If you could cut gas prices in half would you do it?

Deudalus

Golden Member
Jan 16, 2005
1,090
0
0
I'm just wondering how many people would truly want to cut gas prices on this forum.

I know that a lot of the talking points (especially from the left) is how high gas prices are, but if they truly believed in global warming then more expensive gas is the only thing that is going to stop people from driving SUVs.

So, if you had the power to do so would you allow drilling throughout the United States?

Would you allow the drilling for Shale Oil which we have 2,500 gigabarrels of which is enough to meet the U.S. demand for oil for another 110 years?

What I'm getting at is, is this a problem that anyone really wants to fix or is it a problem that many would much rather just keep a problem (see sig)?
 

2Xtreme21

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2004
7,044
0
0
I would support these 2 extremely hypothetical and not-plausible scenarios. Drilling for shale is all well and good, but it wouldn't do a thing for gas prices since it needs to be refined-- which is where the road block is. Plus, it's already been proven that this is not a typical supply/demand thing. Supply of oil is very high and I don't even think flooding the market with it will drop gas prices, thanks to the speculators.

More nuclear power plants would be a very huge step in the right direction. Unfortunately both the eco-nuts (I hate that term because I am pro-environment as well) and those who live under their rocks hear the word "nuclear" and immediately think of catastrophe. I think the collective IQ of America needs to rise before these situations become feasible.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
No to #1. The problem isn't the price of gas. Even at current US prices we're still paying less than most of the world. I'd rather see the gas tax increased to fund research into alternative fuel/energy, better roads, and public transportation.

Yes to #2. Definitely agree. Nuclear with solar and wind included.
 

Foxery

Golden Member
Jan 24, 2008
1,709
0
0
Drilling for oil locally wouldn't drop our prices much. It isn't done now because the quality of US crude oil is, well, half as good as Arabian sources. Mostly, it would just be good politics because hey, look at how many jobs it would create. Yay.

Electrical energy is barely a related topic. Of course we should have cleaner, more efficient sources for that.
 
Feb 24, 2001
14,513
4
81
I figure a decrease in gas prices would only be bad in the long run. We'll just end up in the same spot we are in now in the future anyway. Americans prize immediate gratification over anything else.

Lowering prices will just throw people back into SUVs and decrease the demand for alternative energies and transportation. Might as well get it over with now.
 

brencat

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2007
2,170
3
76
Yes to both. For all those on the left that claim to be for the little guy, expensive gas is the worst regressive tax you can possibly have, alongside food price inflation and hurts the poor the worst. We need to streamline the 26 different formulations of gasoline into 1 type -- pick the cleanest type and have our refineries concentrate on making and transporting only that to avoid these ridiculous bottlenecks all over the country what with every state having different standards.

Sideline the environmental nazis and "not in my backyard" types, and build nuclear plants. Open the California and Florida coastline to drilling and make a committment to cut back on foreign purchases of oil by a certain minimum % each year provided U.S. drilling increases by that much to offset it.

Much easier said than done. If we can get off of ME oil, they'll be back to riding camels in 2 decades...and our petrodollar funded terrorist sympathizers over there will be starved of a major source of funds.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
No. Gas prices need to remain sky-high. The last thing we need is "cheap" gas again just when billions are being funneled in to alternative energy R&D. Americans are simply too weak to get "cheap" fuel and remain environmentally responsible. (Ask your neighbor with the 4 SUVs sitting in the driveway. :p )
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
It's a problem that isn't worth destroying the world over. How about putting that money into new forms of energy, rather than non-renewable, dirty, crap like we have now.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,196
47,442
136
No, the US doesn't have anywhere near enough oil accessible through conventional/economical means to do it anyway. Breaking our reliance on foreign oil (and oil in general as a primary fuel source) also has a quite large strategic and economic upside in the long run.

Oil shale will and is being developed but it won't be close to a scale that could supply the quantity of oil reqired to offset imports for a long while. There are technical and environmental concerns about how you get it out of the ground too. A number of companies are working on these problems now. If anything I see this oil source as supplanting our conventional wells when they dry up over the next few decades to provide oil mostly for the chemical industry.

 

OokiiNeko

Senior member
Jun 14, 2003
508
0
0
Sure, just double the CAFE standard. Same as cutting the price of gas, or diesel, in half.

Or sell these already in production cars here:

Driven normally, the little Lupo turned in 70 miles per gallon, mainly on two-lane roads through stop-and-start villages. That was 3.38 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers. Others on the test drive, trying to better the target, sipped just 2.79 liters per 100 km, equal to about 84 miles per gallon.

The 1.3-litre Duratec 8V 60 PS version in the Ford Ka delivers a combined cycle fuel economy of 5.9 litres/100 km (47.9 mpg), with target CO2 emissions of 140 g/km, whilst the 70 PS version delivers 6.5 l/100 km (44.1 mpg) and 154 g/km respectively.

