Gas could fall to $2 if Congress acts

[Ollie]

ok let's keep wasting!!!!! great idea! typical americans, want every other country to change to benefit the americans but won't make sacrifices that would in the long run be better for the world and the US. No wonder every other country on this planet does not like Americans

Typical over reaction.
Why not invest in more efficient engines.
Why not invest in a DIFFERENT TYPE OF FUEL. Like hydrogen.
With the money we would save NOT inporting oil we could actually start building a transportation infastruture that doesn't rely on gas powered cars.

Explain this to me oh wise one.
How is being self suffient asking the rest of the world to change?
If we pump all the oil we need, we arn't held to the cost of WORLD oil. It would cost what it costs to pump and refine it. Period.

As for the rest of the world not liking us. We could kiss the azz of every country in the world and they still wouldn't like us, so pizz on em.
We give away more money than any country in the world and they still cry because we don't give more. I guess they don't understand charity.

The US has led the way on tech for something like 50 years. Every country in the world has had the oppertunety to sit back and see what works and what doesn't and then build from there. We had to wing it.

 

[Ollie]

I am surprised that you don't think that increased global gas prices will lead to more production here in the US.

But it won't. The Dems have already blocked every attempt at increase production and refinement in the US.

Funny you want the government not to control prices, but then you state a direct means of controlling said prices. The market is getting to a point where the public are saying they want more conservation then exploration.

Really? I don't see that. Every poll (that those for what they are) says the same thing. Why aren't we exploring in areas we KNOW have oil. They are demanding we do things better and more efficently. Only the press and the liberals are saying we need to totally change our way of life.


Even if we don't get gas and oil from OPEC countries, all they need to do is to change market price, and our prices will change also.

But that's the point. If we don't import oil we arn't held to world prices of oil. It will be practically impossible for oil companies to justify charging more than the cost of pumping and refining the fuel plus profit. If it costs 60 dollars a barrel to pump and refine, how can you justify 170 dollars a barrel? Well, without being lynched that is. .

..............................

 

[ruffryder]

But that's the point. If we don't import oil we arn't held to world prices of oil. It will be practically impossible for oil companies to justify charging more than the cost of pumping and refining the fuel plus profit. If it costs 60 dollars a barrel to pump and refine, how can you justify 170 dollars a barrel? Well, without being lynched that is. .

Well, it is because they are international companies and oil regardless of where it is and who buys it is on the global market. You should ask the above to the Canadians. I don't think they import any oil, but they are still paying market cost for fuel.

What you are describing is a socialized business. Who is the government to dictate how much money they can make?

If I make a widget that I can sell for 50 bucks a widget, why would I sell it for a reduced amount? I like the sound of what you are trying to say, but that goes completely against the capitalistic nature of the USA.

 

[ruffryder]

Typical over reaction.
Why not invest in more efficient engines.
Why not invest in a DIFFERENT TYPE OF FUEL. Like hydrogen.
With the money we would save NOT inporting oil we could actually start building a transportation infastruture that doesn't rely on gas powered cars.

You need to think in econ terms. What would be the financial benefit of building more efficient engines, if the cost of gasoline is so low that nobody would want to buy them? Where would the return be? Alternatives are only alternatives when they become financially viable. What would be the motivation to do the above? Sounds like a greenie argument to me, though I do agree with all of it, but reality works on the dollar. You change technologies based upon the dollar, everything else as they say, is a means to "feel good".

How is being self suffient asking the rest of the world to change? If we pump all the oil we need, we arn't held to the cost of WORLD oil. It would cost what it costs to pump and refine it. Period.

If the government owned and operated the oil companies then the answer would be yes, but they don't, they can sell the oil to where ever and who ever they want. It is not the governments job to regulate prices. Didn't you say this before?

IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS JOB TO MANIPULATE THE PRICE OF FUEL.

We had to (US citizens) pay for it.

Fixed it for you.

This might help

 

[Ollie]

Well, it is because they are international companies and oil regardless of where it is and who buys it is on the global market. You should ask the above to the Canadians. I don't think they import any oil, but they are still paying market cost for fuel.

What you are describing is a socialized business. Who is the government to dictate how much money they can make?

If I make a widget that I can sell for 50 bucks a widget, why would I sell it for a reduced amount? I like the sound of what you are trying to say, but that goes completely against the capitalistic nature of the USA.

