- Joined
- Feb 7, 2012
- Messages
- 58,402
- Reaction score
- 26,456
- Location
- Mentor Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
That really doesnt address what I said.From 2001-2008 there wasn't a damn thing GWB could have done to stop oil prices from rising. American presidents can do a lot of things but there is little any of them can do about prices on a global market. From 2009-present there wasn't a damn thing Obama could do about oil prices, either. Saying so or even implying that there's a legal way for any US president to control the price of oil is, at this point in time, towing the Republican Party Line.
When GWB was in office and the Dems were screaming the same thing, it was the same answer - they were towing the Party Line.
Don't like being told you're towing the Party Line? Quit saying stupid ****!
Do things like what?2. do things that will make the cost of fossil fuels rise.
Can't burn fossil fuels forever. Gotta go for it.
Cell phones were also expensive and had the size of a brick at first but now they are slim and the battery last for a week or so. You get the idea, I think.
Shall I start listing all the NASA and military spin offs or can you Google those yourself?And just how did government "investment" contribute to that? Or any other technological advance?
Do things like what?
Increase domestic production? Domestic oil production has been rising every year since 2009. The previous eight years (2001-2008) domestic production was falling.
Seriously, what do you people think can be done by just the president - or even with the help of Congress - to radically alter the price of gas?
It doesn't really matter where the oil is from. The fact is domestic production is up three years in a row after dropping eight years in a row and it didn't have any affect on global prices one way or the other.the increases in domestic oil production have come exclusively on private grounds, and is largely the result of approvals pushed through the Bush Administration. GOVERNMENT owned grounds - which Obama actually has impact on - are down 11% over the past two years, and the approval process has slowed to a trickle, meaning that even if we threw it all open tomorrow, we wouldn't see increased production for a year or two.
"Drill, Baby, Drill" while youRemove Congressional and Presidential restrictions on drilling in the 80% of our waters currently off-limits. Streamline the approval process with hard deadlines for the bureaucrats to meet. Ditto for all other energy production methods - from coal to nuclear. Open up ANWR to drilling. Open up Federal lands for fracking, or sell them for that purpose.
Most importantly, even though it would not effect the immediate supply of oil, it would heavily impact the futures market. Right now oil is in high demand not least because people see demand increasing faster than supply. Reverse (or seriously mitigate) those expectations, and you can expect to see an oil sell-off, which would cause the price to tumble.
Shall I start listing all the NASA and military spin offs or can you Google those yourself?
that is not true for two reasons:It doesn't really matter where the oil is from.
The fact is domestic production is up three years in a row after dropping eight years in a row
it didn't have any affect on global prices one way or the other.
"Drill, Baby, Drill" while youignorebelittle options for the other half of your statement - "demand increasing faster than supply"? *shakes head*
Ethanol helps but not nearly enough.
Good point. Has it occurred to you that these were incidental spinoffs from the main effort which was directed elsewhere? I don't deny the existence or the utility of the spinoffs - computers from WWII, telemetry from the rocket programs of the forties, velcro from the space program, internet from DARPA - but the obvious conclusion from these examples is that we should shut down the departments of energy, HUD, commerce, etc. and give the money to the military.
I completely agree with your post except for this part. 10% ethanol fuel lowers my gas mileage by 10%, and E-85 lowers gas mileage by 25% over regular gasoline. IMO ethanol is another government subsidy that screws the consumer in favor of the special interests that produce the stuff.
Actually the velcro thing is a myth - NASA didn't invent that one.Good point. Has it occurred to you that these were incidental spinoffs from the main effort which was directed elsewhere? I don't deny the existence or the utility of the spinoffs - computers from WWII, telemetry from the rocket programs of the forties, velcro from the space program, internet from DARPA - but the obvious conclusion from these examples is that we should shut down the departments of energy, HUD, commerce, etc. and give the money to the military.
:lamo Don't tempt me! :lamo:shrug: if you really want to reduce demand, you are free to advocate the detonation of multiple strategic nuclear devices over China's Eastern Seaboard.
Well, you broke up my paragraph but it was all one piece. I wasn't commenting on anything coming from overseas - it was domestic production we were discussing.that is not true for two reasons:
1. the cost of transportation, which spikes with peak piracy seasons (which we are currently in), and
2. the increased volatility due to the larger percentage of supply subject to removal by a geopolitically fractured and unstable region.
And this explanation is different from "it had no affect"?that is incorrect, it was simply insufficient to maintain oil prices, as it is too little increase, both in raw and as a percentage.
And this explanation is different from "it had no affect"?
Or a massive decrease in domestic demand. :roll:ah, well then to deal with it holistically: yes it does matter if you want to try to claim that the Obama administration has anything to do with increases in domestic production and it also matters if you want to try to move from there to claim that the relatively small increases in supply produce the same effects that a massive increase in domestic supply would.
I completely agree with your post except for this part. 10% ethanol fuel lowers my gas mileage by 10%, and E-85 lowers gas mileage by 25% over regular gasoline. IMO ethanol is another government subsidy that screws the consumer in favor of the special interests that produce the stuff.
Or a massive decrease in domestic demand.
But - how long would this "massive increase" (and exactly what do you mean in bbl/day??) take to actually hit the refinery if we started drilling tomorrow - and is there refinery capacity to handle it?
And, yes, I'm aware that only about half our oil is burned in vehicles and that it has a ****load of other uses. It's one of the reasons I think burning it for fuel is wasteful and dangerous for our future. We can replace the fuel - except for planes - but what do we use for lubricants and plastics substitutes?? I don't know of any good alternatives to those as yet.
And just how did government "investment" contribute to that? Or any other technological advance?
Off what was your "massive increase" in supply based?based off of what?
The Rockies, yeah. It's been there for a century. Where will we find all the water and electrical power required to extract oil from rocks? This stuff doesn't come bubbling up out of the ground like in a Hollywood movie. There's a reason it's been sitting down there for over a century, untouched. It's only because of the high price of oil that it's even worth thinking about - kind of like EVs and hybrids. Strange how that works, isn't it?as for how much we are talking about? it's a good bit. there is more oil in the Rockies than there is in Saudi Arabia. Once we allow offshore drilling and the rigs are allowed to come in where it's easier, once fracking hits, once ANWR get's beefed up in production... :shrug: I don't know if we would be completely self-sustaining, but I wouldn't be terrifically surprised, especially since we would also be exploiting natural gas.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?