Who is to blame for higher gasoline prices?

[C.J.]

And it will still only supply oil for less than 2 years.

That seems a tadd misleading. It would be true only if it were the only oil we consumed for the two years, which of course it would not be. It would be a hefty amount over a longer period of time to to help tide things over for a while.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Well since OPEC controls the flow of oil and the price per barrel it is OPEC...

Actually OPEC does not control the price of oil. This is set by commodity markets around the world. There're tens of thousands of people (at least) whose decisions in the markets affect the price of oil.

If the environmentalists and the liberals in Congress had let us drill in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico 10 years ago we would not have to depend on the Arabs.

I think you have overestimated the bbpd of tehse sources and underestimated the usage.

While I'm not sure about the Gulf, for ANWR, we'd be looking at merely a few percentage point of our daily usage coming everyday. Certainly not enough to offer any significant relief from dependency on foreign petro-products.

The fact of the matter is no one knows how much oil there is in ANWAR or the Gulf....It depends on what side of the issue your on.................I think its worth checking it out to see how much is actually there especially if it gets us off our dependency with OPEC.........When it comes to the oil issue they have us by the throat and they know it........

This is hogwash. Irrelevant hogwash at that. It genuinely takes an act of Congress to do an assay in ANWR. As a result there's just one assay that everyone's figures come from.

But despite however much oil is recoverable from ANWR [the important figure, not how much is there] the real issue is how much we can get to market at a time.

GWB said that we only could get up to 1mbpd, or around 5% or less of our daily consumption. Keep in mind that's the top end, politician's best estimate.

Navy Pride, whoever told you that ANWR would eliminate or even significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil is either very misinformed or purposely lying to you. In any case, they have no credibility. Think about that the next time that you hear from them. They told you untruths, possibly with the intent to deceive you.
​

These facts are brought to you courtesy of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic Analysis U.S. Geology Survey Fact Sheet 0028-01
An important fact about this USGS study is about the data it comes from. To wit-

quote:“Collection of seismic data within ANWR requires an act of Congress, and these are the only seismic data ever collected within the 1002 area.”​

So ALL available estimates are either based on these data, superceded by these data or made up. Most estimates are based on this USGS report.

quote:“This was a comprehensive study by a team of USGS scientists in collaboration on technical issues (but not the assessment) with colleagues in other agencies and universities.
The study incorporated all available public data and included new field and analytic work as well as the reevaluation of all previous work.”​

Here are a few definitions that are worth noting.

In-place resources—The amount of petroleum contained in accumulations of at least 50 MMBO, (million barrels of oil), without regard to recoverability.
Technically recoverable resources—Volume of petroleum representing that proportion of assessed in-place resources that may be recoverable using current recovery technology without regard to cost.
Economically recoverable resources—That part of the technically recoverable resource for which the costs of discovery, development, and production, including a return to capital, can be recovered at a given well-head price.​

As to technically recoverable oil “this study estimates that the total quantity of technically recoverable oil in the 1002 area is 7.7 BBO (mean value),” and economically recoverable resources-”at a price of $30 per barrel, between 3 and 10.4 billion barrels are estimated”

quote:
For further information and to request a CD-ROM (USGS Open-File Report 98-34)
containing detailed results and supporting scientific documentation, send e-mail to:
gd-anwr@usgs.gov
or contact:
Kenneth J. Bird (kbird@usgs.gov) (650) 329-4907
David W. Houseknecht (dhouse@usgs.gov) (703) 648-6466​

The people at ANWR.org bring up the point that extraction methods have gotten and will probably continue to get more effective and more efficient. They use these premises to make the case for the USGS mean numbers for both the technically recoverable and economically recoverable to be low-ball estimates.
The site also offers some statistics about technological advances at Prudhoe Bay. They don’t mention recalculating the economically recoverable estimate with an adjustment for the change of the real value of the dollar versus inflation. If they had done so, I suspect that they would have made a point of mentioning it. Therefore, while I suspect that their upward revisions of the estimates of the technically recoverable oil are warranted, I’m not as sure about the necessity of an upward revision of the economicall recoverable oil.

The economically recoverable numbers are the most relevant because they are the ones most indicative of the the amount of oil that actually will be extracted for human consumption.

The ANWR.org site suggests that 18 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil is an estimate that better reflects changes in current technology.