No, this can`t be true:
Ailis Aaron, co-editor of "The Ultimate Car Book 2001" and "The Used Car Book 2000-2001," said: "It would be one thing if there were just a handful of more fuel-efficient cars available outside the U.S., but the reality is that our research turned up at least 129 car models for sale elsewhere at 35mpg or better for combined city/highway purposes, including 86 rated at 40mpg or better combined. The notion that foreign car buyers are somehow different from U.S. car buyers is just another wrong assumption on the part of Detroit. And you can't explain away the difference here by safety standards or EPA rules. Most of the best recent safety innovations came from Europe and Japan -- not the United States. And when it comes to pollution, consider this fact: There are two vehicles in the U.S. that get combined city/highway ratings of 50mpg or better and both of them are hybrids. Outside of the U.S., there are 34 vehicles that get 50mpg or better and 30 of them use 'clean diesel' technology that the EPA says is more fuel efficient and results in less of the pollutants linked to global warming."

Nope, no big oil / car company conspiracy here. No sir.

:)
 

eits

Lifer
Jun 4, 2005
25,015
3
81
www.integratedssr.com
first off, it'll be a long time to feel any effects of lowering oil and gas prices if we drill in alaska... secondly, it'd just be treating the symptom, not the problem. we need to get away from oil altogether... continuing to rely on it won't keep us motivated to seek alternatives. right now, our feet are on the fire to find an alternative... americans are lazy as fuck, easily the laziest people on the planet, and if the prices go down, no one will care about alternatives until the prices go way up again.

i kinda like how our feet are being put to he fire... it forces us to be better humans and treat the world (both ecologically and fraternally) better. no more of this "fuck you" attitude to others in the world.
 

eits

Lifer
Jun 4, 2005
25,015
3
81
www.integratedssr.com
Originally posted by: Pabster
No. Gas prices need to remain sky-high. The last thing we need is "cheap" gas again just when billions are being funneled in to alternative energy R&D. Americans are simply too weak to get "cheap" fuel and remain environmentally responsible. (Ask your neighbor with the 4 SUVs sitting in the driveway. :p )

who are you and what have you done to pabster?
 

Deudalus

Golden Member
Jan 16, 2005
1,090
0
0
Originally posted by: eits
first off, it'll be a long time to feel any effects of lowering oil and gas prices if we drill in alaska... secondly, it'd just be treating the symptom, not the problem. we need to get away from oil altogether... continuing to rely on it won't keep us motivated to seek alternatives. right now, our feet are on the fire to find an alternative... americans are lazy as fuck, easily the laziest people on the planet, and if the prices go down, no one will care about alternatives until the prices go way up again.

i kinda like how our feet are being put to he fire... it forces us to be better humans and treat the world (both ecologically and fraternally) better. no more of this "fuck you" attitude to others in the world.

Umm, firstly I would disagree about us being lazy.

According to CBS we are a nation of workaholics:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories.../60II/main704571.shtml

I'm fairly certain that the western European Countries for example don't work anywhere near as much as the average U.S. citizen which is one reason why our economy is so much stronger (yes even now). The French for example get an average of 8 weeks off per year and are not allowed to work over 35 hours per week. If they work over 35 hours, they don't get overtime pay, they get even more time off later.


Secondly, I wasn't just talking about Alaska. According to Wiki, the US has the largest shale oil deposits in the world by a long shot and we have enough in the Green River Valley alone to do wonders for us.

We just aren't allowed to get it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale
 

Deudalus

Golden Member
Jan 16, 2005
1,090
0
0
Oil shale is a fine-grained sedimentary rock containing significant amounts of kerogen (a solid mixture of organic chemical compounds), from which liquid hydrocarbons can be extracted. The name oil shale has been described as a promotional misnomer, since the rock is not necessarily a shale and its kerogen is not crude oil; it requires more processing than crude oil, which affects its economic viability as a crude oil substitute.[1][2] Deposits of oil shale are located around the world, including major deposits in the United States. Global deposits are estimated as equivalent to 2.8 trillion to 3.3 trillion barrels (450×109 to 520×109 m3) of recoverable oil.[2][3][4][5]

The chemical process of pyrolysis can convert the kerogen in oil shale into synthetic crude oil. When oil shale is heated to a sufficiently high temperature a vapor is driven off which can be distilled (retorted) to yield a petroleum-like shale oil?a form of non-conventional oil?and combustible shale gas (shale gas can also refer to gas occurring naturally in shales). Oil shale can also be burned directly as a low-grade fuel for power generation and heating purposes and can be used as a raw material in the chemical and construction materials industries.[6][2]

Oil shale has gained attention as an energy resource as the price of conventional sources of petroleum has risen and as a way for some areas to secure independence from external suppliers of energy.[7][8] At the same time, oil shale mining and processing involve a number of environmental issues, such as land use, waste disposal, water use and waste water management, and air pollution.[9][10] The oil shale industry is well-established in Estonia, China and Brazil, and to some extent in Germany, Israel and Russia.

