Off shore drilling?

[bodhitree]

So, what does everyone think about off-shore drilling?

I think we should lift the ban, it could ease energy concerns in the future. I am against drilling in Alaska, but why not off-shore?


Thoughts?

[MasterKiller]

The majority of oil land leases currently owned in America are undrilled because corporations use the estimated value of the oil in the ground to boost their stock values. The leases are usually awarded in 30-year increments, which means any new large reserves discovered since 1978 are probably untapped.


We do not need to drill in Anwar.
We do not need to drill offshore.

[1bad65]

It only makes sense to drill. When you can provide a commodity to yourself that is over-priced, only an idiot would object to you doing that.

Say that vegetable prices suddenly skyrocketed. You have the land, the know how, the right soil, and the means to produce some of your own vegetables yourself for alot cheaper. It's common sense what your solution should be.

[The Willow Sword]

Offshore drilling is not going to affect our gas prices here in the USA. In fact the Gas prices would go up even more to support the offshore drilling to even find caches of oil and that is IF there are any caches worth tapping. Its a stupid and typical move of the Bush administration to make everyone think they give a sh!t about the consumer in this country. Bush and his cronies have set their legacy and have guaranteed their childrens children a great life.

We need to get on the ball with Hydrogen fuel or something other than fossil fuels.



Say that vegetable prices suddenly skyrocketed. You have the land, the know how, the right soil, and the means to produce some of your own vegetables yourself for alot cheaper. It's common sense what your solution should be.

My answer to this is VERTICAL FARMING. Build hydroponic towers within city limits. this was in the news recently and i think it is a good idea given our crop situations in the midwest being flooded.

Peace,TWS

[1bad65]

Is the Law of Supply and Demand this hard to understand?

[Becca]

When it involes the very rich acting like they care about the little people? Yes. TWS is right; the big oil companies are already saying that the massive profits they are raking in are being "invested." The last thing we need to do is give them an even more visable "investment" to poor more "research and developement" into. Make then work for the bogus reasons they shouldn't be taxed as hard as any other buisness making billions in profits... That 30% tax rate the the Exon or what ever CEO was talking about was not about the top earners. He was using the struggling small company tax rates to lower the median tax rate he was quoting...

[MasterKiller]

Is the Law of Supply and Demand this hard to understand?

American oil strategy has always been "use theirs first."

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

I think that is a good strategy myself.

We have the ability to just drive the tesla and not need oil for transportation. I'd rather see that than more drilling.

Let the rest of the world run out first.

[1bad65]

American oil strategy has always been "use theirs first."

Agreed. And now that policy has resulted in high oil prices. So a solution has been suggested, and liberals say no to it.

What's their solution to high oil prices?

[1bad65]

When it involes the very rich acting like they care about the little people?

Oh Jesus. :rolleyes: Whenever somone uses the words 'the rich' in a political argument you know your dealing with a Socialist who will berate your ideas, but never come up with any remotely feasable idea of their own.

[MasterKiller]

Agreed. And now that policy has resulted in high oil prices. So a solution has been suggested, and liberals say no to it.

What's their solution to high oil prices?

We don't need to drill more since we are already sitting on mountains of undrilled, accessible oil in the continental U.S.

The current price of oil is artificially inflated by the weak American dollar (which all oil is priced in), which is a direct result of the cost of the war in Iraq and all the money we have to borrow to support it. More dilling won't solve that.

There is (currently) no shortage of supply in the world.

[1bad65]

We have the ability to just drive the tesla and not need oil for transportation. I'd rather see that than more drilling.

The price of the 2008 Tesla Roadster base model is $98,000.

That's a real practical solution. :rolleyes:

[The Willow Sword]

oh come on IBad Becca is not a socialist and neither am i. it doesnt take a socialist mindset to see and realize that the elite rich are securing their means by any means necessary and we are left to pay for it. How is your Income Ibad? you "Rich"? i doubt it. you are just like the rest of us here feeling the crunch at the pump and in the bank accounts. Unless you got some withered old rich sugar momma that you gotta eat out for your MMA lessons:p


:DTWS

[1bad65]

The current price of oil is artificially inflated by the weak American dollar (which all oil is priced in), which is a direct result of the cost of the war in Iraq and all the money we have to borrow to support it. More dilling won't solve that.

There is (currently) no shortage of supply in the world.

The main reason for the increase in oil prices is the emergence of China as the #1 consumer of OPEC oil. For decades the US was #1 and thus had more leverage with OPEC. We don't have that any longer. Within the last 5 years DEMAND went up sharply as a result of China's economy growing by leaps and bounds. Anyone with a clue will tell you that's the biggest reason for the surge in crude oil prices.

There is a larger DEMAND compared to the accessable SUPPLY of crude oil. That results in higher crude oil prices. It's Economics 101.

[1bad65]

How is your Income Ibad? you "Rich"? i doubt it. you are just like the rest of us here feeling the crunch at the pump and in the bank accounts. Unless you got some withered old rich sugar momma that you gotta eat out for your MMA lessons:p

According to Bill Clinton I'm rich. I make more than $36,500/year.

I work, as does my wife. Gas prices suck, especially when you drive cars like I have.

The solution is to increase crude oil supply and refinery capacity. It's really that simple. I do my part, I vote for candidates who understand economics and try to fix problems rather than candidates who use class warfare rhetoric and offer no solutions of their own.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

You know, you may not have the smallest bit of martial skill, but when it comes to economic issues you are one of the few who understand the problem.

As for the Tesla, take it's technology and tone it down to the level of a normal street car, instead of a Ferrari eating supercar, mass produce it, and it will be just as cost effective as any normal vehicle is...only you can paint it with a spray on solar collector and never need to pay to fuel it.

[The Willow Sword]

Well then Ibad the solution is that we should cut into our reserves and bring the prices down a bit for us. I mean we have a SH!TLOAD Of oil in reserve in this country. we utilize it in times of war and last time i checked we are still "At war" with terrorism. So? All the more reason to get our reserves going. TWS

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

You can reduce the demand just as easily as increase the supply. We have the technology to do it now.

[1bad65]

You know, you may not have the smallest bit of martial skill, but when it comes to economic issues you are one of the few who understand the problem.

As for the Tesla, take it's technology and tone it down to the level of a normal street car, instead of a Ferrari eating supercar, mass produce it, and it will be just as cost effective as any normal vehicle is...only you can paint it with a spray on solar collector and never need to pay to fuel it.

Still waiting to see your skill. ;) Got any video like I do? ;)

If your idea is so feasable, why has no one else seen this? Why doesn't Tesla try it out themselves? After all, it is their technology.

In theory, your idea COULD work. But human nature is usually to increase SUPPLY rather than cutting DEMAND.

[Becca]

Oh Jesus. :rolleyes: Whenever somone uses the words 'the rich' in a political argument you know your dealing with a Socialist who will berate your ideas, but never come up with any remotely feasable idea of their own.
I'm not a socialist. I'm not even a demacrat. I can do basic math, though, and know how to plug raw figures in to come up with median numbers. There is no easy answer for this because nothing is actually "broke." This is ecenomics 101. Those who have more want to protect what they have. Those who have less want to point fingers. How much crying are you hearing from those who feel they have "enough"?

The cost of fuel ain't going down boys and girls. The cost of crude might, but fuel won't.

[1bad65]

The Strategic Oil Reserves are supposed to be used only in a national emergency, not as a means to try and soothe the economy. Bill Clinton actually tried that though, and it had no effect on gas prices at the pump.

[1bad65]

The cost of fuel ain't going down boys and girls. The cost of crude might, but fuel won't.

As I said before, we need to drill for our crude oil AND increase our refinery capacity.

[Becca]

The Strategic Oil Reserves are supposed to be used only in a national emergency, not as a means to try and soothe the economy. Bill Clinton actually tried that though, and it had no effect on gas prices at the pump.be cause the guys regulating the price it's sold to the gas stations know d@mn well we will fork it over.

As to why there isn't enough refineries, that is simple: The reletivly low price of fue made it unfeasable for the oil companies to build more. it was all they could do to keep the one's they have in good repair. One major problem, like a lightening strike hitting vital piece of the refinery and it shuts it down. We have had 4, count them FOUR magor refinery issues in the last 2 years.....

[Becca]

As I said before, we need to drill for our crude oil AND increase our refinery capacity.
That costs money. They get the money from selling fuel for more than they need to keep out of the red.

[1bad65]

be cause the guys regulating the price it's sold to the gas stations know d@mn well we will fork it over.

Still blaming 'the rich' I see.


As to why there isn't enough refineries, that is simple: The reletivly low price of fue made it unfeasable for the oil companies to build more. it was all they could do to keep the one's they have in good repair.

You are incorrect. Environmental laws made it flat-out impossible to build refineries in certain areas/states or not cost efficient in the other areas.

No new refineries have been built (though many have been expanded) in the United States since 1976.

[The Willow Sword]

Environmental laws made it flat-out impossible to build refineries in certain areas/states or not cost efficient in the other areas

And i will continue to support those "Environmental laws". We need them to protect our Historical landmarks and our National Forests and Habitat. Although i dont agree with why certain conservatives support protecting these laws (sport hunters and ranchers and the like) But at least they understand why we need to keep them preserved, even if it is for sport hunting and raising livestock.

It could take a decade to start right now and drill and find oil in Alaska or the Ocean. Its not like we know exactly where the big major caches are, we in fact DONT KNOW(they are searching right now under the polar ice cap and they have plans to search further in the Antarctic) There is a ton of speculation and a roll of the dice and that is how the oil industry has always been when it comes to drilling. The Middle east has been the lucky territory and they set the standards and we follow along with it, unfortunately. So in the meantime while they are all out there desperately trying to find that big cache, gas prices continue to go up to support all this searching.

The Truth is that we need to get going with alternative fuel sources like Hydrogen or we will have to eventually give up our big vehicles in place of Hybrids and smaller ones with better fuel efficiency(not that this is a bad thing but its nice to have options when choosing a vehicle other than a tin can), OR the standards will have to be raised and they will have to start making trucks that get 30+ MPG, and they could do it with the smaller city trucks like My Mazda( i own a B-series and it gets better gas mileage than most trucks out there on the road) i Like trucks and i want to see them with better fuel efficiancy, because i am going to hate trading my truck in for some little tin can that gets 45MPG. We have the technology already there to do this.

