Are you ready for $10 a gallon for gas?

[tec699]

The Iran issue could go from bad to worse! They control a large portion of the oil that flows into America. Why aren't we developing other alternatives to oil? Are the oil companies really in control of America? What's going to happen if Iran withholds their oil and the average price for a barrel of oil goes past $100? Can you afford to pay $10 for a gallon of gas?


Is this a possibility?

 

[Lemon law]

Yes its possible---but its likely to be a slow process with many bumps in the road.
Its really a demand driven problem---India and China are ramping up their demands
in the past few years.

Soon its going to be a sellers market where sellers tie oil sales to political demands.
Worse case senario for the USA is sellers refusing to take Uncle Sam IOU's. But right now,
the USA is laid out with the assumtion of easy personal transportation-------we are years away from developing mass transit systems----and not developing alternative forms of energy.

The war in Iraq is not helping---the whole mideast could go into a war footing---and Bush's arrogant actions have really alienated Moslems against the US.

But a serious disruption in oil supply could collaspe the US economy----with gasoline unavailable at any price.

 

[Aimster]

It will only happen if the U.S/Israel attacks Iran.

Otherwise, they will keep the oil money coming in.

 

[compuwiz1]

Please step away from the Sci-Fi.

 

[OrganizedChaos]

if gats hits $10 i'm comfortable with the idea of stealing it.

 

[tec699]

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos
if gats hits $10 i'm comfortable with the idea of stealing it.

:shocked:

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: tec699

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos
if gats hits $10 i'm comfortable with the idea of stealing it.

:shocked:

Ever see Mad Max? $10 per gallon gas, the spiked haired heathens have taken over the planet.....survival of the fitest. Is that where we're headed? :shocked:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: tec699

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos
if gats hits $10 i'm comfortable with the idea of stealing it.

:shocked:

Ever see Mad Max? $10 per gallon gas, the spiked haired heathens have taken over the planet.....survival of the fitest. Is that where we're headed? :shocked:

Cool

How long do you think the Rich Republicans will last against the spiked haired heathens??? :laugh:

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: tec699

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos
if gats hits $10 i'm comfortable with the idea of stealing it.

:shocked:

Ever see Mad Max? $10 per gallon gas, the spiked haired heathens have taken over the planet.....survival of the fitest. Is that where we're headed? :shocked:

Cool

How long do you think the Rich Republicans will last against the spiked haired heathens??? :laugh:

Uh, November of 2008? , or whenever they get their balls handed to them.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: tec699
The Iran issue could go from bad to worse! They control a large portion of the oil that flows into America. Why aren't we developing other alternatives to oil? Are the oil companies really in control of America? What's going to happen if Iran withholds their oil and the average price for a barrel of oil goes past $100? Can you afford to pay $10 for a gallon of gas?


Is this a possibility?

Is it possible? Absolutely.

Is it likely? No.

And who do you have to thank for our dependence on foreign oil and the lack of development in this country of our own oil resources? Why, it is the great Democratic Party that has stonewalled and blocked any and all attempts (ANWAR most recently) to help shed our dependence.

And Dave, The "Rich Republicans" would outlast those Spiky Heathens, so don't lose any sleep over it :laugh: :laugh:

 

[irwincur]

How long do you think the Rich Republicans will last against the spiked haired heathens???

That's odd, Democrats are richer than Republicans on average. In Congress it is a 3:1 ratio.

 

[rudder]

wont happen because the iranians like to eat.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Pabster
And who do you have to thank for our dependence on foreign oil and the lack of development in this country of our own oil resources? Why, it is the great Democratic Party that has stonewalled and blocked any and all attempts (ANWAR most recently) to help shed our dependence.

It is the republicans who want to use up this oil now, when we can simply get plenty of it from the middle east, Asia, or South America. instead. The democrats want to save it for a rainy day when the middle east oil is gone or unavailable. Then drill it. It is simply a matter of timing.

Sure there are some environmental extremists who pretend it won't ever be drilled. But extemists on both sides should be ignored as they are useless babble. It will eventually be drilled. Lets just not waste that oil now. Lets wait a few years (decades) until we really need it.

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: tec699
The Iran issue could go from bad to worse! They control a large portion of the oil that flows into America. Why aren't we developing other alternatives to oil? Are the oil companies really in control of America? What's going to happen if Iran withholds their oil and the average price for a barrel of oil goes past $100? Can you afford to pay $10 for a gallon of gas?