We used 7.2 billion barrels of oil in 2000, (19.7 million barrels of petroleum/day x 365 days/year => 7190 million ) according to US Dept. of Energy.
This rate of consumption is expected to continue to rise.
18 billion barrels divided by 7.2 billion barrels yields a supply that will last about two and one half years at levels of consumption equal to our use in 2000. Of course as our consumption rates increase, the ANWR supply wil decrease more quickly.
It’s estimated by ANWR.org myth-buster flyer that it will take 7 - 10 years or more “before the first oil reached American consumers”. The same source also says that the rate of extraction of ANWR oil is set by the maximum capacity of TAPS, (Trans-Alaska Pipeline System), at a mere 2 million barrels a day. The oil from Prudhoe Bay uses this same pipeline so the amount of oil that actally could be moved daily from the ANWR would be less than these 2 million a day-(maybe 1 million a day?).

After ten years of developing the ANWR, say 2014, we could get enough oil from it each day to supply a little over an hours worth of our usage at 2000’s levels.

In addition to the initial ten years to develop the ANWR sites, and using an estimate of 1 million barrels a day, coming from the ANWR it would take a total of about 60 years to extract about 2 years worth of oil.

Estimates are that by 2020 we will be using 26.7 million barrels of petroleum per day. Come 2020, ANWR will have been producing for six years and be able to supply almost a whole hour(!) worth of our daily petroleum use.

 

[Kelzie]

That seems a tadd misleading. It would be true only if it were the only oil we consumed for the two years, which of course it would not be. It would be a hefty amount over a longer period of time to to help tide things over for a while.

I said that. In my post after it. Sorry, didn't mean to be misleading. And there's no way it could be the only oil we consumed for two years anyway. And I don't know about a hefty amount. There's no way for sure to know how much oil it is going to produce daily until we start pumping, but if it's anything like Prudhoe, it won't be that significant of an amount.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The democrats are in their back pockets and so all opportunities to drill there have been blocked.

Yeah, we all know how wealthy those tree-huggin hippie types are.

Clinton had the same issue. The difference being Bush did not and has not used the reserves to manipulate prices.

Which, I think is a good thing. It wouldn't have that much effect on prices and i would use up our strategic reserve non-strategically.

Assuming that every barrel of ANWR oil is consumed domestically, it will reduce imports on a barrel for barrel basis.

Which, of course, it wouldn't be. It's a fungible commodity with world-wide demand.

And it will still only supply oil for less than 2 years.

[nitpick] It would supply oil for around 60 years. Over the course of these sixty years, it would only provide less than two years worth of use at present levels of consumption[/nitpick]

 

[Kelzie]

[nitpick] It would supply oil for around 60 years. Over the course of these sixty years, it would only provide less than two years worth of use at present levels of consumption[/nitpick]

OH MY GOD! I'm sorry okay. I'm sorry I said that! I rephrased it before anyone pointed it out. And 60 years? That's seems a little long. Not saying I don't believe you, but where did you get that from?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Actually OPEC does not control the price of oil. This is set by commodity markets around the world. There're tens of thousands of people (at least) whose decisions in the markets affect the price of oil.

That is partially true. OPEC decides the initial price per barrel because it is OPEC who sells it to the world. The oil market simply adjusts to the prices set by OPEC. So ultimatley..it is OPEC who decides the price.

 

[duhbraz]

Anyone can plainly see that Prez Bush is behind this whole folly! Why ?
To ensure his family of future profits in the oil business.

Just when the former prez had some alternative energy props in line, Bush
desided singlehandedly to open the Middle East and thrash our formerly decent reputations as peacekeepers.

So production is down, everywhere. We're blacksheep to be dealt out of everyones oil distribution plans and...... Bush becomes rich beyond imagination.

We are soon to repeat this folly in Iran, where we are trying to lord some inane policy that , We can have nuclear weapons , and You can't even try to develope any alternative energy resources (since we don't)

Boy aren't we just the smartest, most resouceful, and soooooo insightful.

We're dumb enough to vote him in twice, and hold your breathe, cuz Iran , here we come!!!!

someone wake up please !!

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Anyone can plainly see that Prez Bush is behind this whole folly! Why ?
To ensure his family of future profits in the oil business.

Just when the former prez had some alternative energy props in line, Bush
desided singlehandedly to open the Middle East and thrash our formerly decent reputations as peacekeepers.

So production is down, everywhere. We're blacksheep to be dealt out of everyones oil distribution plans and...... Bush becomes rich beyond imagination.

We are soon to repeat this folly in Iran, where we are trying to lord some inane policy that , We can have nuclear weapons , and You can't even try to develope any alternative energy resources (since we don't)

Boy aren't we just the smartest, most resouceful, and soooooo insightful.

