| Author | Post |
|---|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 01:48 am |
|
Helen here wrote: http://www.gmanews.tv/story/112835/Oil-jumps-above-116-on-Russian-Georgia-conflict
Just one more reason to drill here drill now
we wouldn't have to worry about the pipe line else where
If only it were that simple. What is it about Fred's analysis that you disagree with? Do you doubt it or don't you care? If he is correct, we waste more time and resources by opening up more leases.
|
Helen here
Member
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 11:27 pm |
|
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/112835/Oil-jumps-above-116-on-Russian-Georgia-conflict
Just one more reason to drill here drill now
we wouldn't have to worry about the pipe line else where
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 07:12 pm |
|
Tblisi is the terminal point of a million barrel a day pipeline, and the major feature of it is that it does not go through Russia or Iran. It starts in the Caspian Sea and ends up in the Black Sea, providing a relatively stable, secure, and Westward leaning path for oil to Europe.
As for the effect...yeah, that was noticed by traders who shrugged it off. If fighting spreads, concern may jack up the price...and if the Russians had done this a week ago with everything else going on, it would have jacked up the price.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 07:01 pm |
|
| To what extent is what's happening between Russia and Georgia related to oil? I believe there is a major pipeline in the area involved.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 06:29 pm |
|
Cobra wrote: To actually drill is a complicated process with far too many interests who throw up stumbling blocks to drill. Far too many of the leases indicate no oil or if oil there, in insufficientient amounts to produce. Oil companies are willing to trade off these unproductive leases to those that are on the OCS or in the Gulf. Reid, Pelosi or any of the radical left Democrats can point to one lease that the oil companies are just sitting on. So there is a delay in getting the equipment and beginn9ing to drill. So what? That was true over ten years ago when Clinton said the same thing. So what do we do? Wait until costs and fuel prices go even higher? It will take ten years or more to develop alternative engines that will replace gasoline engines. Using your excuse of long time away, do we do nothing? You know darned well that it is a multi-pronged approach. Do it now.
A few points...
1. Agree that the drilling is a complicated process involving many moving parts, which is why I keep pushing back when people want to use the current crisis and prices as a reason to drill. No, it is not....it is a bad argument because it will not have any effect. If you want to say it is part of a long term strategic plan....fine, but that becomes the easy part of the plan. The more complicated and dififcult decisions are the ones I want decided before we go ahead. I KNOW what happens if we simply pass a drilling bill....Politicians, not only but especially Republican ones, will not lift one finger (well, maybe one) towards any other plan involving alternative fuels or conservation.
2. How can you say they are not productive if they are not drilling there? Hello? There are proven reserves greater than what is off-shore but as you pointed out, there are many reasons why they are not drilling there....and profitability is one of them. I am convinced that securing the leases to off-shore and ANWAR at this point in time is more of a priority to the oil companies then actually drilling. If the wanted oil drilling, they could be doing it, or planning it. They are not, but are and have been sitting on the existing oil reserves.
3. The length of time is a factor, getting back to point one. If it is PART of your plan for long term energy solutions, fine...but consider it the desert after the politicians eat their vegetables. You've got a very difficult, inter-connected problem that part of the solution may wind up drilling. Fine....but since
|
Cobra
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 352 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 05:40 pm |
|
Fred wrote: Bixby wrote: With $4 gas having massively shifted public opinion in favor of domestic production, she wants to protect her Democratic members from having to cast an anti-drilling election-year vote.
As I've said, there are plenty of leases with reserves that the oil companies have not drilled on....They have as much there as is in the off-shore areas, so if what you want is the oil to trim a fraction of our feed from the Mid-East, answer why they are not drilling there, and have not been drilling since they've got these leases with the oil reserves, some going back decades.
The reason the oil companies are pushing their stooges in Congress for the oil leases NOW is not to drill now. They can't; the world wide demand for that kind of infrastructure means there is at least a two and probably three year delay to get the equipment, let alone start the drilling and getting oil. The real reason is to use the crisis and the waning power of the adminstration to get what they want while they can. I seriously doubt that there is anyone who would say that this process gets progressively more difficult come next January, when GWB is out of the White House and Congress is more Democratic then before. I am not sure who will be in the 'House, but neither will be as pro-drilling as the current occupant.
