RAILhead]

Why are we the only 2 that realize this?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by analogika

Actually, this same discussion comes up EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

IT'S YOUR HOLIDAY SEASON, FOLKS!

America has, IIRC, about 1/3 the refinery capacity it would need to distill enough gasoline from crude.

Holiday season means that the US goes on a gas-guzzling spree and regularly buys every drop of pre-refined gasoline in Rotterdam, which hikes up prices like crazy.

The Mid-East crisis is definitely part of the current extreme (heading for 80 dollars/barrel), but it's primarily your holiday season - as every year.

<Y3a mode>
Hey Commie, we can do WHATEVER WE WANT and its not our fault. Got it!
Not using less oil is NOT our fault.
Not driving smaller, more fuel-efficient cars is NOT our fault.
Not building sufficient refining capacity to process all the oil we do extract from the ground is NOT our fault.

And don't you ever forget it. We are America, Dammit! We can do NO wrong!
</Y3a mode>

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

<Y3a mode>
Hey Commie, we can do WHATEVER WE WANT and its not our fault. Got it!
Not using less oil is NOT our fault.
Not driving smaller, more fuel-efficient cars is NOT our fault.
Not building sufficient refining capacity to process all the oil we do extract from the ground is NOT our fault.

And don't you ever forget it. We are America, Dammit! We can do NO wrong!
</Y3a mode>

WRONG! I drive a small fuel injected car NOT an SUV or truck. I always wanted SUV drivers to pay A LOT more for fuel and a road tax like truckers do. Perhaps if we had more refineries and more wells we would have more control over the price. The environmentalist wack-os have made it almost impossible to do this. I would also suggest removing about 20 percent of the worst drivers from the roads and force them to public transportation.

[smacintush]

So are you suggesting that the Government either seizes control of our oil production or at least takes control of the oil companies? That's the only way that "drilling at home" will make a difference. You either have the Government do the drilling or force the oil companies to drill and sell the oil here for a price far below market.

The reality is that all new drilling will do will add a TINY percentage of oil to the world market which will only change the price infinitesimally.

[HackManDan]

If the "environmentalist wack-os" really had their way we would have had strong mandatory fuel standards for ALL vehicles a long time ago. It wasn’t the environmentalist who kept the efficiency of passenger cars at 27.5 miles per gallon since 1990 and SUVs/trucks at 21.6 mpg.

For the U.S. to really make itself independent of ME bullsh!t, we are going to have to double those numbers, not increase them by 8% as Bush proposes (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4812196).

Unfortunately, with “pro-business” Republicans in charge, that is simply never going to happen. So, who’s to blame for this mess?

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by smacintush

So are you suggesting that the Government either seizes control of our oil production or at least takes control of the oil companies? That's the only way that "drilling at home" will make a difference. You either have the Government do the drilling or force the oil companies to drill and sell the oil here for a price far below market.

The reality is that all new drilling will do will add a TINY percentage of oil to the world market which will only change the price infinitesimally.

Ofcourse, the least crazy and more logical solution would be for the US government to set better standards for fuel efficiency in cars.

Ofcourse, something that rational could never happen.

I can't wait for the day when Americans have to cue for hours or days to get cheap gas to fill their SUV.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Ofcourse, the least crazy and more logical solution would be for the US government to set better standards for fuel efficiency in cars.

Ofcourse, something that rational could never happen.

I can't wait for the day when Americans have to cue for hours or days to get cheap gas to fill their SUV.

Yes, of course. Because the answer is always to force the hand of the evil corporations. I would not necessarily call MORE government regulation "rational".

With the rising price of gas, the fuel efficiency will go up due to market pressure. It's starting to happen now.

[Y3a]

The real problem in fuel efficient cars is that detroit has no brains there who can design better gas mileage into cars without investing in the production afterwards and that might cost a stockholder to have less bucks.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Yes, of course. Because the answer is always to force the hand of the evil corporations. I would not necessarily call MORE government regulation "rational".

With the rising price of gas, the fuel efficiency will go up due to market pressure. It's starting to happen now.

Sure its happening now, but at what cost? Imagine the resources that could be saved if fuel efficiency was more regulated? And yes, I know this completely goes against the average american who is paranoid of the intentions of their gov.

One example of government involvment I can think of is the tax London put on veicles to enter the inner city. That seems to be working wonders for them.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by kobi

ok then tell me how it's not Bush's fault??