Reserves

Main article: Oil shale reserves

Fossils in Ordovician oil shale (kukersite), northern Estonia
Fossils in Ordovician oil shale (kukersite), northern Estonia

Some analysts, along with the United States Geological Survey, draw a distinction between oil-shale resources and oil-shale reserves. "Resources" may refer to all oil shale deposits, while "reserves" is more narrowly defined as those deposits from which oil can profitably be extracted using existing technologies. Since extraction technologies are still developing, the amount of recoverable kerogen can only be estimated.[6][18] Although oil shale resources occur in many countries, only 33 countries possess deposits of possible economic value.[19][20] Well-explored deposits, which could be classified as reserves, include the Green River deposits in the western United States, the Tertiary deposits in Queensland, Australia, deposits in Sweden and Estonia, the El-Lajjun deposit in Jordan, and deposits in France, Germany, Brazil, China, and Russia. It is expected that these deposits would yield at least 40 liters of shale oil per tonne of shale, using the Fischer assay.[6][14]

A 2005 estimate set the total world resources of oil shale at 411 gigatons ? enough to yield 2.8 to 3.3 trillion barrels (520 km³) of shale oil.[2][3][4][5] This is more than world's proven conventional oil reserves, estimated to be 1.317 trillion barrels (209.4×109 m3), as of 1 January 2007.[21] The largest deposits in the world are found in the United States in the Green River basin, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming; about 70% of this resource is located on federally owned or managed land.[22] Deposits in the United States constitute 62% of world resources; together, the United States, Russia and Brazil account for 86% of the world's resources in terms of shale oil content.[19] These figures are considered tentative, as several deposits have not yet been explored or analyzed.[6][2]

Industry

Main article: Oil shale industry

As of 2008 industry uses oil shale in Brazil, China, Estonia and to some extent in Germany, Israel, and Russia. Several additional countries were assessing their reserves or had built experimental production plants, while others had phased out their oil shale industry.[2] Oil shale is used for oil production in Estonia, Brazil, and China; for power generation in Estonia, China, Israel, and Germany; for cement production in Estonia, Germany, and China; and by chemical industries in China, Estonia, and Russia.[28][2][34][35] As of 2005, Estonia alone accounted for about 70% of the world's oil shale production.[34][36]

Romania and Russia have in the past run power plants fired by oil shale, but have shut them down or switched to other fuel sources such as natural gas. Jordan and Egypt are planning to construct oil shale-fired power plants, while Canada and Turkey plan to burn oil shale along with coal for power generation.[2][19][37] Oil shale is used as the main fuel for power generation only in Estonia, where the oil shale-fired Narva Power Plants accounted for 95% of electrical generation in 2005.[38]

Applications and products

Oil shale can be used as a fuel for thermal power plants, burning it (like coal) to drive steam turbines; some of these plants employ the resulting heat for district heating of homes and businesses. Sizable oil shale-fired power plants are located in Estonia, which has an installed capacity of 2,967 megawatts (MW), Israel (12.5 MW), China (12 MW), and Germany (9.9 MW).[19][46]

In addition to its use as a fuel, oil shale may also serve in the production of specialty carbon fibers, adsorbent carbons, carbon black, phenols, resins, glues, tanning agents, mastic, road bitumen, cement, bricks, construction and decorative blocks, soil additives, fertilizers, rock wool insulation, glass, and pharmaceutical products.[34] However, oil-shale use for production of these items remains small or only in its experimental stages.[6][2] Some oil shales yield sulfur, ammonia, alumina, soda ash, uranium, and nahcolite as shale oil extraction byproducts. Between 1946 and 1952, a marine type of Dictyonema shale was used for uranium production in Sillamäe, Estonia, and between 1950 and 1989 alum shale was used in Sweden for the same purposes.[6] Another of its uses has been as a substitute for natural gas, but as of 2008, producing shale gas as a natural gas substitute is not economically feasible.[47][48]

The oil derived from oil shale does not directly substitute for crude oil in all applications. It contains higher concentrations of olefins, oxygen, and nitrogen than conventional crude oil, as well as higher viscosities. By comparison with West Texas Intermediate, the benchmark standard for crude oil in the futures contract market, shale oil sulfur content ranges up to 9.5% by weight, where West Texas Intermediate's sulfur content is limited to no more than 0.42%.[49][50] The higher concentrations of these materials means that the oil must undergo considerable upgrading before being used as oil refinery feedstock.[51] Shale oil does not contain the full range of hydrocarbons used in modern gasoline production, and could only be used to produce middle-distillates such as kerosene, jet fuel, and diesel fuel.[4] Worldwide demand for these middle distillates, however, is increasing rapidly.[52]
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: OokiiNekoNope, no big oil / car company conspiracy here. No sir.