As for the political landscape...I think you are partially right. $4.00 a gallon gas IS a level that pushes people to go against their better judgement for a quick fix. With gas down almost .50 cents, I suspect America will quickly lose interest in this subject, as they do in most other things. I don't buy your assessment. You have to know that leases are for exploration only as a first step. To actually drill is a complicated process with far too many interests who throw up stumbling blocks to drill. Far too many of the leases indicate no oil or if oil there, in insufficientient amounts to produce. Oil companies are willing to trade off these unproductive leases to those that are on the OCS or in the Gulf. Reid, Pelosi or any of the radical left Democrats can point to one lease that the oil companies are just sitting on. So there is a delay in getting the equipment and beginn9ing to drill. So what? That was true over ten years ago when Clinton said the same thing. So what do we do? Wait until costs and fuel prices go even higher? It will take ten years or more to develop alternative engines that will replace gasoline engines. Using your excuse of long time away, do we do nothing? You know darned well that it is a multi-pronged approach. Do it now.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 02:07 pm |
|
Bixby wrote: With $4 gas having massively shifted public opinion in favor of domestic production, she wants to protect her Democratic members from having to cast an anti-drilling election-year vote.
As I've said, there are plenty of leases with reserves that the oil companies have not drilled on....They have as much there as is in the off-shore areas, so if what you want is the oil to trim a fraction of our feed from the Mid-East, answer why they are not drilling there, and have not been drilling since they've got these leases with the oil reserves, some going back decades.
The reason the oil companies are pushing their stooges in Congress for the oil leases NOW is not to drill now. They can't; the world wide demand for that kind of infrastructure means there is at least a two and probably three year delay to get the equipment, let alone start the drilling and getting oil. The real reason is to use the crisis and the waning power of the adminstration to get what they want while they can. I seriously doubt that there is anyone who would say that this process gets progressively more difficult come next January, when GWB is out of the White House and Congress is more Democratic then before. I am not sure who will be in the 'House, but neither will be as pro-drilling as the current occupant.
As for the political landscape...I think you are partially right. $4.00 a gallon gas IS a level that pushes people to go against their better judgement for a quick fix. With gas down almost .50 cents, I suspect America will quickly lose interest in this subject, as they do in most other things.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 12:43 pm |
|
“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposes lifting the moratorium on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and on the Outer Continental Shelf. She won’t even allow it to come to a vote. With $4 gas having massively shifted public opinion in favor of domestic production, she wants to protect her Democratic members from having to cast an anti-drilling election-year vote. Moreover, given the public mood, she might even lose. This cannot be permitted. Why? Because as she explained to Politico: ‘I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet.’ A lovely sentiment... There are a dizzying number of economic and national security arguments for drilling at home: a $700 billion oil balance-of-payment deficit, a gas tax (equivalent) levied on the paychecks of American workers and poured into the treasuries of enemy and terror-supporting regimes, growing dependence on unstable states of the Persian Gulf and Caspian basin. Pelosi and the Democrats stand athwart shouting: We don’t care. We come to save the planet! They seem blissfully unaware that the argument for their drill-there-not-here policy collapses on its own environmental terms.” —Charles Krauthammer
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 01:24 am |
|
| Actually I was thinking beyond the obvious.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 12:25 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: I don't think Henry Ford stopped assembling autos waiting for the assembly line to be perfected. We didn't stop increasing our production of paper bags waithing for the plastic sac to be invented.
If you want to analogize this to the auto industry, then one could argue that it may have been better for Ford and GM to slow down and redesign their line and offer more economical cars than it was to continue to produce the gas guzzlers. I believe they are suffering big loses.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 10th, 2008 08:39 pm |
|
| I don't think Henry Ford stopped assembling autos waiting for the assembly line to be perfected. We didn't stop increasing our production of paper bags waithing for the plastic sac to be invented. Last edited on Sun Aug 10th, 2008 08:39 pm by Playing the Game
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 10th, 2008 04:01 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: The longer we wait, the longer the waiting line gets.
The longer we refuse to be distracted by bogus issues, the shorter the time to breaking our dependency on oil. We need new technology. We should invest in that.