Good point.
However.
The whole arguement is really moot.
Reason.
There is NO justification for the cost we are paying now.
Oil produced now meets or exceeds the demand.
If we could produce our own oil, meet our own demand we could literally flood the market with oil. Thus driving down the cost. Even if OPEC cut production it wouldn't matter that much since we import most of our oil. If we took the US out of the equation as far as being oil importers we could effectively cut the cost of oil by depleteing the demand by quite a bit. even if the developing countries increased their demand, we would be able to meet it since what the US was importing would be back on the market.

As far as why do research into more efficient engines or different types of fuel, pure research is a funtion of the government. I would rather see my tax dollars going into hydrogen or fusion research than what is the best way to determine the sex of a nat.
Technology doesn't always turn on the dollar. Look at space exploration. We have gotten wonders from that. There was no persieved (sp?) cost return on that project when they started it. But look at what we got.

Pure research for the sake of research (as long as there is a goal) can be very good.

And I still don't see how being energy independant would cause the rest of the world to change?? You say it sounds like a greenie arguement, how?
If push comes to shove and OPEC shuts off the oil pumps to prove to the world how important they are, I want this country to be able to shut off exports of oil so we can keep going without OPEC. Yes the government would have to step in, however, I am talking a national emergency not daily operation.

 

[Mooseknuckle]

ok let's keep wasting!!!!! great idea! typical americans, want every other country to change to benefit the americans but won't make sacrifices that would in the long run be better for the world and the US. No wonder every other country on this planet does not like Americans

Better check your facts my man. Why don't you take a trip to a developing country and tell me about conservation. Not to go all Amero-centric, but jeez this rap gets old. We work, buy and pay for our accomodations. I have large vehicles (a) because I'm Large, (b) because I live in the sticks and (c) because I wrote the check. Sorry, but if you expect me to put my large marge frame in a micro car and roll the 20 miles to town, you've got another thing coming. I've got a 4d Duramax, but its not all jackazzed with 800hp and a stovepipe exhuast. I look more like a retired lineman (nice grandad nerf bars) than a thirty something.

Not to run this off the rail, but lets talk sacrifice a moment. Lets talk about saving energy by some examples in my life.
I've put thousand of dollars of electronics in my farm equipment to make it work more efficiently and or apply materials in the prescribed manner. (I)'m trying my best to limit the amount of energy it takes me to farm.
My mail box is full of "junk" mail. How much energy does it take to generate, haul, collate and deliver that "junk" mail. Why is it a first ammendment right (free speech) to waste my energy and time with mail advertising &*%^ that I'll never buy?
Locally we have a highway project that was 10 years or more in the making. Not a new one, but just a widening project. Local environmental groups sued to make sure that there were adequate mitigation measures. After years of wrangleing, the "mitigation" measures were agreed to by both parties and put into place. Once this was done, the operation was halted again by the same f'ers that agreed to it, because they felt that a study should be done to see if the mitigation need to be mitigated. WTF! Now how much time and "energy" was wasted to accomplish this. BTW, the mitigation was for beavers who had taken over a season irrigation ditch. The mitigation of the mitigation was to determine if the beavers that had been mitigated would be injured if they crossed the hiway.

I guess in the end what I'm saying is that I think while we should be vigilent about our lifestyles, but asking me to sacrifice for the rest of the world is overstepping your bounds. I'll do what I can, and you do your part. As to India or China, I have little effect on their respective energy use.

 

[Ollie]

Good ^^^^^^^ point.
Just look at Iran.
They have been using gas for EVERYTHING.
They clean with it, they have gas fired stoves. Everything runs on gas.
You want to push conservation, try over there.
I upgraded my sleds to be more efficient and get better fuel milage.
I got a car to drive to work rather than my truck.
I will never recoup the costs of upgrading. I will never save enough on fuel to justify upgrading to newer and cleaner. I did it because I WANTED TO. Not because the government or some greenie group said I have to.

The more I am pushed/forced to change the harder I will fight not too.
Why??
Because this is america and I have a choice.
No one will take that away. I don't care if "someone" thinks it will be better or not.
That same "someone" is the same person who thinks global warming is man's fault.
When I am shown that it can be better and why, then we will discuss it.
But don't come to me and say "you have to do this to save the planet" cause the first thing I will do is lable you a Gore supporter and throw your but off my property.

