Who is to blame for higher gasoline prices?

[cnredd]

Is that something akin to Gore inventing the Internet?

FACT: OPEC was founded in 1960! How could Bush have anything to do with that?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

:rofl :think: :think: :think:

Believe me...He'll try and find a way....

 

[ludahai]

I can't stand Bush, and I'd love to blame him for the high prices. But, the evidence doesn't support that.

Bush actually did the exact correct thing. He has signed an energy bill that will encourage the development of perfect substitutes to oil. Now I have to go wash my mouth out with soap. That was painful.

But, it is the one single major thing he has done right. So there.

There is hope for you yet... :2razz:

 

[Kelzie]

This is if those are our ONLY TWO SOURCES of oil, which is not the case. ANWR would be a key in our overall oil supply, not the sole source.

Actually, I think "a key" is a little optimistic. A drop in the pond is more like it. A very small drop.

 

[ludahai]

Actually, I think "a key" is a little optimistic. A drop in the pond is more like it. A very small drop.

You could say that about any number of domestic oil supplies. What, shut down ALL domestic oil supplies that don't provide more than four percent of daily need? That isn't looking at the big picture. We need all of those 2, 3, 4 percents of daily need in order to supply the American economy with the oil it needs.

Does this mean I am against alternative fuels? No. President Bush's plan INCLUDES research for alternative sources of energy. However, in the meantime, we are dependant on oil, so let's exploit.

Looking here at East Asia, the wars of the future here will be over oil. There are already raging territorial disputes in the South China Sea and East China Sea, both thought to be potentially large sources of oil and natural gas.

 

[Kelzie]

You could say that about any number of domestic oil supplies. What, shut down ALL domestic oil supplies that don't provide more than four percent of daily need? That isn't looking at the big picture. We need all of those 2, 3, 4 percents of daily need in order to supply the American economy with the oil it needs.

Does this mean I am against alternative fuels? No. President Bush's plan INCLUDES research for alternative sources of energy. However, in the meantime, we are dependant on oil, so let's exploit.

Looking here at East Asia, the wars of the future here will be over oil. There are already raging territorial disputes in the South China Sea and East China Sea, both thought to be potentially large sources of oil and natural gas.

Pshaw. It will be 4% at its production peak (bell curve...I'm sure I don't have to explain it...you're a smart guy) which won't be till like 2025. That's assuming US oil consumption doesn't grow, which I find highly unlikely. It won't help the problem at all.

 

[ludahai]

Pshaw. It will be 4% at its production peak (bell curve...I'm sure I don't have to explain it...you're a smart guy) which won't be till like 2025. That's assuming US oil consumption doesn't grow, which I find highly unlikely. It won't help the problem at all.

You are missing the point. The U.S. get's 2% here, 3% at another place, and another 2.5% elsewhere. It is all of these small shares that add up to the entire domestic production. There is no superwell that provides a lion's share of U.S. production. All of these little shares are vital to meeting the entire level of domestic production the U.S. depends on. And you are right, more is needed. 2% here, another 3% there, etc. I think you get my point, even if you don't agree with it.

 

[Kelzie]

You are missing the point. The U.S. get's 2% here, 3% at another place, and another 2.5% elsewhere. It is all of these small shares that add up to the entire domestic production. There is no superwell that provides a lion's share of U.S. production. All of these little shares are vital to meeting the entire level of domestic production the U.S. depends on. And you are right, more is needed. 2% here, another 3% there, etc. I think you get my point, even if you don't agree with it.

You're right. I do get your point. I just think it's moot. Our oil consumption is increasing (along with other key players). This 4% in 20 years will do nothing. Hell, it probably won't even be 4% in 20 years. Maybe 2%. And the two percenters will be 1%. And all of a sudden, we don't have enough oil to meet our capacity. And than what? What good will ANWR be then?

ps. Was going to say before...I like your sig.

 

[ludahai]

You're right. I do get your point. I just think it's moot. Our oil consumption is increasing (along with other key players). This 4% in 20 years will do nothing. Hell, it probably won't even be 4% in 20 years. Maybe 2%. And the two percenters will be 1%. And all of a sudden, we don't have enough oil to meet our capacity. And than what? What good will ANWR be then?

So, your solution is to simply stop producing because each of the places where the U.S. drills for oil only produces the proverbial drop in the bucket? That is defeatist. THat would also make the U.S. ENTIRELY dependant on foreign oil. A VERY BAD idea.