No pain, no gain.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 10th, 2008 01:13 pm |
|
| The longer we wait, the longer the waiting line gets.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 10th, 2008 04:32 am |
|
I think we HAVE seen an increase in domestic drilling, as I've pointed out. However, I have yet to see an increase in activity on those lands that the oil companies already own leases on that have as much if not more oil then the ones they are lusting after right now. Why not? We are talking about oil reserves that are as accessable, if not more so, then either of the areas people think are so important.
What they want is not the area to drill on right now, but rather they want to use the current situation to force the issue of securing the drilling rights for years down the road. As has been indicated, even if the land was available tomorrow there are no drilling rigs available for at least two years...other countries have their orders in first, and all rigs in production have customers for them.
I am convinced that two things would happen if a bill allowing drilling off-shore were to happen...the first is that the subject would immediately fall of the radar screen, and any talk of alternatives or a comprensive energy plan would immediately end.
The second is that these other issues such as the capital investment required to secure the rigs, capacity at the refineries, or the time line to get the rigs to the sight would suddenly become more prominent in the media as reasons why they are not drilling quite yet....
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1027 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 10th, 2008 01:04 am |
|
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is so adamantly opposed to expanding domestic and offshore oil drilling that she won’t even allow the subject to come up for a vote. Thus, when House Democrats left the Hill for their August recess, a small band of Republicans, led by Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), refused to adjourn and began speaking against Pelosi’s refusal to allow the House to vote. At one point, lawmakers were literally left in the dark when the lights and sound were turned off. More GOP congressmen eventually joined the one-sided debate. Capitol Hill tourists were allowed to enter the chamber while Republicans urged them to carry the message of energy independence back to their hometowns.
That message, it seems, is getting across. By and large, Americans recognize the need for domestic oil drilling. Predictably, Barack Obama has begun to waffle on his previous no-drilling stance, now indicating that he would support a measure to increase domestic drilling. Still, he sprinkled his statement with so many qualifying “ifs”, “ands” and “buts” that he cannot be counted on to lead on the issue either now or as president. Pelosi, however, left no confusion about her stance, labeling the GOP plan for more drilling a “hoax” and Republican efforts this week “the war dance of the handmaidens of the oil companies.” She vowed to not let it come to a vote, though she has signaled to her fellow House Democrats that they may hold whatever position necessary to preserve their hides come November. Talk about profiles of courage. Pelosi’s idea of a comprehensive energy plan relies on tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which she maintains “would bring immediate [gas price] relief in 10 days.” Madame Speaker’s “10 days” is an ironic choice because the relief of which she speaks would also last just about 10 days before sputtering out and sending gas prices right back into the stratosphere.
Pelosi and her anti-oil cabal don’t understand that expanding domestic oil drilling and production is not just about relieving gas prices now, but also about creating a sound energy policy for years to come. Democrats are confident that they can stall this issue until next year, at which time they believe that they will essentially own Washington. That’s quite a gamble, considering the extremely low regard the American public currently has of Congress. Republicans need to keep the oil drilling issue in the spotlight from now right up to November.
PatriotPost.US <patriot-SK08207667@m1.PatriotPost.US>
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 8th, 2008 12:57 am |
|
Maybe I'm wrong, but Natural gas is generally found in areas that also produce oil. So what't the difference in drilling for oil or gas?
BTW Fred, sice it will take years to undo the entrenchment with the Arabs, we should probably begin now.
Last edited on Fri Aug 8th, 2008 12:58 am by Playing the Game
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 7th, 2008 08:05 pm |
|
A few different issues, HB.
I think you are right on TB and natural gas. I think we could replace a percentage of our energy with gas instead of oil. Not sure of the exact percentages, but it would require a pretty big investment in infrastructure if we went that route. I think natural gas vehicles get about 200 miles to the tank, so there use will be limited until we get more suppliers.
We do have a lot of supply available here, but it is uneconomical at current prices to get it out of the ground. Higher costs for imported fuel starts to decrease the difference in cost. If gas was $5.00 a gallon (and I am not saying or wishing it so) ALL kinds of domestic wells would be a bit more profitable. In addition, lands that the oil companies have leases on might become a bit more attractive, as well.