He didn't wake up one morning and say, "Geez, I feel like screwing the American citizens and hike the gas prices."

It is a cumulation of things that led to the prices we see now, and no singular person can be held 100% responsible for it.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Sure its happening now, but at what cost? Imagine the resources that could be saved if fuel efficiency was more regulated? And yes, I know this completely goes against the average american who is paranoid of the intentions of their gov.

It's not a matter of paranoia, it's a matter of principle and economics.

Government already over-regulates nearly everything, especially the auto-industry. Over-regulation is a form of oppression. You may think that's over the top but it's not. It takes away freedom from the companies to produce what the market demands and it take freedom of choice away from the consumer to choose to buy what they want. All to satisfy the desires of a POLITICIAN to try and "fix" something. Something that the market will fix on its own without government oppression.

More government regulation has economic consequences. Period. Some great, some small but consequences nonetheless. This effects EVERYONE.

Same goes for uses taxes for social engineering.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Rumor

He didn't wake up one morning and say, "Geez, I feel like screwing the American citizens and hike the gas prices."

C'mon, sure he did. Then he ate a baby for breakfast. (not a white baby though, that would have been wrong…)

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by smacintush

It's not a matter of paranoia, it's a matter of principle and economics.

Government already over-regulates nearly everything, especially the auto-industry. Over-regulation is a form of oppression. You may think that's over the top but it's not. It takes away freedom from the companies to produce what the market demands and it take freedom of choice away from the consumer to choose to buy what they want. All to satisfy the desires of a POLITICIAN to try and "fix" something. Something that the market will fix on its own without government oppression.

More government regulation has economic consequences. Period. Some great, some small but consequences nonetheless. This effects EVERYONE.

Same goes for uses taxes for social engineering.

Yes.... thanks for proving my point.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Yes.... thanks for proving my point.

I didn't prove your point, I made mine.

You said "paranoid of the intentions of their gov." I'm not paranoid of their intentions anymore than I am of yours. Other than their fear of not getting re-elected they have good intentions I'm sure. The problem is that the management of such a complicated thing as this is not something that belongs in the hands of a few politicians.

Oppression is nearly always done for the "benefit" of society.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by smacintush

The problem is that the management of such a complicated thing as this is not something that belongs in the hands of a few politicians.

Someone should let Bush in on that secret.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Rumor

He didn't wake up one morning and say, "Geez, I feel like screwing the American citizens and hike the gas prices."

Of course not, it took 6 years. You can't screw over a nation in ony 8 hours. Jeeze.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Y3a

The real problem in fuel efficient cars is that detroit has no brains there who can design better gas mileage into cars without investing in the production afterwards and that might cost a stockholder to have less bucks.

DaimlerChrysler, oddly, does fine.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Someone should let Bush in on that secret.

Well, I agree but to be fair their just aren't a whole lot of politicians who get it. Big government macro-spending/micro-managing seems to be the status quo regardless of party affiliation.

[typoon]

I think it's a few issues. First is the issues in the Middle East and second it's a racket by the oil companies and the oil producing nations. Third it's environmentalists not wanting us to drill in ANWAR. Also if we are exporting the oil from Alaska not for our use that is wrong as well. Also we can and should get our oil from Mexico, Canada or others in our region.

hell one way to control Illegal immagration or make it profitable for us is to tell the president of Mexico that we want 1 barrel of oil for every illegal.

What's with the oil in IRAQ? Supposedly they production is ABOVE pre-war amounts. Is all of it going to help out Iraq. Iraq is the 3rd largest oil producer. Why are we worried about Oil from Iran?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by typoon

Third it's environmentalists not wanting us to drill in ANWAR. Also if we are exporting the oil from Alaska not for our use that is wrong as well.

So how do you suggest we prevent the oil from being sold on the world market?

ANWR is a farce.

Both sides are so full of sh*t on that issue it's pathetic.

Drilling in ANWR will not destroy the environment.

Drilling in ANWR will not help us one little bit because the oil WILL be sold on the world market just like the rest, and the amount of oil there isn't enough to do squat to world oil prices.

I do agree the we should move to get all or most of our oil from home, but that is for security/self-reliance reasons. It won't do a thing for oil prices.