Is this a possibility?

Is it possible? Absolutely.

Is it likely? No.

And who do you have to thank for our dependence on foreign oil and the lack of development in this country of our own oil resources? Why, it is the great Democratic Party that has stonewalled and blocked any and all attempts (ANWAR most recently) to help shed our dependence.

And Dave, The "Rich Republicans" would outlast those Spiky Heathens, so don't lose any sleep over it :laugh: :laugh:

I guess you missed the part where Carter (in one of the few good things he did as president) launched alternative energy research programs in the aftermath of the OPEC oil embargo (the spikes of the 70's). Guess who crushed that program?

Ronald Reagan.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: tec699
The Iran issue could go from bad to worse! They control a large portion of the oil that flows into America. Why aren't we developing other alternatives to oil? Are the oil companies really in control of America? What's going to happen if Iran withholds their oil and the average price for a barrel of oil goes past $100? Can you afford to pay $10 for a gallon of gas?


Is this a possibility?

Is it possible? Absolutely.

Is it likely? No.

And who do you have to thank for our dependence on foreign oil and the lack of development in this country of our own oil resources? Why, it is the great Democratic Party that has stonewalled and blocked any and all attempts (ANWAR most recently) to help shed our dependence.

And Dave, The "Rich Republicans" would outlast those Spiky Heathens, so don't lose any sleep over it :laugh: :laugh:

ANWR doesn't reduce our dependence on foreign oil; it slows down its increase (64% instead of 68% by 2025). If Iran stopped global production, ANWR would do nothing. ANWR might have around ten billion barrels and produce 800,000 barrels a day at its peak. Iran has over 130 billion barrels in proven reserves and produces almost four million barrels a day.

If we could get Iraq under control, however, we could mitigate a large amount of what Iran could do if it stopped producing globally though (Iraq could easily produce the same amount as Iran, if not more). The truth is, the only way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to reduce our dependence on oil.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Strk
The truth is, the only way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to reduce our dependence on oil.

Agreed 100%.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Strk
The truth is, the only way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to reduce our dependence on oil.

Agreed 100%.

Would you then be in support of any of these:
1) Funding for research in making current engines more efficient (Bush cut this funding).
2) Additional funding for alternative engines (more than what Bush wants).
3) Funding for coal to oil plants (cost effective if oil is above ~$35/barrel).
4) Funding for nuclear and other alternative power plants.
5) Increases in minimum gas mileage requirements.
6) Increases in minimum efficiencies for consumer goods (lawnmowers, appliances, etc).
7) Taxes to cut oil use. Then return this money as tax incentives for low oil users.

Most of these are pretty strong Democrat ideals. Do you support any of them for your 100% agreement on reducing our dependence on oil?

 

[Red Dawn]

I'm not worried about Gas for my car as I am for the cost of products going up in price due to the cost of fuel to truck them.

 

[K1052]

If Iran shut the taps our European and Asian friends would be screeming for us to get them open again ASAP. Iran's oil does not go to the US.

At current prices alternatives to natural crude are viable. The most promising solution is coal liquefaction as the processes are well known, it has been used in a large industrial scale, we have enormous coal reserves readily available, and can produce fuels that require no adaptation of out transportation infrastructure.

At the same time we need to stop burning our reserves for electrical generation (or at least make it as efficient as possible by using combined cycle coal gasification) as soon as is feasible. Investment in further nuclear, hydroelectric, solar (research), and wind power should be made as well.

Some of this is already happening. Coal liquefaction is gaining interest and several US utilities have announced that they will soon submit licensing applications for new nuclear reactors.

As long as oil prices stay at this level or higher you will see more and more alternatives coming on.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: dullard
Most of these are pretty strong Democrat ideals. Do you support any of them for your 100% agreement on reducing our dependence on oil?

I support anything that would ultimately reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And I don't care which party pimps it.

The problem with your "Democrat ideals" nonsense is that ideals don't get the job done. Actions do, and we've seen none.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Pabster
The problem with your "Democrat ideals" nonsense is that ideals don't get the job done. Actions do, and we've seen none.

That is the sad part. We finally have a president who touts a national energy policy, and yet, we've seen nothing. Virtually no progress in any of those areas (except the hydrogen funding). Time to get the word out to both sides. Pass bills on these very important ideals. There have been attempts from the democrats on some of them, always blocked by republicans. Why? I have no idea. Time for the republicans to stop blocking them.