As for the economizing....those trips, like the air pressure in tires, adds up. We tend to pooh-pooh a gallon or two of savings when we are spending $70-80 a tank, but if everyone does it, it starts to add up...and is certainly more effective than the "boycotts" that want people not to buy gas on a certain day.
We are being held by the short hairs by countries like Saudi Arabia. It took decades to get like this, and I daresay it will take decades to undo, and it will take more than car-pooling to Granny's house on Thanksgiving. We need a unified energy strategy. One problem with letting the market decide is that like Beta and VHS, it took a long time for the right solution to shake itself out, and there are those who argue it wasn't the best one, anyway. I am not sure we can afford to have the existing petroleum infrastructure along with a natural gas, a hydrogen and electric power, nor do I think the American consumer wants 4 options for fueling their vehicle.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Thu Aug 7th, 2008 07:02 pm |
|
| Ole Boone T. is concerned about the right thing but everyone focuses only on the windmill thing and gushes about all the oil it will save if they instead would just use the natural gas now generating power for powering automobiles. Pickens concern is as much about the transfer of wealth as he is with the price. Drilling here and now and all that won't give us $2 gas again but it will allow us to stop exporting our hard currency to people who use it against us. When Iran shuts down the Straits of Hormuz when Israel makes a glass plain out of the Iranian nuclear plants, we'll be glad for every drop of oil we can produce internally and those of us who think what oil we will have will be wasted driving to the beauty salon or picking up the kids from school will get a lesson in severe rationing that will make the 70's look tame.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 7th, 2008 01:43 pm |
|
Blocking arms sales to Saudi Arabia might be good leverage, or it might backfire if the Saudis go with slightly less advanced but still pretty good Mirages or other county's weapons.
As for the million barrels of crude a day dropping prices....I am not sure that it would work. We are consuming about that LESS then a year ago, and prices have dropped, but not to the extent Schumer would predict. The problem is that the increased supply would lower prices which would stimulate demand....getting us back to where we were.
See, if our demand for oil was inelastic, the increased supply would lower prices...Econ 101. The problem is that it is not inelastic, and increased supplies would almost certainly increase the demand for it, which would eventually push the price back up. In addition, we can't generally cut our use of it very quickly...if you buy a gas guzzler, you can't quickly get rid of it when oil prices go up without taking it in the shorts, so you wind up driving the tank a bit longer as it still winds up being cheaper then getting a new car.
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 548 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 7th, 2008 12:07 pm |
|
The biggest oil producers in the world are known as the "supermajors." Exxon Mobil produced the most sales profit ever this month. Even though they produced the largest profit ever, you have to look at the profit margin and not the total dollars. Their margin take is quite less than the government takes in taxes from the oil profit. Everything is not peachy rosy with big oil, at least those based in the US. They face several threats, some that could be overcome in the short term and others that cause some analysts to predict a long struggle on the production side. The nagging problem is the decline in refining margins - the profit on refinery operations - that developed in 2007, when crude oil prices rose so fast that producers had a hard time passing on the increases to the refining side of the business. In reality, oil companies can hand down only so much of a price increase before they risk strong protests. That’s what happened in Europe, where farmers, truckers, fishermen and others have protested record prices and demanded reductions in oil taxes. You see, most of the cost per liter of fuel is TAX, just the thing Obama and the lefties are proposing. Read Bloomberg News and you will find that In the US, refining margins were down at the end of December about a third from their peak in 2007. According to Bloomberg News. BP, the British petroleum giant, announced this month that lower U.S. refining margins helped contribute to a fourth-quarter refining and marketing loss of $1.8 billion. Refining margins also have been hurting Exxon and another big U.S. oil company, Chevron. “U.S. refining margins narrowed in the second half of the past year, as refined product prices could not keep up with $100 oil," said Tina Vital, an oil equity analyst at Standard & Poor's. Some analysts said refining margins could improve this year, but only if the companies became more efficient in processing oil or the price of crude oil dropped significantly. Besides the pressure on their refining margins, oil companies are getting slammed by rising costs in exploration and extraction. Prices for labor, supplies and - a direct consequence of high oil prices - the energy needed to locate and pump out oil, are all soaring, driving up the investment needed to find and develop new fields. The price of the steel used in building refineries has soared, driven up by demand from the economies of China and India.