I belive the U.S. should do two things.

1. Exploit all of the possible oil resources in the U.S. for the short term to reduce foreign dependency as much as possible. Is it possible to eliminate it in the short term? Of course not. However, the more you reduce it, the better.

2. Over the long term, research alternative energy sources. There is some good research happening in this area, and some of it is coming to market. It will only become more viable as the various technologies are developed. Ideally, within 15 or 25 years, these alternative technologies will be well on the way to replacing oil as the primary energy of not only the United States, but other countries as well.

ps. Was going to say before...I like your sig.

Thought you'd like it...

 

[Gideon]

Acctually a lot of european cars are hybrids. I find it interesting that the government is telling us that we are years away from developing alternative fuel sources even though I've seen many cars that run on them in Europe.

Oh, very interesting.
That changes my entire view on this subject!
The politics on this one I think will be near impossible to map out fully.
But, seriously, Bush's oil plan I wouldn't think would help much, we need alternatives than the "more oil for us" technique the nation's been using.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I haven't read this entire thread, but read the first few pages and a post here and there through the middle. From what I have read and been told by informed sources is that the supply in Alaska, if the environmentalists ever allow it to be tapped, would cut our oil imports substantially over the next 20-30 years at maximum production and for some time after that at somewhat lesser production. There are other vast off shore sources that would be available again if the environmentalists would allow them to be tapped.

It is ludicrous to continue to import millions and billions of barrels of oil that we could be producing ourselves.

15 to 20 drilling platforms were put out of commission by recent hurricanes and repairs are still in progress. Every U.S. refinery is operating at full capacity and every time one has an accident, a fire, or is shut down for routine maintenance, the resulting shortage drives prices up at the pump. Existing refinery capacity has been expanded over the years, but no new refineries have been built in the last 30 years. Why? Because the environmentalists won't permit it.

There are so many different formulations for gasoline required by different states and cities that refineries also frequently suspend production while one batch is loaded out and they reformulate for the next one. In other words, if the nation would agree to two or three different formulations, we could save quite a bit at the pump. California is a state unto itself and thus must rely on its one refinery to supply the entire state with a population more than most countries. So Californians pay through the nose for gasoline.

Compounding the problem is that so many of the U.S. wells are stripper wells producting a barrel or two of oil a day and they are regularly being capped. Also some of the smaller refineries not allowed to expand (again by the environmentalists) and that cannot retool to make something other than gasoline are being closed down.

We need a congress with enough vision and toughness to allow us to sustain our economy and lifestyle with new sources of oil and refinery capability while requiring tough environmental standards to also preserve our air, ground, and water. At the same time, the government should provide incentives lucrative enough to lure our national geniuses into research that will reduce or eliminate our dependence on oil in the next 20-30 years.

And we are probably going to have to get over our national phobia against nuclear sources of energy.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I haven't read this entire thread, but read the first few pages and a post here and there through the middle. From what I have read and been told by informed sources is that the supply in Alaska, if the environmentalists ever allow it to be tapped, would cut our oil imports substantially over the next 20-30 years at maximum production and for some time after that at somewhat lesser production.

Obviously, you didn't read the thread.

There's only one set of figures that everyone is dependent on. I've provided a link to that set of figures from the USGS. It literally takes and act of Congress to assay the area.

Whether or not ANWR oil would "cut our oil imports substantially" depends on what definition of substantially one uses.

What percentage equals substantially, to you?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Obviously, you didn't read the thread.

There's only one set of figures that everyone is dependent on. I've provided a link to that set of figures from the USGS. It literally takes and act of Congress to assay the area.

Whether or not ANWR oil would "cut our oil imports substantially" depends on what definition of substantially one uses.

What percentage equals substantially, to you?

It is my understanding that the U.S. imports about 10.4 million barrels of oil a day. 2.4 million of that is from the Persian Gulf. If ANWR can produce 1.4 million barrels a day--and the figures I've seen say that is likely--it would reduce our total imports by 10%; possible reduce our dependence on OPEC by one half.

I think that's substantial.

 

[Fantasea]

I wish he would choke on another piece of popcorn.

It's always nice to have an option, isn't it? On this forum, when one is faced with the inability to make a reasonable response, one can always mock.

However, mocking reveals that one is attempting to mask one's inability to make a reasonable response, doesn't it?

 

[cnredd]

However, mocking reveals that one is attempting to mask one's inability to make a reasonable response, doesn't it?

Sometimes.