We're dumb enough to vote him in twice, and hold your breathe, cuz Iran , here we come!!!!

someone wake up please !!

:rofl This is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a while. But ok, provide some evidence and saying that michael moore or ted kennedy said it doesn't count. Hard evidence. Second, oil production is not down it's up but OPEC feels the need to price gouge. The shrub has no influence in OPEC and besides, he bankrupted his company years ago..it's out of business.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

OH MY GOD! I'm sorry okay. I'm sorry I said that! I rephrased it before anyone pointed it out. And 60 years? That's seems a little long. Not saying I don't believe you, but where did you get that from?

Well, I didn't see that part until too late.
Sixty years is a rough ball park. I think my reasoning went like this

26.7 million barrels of petroleum per day* x yr ⇒ 2yrs @ 9.8 billion barrels/yr ⇒ 19.6 billions of barrels @ <1milbarrels/day ⇒ >19600 days ⇒ 19600/ yr = >53 years




*2020 est

 

[C.J.]

I said that. In my post after it. Sorry, didn't mean to be misleading. And there's no way it could be the only oil we consumed for two years anyway. And I don't know about a hefty amount. There's no way for sure to know how much oil it is going to produce daily until we start pumping, but if it's anything like Prudhoe, it won't be that significant of an amount.

Prudhoe has produced a significant amount when put in perspective. Proved reserves are going to play out in 35-40 years or so, and the possibility is almost nonexistent that a single field will be discovered which will significantly add to this time. Many smaller (Volume wise) sites may however tag on a few extra years.

Several years ago it was discovered that many pumped out holes had refilled, some of which are producing at levels above when they were originally active. There are several theories concerning this, but my opinion on this is that while we do not need to look a gift horse in the mouth, we need to be looking for alternatives. HE3 comes to mind as a possible source to ease the heck out of the problem, and the U.S. has the capability to corner the market.

 

[Factologist]

:rofl This is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a while. But ok, provide some evidence and saying that michael moore or ted kennedy said it doesn't count. Hard evidence. Second, oil production is not down it's up but OPEC feels the need to price gouge. The shrub has no influence in OPEC and besides, he bankrupted his company years ago..it's out of business.

WHEN do you IDIOTS go to bed so I might have a reasonable ADULT conversation with someone.

 

[duhbraz]

kewl, so it is rediculous, and you are very articulate, like the president.

So let me in on the reasons why we havent developed solar or nuclear power ?
I also recall pre-Bush that companys got tax incentives to transition away war-related
productivity. A mere memory now that we've uncovered weapons of mass destruction
and our war machine is cranked up to max. Note the record deficit, again !

is all of this unrelated nonsense too ?

 

[Factologist]

Yeah, we all know how wealthy those tree-huggin hippie types are.

Which, I think is a good thing. It wouldn't have that much effect on prices and i would use up our strategic reserve non-strategically.

Which, of course, it wouldn't be. It's a fungible commodity with world-wide demand.

[nitpick] It would supply oil for around 60 years. Over the course of these sixty years, it would only provide less than two years worth of use at present levels of consumption[/nitpick]

Reade Advanced Materials Presents:

Density Conversion Table

http://www.reade.com/Particle_Briefings/density_table.html

Courtesy Of: The American Vacuum Society

Density Conversions:

1Mg/cm3=1g/cm3
1g/cm3=0.0361 lb/in3(pound per cubic inch)

Courtesy Of: R. M. German, Powder Metallurgy Science, Second Edition

General Definitions:

*

Density: One of the most common density measurements involves the determination of the geometric space occupied within the envelope of a solid material... including any interior voids, cracks or pores. This is called geometric, envelope or bulk density and only equals true density when there are no internal openings in the material being measured.
*

Absolute Density: 1) The ratio of the mass of a volume of solid material to the same volume of water. 2) The mass per unit volume of a solid material expressed in grams per cubic centimeter.
*

Apparent Density: The weight of a unit volume of powder, usually expressed as grams per cubic centimeter, determined by a specific method
*

Bulk Density: Powder in a container or bin expressed in mass unit per volume
*

Density Ratio: The ratio of the determined density of a compact to the absolute density of metal of the same composition, usually expressed as a percentage. Also referred to as a percent theoretical density
*