What i have been seeing all around Austin are used Big trucks for sale in the parking lots, especially in South Austin and i am sure Ibad69 has noticed this as well. Whenever i see some rich douchwad in a Hummer i have to think to myself "is this guy so filthy rich that he can actually AFFORD to drive that thing given the current state of affairs?" Maybe he is, maybe he is in denial or he just doesnt give a sh!t. Hummers are a waste of Money anyway, they are huge pieces of cr@p.
Peace,TWS

[1bad65]

Its not like we know exactly where the big major caches are, we in fact DONT KNOW

They know where some large deposits are, but the liberals in Congress voted against drilling for it.


What i have been seeing all around Austin are used Big trucks for sale in the parking lots, especially in South Austin and i am sure Ibad69 has noticed this as well.

Trucks are not selling well nationwide. If you are inclinced to buy one, now is a great time. Used ones are cheap and manufacturers are offering alot of incentives on new ones.

I drive Mustangs myself. With V-8 engines. :D I'm actually considering buying a Mustang Bullitt around October.


Whenever i see some rich douchwad in a Hummer i have to think to myself "is this guy so filthy rich that he can actually AFFORD to drive that thing given the current state of affairs?"

Much like racists look at the color of skin and judge someone, people like you look at their possessions and make judgements.

What someone rightfully owns is their business, not yours or the governments.

[Mr Punch]

...So a solution has been suggested, and liberals say no to it.

Oh Jesus. :rolleyes: Whenever somone uses the words 'the rich' in a political argumentOh Jesus, :rolleyes: whenever someone uses the word 'liberal' as a pejorative in a political argument you know you’re dealing with a (insert ad hominem here)...

BTW, it’s not only ‘liberals’ who disagree with drilling.


Gas prices suck, especially when you drive cars like I have.
I drive Mustangs myself. With V-8 engines. :D I'm actually considering buying a Mustang Bullitt around October.Check this out: moaning like a b!tch about your gas prices affecting you because of your cars and then boasting about the size of your cars...!? Are you stupid? You say you vote fro candidates who understand economics, yet you can’t understand the basic economics of not using something you can’t afford! LOL :D It isn’t going to get any better. Remember that and buy a new car. I’ve got just the thing for you: http://www.made-in-china.com/image/4f0j00ivMaShmnftbuM/2-Cylinder-Water-Cooled-Engine-Mini-Car-BD500-.jpg


Much like racists look at the color of skin and judge someone, people like you look at their possessions and make judgements.

What someone rightfully owns is their business, not yours or the governments.Yes, what someone owns is their business. In most cases. But no, it’s nothing like racism which is based a lot on appearance and preconceptions, not proof.

OK, so here’s the big difference: your car is damaging my lungs. Your car is damaging my kid’s existence and right to healthy problem-free lungs. Your car choice affects all of us. And guess what? It’s not a basic human right to have a car (any car – let alone yours). It’s a privilege, and a freedom that comes with a responsibility just like any other.

And no, this has nothing to do with whether you’re one of these delusional people who believe that nothing man does impacts on the environment – I know you don’t believe that global warming is even affected by man. You think exhaust gases don’t hurt anyone, go sit in your car in a closed garage with the windows up and run a tube from your exhaust.

[1bad65]

Check this out: moaning like a b!tch about your gas prices affecting you because of your cars and then boasting about the size of your cars...!? Are you stupid? You say you vote fro candidates who understand economics, yet you can’t understand the basic economics of not using something you can’t afford!

I just said they suck. I'm not whining about it. Gas was high when I bought the cars.


OK, so here’s the big difference: your car is damaging my lungs. Your car is damaging my kid’s existence and right to healthy problem-free lungs. Your car choice affects all of us. And guess what? It’s not a basic human right to have a car (any car – let alone yours). It’s a privilege, and a freedom that comes with a responsibility just like any other.

Oh boy. Just like global warming was so serious. Now those guys admit they were 'not so accurate'. That's why it's "Climate Change" now. I have the right, I'm an American. Don't like it, too bad. Once my wife gets through college, we'll be getting a Shelby!

[Mr Punch]

Now those guys admit they were 'not so accurate'.Who does? Show me. A lot of 'those guys' are now saying they were vastly misunderestimating the extent of human disaster cause directly by human carelessness... so yeah they weren't so accurate. Change you news source to one that has news.


That's why it's "Climate Change" now. No it's climate change because meteorologists, marine biologists, economists and the like have always known that in some areas in some seasons the weather can go either way. The expression global warming is dumbed-down media speak for people like you who read the news on Cheerios boxes. :D


I have the right, I'm an American. Don't like it, too bad. Too bad, I thought you would at least have a chance to defend your opinion in an adult manner, but this is all it really comes down to isn't it? You're not capable. You come from a country that was supposedly based on debate and understanding of rights and freedoms, and which is now supposedly trying to promote rights and freedoms round the world, and you can't even tell the difference.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Who does? Show me. A lot of 'those guys' are now saying they were vastly misunderestimating the extent of human disaster cause directly by human carelessness... so yeah they weren't so accurate. Change you news source to one that has news.

No it's climate change because meteorologists, marine biologists, economists and the like have always known that in some areas in some seasons the weather can go either way. The expression global warming is dumbed-down media speak for people like you who read the news on Cheerios boxes. :D

Too bad, I thought you would at least have a chance to defend your opinion in an adult manner, but this is all it really comes down to isn't it? You're not capable. You come from a country that was supposedly based on debate and understanding of rights and freedoms, and which is now supposedly trying to promote rights and freedoms round the world, and you can't even tell the difference.

Reply]
Supposedly is the key word. This country is not what it once was, even 20 years ago.

[1bad65]

No it's climate change because meteorologists, marine biologists, economists and the like have always known that in some areas in some seasons the weather can go either way.

It became "Climate Change" once 2007 was one the coldest years ever. So now they use a term that covers both sides of the coin! They are crafty, I'll give them that. Now they can say, "It's too hot, so we need more environmental laws" and "It's too cold, so we need more environmental laws."


Too bad, I thought you would at least have a chance to defend your opinion in an adult manner, but this is all it really comes down to isn't it? You're not capable. You come from a country that was supposedly based on debate and understanding of rights and freedoms, and which is now supposedly trying to promote rights and freedoms round the world, and you can't even tell the difference.

What's there to debate or defend? I should have the right to drive what I **** well please. That's MY choice. Not yours. Not Al Gore's. Not Congress'. MY CHOICE.

You drive what you want, and I'll drive what I want. Is this a problem for you?

[Mr Punch]

It became "Climate Change" once 2007 was one the coldest years ever. So now they use a term that covers both sides of the coin! They are crafty, I'll give them that. Now they can say, "It's too hot, so we need more environmental laws" and "It's too cold, so we need more environmental laws."You are an idiot. This has been being discussed since the 1970s. I remember reading about it as a kid in a regular kids' book (before it became politicised and demonised by the right's vested interests) when I was about 7-8 years old in the late 70s.

Are you suggesting 'climate change' has only been used since 2007? It's not some magical expression just to provoke a knee-jerk reaction; the phenomena of climate changes have been around since meteorology started, and geo-physics for that matter. The expression maybe reached more of a vogue when the dumbed-down media 'global warming' (again, you're not listening, this expression was NEVER used by scientists except to simplify for mass audiences, and has been appropriated by people on both sides wishing to provoke specific reactions) was rightly pointed to be misleading. As usual, it was the media who'd got the wrong buzzword.


What's there to debate or defend?It's like this: you say that Sifu Abel's opinion on fighting and his existance in general isn't worth **** until he defends himself physically, since that's the area you're argument is couched in. Well, I say, if you can't defend your opinion, it's not worth having. So put up with some sensible argument, or **** off the thread and leave it to people who know what they're talking about (OK, I know that's a slim chance :D ).


I should have the right to drive what I **** well please. That's MY choice. Not yours. Not Al Gore's. Not Congress'. MY CHOICE...

Is this a problem for you?**** me. There's some chat on why critical thinking is important on the education thread: go over there, see if you can follow any of the arguments and then try following this argument. I seriously think your reading ability is impaired.

I've already explained to you, that yes, it is a problem for me that wankers like you drive gas-guzzling **** heaps. I've already explained to you, that regardless of whether 'climate change' exists or not (although that sentence is insane! :eek: ), exhaust gases are poisonous (like I said - you don't believe me go suck on that pipe!), and therefore you are directly attacking me, my family, future generations and yes, the Shaolin Temple/Gracie Jujutsu by choosing a specifically unneccessarily large source of pollutants. You are attacking me, and as a proponent of self defence and personal protection, to say nothing of accountability, at the same time as quoting the standard libertarian waffle of 'you can do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt others', I would even go so far as to say that physically stopping you should be sanctioned by law.

Now do you get it?

[Becca]

Still blaming 'the rich' I see.That isn't "blaming the ritch; tht is supply and demand. Another way of stating it, one used by most who actually know what they are talking about, would be charging what the market will bare. If you have th money, you'll fork it over. You may b!itch and moan, but you will pay it....






You are incorrect. Environmental laws made it flat-out impossible to build refineries in certain areas/states or not cost efficient in the other areas.

No new refineries have been built (though many have been expanded) in the United States since 1976.
So laws limiting where you can build a new refinery and the fact that non have been built in more than 30 years, with no other dat used, meens I am wrong? Do you know what else happened durring the late 70s that might have impacted the halt of refinery expansion? Want a hint or two?

Drilling boom - the infrastructre for refining was relativly new and more than capable of supporting increased product. The boom busted in the late 80s though.

2 resesions in the last 30 years

3 wars in the last 30 years

The cost to end users for fuel didn't keep up with inflation - the oil companies were leary of resparking the fuel shortage crisis by increasig the cost of fuel to end users. This left less profit, so no new refineries and only minimum maintenance to existing efineries.



The infrastructure in the U.S. is aging. The rfeineries aren't the only thing that hasn't been maintained. Bridges and levies are failing. Whole nieborhoods are being condemed as unsafe due to lack of criticle preventative maintenance. For 30 years mass transt has been pushed, but now that people are actually starting to flockto it, the mass transit in place can't handle the load; the systems are too old to be expandedand the money isn't there to expand them.

You don't even have to go digging for the information; a cursory search of MSN, CNN, or U.S.A. today will show it to you. Not that you will look. You way is, and probably always will be, to ignore anything that doesn't support your vew then jump oneone data point that isn't easily defended or even relevant.

[David Jamieson]

This is likely just lil bush undermining daddy.

it was his daddy who banned it in the 90's an he wants to unban it for his pals.

simple.

[bodhitree]

As someone who has worked with the scientific community in a major research university (though I myself am not a scientist) I will say every scientist I have spoken with regarding cliamate change believes it is a substancial problem. There are glaciers receding right now. Talk to the contrary is just plain uninformed, or is there a vast left wing conspiracy????


