DG-Regarding ANWAR, in another thread, it was shown that ANWAR oil would lower the cost of gas in this country by about ½%. At $4 a gallon, we'd be saving 2 cents a gallon. Yep, that'll solve the problem.
LR-When gasoline availability issues comes to surface, the price is not the problem. Oil we own but not being utilized is the problem.
DG-In that same thread, I mentioned that a company had been trying to get investors for a refinery in the US for about 10 years, but hadn't done it yet. Isn't that, too, an example of the free market? (I noted today or last night that a city in one of the Dakotas is allowing a refinery to be built in or near their city. If I see it again, I'll post about it.
LR-As for the 10-year refinery project in question, I would have to wonder if environmental issues stymied the project. And then over the course of ten years, the cost associated with construction will have risen.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
"When gasoline availability issues comes to surface, the price is not the problem. Oil we own but not being utilized is the problem."
Do you think that the oil companies would sell that refined product in the US at a lower price, or at the same price it would get on the open market? If at a lower price, are you suggesting that the oil companies would do this out of the goodness of their collective hearts or that some form of government regulation (Gasp!) would force them to sell it cheaper for US use? If at the same price, what is the difference between then and now as far as the price at your local gas outlet?
It has been pointed out by several that the current $4 gallon of gas is not the result of less production, but of investors in the futures market driving up the price per barrel. If that is true, then
a) more $4 gallons of gas doesn't change anything
and
b) it's an example of the free market you always talk about, so smile while you fill your tank.
In another thread, Fuse pointed out that big oil makes the same 10% profit now as it did a few years ago, so obviously, it is the cost of the product going in that controls the price of the gas going in your tank. And, no matter how you slice it, a ½% increase in the amount of crude available for a short period of time is not going to drop the price on the futures market.
Regarding environment regulations - Every legal business in the US has environmental regulations. It's a cost of doing business. But if enough people want to give the OK to pig farms next to their house and rotten meat at the grocers, I am sure that the politicians will change things. That's the American way, isn't it?
Posts: 17476 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
If you want to know why there is virtually no drilling in the U.S.---you can thank the environmaniacs---the tree huggers.
These idiots[Dorian's favorite word] are responsible for no drilling offshore,in the Gulf of Mexico,off our Pacific Coast in California,and in Alaska.
So next time you fill your gas tank and you're paying over $4.00 a gallon... be sure to thank all of your environmental friends for forcing us to buy more foreign oil.
Thank them also for shutting down exploration and drilling in the U.S.
I think the real idiots are those who buy ibto the fiction that "what's good for General Motors is good for the Country". (Substitute any well advertised corporation for G.M) and we have a clue. What's good for the drug companies, the insurance companies, the prosthetic makers, the attorneys, etc. and the cost of health care that ranks us near the bottom of the civilized world, may have an effect on why we have the most expensive and least universal health care? Not as long as we keep all those people employed - who care that there are 47 million who die earlier for lack of coverage. That's become the American way. I've got mine so screw you, and we don't know or care what other people, in other countries do.
DG-Concerning your last post, believe it or not there are some aspects about it I do agree with. Mainly the prices being influenced by the futures traders. And I will also go along that compliance to environmental regulations, like it or not, are a part of doing business for all industries.
Also I never said the oil companies would be selling gasoline to the public at below market price. I don't know where you got that at.
By the way, I do know where there are some hog operations. I tend to speed up when I drive by them
The thing we disagree on, is opening up the areas banned for drilling. The 1/2 cent price drop you keep referring to, I tend to think whoever came up with that, it is derived as a matter of opinion, especially if he is against oil drilling in such areas.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by frankvan: Now, who are the real, certifiable idiots
I would say the upper brass at General Motors. I can remember a time when H. Ross Perot was a temporary part of GM. He tried to tell them what they needed to do to change, they didn't like it, they bought his stock at an inflated price just to get rid of him.
Energy Information Administration analysis in 2004 concluded that "between 7 and 12 years were required from an approval to explore and develop the coastal region of ANWR until first production." The peak production of 876,000 barrels per day wouldn't come about for another five years or so. So even assuming Congress gave the go-ahead today, the first oil wouldn't begin flowing until sometime between 2015 and 2020, with peak output half a decade later. ---- So according to EIA estimates, the oil that could gush from ANWR would actually supply as little as four tenths of 1 percent more of world oil consumption than the oil that would result from halting purchases for the SPR. Not much of a distinction, particularly since ANWR oil wouldn't begin peak flow for more than a dozen years. -------- It's amazing what you can find on AnswerPool if you look. ----
Posts: 17476 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
I haven't found the exact article that gives the ½% decrease in price, and I admit to the possibility that I am mistaken in that. However, you can see now that whatever gain we would get from ANWAR would be minuscule.
Posts: 17476 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
That kind of thing is surely a much more positive and long-term solution than grubbing around for a couple of years worth of oil - which would make millions for someone, for sure, but would mean nothing (apart from the potential for irreversible environmental harm) in the long run.
Yes. It sounds like the Reva G-wiz, the best-selling of the electric cars in Britain. The article is a coy about what this new GM car will do. It talks of the aim of getting 65km range. That's 40 miles. The G-wiz has a range of 48 miles.It too is a four-seater.It's maximum speed is 40 mph.You can't do that all the time without affecting the range but that doesn't matter in central London, given the low average speed overall on a journey there.
(Not that you'll see many of these things in London.They are perceived as faddish, the kind of thing that people have as a fashion item London does have more electric cars than any other city in the world but that's still not many)
Of course, the new GM Volt is a petrol, 'gas'-electric car [? According to The Times it is]. The G-wiz is just electric.