Dry Density: The mass per unit volume of an unimpregnated sintered part
*

Green Density: The density of a green compact
*

Packed Density: Please see preferred term of tap density
*

Tap Density: The density of a powder when the volume receptacle is tapped or vibrated under specified conditions while being loaded. Each particle of a solid material has the same true density after grinding, milling or processing, but more geometric space is occupied by
the material. In other words, the geometric density is less... approaching 50% less than true density if the particles are spherical.
Handling or vibration of powdered material causes the smaller particles
to work their way into the spaces between the larger particles. The
geometric space occupied by the powder decreases and its density
increases. Ultimately no further natural particle packing can be measured without the addition of pressure. Maximum particle packing is achieved. Under controlled conditions of tap rate, tap force (fall) and cylinder diameter, the condition of maximum packing efficiency is highly
reproducible. This tap density measurement is formalized in the British
Pharmacopoeia method for Apparent Volume, ISO 787/11 and ASTM standard test methods B527, D1464 and D4781 for tap density.
*

True Density: The true density of powders often differs from that of the bulk material because the process of comminution, or grinding will change the crystal structure near the surface of each particle and therefore the density of each particle in a powder. In addition, voids at the surface of a particle, into which liquids will not penetrate, can generate apparent volume which will cause serious errors when density is measured by liquid displacement. The pycnometers from Quantachrome are specifically designed to measure the true volume of solid materials by employing Archimedes' principle of fluid (gas) displacement and the technique of gas expansion. True densities are measured using helium gas since it will penetrate every surface flaw down to about one Angstrom, thereby enabling the measurement of powder volumes with great accuracy. The measurement of density by helium displacement often can reveal the presence of impurities and occluded pores which cannot be determined by any other method.
*

Wet Density: The mass per unit of volume of a sintered part impregnated with oil or other nonmetallic material


Check out the conversion table braine

 

[duhbraz]

yeah, im headed for bed now in fact, cuz my gas guzzling suv (company supplied with tax write-offs) is in the garage.

what good is debating oil, when no one seems to understand that we have no reason whatsoever to be dependant on it at all, except that the auto and oil companys keep telling us that we are ?

sure , and batteries can be made no more powerful (stockpile of billions to be sold) before upgrades and we won't see 10-blade razors to shave with either.....ok so i am a bit idiotic , beats thinking i'm some kind of czar like some round here . bye

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

kewl, so it is rediculous, and you are very articulate, like the president.

So let me in on the reasons why we havent developed solar or nuclear power ?
I also recall pre-Bush that companys got tax incentives to transition away war-related
productivity. A mere memory now that we've uncovered weapons of mass destruction
and our war machine is cranked up to max. Note the record deficit, again !

is all of this unrelated nonsense too ?

Question 1. Because not many Americans are comfertable living anywhere near a nuclear power plant especially after Chernoble (sp?). Personally I wouldn't care...it's clean and more than efficient. I stayed in a town in Germany for 3 weeks and there was a nuclear power plant not to far away..I went to visit it and it seemed safe and the air quality was much better.

Question 2. Well duh. Many companies halt or reduce production of their normal products to create military items and they're rewarded for doing so...it's good buisiness..whats wrong with that?

Comment 3. About the defecit..the economy was shot and war costs money as do reforms. Why is everyone so suprised? We've always had a deficit anyway..the International Trade Deficit. Do I like the fact that taxpayer dollars are being squandered? Absolutely not.

Question 3. Is it unrelated? YES :lol: None of this has anything to do with the price of oil. OPEC decides the price. It is possible that OPEC has raised it so high because Iraq isn't pumping as much oil in but who really knows. Frankly I'm happy about it..it simply provides another good argument for alternative fuel sources and nuclear power.

 

[Navy Pride]

:shock: Hey wait. I spent hours and hours looking for numbers (okay 10 minutes...but I found several sources ), and that's it? You just ignore them? Less than two years!! That's how long the oil in Alaska will last. That's nothing! Bush will still be in office then!

I have watched the U.S. Senate debate on drilling for oil in Alaska on CSPAN.....Both sides produce charts backing up there figures........The Democrats say they is very little oil there........The Republicans say there are many years supply there........Like I said before, truth be told no one knows for sure........I think we should find out.......I am tired of paying $2.50 for a gallon of gas, and yeah I know the Brits pay $6.00 but 75 percent of it is in taxes for the fat cats............

 

[Kelzie]

I have watched the U.S. Senate debate on drilling for oil in Alaska on CSPAN.....Both sides produce charts backing up there figures........The Democrats say they is very little oil there........The Republicans say there are many years supply there........Like I said before, truth be told no one knows for sure........I think we should find out.......I am tired of paying $2.50 for a gallon of gas, and yeah I know the Brits pay $6.00 but 75 percent of it is in taxes for the fat cats............