I am a moderate politically, but I have to say, on environmental issues most of the right is pretty stubborn (don't get me wrong, the left is horrible about some other things).

John McCain actually opposed Bush on some environmental issues, and George H.W. pushed some environmental policy, which made him less popular amoung conservatives.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I thought about using my super powers to save this puny planet from the environmental disaster it is head towards, mainly because of the babes on this pile of mud, but since there seems to be issues as to wither you puny mortals deserve this planet, I will let it rot and fly away all the beautiful women to my home planet.

*flies off to the tune of Superman*

[Black Jack II]

I would even go so far as to say that physically stopping you should be sanctioned by law

Where you high when you said that statement or did you become retarded overnight or was that your form of a socialist style based joke?

I am confused.:D

If he wants to drive a Hummer and he can afford the cost that now goes with it, ****in go for it, people should just shut up.

If you want to lower gas prices on a temp bases then lower gas taxes.

As I have stated before, up to 50 cents of the price of gas goes back to the government. This move would create a tax shortfall though that would need to be made up someplace else but it is a short range solution.

Also get on to tapping the U.S. Strategic Reserves, you know the one's, the Strategic Petroleum Reserves the dip**** liberals won't let us touch. We have over 700 million barrels of crude oil in case of an emergency.

Though this is NOT an emergency by any means but a little influx could drop some prices by a dollar or two a barrel and cause others to play ball.

Or better yet, punish the oil companies by staying home an extra night, get a better car that get's more to the gallon.

Whatever....

[Mr Punch]

Where you high when you said that statement or did you become retarded overnight or was that your form of a socialist style based joke?I don't do drugs. I'm not a socialist; I'm a somewhat radical libertarian. So, I guess I became retarded... :rolleyes: :D


I am confused.:DYou too? Perhaps you could join the remedial reading class and therapy sessions with 1bad?


If he wants to drive a Hummer and he can afford the cost that now goes with it, ****in go for it, people should just shut up.Which is tantamount to saying if i want to go round punching people in the face or shooting them and I can afford the bullets, people should just shut up.


If you want to lower gas prices on a temp bases then lower gas taxes.That's the truth. But that's one thing neither of the top parties (nor those in the UK are prepared to do - too many vested interests).


As I have stated before, up to 50 cents of the price of gas goes back to the government.I think t works out at 63% in the UK... which I'd be happy with were those taxes being sensibly spent on further oil exploration, or renewable energy options.


Also get on to tapping the U.S. Strategic Reserves, you know the one's, the Strategic Petroleum Reserves the dip**** liberals won't let us touch. We have over 700 million barrels of crude oil in case of an emergency.

Though this is NOT an emergency by any means but a little influx could drop some prices by a dollar or two a barrel and cause others to play ball.According to your own govt's Energy Information Administration, if all the US's oil reserves were drilled and tapped (including Alaska) the price of oil may drop by as much as 3.5 cents per gallon by as early as 2027. The savings could go up to as much as a breath-takingly enormous 4 cents per gallon if oil prices continue to rise (say if you attack Iran and they blow up half of their refineries, causing a minimum $400/b price).

Global economy determines oil prices, not even the mighty US's. In a world economy where we are currently running at 90 mill/b/d your estimated 75 bill g won't last that long, and certainly won't impact global or domestic prices at all. Especially since global demand is expected to go up to 120 mill/b/d by 2030.


Or better yet, punish the oil companies by staying home an extra night, get a better car that get's more to the gallon.Yep, do it now while it's a choice. Then maybe your kids will thank you.

[1bad65]

Which is tantamount to saying if i want to go round punching people in the face or shooting them and I can afford the bullets, people should just shut up.

Debating with people like you is an exercise in futility. You have so much hate for 'the rich' and 'big business' that it blinds you to other things, like personal freedoms.

[SimonM]

Is the Law of Supply and Demand this hard to understand?

1bad: Read what MK said:


The majority of oil land leases currently owned in America are undrilled because corporations use the estimated value of the oil in the ground to boost their stock values. The leases are usually awarded in 30-year increments, which means any new large reserves discovered since 1978 are probably untapped.

It's not about supply and demand. It's about the fact that oil companies are already pinching off the supply in order to artificially boost demand.

[sanjuro_ronin]

In the News today they said that even if we curtail our use of gas it won't matter because of all the devleoping countries that are using even more gas than before, they said that we should prepare ourselves for paying what people in Europe pay, in the 2.25 per liter area.
Interesting since Canada is actually self-suficient in oil and how the Government pumped billions into Hibernia and Oil Sands....

[CLFLPstudent]

Since I have no idea about these practices, can I ask a few questions regarding Oil Companies?

I know the gas stations themselves make very little money even with the high gas prices, but how are profit margins set?

Is it a percentage - like , say a 10% mark up? Or is it a flat dollar amount per gallon that Big Oil makes per gallon?
Same goes for State and Federal Taxes.... I seem to remember back after Katrina and the gas run-up then that NYC was making windfall monies in taxes on fuel because gas had hit $3.50

Seems like profiteering to me. Don't know where and when this will end, but it does not look good.

Any report I have read regarding drilling in ANWR region says we could see a 70 to 80 CENT decrease per barrel of oil. Doesn't seem like it is worth it to me, and not on a purely ecological standpoint.

Then we have the corn-ethanol subject. Again, the reports I have read state it takes just about 1 gallon of oil to produce 1 gallon of Ethanol. Where is the gain here? Why is there not, like Brazil, effort put into Sugar Cane Ethanol - better bang for the buck from what I read....

But Big Oil doesn't like that. Reminds me of when I was way back in high school. We read of a study done on the north shore on Long Island ( Port Washington/Sand Point areas I believe) where it was found that there was enough sustained wind that if you put up a windmill, you could ( nearly?) take yourself off the grid. LILCO ( LIPA predecessor) was able to get zoning laws to prohibit these towns to build windmills.


-David

[SimonM]

In the News today they said that even if we curtail our use of gas it won't matter because of all the devleoping countries that are using even more gas than before, they said that we should prepare ourselves for paying what people in Europe pay, in the 2.25 per liter area.
Interesting since Canada is actually self-suficient in oil and how the Government pumped billions into Hibernia and Oil Sands....

We may have enough oil to be self-sufficient but we still import the stuff by the ton. Most of the oil sands is being exported by Chinese and Norwegian companies that have leases over parts of it.

[sanjuro_ronin]

We may have enough oil to be self-sufficient but we still import the stuff by the ton. Most of the oil sands is being exported by Chinese and Norwegian companies that have leases over parts of it.

Indeed...I work for the steam and petro-chemical industries - pressure vessels and pressure piping systems.
They have money to burn it seems, some of the stories I can tell you *shakes head*.

[SimonM]

You in Petrolia?

[sanjuro_ronin]

You in Petrolia?

Brampton/Mississauga area.

[SimonM]

Cool. I'm in London. We should get together and spar some time. Let me know if you will be in the neighbourhood. :D

[sanjuro_ronin]

Cool. I'm in London. We should get together and spar some time. Let me know if you will be in the neighbourhood. :D

Will do, you know of the "Team Tompkins MuayThai and Submission Academy" ?

[SimonM]

The name sounds vaguely familliar but I'm not sure I've ever visited.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The name sounds vaguely familliar but I'm not sure I've ever visited.

Top caliber place, check it out if you can.

[Becca]

Debating with people like you is an exercise in futility. You have so much hate for 'the rich' and 'big business' that it blinds you to other things, like personal freedoms.
The only one reteting the "blame the rich" theme is you, Ibad...:rolleyes:

[SimonM]

Becca, we managed to hijack the thread from something totally OT to an actual discussion of something vaguely martial! You had to go and bring it back on topic. :eek: :(

SR: I'll keep your advice in mind. I train through Northern Black Dragon, you heard of the place?

[Becca]

Info on gas prices:

How are gas prices set?
(http://www.ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=854229)

REPORT
Prepared by the
Majority Staff of the
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (http://www.senate.gov/%7Egov_affairs/042902gasreport.htm)

Ethanol and its impact on the economy in general:

Ethanol, Fertilizer & Higher Natural Gas Prices
(http://www.solarcompanies.com/upart/ethanol-fertilizer-higher-natural-gas-prices)

The ethanol bust
The ethanol boom is running out of gas as corn prices spike.
By Jon Birger, senior writer
(http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/27/magazines/fortune/ethanol.fortune/?postversion=2008022811)

Ethanol, The Agriculture Success Story
(http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/main/index.asp)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Becca, we managed to hijack the thread from something totally OT to an actual discussion of something vaguely martial! You had to go and bring it back on topic. :eek: :(

SR: I'll keep your advice in mind. I train through Northern Black Dragon, you heard of the place?

I know of a Pak Mei school in London, that's about it in terms of TCMA.
As for the topic at hand, fact is we are gonna be paying much more for gas, regardless of how much we cut back and how many hybrids we buy.

[SimonM]

There's a Pak Mei school in London?

Where? Who?

[Becca]

Becca, we managed to hijack the thread from something totally OT to an actual discussion of something vaguely martial! You had to go and bring it back on topic. :eek: :(

SR: I'll keep your advice in mind. I train through Northern Black Dragon, you heard of the place?
Was not truely OT.... You darn Canadians were hyjacking, wich is a terrorist activity. The war on terror is effecting the price of gas. There for, in true KFO logic, you were not off topick. Heck you even managed to throw MA in there.:D

[sanjuro_ronin]

There's a Pak Mei school in London?

Where? Who?

Hmmmm, I am racking my brains....I know he's a caucasian....

Here you go:http://www.pakmei.net/

[SimonM]

Hmmn, can't access from work. Thanks for the link. May have to pay them a visit and check out what they are up to. It'd be nice to expand my pool of sparring partners... although I don't think my wife would go for me taking out membership in a SECOND school and I'd never leave NBDMA. :D

[sanjuro_ronin]

Hmmn, can't access from work. Thanks for the link. May have to pay them a visit and check out what they are up to. It'd be nice to expand my pool of sparring partners... although I don't think my wife would go for me taking out membership in a SECOND school and I'd never leave NBDMA. :D

I've heard good and bad things about them, there is a local Pak Mei Kwoon near me, I don't care for much of their brand of MA, beat on a couple a while back while bouncing.
Of course Gas was much cheaper then ( see how I still stay in topic?).

[1bad65]

1bad: Read what MK said:

It's not about supply and demand. It's about the fact that oil companies are already pinching off the supply in order to artificially boost demand.