:)
If those were going to sell, they'd already be here. Subcompacts already get good mileage but people haven't bought many of them because gas was cheap. As it goes up in cost, pathetic little cars become more interesting and that's why the versa/fit/etc. cars are now more numerous. Do you want to drive a Lupo for 10-20k miles/year on highways at 75 miles/hour? I sure don't.

I would like lower gas costs but the US has been a wasteful sloth with fuel for a long time and I do think at some point we need to pay the piper. It might as well be now. Let's get it over with, as said above.

 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,196
47,442
136
Originally posted by: Deudalus

Secondly, I wasn't just talking about Alaska. According to Wiki, the US has the largest shale oil deposits in the world by a long shot and we have enough in the Green River Valley alone to do wonders for us.

We just aren't allowed to get it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale

Incorrect.

Until the last couple of years it wasn't cost effective to access the oil shale by any known or theoretical recovery method. Even the most advanced methods of in situ recovery have issues (energy/water intensive) and haven't been thoroughly tested yet for environmental impact (residues leaking into aquifers and watersheds).

There are currently several pilot plants testing out different technologies on a small scale.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
I would not support the drilling if we did not also fully support Nuclear Power or some other form of reliable and cheap energy which will eventually advance us beyond the need for oil. Simply drilling more without working really hard at doing what needs to be done to rid ourselves of the need for oil is not solving the problem. It would only provide a bandaid until we start to run short of that oil too. It would not be wise to repeat history like that. We need to learn from our past mistakes of relying on oil too much for too long.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
No. Gas prices need to remain sky-high. The last thing we need is "cheap" gas again just when billions are being funneled in to alternative energy R&D. Americans are simply too weak to get "cheap" fuel and remain environmentally responsible. (Ask your neighbor with the 4 SUVs sitting in the driveway. :p )

How many people do you know with 4 SUV's in the driveway?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
If gas prices were cut in half must tax SUV owners double or more.

Treat SUV's like cigarettes and Alcohol as a sin.

If the einvrionrment is such an issue and people enjoying themselves a sin. Tax people who use air conditioning. Those coal plants work overtime to keep people cool in the summer.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
If gas prices were cut in half must tax SUV owners double or more.

Treat SUV's like cigarettes and Alcohol as a sin.

If the einvrionrment is such an issue and people enjoying themselves a sin.

Tax people who use air conditioning.

Those coal plants work overtime to keep people cool in the summer.

AC is already taxed, by the meter, use more AC, the Electric bill is higher.

That is not the case with SUV's.

Yes, they pay slightly more in gas tax because they are using more gas but they are paying the same amunt per gallon as the guy in a compact car.


Truckers pay more because their trucks weigh more, SUV's need a similar differentiation.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Pabster
No. Gas prices need to remain sky-high. The last thing we need is "cheap" gas again just when billions are being funneled in to alternative energy R&D. Americans are simply too weak to get "cheap" fuel and remain environmentally responsible. (Ask your neighbor with the 4 SUVs sitting in the driveway. :p )

How many people do you know with 4 SUV's in the driveway?

Many

and many of them have parked one or more of them and/or have For Sale signs on them.

About damn time.

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
If gas prices were cut in half must tax SUV owners double or more.

Treat SUV's like cigarettes and Alcohol as a sin.

If the einvrionrment is such an issue and people enjoying themselves a sin.

Tax people who use air conditioning.

Those coal plants work overtime to keep people cool in the summer.

AC is already taxed, by the meter, use more AC, the Electric bill is higher.

That is not the case with SUV's.

Yes, they pay slightly more in gas tax because they are using more gas but they are paying the same amunt per gallon as the guy in a compact car.


Truckers pay more because their trucks weigh more, SUV's need a similar differentiation.

Tax them more is what I was alluding to smarty pants. And yes SUV's already pay more tax. Often they are subject to a luxury tax. And then they pay more in fuel costs which means higher state and federal gasoline taxes.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
If gas prices were cut in half must tax SUV owners double or more.

Treat SUV's like cigarettes and Alcohol as a sin.

If the einvrionrment is such an issue and people enjoying themselves a sin.

Tax people who use air conditioning.

Those coal plants work overtime to keep people cool in the summer.

AC is already taxed, by the meter, use more AC, the Electric bill is higher.

That is not the case with SUV's.

Yes, they pay slightly more in gas tax because they are using more gas but they are paying the same amunt per gallon as the guy in a compact car.


Truckers pay more because their trucks weigh more, SUV's need a similar differentiation.
What the hell?