Find where someone says that, please. As Simon has pointed out, there has only been one survey of that area, that has only produced one set of numbers. I have found many sites that discuss the wells, and not one of them has said we have more than three years of total oil. To all the nitpickers out there 2wave: Simon) I realize that it will be drilled over a number of years.

 

[robin]

Well you should get your legislators to lower the taxes on your gas and if they don't do it vote the scoundrels out.....That is how democracy works.......

But we proably pay lower tax on other things than you. If governments choose to take a higher propoertion of their tax on gas rather than income tax, then that's fine with me. It encourages people to drive cars that are more fuel efficient. In other words the polluter pays. That is good for the environment & also obviously good for fuel prices. Less demand makes oil an intrinsically lower priced commodity. You asked the question... Who is to blame for high oil prices ?
You guys are partly to blame in your SUV's & gas guzzlers are damaging the environment & keeping prices higher. The law of supply & demand.
High demand = High price.
You get you fuel too cheap.
Now call me a 'leftie' becuase I care about the environment :lol:

 

[Navy Pride]

This question is to all the people who blame President Bush for the high gas prices..........

What would you like him to do?

 

[Navy Pride]

But we proably pay lower tax on other things than you. If governments choose to take a higher propoertion of their tax on gas rather than income tax, then that's fine with me. It encourages people to drive cars that are more fuel efficient. In other words the polluter pays. That is good for the environment & also obviously good for fuel prices. Less demand makes oil an intrinsically lower priced commodity. You asked the question... Who is to blame for high oil prices ?
You guys are partly to blame in your SUV's & gas guzzlers are damaging the environment & keeping prices higher. The law of supply & demand.
High demand = High price.
You get you fuel too cheap.
Now call me a 'leftie' becuase I care about the environment :lol:

I don't know if that is true or not about lower taxes for other things........I read somewhere that inflation is at 12 percent in Europe...........That probably has something to do with it..........

As far as SUVs go I drive a truck and can afford to pay the price for gas..........The people that are penalized the worse are the poor in this country who need their cars for work and can't afford the high prices........

 

[JOHNYJ]

It takes a Super tanker up to a month to get from Arabia to the USA.The Oil is paid for in Arabia .Oil that cost $50 a barrel the Oil companies act like it cost what ever the price is, when it gets to the USA.
In Califoria the Gas stations raise their prices more than once a day , sometimes.How can oil that was paid for a month ago.Keep increasing in cost,it doesn't.The Profittering Oil company buddies of President Bush are screwing the American people ! Keep voting Republican, see how bad it can get !

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

It takes a Super tanker up to a month to get from Arabia to the USA.The Oil is paid for in Arabia .Oil that cost $50 a barrel the Oil companies act like it cost what ever the price is, when it gets to the USA.
In Califoria the Gas stations raise their prices more than once a day , sometimes.How can oil that was paid for a month ago.Keep increasing in cost,it doesn't.The Profittering Oil company buddies of President Bush are screwing the American people ! Keep voting Republican, see how bad it can get !

Because the oil companies have to buy the oil but they also have to pay to refine it and ship it. Raising prices more than once a day.. as the price for oil goes up so too will the price of gas. The point is that the price of a barrel of oil isn't the only thing included in gas prices, they also include the price to refine it and ship it.

 

[Youve Got To Be Kidding!]

First off....

If it wasnt for environmentalists youd have ****ing cancer right now.

So thank god for them.

Second off....

Environmentalists have nothing to do with price of oil.

Third off....

Bush started opec.

Fourth off....

Bush is the Oil Industry.


Where is this all the above choice?

 

[superskippy]

Bush started OPEC:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl , your very funny.

 

[Hoot]

This question is to all the people who blame President Bush for the high gas prices..........

What would you like him to do?

Well, considering our oil reserves are sitting at about 96% capacity..higher then they've ever been in history, I think a good start would be to release some of this oil to help lower prices.

Of course, this is no solution. The real solution is to lower our dependence on foreign oil. Bush could go a long way by demanding Detroit simply increase gas mileages by 3 miles per gallon. There should be no vehicle that gets less than...oh, say...20 miles per gallon.

Of course, this would hurt our auto industry, thus hurting our economy, and hurting the oil companies..and all the rich fat cats won't make as much money, so Bush is never gonna do that.

We're spending one billion dollars a week in Iraq...think what that money could do if put toward alternative fuel research and development?

And one more thing, if Clinton were in office and prices had jumped so much....you republicans would be storming the White House.