Actually MK is one the more reasonable guys on the other side of the fence.

It's not oil companies tightening supply, it's OPEC.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Actually MK is one the more reasonable guys on the other side of the fence.

It's not oil companies tightening supply, it's OPEC.

This is true about Opec, oil companies are just reaping the rewards, and rightly so.

[bodhitree]

Obama and McCain Spout Economic Nonsense
By KARL ROVE
June 19, 2008; Page A13

Barack Obama and John McCain are busy demonstrating that in close elections during tough economic times, candidates for president can be economically illiterate and irresponsibly populist.

In Raleigh, N.C., last week, Sen. Obama promised, "I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills."

Set aside for a minute that Jimmy Carter passed a "windfall profits tax" to devastating effect, putting American oil companies at a competitive disadvantage to foreign competitors, virtually ending domestic energy exploration, and making the U.S. more dependent on foreign sources of oil and gas.

Instead ask this: Why should we stop with oil companies? They make about 8.3 cents in gross profit per dollar of sales. Why doesn't Mr. Obama slap a windfall profits tax on sectors of the economy that have fatter margins? Electronics make 14.5 cents per dollar and computer equipment makers take in 13.7 cents per dollar, according to the Census Bureau. Microsoft's margin is 27.5 cents per dollar of sales. Call out Mr. Obama's Windfall Profits Police!

It's not the profit margin, but the total number of dollars earned that is the problem, Mr. Obama might say. But if that were the case, why isn't he targeting other industries? Oil and gas companies made $86.5 billion in profits last year. At the same time, the financial services industry took in $498.5 billion in profits, the retail industry walked away with $137.5 billion, and information technology companies made off with $103.4 billion. What kind of special outrage does Mr. Obama have for these companies?

Sen. McCain doesn't support the windfall profits tax, but he can be as hostile to profits as Mr. Obama. "[W]e should look at any incentives that we are giving," Mr. McCain said in May, even as he talked up a gas tax "holiday" that would give drivers incentives to burn more gasoline.

This past Thursday, Mr. McCain came close to advocating a form of industrial policy, saying, "I'm very angry, frankly, at the oil companies not only because of the obscene profits they've made, but their failure to invest in alternate energy."

But oil and gas companies report that they have invested heavily in alternative energy. Out of the $46 billion spent researching alternative energy in North America from 2000 to 2005, $12 billion came from oil and gas companies, making the industry one of the nation's largest backers of wind and solar power, biofuels, lithium-ion batteries and fuel-cell technology.

Such investments, however, are not as important as money spent on technologies that help find and extract more oil. Because oil companies invested in innovation and technology, they are now tapping reserves that were formerly thought to be unrecoverable. Maybe we are all better off when oil companies invest in what they know, not what they don't.

And do we really want the government deciding how profits should be invested? If so, should Microsoft be forced to invest in Linux-based software or McDonald's in weight-loss research?

Mr. McCain's angry statement shows a lack of understanding of the insights of Joseph Schumpeter, the 20th century economist who explained that capitalism is inherently unstable because a "perennial gale of creative destruction" is brought on by entrepreneurs who create new goods, markets and processes. The entrepreneur is "the pivot on which everything turns," Schumpeter argued, and "proceeds by competitively destroying old businesses."

Most dramatic change comes from new businesses, not old ones. Buggy whip makers did not create the auto industry. Railroads didn't create the airplane. Even when established industries help create new ones, old-line firms are often not as nimble as new ones. IBM helped give rise to personal computers, but didn't see the importance of software and ceded that part of the business to young upstarts who founded Microsoft.

So why should Mr. McCain expect oil and gas companies to lead the way in developing alternative energy? As with past technological change, new enterprises will likely be the drivers of alternative energy innovation.

Messrs. Obama and McCain both reveal a disturbing animus toward free markets and success. It is uncalled for and self-defeating for presidential candidates to demonize American companies. It is understandable that Mr. Obama, the most liberal member of the Senate, would endorse reckless policies that are the DNA of the party he leads. But Mr. McCain, a self-described Reagan Republican, should know better.
Wall Street Journal

[Black Jack II]

Which is tantamount to saying if i want to go round punching people in the face or shooting them and I can afford the bullets, people should just shut up.

OMFG.....you should be hunted down by transexual rabid spider monkey's for that comment alone. Once they have you cornered they should put on clown masks and beat the **** out of your choda with popsicle sticks to the tune of "Black Velvet"

[Old Noob]

Wall Street Journal

of Rove's use of the term "irresponsibly populist?" Rove is essentially saying that one shouldn't bow to the electorate because they're too dumb to know what's good for them. Interesting point of view given that the allegedly dumb voters are the ones who put the policy makers into office making Rove and his ilk the beneficiaries of the electorate's stupidity.

[David Jamieson]

why are prices up?

according to the sec ex- it is mostly due to futures trading.

according to the bush admin, it's because of hurricanes and refinery problems.

according to oil execs its a supply and demand question.

taxes do make up pretty much half of every dollar you spend on gas.
one way to duff that is to implement a carbon tax credit economy and dump the gas tax entirely for a lateral tax move.

although, I think it more likely that taxes will stay and carbon tax will be implemented anyway...you know, just like how all the other "temporary" taxes were anything but temporary..IE: income tax.

Ultimately, if you got a complaint, here's your answer "Be the change you want to see" It truly is the only way real change will come.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Wall Street Journal

AH dude, they're being politicians and telling the people what they wanna hear, wouldn't make to much of it.
How many people do the oil companys employ? thousands? tens of thousands?
No way any politician is going to do something that will cost thousands of people their jobs.

[sanjuro_ronin]

why are prices up?

according to the sec ex- it is mostly due to futures trading.

according to the bush admin, it's because of hurricanes and refinery problems.

according to oil execs its a supply and demand question.

taxes do make up pretty much half of every dollar you spend on gas.
one way to duff that is to implement a carbon tax credit economy and dump the gas tax entirely for a lateral tax move.

although, I think it more likely that taxes will stay and carbon tax will be implemented anyway...you know, just like how all the other "temporary" taxes were anything but temporary..IE: income tax.

Ultimately, if you got a complaint, here's your answer "Be the change you want to see" It truly is the only way real change will come.

Oil is Up because OPEC raised the price of crude and the oil companies know they can make more profits because of it.
Why did OPEC raise the price?
Opinions abound...

[Becca]

Oil tumbles $5 as China raises gas prices
(http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/19/markets/oil/index.htm?eref=ib_topstories)

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil prices sank nearly $5 on Thursday after China said it would raise gas prices by lifting subsidies that have been blamed for driving oil prices higher. The move could curb demand from the country's rapidly growing economy.

[1bad65]

Haven't I been saying for a long time that China's economy is the #1 reason for oil prices going up so sharply and quickly? :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Haven't I been saying for a long time that China's economy is the #1 reason for oil prices going up so sharply and quickly? :)

LOL !
Maybe if the Chinese make some cheap, but good quality oil, all will be right !

[Becca]

Haven't I been saying for a long time that China's economy is the #1 reason for oil prices going up so sharply and quickly? :)
You said it was thier oil usage. Thier economy leveling out will effect more that the price of crude oil bone head.

[Becca]

LOL !
Maybe if the Chinese make some cheap, but good quality oil, all will be right !Yea, they can try this (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/automotive/16629566/detail.html?treets=den&tid=2659772064813&tml=den_irr&tmi=den_irr_1_01000506192008&ts=H) meathod for good cheep fuel.:D

[1bad65]

Maybe if the Chinese make some cheap, but good quality oil, all will be right !

That 'good quality' part is always the problem with most Chinese goods. ;)

[Old Noob]

LOL !
Maybe if the Chinese make some cheap, but good quality oil, all will be right !

Basic supply and demand analysis does not support the increased cost. Many economists are speculating that there's an oil "bubble" caused, in part, by the speculation of commodities investors, which has already been mentioned in this thread.

[1bad65]

You said it was thier oil usage. Thier economy leveling out will effect more that the price of crude oil bone head.

Do what?! :eek: Did you go to the Tom Fox School of Reading Comprehension?

[sanjuro_ronin]

That 'good quality' part is always the problem with most Chinese goods. ;)

You should look at everything around and everything IN everything around you...

[Black Jack II]

The US consumes around 20 million barrels of oil per day, give or take. A barrel of oil contains 42 or so gallons of crude, and after the refining process this yields about twenty or so barrels of gasoline.

Let's do some math. So, 20 gallons, time's 20,000,000 = $400,000,000 dollars per day.

That is 146,000,000,000 in gas cost alone. By the time you factor in various other products from a barrel of oil, the government estimates the following overall revenues of ALL major oil companies were 343 billion dollars, with profits of about 28-29 billion. Gang, that is less than a 10% profit margin.

Companies who make much less than that are often talking bankruptcy or some type of merger. The 10% is very much less than the 15 to 25% charged by the government in taxes.

Would it be good for the oil companies to kick some back in a time of need, sure, it would be a great PR move, and for not doing so, use your own responsibility in life to punish them if you see fit, stay home an extra night a week, get a better car, take public transportation...whatever fits the bill.

They have no reason to kick this back, it is absurd to think off the top of your head that they do, but it is not wrong to get a little ticky just because it would be "nice" to see some internal breaks.

The oil issue comes from a weak US dollar, not OPEC or some evil organization.

A runaway granting of credit has weakened the US dollar both here and abroad and allowed Wall-Street speculators to come in and push put oil in the real spotlight - at 30% gain in a few months of a barrel of crude is evidence of this. A large portion of the recent increases at the pump are going to these speculators.

This is a lot different than supply and demand.

What we really NEED is to become much MORE efficient with the oil use and try to move towards a renewable source like nuclear in combination with practical new energy sources....not this Tesla junk which runs about $98,000.

[1bad65]

You should look at everything around and everything IN everything around you...

I do. For example I just had a new set of Autometer gauges put in one of my Mustangs. The mechanic called and said it would be a finished a day later than expected because one of the sending units was bad and that a good 10% of them fail straight out of the box. When I said that Autometer gauges were usually very reliable, he replied that they WERE until they recently started making the sending units in China.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I do. For example I just had a new set of Autometer gauges put in one of my Mustangs. The mechanic called and said it would be a finished a day later than expected because one of the sending units was bad and that a good 10% of them fail straight out of the box. When I said that Autometer gauges were usually very reliable, he replied that they WERE until they recently started making the sending units in China.

I assume you informed him you don't want them from China but the ones mad ein the good ol U S of A ?

