The original question here was regarding an "immediate answer to our gas problems". Despite LR's and Hippo's claims, those whose business it is to know these things have indicted that off shore drilling isn't going to affect the price of gas immediately, and have also indicated that any price impact will be minimal. That has been shown here and in other threads. Off shore drilling isn't a long range answer, either, since there is less and less supply every day, and we are using it up more quickly with each passing day. Eventually, that supply will run out, but before that, the cost of oil will put it beyond the reach of anyone except governments and the super-rich.

Where off shore drilling actually is an answer is in the mid term range, the time between a few years from now (when that off shore oil can finally get into someone's gas tank) and the time we have anything close to a feasible alternative energy car for the masses. But that requires a great many people to get their heads out of the dark place it is and realize that fossil fuel has a limited future. Earth just can't make it fast enough. People today laugh about Jimmy Carter's energy policies, yet what he proposed is still what we need; serious money in R&D for alternative energy. The need is obvious, yet people like Hippo and LR want their answers now, and probably wanted their answers in the 70s now. Well, they got their answer back then, and here we are in the same boat again, and no one can seem to find the paddle.

Honda has already introduced hydrogen fuel cell cars on a limited basis. (Where is the much-vaunted American technology in this regard?) Oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens planning 4,000-megawatt wind farm. ("But we are going to have to do something different in America. You can't keep paying out $600 billion a year for oil.") Certainly there will be problems, and certainly, some will jump and shout that those problems prove their point, that gas is the only way to go. I am reminded of a meeting in NYC of forward-thinking business and civic leaders in the late 1890s (or early 1900s) who were concerned that, within a decade or two, the streets of NYC would be full of horse manure due to the overwhelming use and need of horses for transportation, and a plan was needed. Those guys were visionaries compared to the people today who see drilling for more oil as anything but a mid-range fix for a serious problem.

Hi Dor:

I don't know what gas costs where you live ,but in California,where I live, it's not $4.00 a gallon ,it's $4.69 a gallon ,and will be a $5.00 a gallon in a matter of weeks at its present rate.

When people have to choose between paying higher and higher prices for gas ...

or go without eating...

or if they can't even afford to drive to work...

then do you think we should begin drilling for more oil???

Or what would you suggest we put in our gas tanks???

The reason we have become more and more dependent upon foreign oil you can put directly in the lap of the envirnmentalists, who have fought each and every attempt to find or drill for more domestic oil.

These idiots[your favorite word] are the same whackos who want to stop the building of wind farms because a bird might fly into one of them.

And Teddy Kennedy doesn't want wind farms because they obstruct his view while sailing[his views,not mine].

What would you suggest we put in our gas tanks???

hippolips

quote:

What would you suggest we put in our gas tanks???

You seem to be stuck on the idea that somebody has to bring you cheap gas to put in your gas tank.

Actually, although a weak dollar and speculation are maybe pushing up costs just now, the fundamental is that oil is a finite resource, now beginning to run out, while demand (particularly from China and India) is rising.

It's maybe time to think about the size of gas tanks, or the necessity for them at all, rather than desperately trying to prolong the hydrocarbon-burning spree for just a few more decades, without thought for future generations or true costs.

You simply don't get it, Hippo. THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE SOLUTION! Unless you want the government to step in and tell the oil companies that they have to limit the price they charge, there is no immediate solution. Cutting the taxes will not cut the price of gas much. Drilling wherever will not produce any gas to put in your tank for years. (If you know anything about the oil business, you'd know that. But maybe you just don't want to admit it.)

I suggest that you buy a bike, or get a diesel and have it converted to run on old french fry oil. Frankly, either of those is a better and more immediate solution than waiting years for a limited amount of oil to be found, rigs to be built, and oil to be pumped, transported, and refined.

You and LR just can't see that the time for an immediate solution for today's gas prices expired years ago. You guys wouldn't listen. You called us tree-huggers, radicals, freaks of nature, etc. Well, guess what happened. We were right, and you were wrong. And now you want me to come up with an immediate solution? We're running out of oil, and speculators realize this and have driven the price up even more. The Right should be very happy about this, because it is a perfect example of their free open market philosophy. Wonderful, isn't it?

Right now, asking for an immediate solution to today's gas prices is like a life-long heavy smoker, who, told that he has terminal lung cancer, says, "OK, what do I have to do to make it go away? I'll cut back my smoking tomorrow. What else should I do?" My answer to him, and to you, is to get a Way Back machine, and go way back in time to start fixing the problem. That's the only solution that will work at the pump tomorrow.

Sometimes life sucks when you get what you paid for. But it happens more often than not.

Hi Dor:

On this morning's "This Week" political show ,one of the Democrats proudly announced that the Democrats were going to introduce a bill to sue the Saudis , to make them lower the cost of oil.

I'll bet that will really work !

Another brilliant Democrat idea.

I can't wait until Obama solves the problem for all of us.

hippolips

Yes, I think we can all agree that suing OPEC is a particularly dumb idea.

quote:

I can't wait until Obama solves the problem for all of us.