As well, there is no sign of any softening in the assertive nationalism of many of the countries that own the oil. Even as prices have risen, oil-producing countries have demanded a bigger share of the profit or decided to go it alone in exploring and drilling. In Russia, the Middle East, Africa and South America, oil companies are being asked to pay higher royalties or entry costs to set up or continue operations. Leaders like Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and Vladimir Putin of Russia have become more bold in taking over oil production in their countries.
Others point out
McCain’s anger about the failure of oil companies “to invest in alternative energy” neglects to ask why companies aren’t investing enough in this on their own. Why do we need massive subsidies, as proposed by both Obama and McCain? The answer is simple: those alternative energy sources cost more than the benefits that they produce. If they were profitable, no subsidy would be necessary.
Would you take money from investments that are currently making a 9.7 percent return and putting them into projects that generate a negative return? Presumably not, and neither would Obama nor McCain if his own money was at stake. It would make you poorer, it would make him poorer.
Besides the politicians who are bashing the oil companies and pushing for wind-fall profit taxes understand that more oil would mean lower prices. Senator Schumer insists that "If Saudi Arabia were to increase its production by 1 million barrels per day that translates to a reduction of 20 percent to 25 percent in the world price of crude oil . . . “ Schumer is so angry that he is blocking selling military supplies to Saudi Arabia until they increase production.
(Petroleum Investment Strategies)
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 7th, 2008 03:40 am |
|
That is the level you are at. Is there anything you have said that would not lead me to believe that? Now, maybe you are exagerating a bit, but you basically said why should you sacrifice in any way whatsoever. You feel it is your right as an American to drive a V-8 with premium gasoline going 75 miles per hour with the windows down and the air conditioning running.
You say why not use it if we got it...I say think beyond the end of your nose.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 7th, 2008 03:02 am |
|
Now you have taken it to another level. My point is we have it, we don't need the others to get it and, why not use it?
I am also an ardent Hunter Thompson Fan.
Fred wrote:
CR sums up that attitude perfectly well. F.... the world, I got mine...and if I don't, and another country does, let's figure out a way to screw them out of it for us, because we deserve it more then those people.
|
Cobra
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 352 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 7th, 2008 02:59 am |
|
One barrel of crude oil makes about 19½ gallons of gasoline, 9 gallons of fuel oil, 4 gallons of jet fuel, and 11 gallons of other products, including lubricants, kerosene, asphalt, and petrochemical feedstocks to make plastics. The ultimate cost of a gallon of gas at the service station depends mostly on the price of crude oil, and most of the profit after expenses goes to the owner-producers of the oil, whether they are governments or oil producing companies. Almost everywhere in the world outside the US, people pay MUCH more for gasoline, largely because of much larger government taxes, which amount to around $3 to $4 per gallon in many European countries (and which support government-subsidized health care and other programs). Naturally, all the values in the table below vary from place to place; these are general estimates. "Producer" generally means the country that owns the oil - companies like Exxon and Shell and Conoco must purchase much of the oil they refine and market, more or less at the going price of crude on the world market. Long-term contracts may reduce their cost by a bit, but when the price of oil is $60, Exxon is probably buying such oil from Saudi Arabia for something like $58 or more. (http://www.gravmag.com/localgas)
"Production cost" includes a world-wide average of US $7.35 per barrel in finding costs, $3.57 per barrel in lifting cost (what it takes to operate a producing well), and $1.00 in production taxes per barrel. 2003 numbers from EIA. It is difficult to find separate figures for refining cost and profit, and the other cost/profit breakdowns, so the numbers are guesses but the totals for each category reflect percentages determined by the EIA (percentages for previous years shown in the graphic from EIA - I based the numbers in the table on $2.70 a gallon and percentages based on the most recent information I could find - 18% refining, 16% distribution, marketing, and retailing). If you think you have a good breakdown of transportation, marketing, and retailing costs and profits, or other data sources, please let us know. See also the EIA Primer on Gasoline Prices and this article and this GAO report and This One and another. And Gas Q&A.