[Becca]

Do what?! :eek: Did you go to the Tom Fox School of Reading Comprehension?
Is that the one where people take your written words litterally and object to you trying to change the intent so you are always right?

[1bad65]

I assume you informed him you don't want them from China but the ones mad ein the good ol U S of A ?

Name a brand that is. ;)

According to him it's the sending units, the rest is still made here.

[1bad65]

Is that the one where people take your written words litterally and object to you trying to change the intent so you are always right?

It's the one where you read something and then have no clue what it meant. And then you use their quote to try and prove your point, despite having no clue what they meant in their post. ;)

I said:

The main reason for the increase in oil prices is the emergence of China as the #1 consumer of OPEC oil. For decades the US was #1 and thus had more leverage with OPEC. We don't have that any longer. Within the last 5 years DEMAND went up sharply as a result of China's economy growing by leaps and bounds. Anyone with a clue will tell you that's the biggest reason for the surge in crude oil prices.

There is a larger DEMAND compared to the accessable SUPPLY of crude oil. That results in higher crude oil prices. It's Economics 101

You replied:

You said it was thier oil usage. Thier economy leveling out will effect more that the price of crude oil bone head.


By your reply it's obvious you did not understand my original post.

[Old Noob]

It's the one where you read something and then have no clue what it meant. And then you use their quote to try and prove your point, despite having no clue what they meant in their post. ;)

I said:

The main reason for the increase in oil prices is the emergence of China as the #1 consumer of OPEC oil. For decades the US was #1 and thus had more leverage with OPEC. We don't have that any longer. Within the last 5 years DEMAND went up sharply as a result of China's economy growing by leaps and bounds. Anyone with a clue will tell you that's the biggest reason for the surge in crude oil prices.

There is a larger DEMAND compared to the accessable SUPPLY of crude oil. That results in higher crude oil prices. It's Economics 101

You replied:

You said it was thier oil usage. Thier economy leveling out will effect more that the price of crude oil bone head.


By your reply it's obvious you did not understand my original post.

Applying your definition, about 95% of economists, speculators, oil professionals, etc. have no clue. You're drastically over-simplifying.

[Becca]

Post# 14The main reason for the increase in oil prices is the emergence of China as the #1 consumer of OPEC oil. For decades the US was #1 and thus had more leverage with OPEC. We don't have that any longer. Within the last 5 years DEMAND went up sharply as a result of China's economy growing by leaps and bounds. Anyone with a clue will tell you that's the biggest reason for the surge in crude oil prices.

There is a larger DEMAND compared to the accessable SUPPLY of crude oil. That results in higher crude oil prices. It's Economics 101.

You said oil. I assume oil is in your language the same as oil in any other version of english. It is clearly written and my reading comprehension was graded out as post-colligate before I graduated high school.



Post# 70[Haven't I been saying for a long time that China's economy is the #1 reason for oil prices going up so sharply and quickly? No, you haven't. You did mention it, but clearly stated them Buyin OPEC oil was the reason in your oppinion.

[1bad65]

Yes I did. They are the #1 consumer of OPEC oil. OPEC produces CRUDE OIL.

Get it now?

[1bad65]

Light, sweet crude for July delivery fell $4.75 to settle at $131.93 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Strong demand from China's booming economy has helped support crude prices. A change in the government's policy of controlling gas and diesel prices could mean higher gas prices for Chinese consumers, undercutting demand.

[1bad65]

Applying your definition, about 95% of economists, speculators, oil professionals, etc. have no clue. You're drastically over-simplifying.

Where did I say that? Most do mention China. Even Becca's article did. When prices that have been rising steadily suddenly take a large drop based EXCLUSIVELY on news from China, any moron can see that China's demand is a major factor in crude oil prices.

[Old Noob]

Light, sweet crude for July delivery fell $4.75 to settle at $131.93 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Strong demand from China's booming economy has helped support crude prices. A change in the government's policy of controlling gas and diesel prices could mean higher gas prices for Chinese consumers, undercutting demand.

This is a far cry from saying that China is the "main" reason.

[1bad65]

Well they are the largest consumer of OPEC oil. We were for decades, but we recently lost that distinction to China.

[Old Noob]

But you said:


The main reason for the increase in oil prices is the emergence of China as the #1 consumer of OPEC oil. For decades the US was #1 and thus had more leverage with OPEC. We don't have that any longer. Within the last 5 years DEMAND went up sharply as a result of China's economy growing by leaps and bounds. Anyone with a clue will tell you that's the biggest reason for the surge in crude oil prices.

That's not really supportable.

[1bad65]

What do you think the biggest reason is?

[Old Noob]

What do you think the biggest reason is?

The oil business is not my area of expertise so I won't presume to use a bunch of correlative analysis to justify an uneducated guess at what the biggest reason is. My point is really that, unless you're an expert, you shouldn't be calling people clueless. People are entitled to their own opinion and you are entitled to yours. People are not, however, entitled to their own facts, and stating opinions as fact while belittling others doesn't really contribute to a conversation. But what the &%*# do I know?

[1bad65]

Thanks for the honest answer. If I came off as condescending, I'm sorry. I ask if people know this because I just recently was informed of that fact myself. And they only recently became the #1 consumer of OPEC oil so I assume alot of people may not be aware of that fact.

[The Willow Sword]

:D Ibad69 opwned.


Peace,TWS

[1bad65]

I pointed out a fact. There is disagreement as to how much of a factor it is. Hardly ownage.

[Old Noob]

I pointed out a fact. There is disagreement as to how much of a factor it is. Hardly ownage.

I have to admit 1bad is right. He obviously didn't take any of my last message to heart if he's already calling you a moron. If he'd been owned he might have the introspection to see that the incendiary language made whatever apology he gave previously moot.

[1bad65]

I have to admit 1bad is right. He obviously didn't take any of my last message to heart if he's already calling you a moron. If he'd been owned he might have the introspection to see that the incendiary language made whatever apology he gave previously moot.

I apologized to those being rational. Not to those who aren't contributing to the debate, but taking potshots at those who are.

[Wood Dragon]

There's about 5 Billion barrels of light sweet (iow, does not need a great amount of refining) crude under South Dakota, in the Bakken Formation.

[Becca]

Yes I did. They are the #1 consumer of OPEC oil. OPEC produces CRUDE OIL.

Get it now?
So wch is it that made the Chinese such a diving force ? Thier oil consumption r thier booming economy? You said oil in post#14 and thier economy in post#70.

I don't disagree with what you are saying. I am disagreeing with your waffling.:rolleyes:

[Becca]

Light, sweet crude for July delivery fell $4.75 to settle at $131.93 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Strong demand from China's booming economy has helped support crude prices. A change in the government's policy of controlling gas and diesel prices could mean higher gas prices for Chinese consumers, undercutting demand.
I don't think the price of crude is the reason for the gas prices doubling in the last 5 years or so. If it was, then Europe's fuel priced would have doubled as well. They have gon up, but only by about 20%. U.S. prices have gone up 5 tims as much. I think the current trend o blaming the price of cude oil is just that, a trend. It's a seamingly easy answer for a problem that in't actually a problem. The world economy is cyclonic. Just as Black Tuesday started off the Great Depression, but didn't actually cause it, the price of crude and China's economic boom are herolding in a new depression but they didn't cause it. Unchecked growth since the end of WWII did. This has been comming for a long, long time nd thier ain't no way to stem the tide. Nor should we try. Denying the inevitable doesn't make it go away. It just makes dealing with th after math more dificult.

[Becca]

I have to admit 1bad is right. He obviously didn't take any of my last message to heart if he's already calling you a moron. If he'd been owned he might have the introspection to see that the incendiary language made whatever apology he gave previously moot.

Na he took it to heart. He just hasn't figured out not to feed the trolls yet. You can usually get some good debates going with 1bad if the trolls don't rile him up.

[1bad65]

So wch is it that made the Chinese such a diving force ? Thier oil consumption r thier booming economy? You said oil in post#14 and thier economy in post#70.

I don't disagree with what you are saying. I am disagreeing with your waffling.:rolleyes:

Their growing economy is why their oil consumption is growing. You do see the 2 are related, right?

[1bad65]

I don't think the price of crude is the reason for the gas prices doubling in the last 5 years or so.

Prices of Light Sweet Crude by year:

2002 - $18-25/barrell
2003 - $23-38/barrell
2004 - $32-52/barrell
2005 - $43-70/barrell
2006 - $58-76/barrell
2007 - $50-94/barrell
2008 - $88-130+/barrell

http://octane.nmt.edu/gotech/Marketplace/Prices.aspx

You sure about that?



If it was, then Europe's fuel priced would have doubled as well. They have gon up, but only by about 20%. U.S. prices have gone up 5 tims as much.

The difference in the pump price is due their astronomical gasoline taxes.


I think the current trend o blaming the price of cude oil is just that, a trend.

What do you think is the reason? And please don't say 'Big Oil' or 'The Rich'. ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Prices of Light Sweet Crude by year:

2002 - $18-25/barrell
2003 - $23-38/barrell
2004 - $32-52/barrell
2005 - $43-70/barrell
2006 - $58-76/barrell
2007 - $50-94/barrell
2008 - $88-130+/barrell

http://octane.nmt.edu/gotech/Marketplace/Prices.aspx

You sure about that?




The difference in the pump price is due their astronomical gasoline taxes.



What do you think is the reason? And please don't say 'Big Oil' or 'The Rich'. ;)

You know, stats are funny, when did the Iraq Invasion/war/Occupation start?

[bodhitree]

The 'Idle' Oil Field Fallacy
By RED CAVANEY
June 20, 2008; Page A13

A bill introduced in Congress this week would "compel" oil and natural gas companies to produce from federal lands they are leasing. If only it were that easy to find and produce oil. Imagine, an act of Congress that could do what geology could not.

These lawmakers ask why oil and gas companies want more access to federal lands to drill if they aren't using all of the 68 million acres they already have? Anyone with even the most basic understanding of how oil and natural gas are produced – and this should include many members of Congress – knows that claims of "idle" leases are a diversionary feint.

A company bids for and buys a lease because it believes there is a possibility that it may yield enough oil or natural gas to make the cost of the lease, and the costs of exploration and production, commercially viable. The U.S. government received $3.7 billion from company bids in a single lease sale in March 2008.

However, until the actual exploration is complete, a company does not know whether the lease will be productive. If, through exploration, it finds there is no oil or natural gas underneath a lease – or that there is not enough to justify the tremendous investment required to bring it to the surface – the company cuts its losses by moving on to more promising leases. Yet it continues to pay rent on the lease, atop a leasing bonus fee.