 

[Mooseknuckle]

^^^^^^

Hey, don't be talkin' bad about my cousin.

Naw, go ahead we're like fifth cousins - my Grampa and Al Sr. were second cousins, I think. Tennesee was two generations ago for my family, Dad's actually out of the LA basin since '58.

As a side note as we derail my own post, go back and look at who (or what country/who represented said country) did the most to squash the Kyoto Deal. Give you a hint - nobel prize?

 

[jonnyk]

Typical over reaction.
Why not invest in more efficient engines.
Why not invest in a DIFFERENT TYPE OF FUEL. Like hydrogen.
With the money we would save NOT inporting oil we could actually start building a transportation infastruture that doesn't rely on gas powered cars.

Explain this to me oh wise one.
How is being self suffient asking the rest of the world to change?
If we pump all the oil we need, we arn't held to the cost of WORLD oil. It would cost what it costs to pump and refine it. Period.

As for the rest of the world not liking us. We could kiss the azz of every country in the world and they still wouldn't like us, so pizz on em.
We give away more money than any country in the world and they still cry because we don't give more. I guess they don't understand charity.

The US has led the way on tech for something like 50 years. Every country in the world has had the oppertunety to sit back and see what works and what doesn't and then build from there. We had to wing it.

Well let's see. America has decided who can have nuclear capabilities and who is a "terrorist" with 90% of the world in disagreement.

and Japan has kicked the US's *** in urban planning and public transportation, all after being blown to smithereens in 2 large cities. Yes I know the population densities are not even comparable, but the fact they can move as many people as they do through public transportation says a lot.

 

[jonnyk]

Better check your facts my man. Why don't you take a trip to a developing country and tell me about conservation. Not to go all Amero-centric, but jeez this rap gets old. We work, buy and pay for our accomodations. I have large vehicles (a) because I'm Large, (b) because I live in the sticks and (c) because I wrote the check. Sorry, but if you expect me to put my large marge frame in a micro car and roll the 20 miles to town, you've got another thing coming. I've got a 4d Duramax, but its not all jackazzed with 800hp and a stovepipe exhuast. I look more like a retired lineman (nice grandad nerf bars) than a thirty something.

Not to run this off the rail, but lets talk sacrifice a moment. Lets talk about saving energy by some examples in my life.
I've put thousand of dollars of electronics in my farm equipment to make it work more efficiently and or apply materials in the prescribed manner. (I)'m trying my best to limit the amount of energy it takes me to farm.
My mail box is full of "junk" mail. How much energy does it take to generate, haul, collate and deliver that "junk" mail. Why is it a first ammendment right (free speech) to waste my energy and time with mail advertising &*%^ that I'll never buy?
Locally we have a highway project that was 10 years or more in the making. Not a new one, but just a widening project. Local environmental groups sued to make sure that there were adequate mitigation measures. After years of wrangleing, the "mitigation" measures were agreed to by both parties and put into place. Once this was done, the operation was halted again by the same f'ers that agreed to it, because they felt that a study should be done to see if the mitigation need to be mitigated. WTF! Now how much time and "energy" was wasted to accomplish this. BTW, the mitigation was for beavers who had taken over a season irrigation ditch. The mitigation of the mitigation was to determine if the beavers that had been mitigated would be injured if they crossed the hiway.

I guess in the end what I'm saying is that I think while we should be vigilent about our lifestyles, but asking me to sacrifice for the rest of the world is overstepping your bounds. I'll do what I can, and you do your part. As to India or China, I have little effect on their respective energy use.

America is light-years from a developing country, shouldn't it be that way in respect to dependency on oil?

I understand where you're coming from, no I don't expect someone who lives on a farm to drive a little smart car or rely on public transportation.

 

[jonnyk]

Good ^^^^^^^ point.
Just look at Iran.
They have been using gas for EVERYTHING.
They clean with it, they have gas fired stoves. Everything runs on gas.
You want to push conservation, try over there.
I upgraded my sleds to be more efficient and get better fuel milage.
I got a car to drive to work rather than my truck.
I will never recoup the costs of upgrading. I will never save enough on fuel to justify upgrading to newer and cleaner. I did it because I WANTED TO. Not because the government or some greenie group said I have to.