• See also Who sets the price of oil?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 7th, 2008 02:42 am |
|
Cobra....are you sure you are quoting that correctly? Jimmy Carter was very clear of the danger of the dependence on foreign oil...he wasn't the first, as was pointed out earlier, but he wanted a new program to break that. However, he was scorned for his thoughts, gasoline dropped a few cents, and he was booed off the stage.
Too bad we didn't listen to him about oil back then....but then again, when America isn't willing to turn the thermostat down a few degrees, why would you expect them to make a real sacrifice for the good of the country?
CR sums up that attitude perfectly well. F.... the world, I got mine...and if I don't, and another country does, let's figure out a way to screw them out of it for us, because we deserve it more then those people.
|
Cobra
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 352 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 7th, 2008 02:38 am |
|
Inaction in action
Glenn Beck put together this look back at what our politicians have said since Jimmy Carter proclaimed, in 1977, that we would never increase our dependence on foreign oil. We've all seen how that worked out. If you are hoping for politicians to act differently this time around---don't hold your breath. The consistency of rhetoric is simply astounding in this incredible (and incredibly depressing) montage. Watch the video.
http://www.glennbeck.com
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 7th, 2008 02:09 am |
|
| Ta! Da!
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 7th, 2008 12:57 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Babble speak. We are better than babble speak in this country. The feminization of America has bred a generation of leaders without testicles.
Now I understand the little blue dot. It's Viagra.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 7th, 2008 12:24 am |
|
| Babble speak. We are better than babble speak in this country. The feminization of America has bred a generation of leaders without testicles.
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 331 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 6th, 2008 11:08 pm |
|
| ptg: it is not about apologizing for a lifestyle. Far from it. It is about understanding that the world has changed. We went from being a petroleum exporter (the world's largest) to a petroleum/energy importer. This entails costs. Can individuals afford to use 6mpg Hummers and 3mpg Winnebagos with trailers and generators? Of course some can. Should we live like isolationist hermits with organic, locally-produced, solar processed bread crumbs and a bicycle? No, and I do not want to. But the world has changed. We are now sending overseas billions of dollars every day to governments with clear policy statements that are contrary to our own interests. We do this because our lifestyle has put us in a place of dependancy. We are also borrowing much of this money from overseas. We are now dependant on the whims and fantasies of people we cannot trust. We are also enriching them. Iran could not afford nuclear ambitions without the tens of billions of dollars they are spending from oil revenues. Saudi Arabia could not afford to indulge the fanaticism of some of their populace without billions in oil revenues to afford a lavish 'ignorance' of the reality of their financial support of Bin Laden and others. But we also need to understand our own role in this process. It is a choice. We can continue to buy/use energy at high rates, some of which we import. We can expand our domestic production of energy, but this takes money, time and creates serious political conflict as to 'how?'. We can reduce our demand, but this takes time, money, and changes to our lifestyles. It is just about making choices. If enough of us choose to avoid the time, money, effort to reduce our demand; someone in power might decide to try and tell us what our choices will be - something I do not want. If we all choose to avoid the time, money, effort to increase our domestic supply; someone in power from another country might tell us what our choices will be - something I do not believe any of us here want. I hate to admit it, but Paris Hilton's video is probably the best energy policy statement I have heard this election cycle from a public figure.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 6th, 2008 10:36 pm |
|
What lesson is it we are supposed to learn? Are we bad because we aren't like the Europeans? I think not. I'm tired of apologizing for our lifestyle and our country. I'm tired of being made to feel guilty about eating a steak, driving a fast car, or vacationing in a Winnebago.
We have the resources to continue our lifestyle if the Liberals and tree huggers are finally ousted from Congress.
I want to live life my way, which is something we used to be proud of in this country. Let them drive mini coopers in England and France. Give me my Eldorado.................................
Fred wrote:
Kirk wrote: Fred: while I usually agree with you on many issues, here I have to differ. Even if gasoline drops 25-75 cents further - putting it in the 3 to 3.50 range, I believe there has been a significant change in the understanding of what these prices mean to U.S. security.