In addition, if the company does not develop the lease within a certain period of time, it must return it to the federal government, forfeiting all its costs. All during this active exploration and evaluation phase, however, the lease is listed as "nonproducing."

Obviously, companies want to start producing from active fields as soon as possible. However, there are a number of time-consuming steps to be taken before they can do so: Delineation wells must be drilled to size the field, government permits must be obtained, and complex production facilities must be engineered and installed. All this takes considerable time, and during that time, the lease is also listed as "nonproducing."

Because a lease is not producing, critics tag it as "idle" when, in reality, it is typically being actively explored and developed. Multiply these real-world circumstances by hundreds or thousands of leases, and you end up with the seemingly ****ing but inaccurate figures our critics cite.

Our companies have made tremendous strides in developing cutting-edge exploration technology. But they are not magicians. They cannot produce oil or natural gas where it does not exist. A significant percentage of federal leases simply may not contain oil and natural gas, especially in commercial quantities.

As I've often said, the first step in our business is called "exploration" for a reason. Exploration is time consuming, very costly and involves a great deal of risk. Importantly, you see neither a drop of usable oil nor a cubic foot of natural gas while it is going on. But it is absolutely essential, and there is nothing "idle" about it. Without the exploration that took place years ago, less domestic oil and natural gas would be available today to meet consumer demand.

In reality, a lease is simply a block on a map, with no guarantee that it contains any resources. If all of them did, one could simply pay for the lease, haul in equipment and start pumping oil. But that only happens in fiction.

And it happens in the minds of those who use the undeveloped-lease argument as a smokescreen to mask their intent to keep America's vast energy resources locked up underground, despite increasingly strong consumer demand for oil and natural gas. For exploration to take place, our companies need access to the areas – offshore and onshore – that we know have the potential to produce the oil and natural gas consumers will need, if ours is to remain a viable economy in an increasingly competitive global marketplace.

Today's short-term need was yesterday's long-term opportunity. If Congress had acted on that opportunity years ago, America would not be in the energy bind it finds itself in today. Working with industry, Congress now has the opportunity to help secure America's energy future. It should not miss the chance again.

Mr. Cavaney is president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, the trade association that represents America's oil and natural gas industry.


The "Idle" oil fields...

[sanjuro_ronin]

.


The "Idle" oil fields...

So...what's he saying, they are Idle, they aren't?, they're being exploited, they are not? there is oil, he doesn't know?

[1bad65]

You know, stats are funny, when did the Iraq Invasion/war/Occupation start?

2003.

And the biggest jump by year was between 2007-2008. Blaming it on the war is a HUGE stretch.

[Becca]

Their growing economy is why their oil consumption is growing. You do see the 2 are related, right?
Yes. Like I said, I don't disagree with the bones of what you are saying, only with your waffling.:)

[Becca]

Prices of Light Sweet Crude by year:

2002 - $18-25/barrell
2003 - $23-38/barrell
2004 - $32-52/barrell
2005 - $43-70/barrell
2006 - $58-76/barrell
2007 - $50-94/barrell
2008 - $88-130+/barrell

http://octane.nmt.edu/gotech/Marketplace/Prices.aspx

You sure about that?




The difference in the pump price is due their astronomical gasoline taxes.



What do you think is the reason? And please don't say 'Big Oil' or 'The Rich'. ;)
The price of crude has gone up for everyone, not just americans. So if it was the price of crude, then why hasn't Europe seen a 500% increase in the cost of fuel?

[The Willow Sword]

You can call me whatever but a Troll is not one of those things. I have been on this forum longer than alot of you here, so i take offense at the Troll comments directed at me.

Ibad65 equates me as a racist because i make a comment about people who drive hummers as being wasteful and yes a douchwad because of it. You all know as well as i do that there is an Immense Apathetic attitude of the rich elite when it comes to the environment and resources, sure not all of them are like this but MOST are,from what i have seen and heard. I may be a liberal libertarian but i am certainly not apathetic to the issues and i am certainly not going to sugar coat my opinions to protect the eyes and ears of obsessive no lifers like Ibad65.
You may not realize this Ibad65 but you have no real respect here on these forums, your obsessive nature with regards to Rudy and Fox and all the other horsesh!t you have spouted here have put you in the category of a blabbermouthing whiney little b!tch and yes maybe even a troll as well. Yeah and Trolls have their opinions as well:rolleyes: whatever.


Now back to the topic at hand.

Peace,TWS

[1bad65]

The price of crude has gone up for everyone, not just americans. So if it was the price of crude, then why hasn't Europe seen a 500% increase in the cost of fuel?

Like I said, the enormous taxes Europeans pay affect the price at the pump more than anything else over there.

[1bad65]

Call all the names you want. Big deal.

BTW, whats your opinion on the oil mess? That is the topic of this thread, not who likes and dislikes me. :rolleyes:

[SimonM]

Ibad65 equates me as a racist because i make a comment about people who drive hummers as being wasteful and yes a douchwad because of it.

I will go one further. People who drive SUVs around the city are douchewads. It doesn't matter if it's a hummer or a Rav 4. If you don't ever go off-road you don't need a freaking SUV.

They guzzle gas.
They give you a distorted perspective on the road.
They are more likely to cause fatality in accidents.
They do not provide considerably greater carrying capacity than a station wagon... which doesn't have the same problems.

[Becca]

Like I said, the enormous taxes Europeans pay affect the price at the pump more than anything else over there.enormous taxes would not have stopped the fuel suppliers from passing on a 500% cost increase.

[Becca]

I will go one further. People who drive SUVs around the city are douchewads. It doesn't matter if it's a hummer or a Rav 4. If you don't ever go off-road you don't need a freaking SUV.

They guzzle gas.
They give you a distorted perspective on the road.
They are more likely to cause fatality in accidents.
They do not provide considerably greater carrying capacity than a station wagon... which doesn't have the same problems.
I hate to agree with you, but I do. SUVs for soccer moms are like tacky gold jewlery on pimps and used car salesmen. A pointless extravigance that is only used to prop up an over inflated ego. I hate agreeing, though, because you are tarring everyone without thinking about how some of us who drive SUVs and pick-up who live in the city might actually use them as they were intended.

I had an isuzu trooper untill recently when it became too old to be worth fixing up. It got great fuel economy, but I didn't have it just to have an SUV. I had it because I took my kids and dogs camping all the time and it was the perfect vehicle for that. I don't camp so much any more, but I do still haul kids, dogs and other odds and ends. So I replaced it with a much more ecenomical compact 2X4 pick-up. But it isn't a car and it doesn't get 35 MPG so I bet you'd say that was an extavigance that ruins your lungs.

But tell me this, which is a bigger extravigance: having one vehicle that can serve all your needs or having 2 or even 3 specialized vehicles for every occasion? Station wagons are great; I've owned them. But I can't realistically haul firewook in it. I can't pick up a large tree from the nursery in it. I did once haul a full sized washer, though.

[1bad65]

enormous taxes would not have stopped the fuel suppliers from passing on a 500% cost increase.

Anyone in business knows suppliers MUST pass on cost increases on their side or lose profits and risk going bankrupt. Let me break it down for you:

Say Americans pay $1.00 in taxes per gallon.
Say Europeans pay $2.50 in taxes per gallon.

Now say that the oil companies charge a 10% markup on the gas at the pump.

Say the price for the gas companies to make a gallon of gas goes from $2.00 to $4.00.

The US at $2.00: $2.00 + $.20 (the 10%) + $1.00 = $3.20
Europe at $2.00: $2.00 + $.20 (the 10%) + $2.50 = $4.70

The US at $4.00: $4.00 + $.40 (the 10%) + $1.00 = $5.40
Europe at $4.00: $4.00 + $.40 (the 10%) + $2.50 = $6.90

Notice that in both places gas went up $2.20/gallon, but it was a higher % increase in Europe because of taxes.

[1bad65]

What you CHOOSE to drive is your business. Who made people like SimonM the moral compass who gets to decide who should drive what vehicle?

I'm just waiting for the day some moron like him makes a snippy comment about my car's horrible gas mileage and how I should not be allowed to drive it. :D

[Becca]

Anyone in business knows suppliers MUST pass on cost increases on their side or lose profits and risk going bankrupt. Let me break it down for you:

Say Americans pay $1.00 in taxes per gallon.
Say Europeans pay $2.50 in taxes per gallon.

Now say that the oil companies charge a 10% markup on the gas at the pump.

Say the price for the gas companies to make a gallon of gas goes from $2.00 to $4.00.

The US at $2.00: $2.00 + $.20 (the 10%) + $1.00 = $3.20
Europe at $2.00: $2.00 + $.20 (the 10%) + $2.50 = $4.70

The US at $4.00: $4.00 + $.40 (the 10%) + $1.00 = $5.40
Europe at $4.00: $4.00 + $.40 (the 10%) + $2.50 = $6.90

Notice that in both places gas went up $2.20/gallon, but it was a higher % increase in Europe because of taxes.Sure break it down after I've demonstrated I already have knowledge of the subject. I'm a purchasing agent 1Bad; I understand supply and demand.

But by all meens, keep ignoring the fact that the price increase on fuel has only it North America while trying to blame the price increase of crude, which doesn't seem to have impacted any one else that way.:rolleyes:

I also whould like to know were you got those numbers for tax rates. BTW, Europe doesn't pay the same for fuel as we do, even before taxes and after converting from the Euro to the Dollar. They pay, base rate, 3 times what we do.

[1bad65]

But by all meens, keep ignoring the fact that the price increase on fuel has only it North America while trying to blame the price increase of crude, which doesn't seem to have impacted any one else that way.:rolleyes:

Europeans are used to high gas prices. So they don't complain as much. They also do not drive as much either, so it's less of an effect on their daily lives.

Americans are not used to gas prices this high, so we complain more. We drive alot more than Europeans do, so it has a greater effect on our daily lives.

That's the difference.

[1bad65]

I also whould like to know were you got those numbers for tax rates. BTW, Europe doesn't pay the same for fuel as we do, even before taxes and after converting from the Euro to the Dollar. They pay, base rate, 3 times what we do.

I just plugged in round numbers to illustrate the point.

I'm well aware they pay ALOT more than we do for gas. My above post explains why it affects Americans more and why we complain more.

[Becca]

Europeans are used to high gas prices. So they don't complain as much. They also do not drive as much either, so it's less of an effect on their daily lives.

Americans are not used to gas prices this high, so we complain more. We drive alot more than Europeans do, so it has a greater effect on our daily lives.