[PBG4 User]

Actually, we received most of our oil from Venezuela. Until the strikes occurred.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush

C'mon, sure he did. Then he ate a baby for breakfast. (not a white baby though, that would have been wrong…)

Well, it couldn't have been a black baby because we know he doesn't care about them.
I hear Hispanic babies taste pretty good, especially with salsa, so maybe he ate one of them.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I hear Hispanic babies taste pretty good, especially with salsa, so maybe he ate one of them.

Terrible, terrible heartburn. Also, its just like drinking the water in Mexico, if only more delicious.

(I'm talking REAL baby back ribs! RIBS! Dripping with sauce! Falling off the bone!)

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush

So how do you suggest we prevent the oil from being sold on the world market?

ANWR is a farce.

Both sides are so full of sh*t on that issue it's pathetic.

Drilling in ANWR will not destroy the environment.

Drilling in ANWR will not help us one little bit because the oil WILL be sold on the world market just like the rest, and the amount of oil there isn't enough to do squat to world oil prices.

I do agree the we should move to get all or most of our oil from home, but that is for security/self-reliance reasons. It won't do a thing for oil prices.

Excellent post.

I think we need to use less foreign oil for long-term national security reasons and we need to use less oil overall for long-term economic security reasons.

[PacHead]

The US should sieze enemy oil fields and use the oil to fight the war. Going after enemy fuel depots and oil fields is a common tactic in any war.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by PacHead

The US should sieze enemy oil fields and use the oil to fight the war. Going after enemy fuel depots and oil fields is a common tactic in any war.

Fine by me!

But, um, in the WOT, which oil fields do we seize? We don't exactly have a defined theater.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Fine by me!

But, um, in the WOT, which oil fields do we seize? We don't exactly have a defined theater.

The theatre is worldwide. How about bombing Iran and then taking control of their oil fields ? Then use this oil supply to defeat the other enemies that need to be taken out. Also, the US military should be getting free oil from Iraq.

Other pro-terrorist countries that have vast oil supplies are Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Norway, there's many options.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Fine by me!

But, um, in the WOT, which oil fields do we seize? We don't exactly have a defined theater.

Why, all of them, of course!

[analogika]

Originally Posted by PacHead

The theatre is worldwide. How about bombing Iran and then taking control of their oil fields ? Then use this oil supply to defeat the other enemies that need to be taken out. Also, the US military should be getting free oil from Iraq.

You're sounding more like Hitler every day.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by PacHead

The theatre is worldwide. How about bombing Iran and then taking control of their oil fields ? Then use this oil supply to defeat the other enemies that need to be taken out. Also, the US military should be getting free oil from Iraq.

Other pro-terrorist countries that have vast oil supplies are Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Norway, there's many options.

Sounds like a…um…plan. That wouldn't be disastrous at all!

[Y3a]

I always thought that using electric cars like "bump cars" with the power generated by atomic power underground would be better than internal combustion. use motor gearboxes per wheel, and the more wheels the more it would pull or haul.

[Wiskedjak]

Of course, the environmental wack-o's have been saying for decades that there would be fuel shortages (albeit for different reasons). Had anyone paid any attention to them, improvement of alternative fuels and their associated infrastructures would have started decades before it did.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Of course, the environmental wack-o's have been saying for decades that there would be fuel shortages (albeit for different reasons). Had anyone paid any attention to them, improvement of alternative fuels and their associated infrastructures would have started decades before it did.

Indeed. It's not the shortage of oil that is the problem, its that we are increasingly using too much of it.

Who could have predicted 30 years ago the rise of China?
Who also would have predicted the advent of global warming?
I suppose some would have predicted the current instability of oil producing nations, but would they have predicted the extent of dependence on those nations?

[smacintush]

A huge problem with oil prices is are the chicken **** oil bidders who bid up the price every time someone in the middle east sneezes. This and OPEC's strangling production to deliberately drive up the price.

Right now, at the moment we have ENOUGH OIL.

[hey!_Zeus]

The REAL reason for price hikes.

"According to Levesque, there is currently no danger of oil shortages and oil supplies are in fact increasing. The problem, according to the TD economist, is that the normal laws of supply and demand have broken down."

"Speaking in Alberta, Bodman echoed Levesque, saying that oil producers no longer control the price of crude, saying "they have ceded control to the traders and the prices for crude oil are now set in New York and London and Tokyo."