Kirk....I hope it is just my pessimistic side coming out, and I am wrong. If gas consumption goes back up, we'll know that we haven't learned our lesson. However, does anyone think that there is a price floor that if gas drops to it, it becomes a non-issue? Let's say it drops back down to $2.50 a gallon...do Hummer sales go through the roof, or do Americans say we've learned our lesson?
Last edited on Wed Aug 6th, 2008 10:37 pm by Playing the Game
|
Two Cents
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 668 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 6th, 2008 09:10 pm |
|
| Fred -- you know very well how slow we are to learn, and how quickly we forget. If gasoline prices remain where they are today -- say $3.70 in Dover, within 2 months SUVs will be in demand again! Bet on it!
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 6th, 2008 09:06 pm |
|
Kirk wrote: Fred: while I usually agree with you on many issues, here I have to differ. Even if gasoline drops 25-75 cents further - putting it in the 3 to 3.50 range, I believe there has been a significant change in the understanding of what these prices mean to U.S. security.
Kirk....I hope it is just my pessimistic side coming out, and I am wrong. If gas consumption goes back up, we'll know that we haven't learned our lesson. However, does anyone think that there is a price floor that if gas drops to it, it becomes a non-issue? Let's say it drops back down to $2.50 a gallon...do Hummer sales go through the roof, or do Americans say we've learned our lesson?
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 331 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 6th, 2008 08:16 pm |
|
Fred: while I usually agree with you on many issues, here I have to differ. Even if gasoline drops 25-75 cents further - putting it in the 3 to 3.50 range, I believe there has been a significant change in the understanding of what these prices mean to U.S. security.
I am curious to see how long Pickens can afford to keep up his advertising and if there is any impact on the elections. He is the first prominent voice to point out the absurdity of sending $2 billion a day to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc. and then wonder why we are less able to control the security threats those regions pose. So far, candidates appear to talk about this as an economic issue - mainstreet pocketbooks, yadda yadda. If someone points out how much cheaper it is to install alternative energy systems than build an aircraft carrier, or upgrade refueling planes, then it could be seen as a cost effective means of increasing national security. Clearly, sending $2B a day to adversarial regimes who appear to support terrorist groups does not make sense.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 6th, 2008 01:01 pm |
|
Correct...using almost a million barrels a day less will cause the price to go down. The slowing economy is also a factor, as well as China's plan to increase the cost to it's citizens. All very real factors that have caused the price to drop.
And bring us one step back to where we won't give a crap about the price. If it drops much more (ie, another .20 or so), and we have some celebrity scandal, it will totally fade away....until the next time.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 6th, 2008 12:07 pm |
|
Helen here wrote: NP and HR are hoping that BHO wins and they will get off their @$$#$ .
I just don't understand why they keep saying it won't do any thing for years , so they aren't doing any thing about the drilling. Common sense tells you the sooner the better.
If NP and HR were concern about the American people as they claim , and I have heard them throw the term American People around a lot. They should allow a vote on the drilling issue.
Even talking about it has caused the prices go down , could you imagine would happen if we did less talk more action .
Since the price of gasoline has gone up, we have stopped buying it so much. We have really curtailed our use. That is why the price has gone down.
|
Helen here
Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 6th, 2008 05:22 am |
|
NP and HR are hoping that BHO wins and they will get off their @$$#$ .
I just don't understand why they keep saying it won't do any thing for years , so they aren't doing any thing about the drilling. Common sense tells you the sooner the better.
If NP and HR were concern about the American people as they claim , and I have heard them throw the term American People around a lot. They should allow a vote on the drilling issue.
Even talking about it has caused the prices go down , could you imagine would happen if we did less talk more action .
Last edited on Wed Aug 6th, 2008 05:23 am by Helen here
|
Vindicator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 468 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 6th, 2008 03:17 am |
|
Think back to the start of this year. You had goals. You wanted to accomplish some major achievements. Maybe it was investing a little more of your hard-earned money into the stock market.Perhaps you wanted to save a little more for your children’s college education.Or, you were hoping to get a little bit closer to paying off that mortgage. But it hasn’t exactly worked out that way. So, WHAT HAPPENED?