The more I am pushed/forced to change the harder I will fight not too.
Why??
Because this is america and I have a choice.
No one will take that away. I don't care if "someone" thinks it will be better or not.
That same "someone" is the same person who thinks global warming is man's fault.
When I am shown that it can be better and why, then we will discuss it.
But don't come to me and say "you have to do this to save the planet" cause the first thing I will do is lable you a Gore supporter and throw your but off my property.

have fun choosing 4.04 or 4.035 at the pumps!

 

[Ollie]

Well let's see. America has decided who can have nuclear capabilities and who is a "terrorist" with 90% of the world in disagreement.

and Japan has kicked the US's *** in urban planning and public transportation, all after being blown to smithereens in 2 large cities. Yes I know the population densities are not even comparable, but the fact they can move as many people as they do through public transportation says a lot.

Of cource they have kicked our azz.
WE BUILT THEIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.
We built their most of their electrical system and redesigned most of their urban planning. We did this by using what we did right and what we did wrong in the US.
If you are going to use a country to demonstrate your point. Choose one we didn't rebuild after WW2.

Have you ever riden their public transportation system??
They haven't updated that system since we built it. The thing is antique.

However, we do need to build a public transportation system in this country. In Japan (I spent 4 weeks there during my time in the navy) you can go anywhere using the trains and buses. You don't need to even own a car over there. Which is a good thing since a california traffic jam is a joke compaired to the nightmares over there.

As for the nuclear arguement.
In case you haven't noticed, it is the EU that is taking the lead on trying to keep IRAN from getting nukes. I think it has something to do with the leaders of IRAN promising to burn Isreal to the ground with nukes.

 

[Wade]

While gas is cheap, you burn it. When gas gets expensive, the US does something about it. Go do a little research on Photovoltaic development in the US. Here's a short list IBM, Intel, HP, Nanosolar, NexTech Solutions, Inc, Evergreen, First Solar, United Solar, and a million little startups.

When push comes to shove, and gas gets to expensive for the Third World to burn, who do you think is going to still be making energy, America and Europe. We invested the money to develop Nuclear Power, why shouldn't we be allowed to use it, and give "our" invention to whoever we like. Don't worry, our Universities of Nuclear Engineering are full of third world-ers. We also work to keep our Society from imploding, that's why were successful, and can afford to pay for gas.

 

[xrated]

Well said Ollie and Wade!! Well said.

 

[mountainhorse]

Heres one to chew on... something I'm definately wanting to hear all sides of the coin about....

From the Wall Street Journal

In Washington, lawmakers and oil-industry lobbyists are arguing that opening restricted areas would boost supply and bring down oil prices. Critics contend not enough is being done to encourage alternative fuels and development of already-leased federal lands. Of the more than 45.5 million acres of federal land under lease, oil companies aren't producing oil or gas on 31 million acres.

This snail's pace is leading some to try to wrest back existing leases. Alaskan officials are locked in a legal battle with Exxon, BP PLC and Chevron Corp. to reclaim leases on a North Slope oil-and-gas field that is estimated to hold eight trillion cubic feet of natural gas and hundreds of millions of barrels of oil. The companies acquired the leases decades ago but have yet to produce oil or gas. Exxon, which holds the largest interest in the field, has said in the past that it hasn't drilled because there is no pipeline to move the gas to market.

 

[mountainhorse]

I'm sure it's been posted... but could someone also list the top 5 contributors of oil to the USA and the percentage that country contributes to the use in the United States.

I think that Canada is one of the major players, Venezuela, etc....

 

[Ollie]

Heres one to chew on... something I'm definately wanting to hear all sides of the coin about....

The land in question is just that, a question. It would cost hundreds of millions to search for oil that may or may not be there.
The off shore areas the companies want to drill at are known areas.
They know for a fact there are vast oil reserves off shore. they could punch holes off shore and have oil at the refineries in under 9 months.
The dems and the Enviros are pushing the companies to punch the other areas in a bid to delay as long as possible any advance in drilling in Anwar or offshore.
The last thing they want is lower oil prices. It would lessen the demand for alternative fuels and blow holes in their arguement that we can't produce enough oil here to meet the demand.