U.S. looks to oil sands as price continues to surge...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

[Wiskedjak]

Yes, by "shortage" I mean demand is increasing beyond supply (even if that supply is being artificially controlled)

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by smacintush

ANWR is a farce.

Both sides are so full of sh*t on that issue it's pathetic.

Drilling in ANWR will not destroy the environment.

Drilling in ANWR will not help us one little bit because the oil WILL be sold on the world market just like the rest, and the amount of oil there isn't enough to do squat to world oil prices.

I do agree the we should move to get all or most of our oil from home, but that is for security/self-reliance reasons. It won't do a thing for oil prices.

drilling in ANWR will not help us one little bit because it could, in theory, provide the US with enough oil to run for 500 days give or take - a year and a half. we've consumed far more oil in the time period that people have been talking about ANWR than we could actually get from it.

depending on if you're a pessimist or an optimist, ANWR has between 6 - 16 billion barrels of oil. 10 is a safe bet.

Oil Reserves

According to the EIA, the United States has 21 billion barrels of proved oil reserves as of January 1, 2000. The U.S. uses about 6.6 billion barrels per year. That is only enough oil to last the U.S. about three and a half years without importing oil from other countries. 84% of the reserves are concentrated in four states. Texas has 25%, both onshore, and offshore. Alaska has 24%, California has 21%, and Louisiana has 14% onshore, and offshore. Since 1990, U.S. oil reserves have dropped about 20%. New oil discoveries made in 1999 were made almost entirely in the Gulf of Mexico, and Alaska. (321 million barrels). All other discoveries were extensions of existing oil fields, or new reservoirs discovered in old fields. (404 million barrels).

not sure if ANWR is included in that 21 billion figure or not...

The Interior Department estimates there are about 19 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 86 trillion cubic feet of natural gas beneath waters currently under drilling bans from New England to southern Alaska.

so access to that banned oil gets us nearly 4 years of oil independance.

But supporters of the drilling moratorium argue there is four times that amount of oil and gas available in offshore waters open to energy companies, mainly in the central and western Gulf of Mexico and off parts of Alaska.

80% of undrilled oil is already readily available in leases in the gulf of mexico - just hasn't been done yet.

so sadly this bill cannot be justified under oil independance - since the numbers don't make sense. we either use all of it at once and exhaust our supply in less than two years. or we use it as additional energy at 10% and it still only gets us two decades while remaining 90% dependant on other countries.

it does little but to open up tens of thousands of square miles to possible environmental damage.

the bill is very short-signted and does nothing to address the alternatives, which are increasingly needed. wonder if this has anything to do with china wanting to drill for off the shores of cuba, visible from the coast of FL?

Oil Consumption in North America
U.S. House approves end to offshore oil and drilling ban; prospects in Senate uncertain

[PB2K]

I drive a very small car, but it still consumes 12 litres for every 100 kilometres. 60 euro's a tank twice a week is just impossible for me.

So I am thinking about building a LPG installation in it.

Still I also blame my own Dutch gouvernment for the crazy high fuel prices, most of the price is taxes anyway.

[analogika]

12 litres!?

What kind of "very small car" uses 12 litres!? (Unless you habitually pike it at 190km/h, in which case, it's your own damn fault.)

A '74 Alfa GT junior or something?

[PB2K]

It's a 1975 - 1300 junior but with a 2000 in it. Its gorgeous.



you know, in holland gasprices are so incredibly high, and the media say it is because of the crisis in the middle east, but I don't believe it. In France the prices are 10% lower and French gas includes roadtax as well. It's just taxes.

[Sky Captain]

The Georgia state government is raising fuel taxes this yesr.
Why?
Because of conservation has caused a loss of state revenue now.
Imagine that. We are conserving more fuel but the prices still rise.

Smaller, more economical cars will be taxed more because of the lesser use of taxable fuel.
They will occupy the roads as much as less economical cars that pay MORE in road taxes.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

The Georgia state government is raising fuel taxes this yesr.
Why?
Because of conservation has caused a loss of state revenue now.
Imagine that. We are conserving more fuel but the prices still rise.

Smaller, more economical cars will be taxed more because of the lesser use of taxable fuel.
They will occupy the roads as much as less economical cars that pay MORE in road taxes.

Those damn liberals!

[Sky Captain]

Yeah, they need that money for entitlements.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Yeah, they need that money for entitlements.

So, uh, since when has Georgia been liberal?