Over the past seven months, gas prices skyrocketed, with no end in sight. The dial on the gas pump rolled over and over – putting you in a $50, $75 or even $100 crunch every time you filled up. With every fleeting gallon you pumped, it was less money you could invest or save. It was another link in the chain that constrained you from spending your hard-earned money on things that matter to you .
Expense, after expense, after expense. Yet, you carried on, working each and every day to provide for you and your family. Meanwhile, what have our leaders in Congress been doing? In a word: NOTHING.
Our leaders in Congress have continually blocked attempts to relieve our dependence on foreign oil, be it drilling here at home, environmentally sound offshore drilling, oil shale exploration, building new refineries for the first time in over 30 years…and the list goes on. They have stood in the way of real progress when it comes to domestic energy exploration and production.
It’s got to stop. It is time for you to be in control of your family budget again, not beholden to major fluctuations in energy costs.
It’s time for a cohesive energy policy. Sign the petition HERE, to take your voice heard by the U.S. Congress that real energy legislation is needed.
http://energy.americanfuturefund.com/petition.php
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 6th, 2008 12:04 am |
|
The facts aren't Obama's, but have come out from the administration and NASCAR....and I'll take the France family's word on how much gas a properly tuned car would save.
I agree on getting cars tuned up....the last one I felt comfortable in doing any work on was my '77 Mercury Cougar. Now THAT was a car. Not only could I actually do the work, there was enough room in the engine compartment for a bunch of people to hang around as well....heck, we could have had a picnic on the manifold.
My next vehicle (my first new one) was a Chevy Truck with fuel injection, and that started my road down to automotive ignorance. Now I can barely make out where the engine is when I pop the hood....
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 11:54 pm |
|
Well , chilrun, the last car I could tune up was built in 1983. The dang computers run everything now and you don't get to set the timing, lean out the carb or any of that stuff. I can still mess a little with the timing on my 84 GM product but any of my newer vehicles, the black box will throw a fit if you don't just read the codes with your OBC II gadget. Since I'm in the distinct minority when I putter down the road in my old Chevy, I kinda doubt the great savings the Sainted One claims. Maybe in the 60's or 70's it would have made sense.
As for proper tire inflation, that does make some sense to minimize rolling resistance. How many gallons it would save is not something I could calculate and wonder how or friends came up with their numbers attributable to that. Did we look at keeping our windows closed and using the AC sparingly, too? I suspect those would add up more than tire pressure but I also think that would have gotten Obama the digital salute because now you are messing with the 'essentials ' of life and we sure don't like to be bothered by political stuff when our comfort is at stake....
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1027 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 11:22 pm |
|
Pelosi: GOP’s Oil Drilling Plan Is A ‘Hoax’
(CNSNews.com) - A Republican plan to open more public land to oil exploration and drilling is “unworthy of serious debate,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said on Monday.
GOP Wants Dems to Return from ‘Recess’
(CNSNews.com) - Congress recessed for the summer on Friday, but that didn’t stop Republicans from returning to the House floor on Monday to demand that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reconvene lawmakers to pass energy legislation, including lifting the ban on offshore drilling. “It was simply wrong for Congress to take a five-week paid vacation without ever taking a vote on giving the American people more access to American oil,” Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said of the unprecedented gathering.
Obama Vows Energy Independence in 10 Years
(CNSNews.com) – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama pledged to free the United States from dependence on oil from the Middle East and Venezuela within a decade and also attacked his Republican opponent John McCain as the candidate of big oil.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 03:21 am |
|
| I don't have enough Hail Mary's built up quite yet.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 03:19 am |
|
| I figured you were slipping in a Rosary or two.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 03:17 am |
|
| Is that in response to my Jesus Christ, son of Mary and Joseph response?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 03:14 am |
|
Simply more proof of how desperate McCain has gotten....he attacks car routine maintenance.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 03:13 am |
|
| Blow up my tires Fred.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 03:11 am |
|
| Jesus Christ, son of Mary and Joseph.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 03:11 am |
|
| Amazing that a common sense suggestion to keep cars tuned up and tires inflated, which is the very bare minimum "sacrifice" that one is asked to do that would save in one year the equivalent of 4 years of off shore drilling is ridiculed by |