That would be the 'straw man' fallacy. Has anyone said Obama will solve the problem for all of us?

Hippo, there are strange ideas on both sides (forgive me for intruding in an American matter, but read on and you'll see why I couldn't resist). Last night, in the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News, Bill O'Reilly gave his solution. He said that the US invaded Iraq to give Iraqis freedom and that had cost billions of dollars. Iraq produces a lot of oil. Why, therefore, should the US not take all the Iraqi oil exclusively for the US ?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
You and LR just can't see that the time for an immediate solution for today's gas prices expired years ago. You guys wouldn't listen. You called us tree-huggers, radicals, freaks of nature, etc. Well, guess what happened. We were right, and you were wrong. And now you want me to come up with an immediate solution? We're running out of oil, and speculators realize this and have driven the price up even more. The Right should be very happy about this, because it is a perfect example of their free open market philosophy. Wonderful, isn't it?[QUOTE]

There is a reason why we are still running on oil. Because it is still the most efficient, most feasible fuel around. As for the "immediate solution" to these high gas prices, we might ought to consider not the price but the availability of gasoline.

So tell me...how were you right and people like Hippo & myself wrong??? Whether you want to believe it or not, the market IS working. High mileage hybrid cars are being produced now more than ever. And I suspect we will be seeing more models rolling out. Hydrogen fuel cells are still being worked on but its not ready for prime time just yet. If & when the time comes we no longer have to use hydrocarbon based fuels for or transportation or power generation, we are still going to need oil. If you want to know how, just take a look at your surroundings and see what is based on hydrocarbons.

Those who say we shouldn't be drilling are not looking at things in a realistic manner. Just wait till we have a supply disruption and people can't get gas to drive to work, knowing our country has reserves that are sitting here doing nothing. That is the true reality.

The tree huggers, radicals & freaks of nature don't have a leg to stand on.

"Whether you want to believe it or not, the market IS working."

Tell that to Hippo - HE wants the solution and he wants it tomorrow morning. Tell that to Mom & Pop America, who are screaming for someone to do something. But according to you, everything is fine, and the market is working. Within 5 or 10 years, we should have cars that will average 30 miles a gallon. That'll really help tomorrow, won't it? ANd that 30mpg car will cosst how much to fill up by then?

"...the market is working..."
You sound like the guy in Animal House (Was it Kevin Bacon?) in his ROTC suit, telling the crowd not to panic, that everything was under control. Of course, he got trampled by the people reacting to what was actually happening, not what someone was telling them.

"The tree huggers, radicals & freaks of nature don't have a leg to stand on."

Other than the fact that when we tree huggers were talking about this over 30 years ago, you people like you did nothing, no, we don't have a leg to stand on.


Hippo, I'll let you know what gas cost here as soon as I buy some. I'm going tomorrow to get a gallon for my lawnmower. That and a can of air for my bike. (It's got a flat.) But gas prices really have affected me. My bus rides went up to 50 cents.

That's right DG, the Tree Huggers, Radicals & Freaks of Nature don't have a leg to stand on.

What solutions have they offered over the last 30 years??? Hippo has already pointed out to instances when feasible alternatives are offered, the THR&F of N group shoot them down yet they don't offer a single solution themselves. And many of these THR&F of N leaders travel around in SUV's & private jets lecturing to the rest of the world about how man is affecting climate change with the use of fossil fuels. Not to mention many of them live in extremely nice home heated by fossil fuels of some kind. When is the last time a nuclear power plant was built???

The THRF of N group wants to tell everybody else how they should live. In fact the truth be known they are happy about high fuel prices. The problem is the public is seeing right through their stupid rhetoric and beginning to see they have been sold a bill of goods. By following the wishes of the THRF of N, their policies have led to the high energy prices we are now having to deal with & forever stuck with.

Yes, we foolishly wanted R&D into electric cars, solar power, wind power, and the like. We should have known that Japan, Germany, and a few other countries would take care of that, and that, when the US really needed it, we could catch up to them in no time. Meanwhile, Hippo wants a solution that will take effect tomorrow, and, obviously, you are doing exactly what you have done for 30+ years - "We're working on it."

Thanks to the attitude of guys like you, Japan again is ahead of the curve on this, and we are playing catch-up. But don't worry, folks, LR says that "We're working on it. Just pay that $4+ a gallon, because that's our free market working. Best of luck on buying groceries. Things will get better in 5 or 10 years, and if they don't, well, blame the tree huggers."

DG-I would suggest yes there is an attitude problem...PEOPLE LIKE YOU You think the government is the solution to this problem when in fact it is a huge part of the problem.

R&D into electric cars, solar power & wind energy has been taking place for years. Why hasn't any of it taken hold??? Because it has not been developed to the point to where it is comercially feasible. If Japan & Germany have developed something so great, I say bring it on. Let everyone benefit from it. Bring it to the marketplace & prove itself. Because that's how it will have to play itself out.