That's the difference.But WHY are thier fuel prices so much higher and WHY haven't they experienced the same 500% cost increase we have if they are PAYING tTHE SAME PER BARREL FOR CRUDE?!?!?

[1bad65]

But WHY are thier fuel prices so much higher and WHY haven't they experienced the same 500% cost increase we have if they are PAYING tTHE SAME PER BARREL FOR CRUDE?!?!?

Not be a jerk, but you really are not getting it.

Their pump prices are higher because they pay ALOT MORE IN TAXES.

As they pay a higher pump price already, the jump in crude will have LESS of an affect on them because they are already paying more. It's basic math.

[Becca]

Not be a jerk, but you really are not getting it.

Their pump prices are higher because they pay ALOT MORE IN TAXES.

As they pay a higher pump price already, the jump in crude will have LESS of an affect on them because they are already paying more. It's basic math.And the 500% price increase is gaged off base price, not retail. I beleive I've stated that. a 500% increase in base price cannot be explained by taxes at the pump. I don't use the retail price because it is too regional to be an accurate figure. Some places have high taxes, some have low taxes. Some are subsidized and some aren't. But the base price is the base price.

[1bad65]

And the 500% price increase is gaged off base price, not retail. I beleive I've stated that. a 500% increase in base price cannot be explained by taxes at the pump. I don't use the retail price because it is too regional to be an accurate figure. Some places have high taxes, some have low taxes. Some are subsidized and some aren't. But the base price is the base price.

Retail price is the bottom line! In the US the taxes are pretty standard. State and local taxes vary slightly, but the Federal tax is the same for all 50 states.

So I can be clear, what do you mean by 'base price'?

[sanjuro_ronin]

2003.

And the biggest jump by year was between 2007-2008. Blaming it on the war is a HUGE stretch.

And when was the "spike" in troops in Iraq?

[1bad65]

And when was the "spike" in troops in Iraq?

Grasping for straws there buddy?

[CLFLPstudent]

And the 500% price increase is gaged off base price, not retail. I beleive I've stated that. a 500% increase in base price cannot be explained by taxes at the pump. I don't use the retail price because it is too regional to be an accurate figure. Some places have high taxes, some have low taxes. Some are subsidized and some aren't. But the base price is the base price.

I think a big reason that oil has risen so much lately is the weakness of the US dollar. Oil is still based on the dollar, and if it is worth less, than the price goes up. The Euro, on the other hand, is increasing in value.

BTW - when we are talking about BILLIONS in PROFITS PER QUARTER, when everyone else is struggling and prices on everything are rising due to fuel costs, then I do think Big Oil has a responsibility to do something about it. Or do you think Capitilism has the right to destroy the country? Because I fear that is where things are headed.

-David

[Old Noob]

Grasping for straws there buddy?

Why is he grasping for straws? We already established yesterday that, while Chinese fuel consumption may be a contributor to elevated per barrel cost, no body has demonstrated that it is the only cause or even the greatest cause. Do you know how much oil the U.S. military uses every day in Iraq? Do you know what the difference in consumption is between pre-surge and post-surge usage? If not, how can you be so dismissive? If you disagree with him, man, put up the numbers. Why is Chinese consumption the be-all-end-all and "surge" fuel consumption is a stretch?

[1bad65]

I only said China was the new #1 consumer of OPEC oil, never did I say they were the entire problem.

First it was when did the war START. When I pointed out back in 2003 it suddenly became 'The Surge'. :rolleyes: The war actually opened up more crude oil for purchase as the sanctions levied against Iraq under Saddam were lifted, thus increasing crude oil supply.

[Old Noob]

I think a big reason that oil has risen so much lately is the weakness of the US dollar. Oil is still based on the dollar, and if it is worth less, than the price goes up. The Euro, on the other hand, is increasing in value.

BTW - when we are talking about BILLIONS in PROFITS PER QUARTER, when everyone else is struggling and prices on everything are rising due to fuel costs, then I do think Big Oil has a responsibility to do something about it. Or do you think Capitilism has the right to destroy the country? Because I fear that is where things are headed.

-David

1bad has conveniently laid the problem at the feet of the Chinese. Consequently us poor Americans neither contributed to nor are we able to fix our plight. See, it's easy, capitalism can't possibly be to blame.

[1bad65]

See, it's easy, capitalism can't possibly be to blame.

China is becoming slightly more capitalistic, thus the increased demand.

But if we had MORE capitalism then oil companies could build the refieries they need and drill for oil where its found thus alleviating the supply problems. The free market ALWAYS fixes itself UNLESS there is Government interference.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Grasping for straws there buddy?

Nope, just showing you how stats can lead to other conclusions, I notice how you didn't answer my question either.

Here is a cool question for you, where are some of the profits of the Arab OPEC countries going to?

[Old Noob]

China is becoming slightly more capitalistic, thus the increased demand.

But if we had MORE capitalism then oil companies could build the refieries they need and drill for oil where its found thus alleviating the supply problems. The free market ALWAYS fixes itself UNLESS there is Government interference.

You know what. I agree with that. Capitalism usually does fix itself but government's role, and this is just my opinion, is to help see that those fixes don't cause catastrophic second and thir order effects. To illustrate my point, let's assume for the sake of argument that the higher pump prices are caused by supply issues (China consumptions, war usage, and low refinery capacity) plus low value of the dollar, plus inflation of the market by speculative investors. Let's say government leaves all of these three factors unaddressed. The market will eventually fix itself. The gas bubble will burst. But the price goes way higher and the corresponding burst brings people way lower than would happen if the government acted now to regulate the speculators in the commodities market. If that's the case, isn't the government regulation preferrable?

[1bad65]

Nope, just showing you how stats can lead to other conclusions, I notice how you didn't answer my question either.

What question? If it was regarding The Surge it was in 2007. But alot of other stuff happened that year too. The war started in 2003, if you're blaming demand on US forces then there should have been a spike in 2003. There wasn't.


Here is a cool question for you, where are some of the profits of the Arab OPEC countries going to?

Arab shieks? ;) Just post the answer you are dying to post.

[1bad65]

If that's the case, isn't the government regulation preferrable?

There are alot of assumptions and if's in your argument.

Almost 100% of the time Government is much more inefficient than the private sector.

Look at this example. Around the turn of the century, workers had no rights. No sick leave, retirement, insurance, no OSHA, etc. Well before the Government passed laws to 'fix' these problems, labor unions had been formed who had already corrected most, if not all, of these injustices.

[sanjuro_ronin]

What question? If it was regarding The Surge it was in 2007. But alot of other stuff happened that year too. The war started in 2003, if you're blaming demand on US forces then there should have been a spike in 2003. There wasn't.



Arab shieks? ;) Just post the answer you are dying to post.

You don't get it do you?
My point is that the very info you gave CAN be used to make it look like the Iraqi war was/is the cause of the spike in Oil Prices.
The dates match up.
My point being that stats can be manipulated.
As for where the money goes, your own "intelligence" community knows, I know mine does.
If you don't think that some of it goes there, that's fine, your perogative.

[Old Noob]

There are alot of assumptions and if's in your argument.

Almost 100% of the time Government is much more inefficient than the private sector.

Look at this example. Around the turn of the century, workers had no rights. No sick leave, retirement, insurance, no OSHA, etc. Well before the Government passed laws to 'fix' these problems, labor unions had been formed who had already corrected most, if not all, of these injustices.

Yes. There are many assumptions. As I said before, I'm not an expert in economics, commodities trading, oil, or China. Therefore I'm very unwilling to state things as absolute facts. You don't seem to share that reservation when making your points.

[sanjuro_ronin]

There are alot of assumptions and if's in your argument.

Almost 100% of the time Government is much more inefficient than the private sector.

Look at this example. Around the turn of the century, workers had no rights. No sick leave, retirement, insurance, no OSHA, etc. Well before the Government passed laws to 'fix' these problems, labor unions had been formed who had already corrected most, if not all, of these injustices.

Ah, Unions....
Killing me softly...

[1bad65]

Really the only facts I've stated are that China is the #1 consumer of OPEC oil and that the war started in 2003. The rest is obviously my opinion.

[1bad65]

IMO, the unions were necessary at the time and fixed many injustices.

As they are now they only make sure that uneducated people can install plastic dashboards for ~$70/hour. They are also still ran by guys who are either criminals or operating on the fringes of the law. Their focus has shifted from worker's rights to basically being a PAC.

[sanjuro_ronin]

IMO, the unions were necessary at the time and fixed many injustices.

As they are now they only make sure that uneducated people can install plastic dashboards for ~$70/hour. They are also still ran by guys who are either criminals or operating on the fringes of the law. Their focus has shifted from worker's rights to basically being a PAC.

Big business were their own worse enemies in regards to the creation of Unions.
The Automotive industry owes its woes as much to unions as it does to crappy management.

[1bad65]

Big business were their own worse enemies in regards to the creation of Unions.
The Automotive industry owes its woes as much to unions as it does to crappy management.

Completely agreed.

[Old Noob]

Completely agreed.

Oh Lo'ord Kumbaya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

[Becca]

Retail price is the bottom line! In the US the taxes are pretty standard. State and local taxes vary slightly, but the Federal tax is the same for all 50 states.

So I can be clear, what do you mean by 'base price'?Well, I work for a tax exempt organization and I do the fuel ordering. We don't pay any U.S. taxes. That is base. To this are added delivery fees, surcharges, ect. That is called list price. Retail is what the gas stations sell it to customers for. The total after tax is known as gross. Retail depends on who supplys the fuel, what area the store is in, what pipeline it had to come out of, ect. Once you ad station mark up, wich is anywere from 7 -12%, it becomes obvious that the retail price of fuel is not "standard" from county to countly let alone region to region.....

[Becca]

I think a big reason that oil has risen so much lately is the weakness of the US dollar. Oil is still based on the dollar, and if it is worth less, than the price goes up. The Euro, on the other hand, is increasing in value.

BTW - when we are talking about BILLIONS in PROFITS PER QUARTER, when everyone else is struggling and prices on everything are rising due to fuel costs, then I do think Big Oil has a responsibility to do something about it. Or do you think Capitilism has the right to destroy the country? Because I fear that is where things are headed.

-DavidYes, the weakness of the U.S. dollar is part of it. But before you start throwing hatchets at "big oil" stop and take a look at how those "prfits" are figured. They spend billions on exploration, trying to find and develop new sources every year. Those expenditures are not included in the cost of operation because the feilds are not yet listed as "active." A lion's share of what is being called "profits" are actually mislabled RND funds. RND is risky and expensive. Talking about drilling for more oil in one breath then ridiculing the oil companies over money mis-leadingly called profits in the next breath is a joke. Just what do you think they do? Stop by at the local quicky mart for an address for the next producing oild field????