I personally would go a lot further than what I listed above. But I know that my extremes would never pass. But the ones I listed could pass if the politicians would finally get the idea.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Pabster
The problem with your "Democrat ideals" nonsense is that ideals don't get the job done. Actions do, and we've seen none.

That is the sad part. We finally have a president who touts a national energy policy, and yet, we've seen nothing. Virtually no progress in any of those areas (except the hydrogen funding). Time to get the word out to both sides. Pass bills on these very important ideals. There have been attempts from the democrats on some of them, always blocked by republicans. Why? I have no idea. Time for the republicans to stop blocking them.

The last energy bill kickstarted the nuclear industry again.

The rise in oil price will handle many of the points you laid out without government intervention. The market will respond.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: K1052
The last energy bill kickstarted the nuclear industry again.

The rise in oil price will handle many of the points you laid out without government intervention. The market will respond.

The market will respond, but it is very sluggish (look at the years that Ford and GM are preticted to struggle) and it cannot always get through government red tape. Thus it needs assistance from the government.

For example, my hometown (Columbus, Nebraska) had nuclear energy. I knew several nuclear engineers. But that plant was shut down due mostly to government red tape. The red tape just made it unprofitable. One of my friends had a father whos job was to collect all leaves that landed on the plant's propery. Why? Red tape labeled those leaves as low level nuclear waste that must be properly disposed of. Where the leaves ever tested for radiation? Nope. They are less radioactive than the salt in your kitchen. But it still needs to be collected and stored forever. Then suddenly we have a huge storage problem and endless debates over where to put it. A simple government provision stating that the items can be tested for radiation and disposed of in normal ways if they aren't radioactive would instantly end the storage problem and dramatically reduce costs for nuclear power. It would suddenly be economically desirable, and the market will respond.

As this is a gas thread, we need more refineries. Red tape again is holding them back. The last refinery was built, in what, the mid 1970s? The market certainly isn't responding in that area. Cut the red tape. Give incentives to build new refineries away from the gulf coast - so one hurricane won't disrupt all our capacity at once. It would be nice to process more of the Alaska oil in the US instead of selling it to Asia. A new refinery on the West coast would do it (and would be nearly hurricane proof).

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: K1052
The last energy bill kickstarted the nuclear industry again.

The rise in oil price will handle many of the points you laid out without government intervention. The market will respond.

The market will respond, but it is very sluggish (look at the years that Ford and GM are preticted to struggle) and it cannot always get through government red tape. Thus it needs assistance from the government.

For example, my hometown (Columbus, Nebraska) had nuclear energy. I knew several nuclear engineers. But that plant was shut down due mostly to government red tape. The red tape just made it unprofitable. One of my friends had a father whos job was to collect all leaves that landed on the plant's propery. Why? Red tape labeled those leaves as low level nuclear waste that must be properly disposed of. Where the leaves ever tested for radiation? Nope. They are less radioactive than the salt in your kitchen. But it still needs to be collected and stored forever. Then suddenly we have a huge storage problem and endless debates over where to put it. A simple government provision stating that the items can be tested for radiation and disposed of in normal ways if they aren't radioactive would instantly end the storage problem and dramatically reduce costs for nuclear power. It would suddenly be economically desirable, and the market will respond.

As this is a gas thread, we need more refineries. Red tape again is holding them back.

Nobody wanted to take the chance that higher energy prices were just a temporary condition. Now that they are here to stay, companies are becoming bolder with their investments in alternative energy.

Cooper still opertating from what I can find. Nobody in this country is going to shut down a nuclear plant right now unless the NRC makes them with all the other fuel costs (except coal) shooting up greatly.

There is indeed too much red tape. I favored a streamlined licensing process that was not included in the bill. It will be 5-7 years at least before a new reactor goes online.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: K1052
Cooper still opertating from what I can find. Nobody in this country is going to shut down a nuclear plant right now unless the NRC makes them with all the other fuel costs (except coal) shooting up greatly.

There is indeed too much red tape. I favored a streamlined licensing process that was not included in the bill. It will be 5-7 years at least before a new reactor goes online.

Half of them went to Cooper. Half were fired or moved on. I think Cooper was shut down temporarilly (a few months?) in the mid 1990s though due to red tape again.