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed

Hippo, I'll let you know what gas cost here as soon as I buy some. I'm going tomorrow to get a gallon for my lawnmower. That and a can of air for my bike. (It's got a flat.) But gas prices really have affected me. My bus rides went up to 50 cents.

_______________________________________________

Hi Dor:

Aha ...evidently you don't even own a car!!!

No wonder you don't give a damn how much gasoline costs.

No wonder you don't care who has to do without food in order to have enough money to buy gas in order to get to work.

No wonder you aren't worried if it takes ten years to solve the gas problem...you don't care.

I hate to tell you this, Mr. Compassionate, but every one in this country, who depends on their car or truck ,in order to feed their family...does care.

hippolips

Hippo, your argument is with LR, who says that the gas prices are OK, that it is a function of the free market. (That same free market that causes my grocery bill to go up and up.) But don't worry, because all we have to do is drill some off shore wells, and then voila, gas prices will go down within minutes, world peace will break out, Britney will lose weight and get her kids back, the Beatles will re-unite, global warming (if there ever was such a thing) will reverse, it won't rain until after sundown, and the Cubs will win the Series. (The real reason the Cubs went so long was that Chicago has a high percentage of tree huggers, you know.)

AS for me, I am still going to buy that gallon of gas tomorrow, and that can of air. (You never know when the free market will strike again.)

Had we already drilled & developed the restricted areas, perhaps we would be paying $2/gal less today. But since we didn't, we've got what we got, $4 going on $5/gal, we are stuck with these high prices.

BTW, DG. When you go buy that gallon of gas and that can of air, how about checking the sales taxes on both items. Especially the air. I'm wondering how much the guys in Springfield is taxing us for it.

If the restricted areas were onstream now, what percentage of the current US consumption of oil would their output be?

I don't recall that when Britain had her peak production of North Sea oil the cost of petroleum here was affected. The resource was enormous.

quote:

...a can of air for my bike...

Hey! That's not an eco-friendly way to inflate bike tires! Go sit in the corner for an hour!

quote:

When people have to choose between paying higher and higher prices for gas ...
or go without eating...

...every one in this country, who depends on their car or truck ,in order to feed their family...

What about the people who have to choose between proper medical care and eating? Those who depend on their house to shelter their family but were suckered into a trick mortgage? And so on, and so on...

This sudden compassion for the poor seems a little thin. For the poor, rising gas prices are just another problem among many.

quote:

Originally posted by aminator2002:

quote:

Originally posted by Lighteningrodd:
So just what is Obama's position??? We know McCain proposes more drilling. Apparantly The Democrat position is to just sit & do nothing with our oil reserves which need to be developed.

I think you are feigning ignorance when you probably know that Obama has a very clear position and strategy. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
It has been shown repeatedly that off shore drilling isn't the answer. McCain opposes drilling in Anwar, so what is so great about those ideas?

Investing in serious programs to reduce reliance on oil and fossil fuels is the way to go. This approach invests in a new infrastructure that we can work to improve over the next century. Now is the time to invest in change that will make this country strong moving through the next 100 years.

Looking back on this post and the link within it, I had to wonder what Obama's answer is if drilling for more oil is not the answer. Then I found this, which might shed a little more light on the subject...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25324195

And really it does not surprise me, considering our home state has a lot going on with ethanol production. I do not have a problem with the concept of renewable fuels. But it certainly has its critics. But personally I am not ready to throw the idea away either. But the bottom line is it still doesn't replace the need for drilling our own oil.

quote:

Originally posted by FredPuli:
If the restricted areas were onstream now, what percentage of the current US consumption of oil would their output be?

I don't recall that when Britain had her peak production of North Sea oil the cost of petroleum here was affected. The resource was enormous.

http://www.api.org/

The web-site I just posted is the best place I know to go to for statistics on oil & gas info.

In the "Policy Issues" section, it addresses the need for more domestic production. Here is a small exerpt...

"Why We Need Expanded Access for Drilling on Government Lands and Offshore"

"Oil and natural gas from federal lands and waters is critical to meeting the nation’s energy needs, providing approximately 30 percent of all oil and 38 percent of all natural gas produced in the United States. In terms of future production potential:

Federal lands hold an estimated 656 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas, enough to meet the natural gas heating needs of 60 million households for 160 years (approximately 60 million households in the United States are heated by natural gas).


Federal lands also hold an estimated 112 billion barrels of recoverable oil, enough to produce gasoline for 60 million cars and fuel oil for 3.1 million households for 60 years.
Access to a large portion of these undiscovered resources is restricted. Greater access to these areas is needed because that’s where the remaining oil and natural gas accumulations are likely to be located – particularly the larger ones. Although much of our nation’s natural gas production is from private lands, this is not enough to meet our growing energy demand – particularly natural gas for electric power generation."

If so, LR, how and why did the United States ever become dependent on imported oil, or, indeed, import oil at all? She must have been importing oil for a long time, long before there were tree-huggers et al. who anyone ever took notice of.