Didn't it take millions of years to make the stuff? Is there a finite amount contained in the earth ? Will it have to run out eventually ? If so, isn't it sensible to question what works more to the benefit of most of the world's people and what benefits a few investors in fast dwindling commodities?
I am still waiting for someone to answer my question: who owns the natural resources deep in the earth - and how did they get to own it?
Many are blaming the democratic congress for all this bad news:
"Remember the election in 2006 when the democrats took over? Thought you might like to read the following: A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high; 2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon; 3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet; 2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $4.00 a gallon; 3) Unemployment is up to 5.6% (a 24% increase); 4) American home equity dollar value fall to $9.12 trillion; 5) Americans’ total mortgage debt rise to $10.6 trillion; 6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
America voted for change in 2006, and we got it! Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him."
Got than in an email today, not sure if there's any truth to it. (Remember, I'm in the middle, neither left nor right).
'Most people do not realize that between 300-400 spills per year occur in Alaska. This means spills occur at a rate greater than one per day. The spills range from a few gallons to many which involve thousands of gallons of oil.' www.arcticwildlife.org
Exploiting the last few reserves of oil is not a long-term solution - it's mostly about making money. Oil is going to run out. We should be figuring out ways to do without it. Increasing gas prices are actually a good thing in the bigger picture - a start to weaning people off the stuff.
Most, if not all, of the problems mentioned have been building up over time, and not just since bush took office. The mortgage crisis is a perfect example of this. Bad lending practices, combined with bad judgment on the part of home buyers, caused this problem, and it didn't spring up overnight.
With regard to the oil situation, bush himself said that the president should "jawbone" OPEC for lower prices. Of course, that was when he was running for the office and Clinton was president. As anyone who has been paying attention to the problem, or has been reading AP about it, the main culprits are futures traders. (Surely the Right can't be angry about OPEC charging what the market will bear for their product.) Another reason, one that is even more obvious, is that there is an increasing world-wide demand for a product whose supplies are decreasing. Econ 101 tells one what will happen there.
When oil prices skyrocket as they have been, it cost quite a bit more to produce food and to get food to the market, which drives up the price of food. Which means that many Americans have to cut back on other expenses. Which means that discretionary expenditures are cut. Which means that jobs in that sectors are lost as business react to falling revenues. Which means that those workers have to cut back on their expenses. Which means that...
While much of consumer confidence is based on the basics of personal economic factors, to a certain extent it is based on a gut feeling by consumers. In troubled economic times, an unpopular war does not positively reflect on consumer confidence. One of the touted benefits of the invasion of Iraq was to stabilize oil production (read "cheap oil for the US"). Of course, that went down the tubes along with almost every other prediction involved in this war.
Regardless of who wins the election, we are in for some tough times. Handing out money won't help; for most, it is just replacing money pumped in their gas tank. Cutting taxes certainly won't help; the long term effect will be to slow down infrastructure M&R. Dumping hundreds of billions into a money pit like the Iraq isn't going to help our economy unless you own stock in or are a CEO of one of a few very select (Perhaps selected is a better word.) companies. The bottom line is that we have to change many of the ways we live, and that won't be easy. We, as a nation, haven't done it since WWII, which means that most of us haven't ever faced what we are facing. How many of us have had a vegetable garden, not as a hobby, but as a necessity? How many have gone days without meat because meat is expensive? How many of us use public transport, not because it is easier, but because we can't afford gas, or even a car?*
* When my parents were first married, they often went to St. Louis Cardinals games. Doing so was a bit more complicated that just diving to the park. (My father didn't even own a car until he was 34.) In fact, it didn't involve driving at all, except by the guy behind the wheel of the streetcar. But, to save a nickel (each), they would first walk to Missouri, across the Mississippi. The fare was a nickel cheaper because they avoided the extra charge for crossing the bridge. (Pedestrians were supposed to pay a fare, buy I'm told that no toll booth operator ever charged anyone walking.) They walked 4 miles to the game and 4 miles back to save a total of twenty cents. My father had a good job in a factory as a skilled tradesman, but, as he told me, "That twenty cents meant we could eat at the game." According to my parents, there were always people walking across that bridge to save that nickel.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 17476 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
No doubt the US housing crisis will all turn out be (Bill) Clinton's fault, but there does seem to be a reasonable argument that deregulation played a large part:
One of Bush's joke appointments, Alphonso Jackson, seems to have made decisions in particular which were significant in the crisis; Bush’s Bad Neighbor.
It's notable that Canada, with a broadly similar housing market but a more conservative approach, has avoided the meltdown that the US has experienced.
'Most people do not realize that between 300-400 spills per year occur in Alaska. This means spills occur at a rate greater than one per day. The spills range from a few gallons to many which involve thousands of gallons of oil.' www.arcticwildlife.org
Exploiting the last few reserves of oil is not a long-term solution - it's mostly about making money. Oil is going to run out. We should be figuring out ways to do without it. Increasing gas prices are actually a good thing in the bigger picture - a start to weaning people off the stuff.
As for your first statement concerning hurricanes I have already posted a link on one of my post on page one of this topic.
As for the long term solutions you talk about we are not there yet. Until that time comes we still need to develop the reserves we have. It makes no sense to simply sit on them and not use them.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
This line of reasoning reminds me of one I saw earlier today in looking up gas prices. Someone said that, since we were going to develop alternative fuel sources, it just made sense to use up the ANSAR oil while it is still valuable. Like Bluto's "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?", that almost makes sense until you think about it...for a second or two.
Posts: 17476 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
London does have more electric cars than any other city in the world but that's still not many)