[Becca]

The free market ALWAYS fixes itself UNLESS there is Government interference.Dang, we are actuall trying to make the same point.... The rising cost of fuel isn't a problem, it is the market trying to fix itself. And we should let it.

[Shaolin Wookie]

There are alot of assumptions and if's in your argument.

Almost 100% of the time Government is much more inefficient than the private sector.

Look at this example. Around the turn of the century, workers had no rights. No sick leave, retirement, insurance, no OSHA, etc. Well before the Government passed laws to 'fix' these problems, labor unions had been formed who had already corrected most, if not all, of these injustices.

Xactly. At my last job with UPS Freight, I worked overtime every week, and still only had "part-time" status. They only allowed one full-time worker on every shift outside of management, despite my status as the second-most senior person on the shift. This allowed them to deny me full medical, and the partial medical I did have didn't cover anything. I always paid the full amount of the med bill every time I went to the doctor, instead of the 33% they said they'd cover.

It was completely corrupt management.

Then the Teamsters organized the terminal, promising better wages and full-time status for everyone. Instead, within a weak of initializing the contract, they fired all of hte part-time workers, hired a team of "teamster" drivers, and raised the wages.

LOl....

It was completely corrupt unionization.

God, I love America.

[1bad65]

Then the Teamsters organized the terminal, promising better wages and full-time status for everyone. Instead, within a weak of initializing the contract, they fired all of hte part-time workers, hired a team of "teamster" drivers, and raised the wages.

It was completely corrupt unionization.

Then vote Republican. The AFL/CIO and the Teamsters are huge backers/contributors to the Democratic Party. When the candidates they support win, their power increases.

[1bad65]

They spend billions on exploration, trying to find and develop new sources every year.

RND is risky and expensive.

Very true.

Not to go off-topic, but the R&D issue is a huge thing that universal, government mandated healthcare will likely destroy. As their will be caps on what new drugs can sell for, drug companies will cut R&D because a huge reason new drugs cost so much is the drug companies are trying to recoup their R&D investment in that drug. If they cannot charge what they feel they need to in order to recoup their investment, they will likely cut their R&D budgets.

The same thing may well happen if this 'Windfall Tax' garbage gets levied on the oil companies. They could cut their R&D/exploration budgets to make up for the money they will lose to more taxes.

[Shaolin Wookie]

then Vote Republican. The Afl/cio And The Teamsters Are Huge Backers/contributors To The Democratic Party. When The Candidates They Support Win, Their Power Increases.

5 Reasons I Will Never Vote Republican:

1. Oil Obsession
2. Useless War Propagation
3. Defense Scare-tactics And Missonary-styled Democracy Over Community Outreach And Lending A Helping Hand To People. Sure, You'd Say It Isn't The Govt's Job To Help People, But Spending Trillions Of Our Tax Dollars On Shooting Iraqi Civilians And Threatening Iran Certainly Isn't In Our Best Interest When It Could Be Put To Proper Use, And Is Not The Govt's Job...but Then, We Have Enron In Office, So Anything Goes.
4. White Rich-boy Elitism
5. You Are The Embodiment Of All That Is Evil And Wrong In This World, And Even Though I've Never Met You Face-to-face, I Imagine That You're As Two-faced In Real Life As You Are On The Net So We Don't Need To Meet Face-to-face, As You're Always Face-to-face, And Therefore Are The Living Embodiment Of All That Is Republican.

[1bad65]

And Even Though I've Never Met You Face-to-face, I Imagine That You're As Two-faced In Real Life As You Are On The Net

Thus proving you've never met me. I've never said anything on the net I won't say to the person's face. Ask anyone who has trained with me, like Zapruder for example.

So, what party do you usually vote? Libertarian?

[Shaolin Wookie]

Thus proving you've never met me. I've never said anything on the net I won't say to the person's face. Ask anyone who has trained with me, like Zapruder for example.

Not exactly an impartial jury. Dude, you make arrangements, break them, and then flip out when something trivial happens.

You're like an umbrella-weilding Brittany Spears in a full-out meltdown.

BTW, I vote for "other".

Edit: If you're wondering why I trolled you, it's to demonstrate that you don't take meaningless and silly e-challenge matches seriously even as you take meaningless and silly e-challenge matches seriously.

You are, perhaps, the most ridiculous person on the internet. Clearly you see the divide, but you persist. This makes you an idiot. And what's worse, you're aware of this idiocy, and yet you persist in it, as well. This makes you a deliberate idiot.

I think that makes you a moron.

[1bad65]

Not exactly an impartial jury. Dude, you make arrangements, break them, and then flip out when something trivial happens.

Whatever. That's Fox and SifuExcuses.

But lets get back on topic, or put this in the appropriate thread.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Whatever. That's Fox and SifuExcuses.

But lets get back on topic, or put this in the appropriate thread.

Why I don't think off-shore drilling is a good thing for the US.


HMMMMMM........

Well, take a look at the Middle East.

Now that that's settled, what's next on the agenda?

[The Willow Sword]

According to conventional wisdom, there are two ways for the US to reduce dependence on foreign oil: increase domestic production or decrease demand. Either way, though, the country would remain hostage to overseas producers. Consider the administration's ill-fated plan to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. For all the political wrangling and backlash, that area's productivity isn't likely to offset declining output from larger US oil fields, let alone increase the total supply from domestic sources. As for reducing demand, the levers available are small and ineffectual. The average car on the road is nine years old, so even dramatic increases in fuel efficiency today won't head off dire consequences tomorrow. Moreover, the dynamism at the heart of the US economy depends on energy. Growth and consumption are inextricably intertwined.
There's only one way to insulate the US from the corrosive power of oil, and that's to develop an alternative energy resource that's readily available domestically. Looking at the options - coal, natural gas, wind, water, solar, and nuclear. Not very good options from where i am sitting.
There's only one thing that can provide a wholesale substitute for foreign oil within a decade: hydrogen. Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries, burns twice as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and leaves only water behind. It's plentiful, clean, and - critically - capable of powering cars.
here is where you can read the rest of it.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.04/hydrogen.html


Peace,TWS

[Shaolin Wookie]

Here's why you shouldn't be in favor of a head-on collision with Iran:

1. We can't win in Iraq, and we won't make that committment in the face of Iranian aggression on top of that.
2. We'll never have the money to fund that war. I've got 600 bucks of Iranian conflict funds in my bank account, and I won't give it back for a million bucks.
3. Iran will win, take over Iraq, clean it up, and nationalize all oil facilities anywhere in the area.
4. We pay more for gas than ever.
5. We drill in the US. We run out.
6. We die from radiation from a depleted ozone, or the world's flooded and we invest in wind technology--sailboats for instance.

Honestly, though, our civilization is screwed any way you look at it. We won't stop producing, economically or reproductively, so there will always be more demand, and always fewer resources. Economically, we've moved to a commuter culture, and big business have ouverrun smaller businesses, thus decreasing nearby jobs. So, we travel to a Wal-Mart rather than walking to the corner store. But now cities are meccas for big business and poor people. So, the poor are migrating to suburbia. There's competition for low-wage local jobs, which push the wealthier to commuter employment.

We have a greedy culture that demands what is not there, or what will not be there for very long, in the long run. If we're not responsible now, nobody will be. So, we either invest in alternative fuels and solar/wind technology, or we die by the capitalist sword we all seem so intent on polishing.

[Becca]

Very true.

Not to go off-topic, but the R&D issue is a huge thing that universal, government mandated healthcare will likely destroy. As their will be caps on what new drugs can sell for, drug companies will cut R&D because a huge reason new drugs cost so much is the drug companies are trying to recoup their R&D investment in that drug. If they cannot charge what they feel they need to in order to recoup their investment, they will likely cut their R&D budgets.

The same thing may well happen if this 'Windfall Tax' garbage gets levied on the oil companies. They could cut their R&D/exploration budgets to make up for the money they will lose to more taxes.Agreed again. The only feasable way to manage rising costs is to manage taxes a bit better. And that ain't going to happen till the government stops thinking they can, or should, save us from ourselves.

Someone once said to me that common sence isn't so common any more. I bet if people couldn't run to Uncle Sam every time they spilled hot coffee on themselves common sence might make a come back.:rolleyes:

[Becca]

here is where you can read the rest of it.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.04/hydrogen.html


Peace,TWSWired is well known for passing garbage. You'd be as likely to get good info off Wiki.

[1bad65]

I once again agree with Becca.

[Drake]

I say if we can get solar powered/hydrogen powered/electrical cars produced en masse immediately and aso retrofit all pumps within a couple of months then I'm against offshore drilling.

But stop blaming the president. We were using gas because it was cheap and easy, and nobody ever complained. Now when the prices start skyrocketing, we suddenly want to blame everyone except our own excesses. Where was the huge public push back in the 80s for renewable energy? A few mavericks with inefficient, poorly funded projects was all that was there.

We have to drill offshore not because the president is some evil monster, but because Americans are consuming more than they give back, and don't complain until it becomes inconvenient. Too late, folks. Too **** late.

[The Willow Sword]

Most Blog sites are going to have their reputation for passing garbage,however, i feel that this particular bit of info is not garbage at all. Hydrogen Fuel is a good idea, it just needs the full comittment of everyone. Crossing over to anything new is going to be difficult and expensive, but consider what $$$ we are already spending anyway, In iraq, the Oil industry(who are reaping massive profits).

Peace,TWS

[Drake]

I can hardly wait to see the unexpected consequences of billions of vehicles spitting out water vapor throughout the world.

[The Willow Sword]

So the planet becomes a tropical paradise as a result. Better that than what is currently happening as a consequence of our use of fossil fuels.
I suppose that water vapor emissions would contribute to insect populations increasing and therefore increases the use of pesticides to deal with them. We have massive outbreaks of malaria and west nile virus due to the tropical conditions world wide. OR the water vapor contributes to the Mold Allergens and we start to suffer form massive mold allergies and the drug companies become more rich than ever due to their manufactoring of allergy medications with terrible side effects(as per usual of drug companies). Or for some freakish reason a Hydrogen Fuel cell malfunctions and tiny little hydrogen bomb like explosions occur reducing our populations. The Hydrogen Car manufactorers go bankrupt spending Billions on ads on TV to tell the general public that things are okay and dont fear the hydrogen just because of a few isolated nuclear explosions.

Gee the list could go on and on couldnt it?:D:D:rolleyes:

Peace,TWS