New McCain Ad Blames Obama For High Gas Prices.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Harvey, I have one question I cannot get an answer for, what is the difference in price OPEC gets for a barrel of oil and the price delivered to the refinery?

I've got one answer. Ask someone in the oil biz. I design electronics. :)

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Why do people seem to want this to be an either/or fight? Why can't it be both/all?

If you're talking about conservation and new domestic drilling, conservation is definitely possible and has been delayed too long, but, as I and others have already posted, The idea that drilling offshore and in ANWR will produce usable fuel at the pump or do anything else to lower gas prices in the immediate future has already been discredited by every expert in the field.
If you don't think that's the case, you can always search for links to show us. :)


I have seen plenty of stories where the "experts" say they can be on line within a year or two(off shore), sorry I don't have any links. The same expert claim that us getting serious about drilling will drop to oil price by the speculators.

Any links to when we can start seeing savings by using ""alternative energy"?
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
domestic drilling is a long run dead end, its just delaying the inevitable by a few months and a few cents.


How can you be so sure, I have seen "experts" on both sides disagree, and I have seen the Dem's proclaim the supply and demand have nothing to do with it.

Worst case scenario we keep some oil money at home.

I think the ultimate is sillyness is the democrats saying drilling at home will do nothing while pressuring OPEC to increase supplies lmao. You cant make this shit up.

^ Exactly.

Fern


Add to that those whom are starting to talk about releasing oil from the strategic reserve. Funnny how drilling for more oil (in the US) isn't the answer but they wan't everything else done to add more oil into the system; other than drilling in the US.

And that's in the same breath as saying that it's not a supply issue....

 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: Budmantom

I have seen plenty of stories where the "experts" say they can be on line within a year or two(off shore), sorry I don't have any links. The same expert claim that us getting serious about drilling will drop to oil price by the speculators.

Any links to when we can start seeing savings by using ""alternative energy"?

Wrong question. The more meaningful question is where to invest the finite resources to achieve the best result. For example, if an investment in drilling won't produce more oil for a decade, and during that same decade, a similar investment in a renewable energy source could be brought online to produce a similar amount of power at a similar cost, then it would make more sense to prioritize in favor of the renewable resource because it addresses other benefial goals of reducing our carbon output.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
2030 is a silly timeframe, it might as well be 2100. I've heard that drilling domestically could start returning oil between 3-10 years depending on who you ask and given how old this industry is, 3-10 years tells us that there is a vast amount of bias on somebody or everybody's side, doesn't it?
Wrong question. The more meaningful question is where to invest the finite resources to achieve the best result. For example, if an investment in drilling won't produce more oil for a decade, and during that same decade, a similar investment in a renewable energy source could be brought online to produce a similar amount of power at a similar cost, then it would make more sense to prioritize in favor of the renewable resource because it addresses other benefial goals of reducing our carbon output.
Unfortunately alternative is also old enough for us to knwo what we're getting for our money and it's not much. I really do want to see us all driving electric cars to work powered by nuke or wind but for now black gold is the ticket. Of course, we probably both know that the US' indolence would ensure that instead of using oil drilling as a stop gap as alternatives are ramped up, as it should, it would just forget about the problem until the oil is down again.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Budmantom

I have seen plenty of stories where the "experts" say they can be on line within a year or two(off shore), sorry I don't have any links. The same expert claim that us getting serious about drilling will drop to oil price by the speculators.

Any links to when we can start seeing savings by using ""alternative energy"?

Wrong question. The more meaningful question is where to invest the finite resources to achieve the best result. For example, if an investment in drilling won't produce more oil for a decade, and during that same decade, a similar investment in a renewable energy source could be brought online to produce a similar amount of power at a similar cost, then it would make more sense to prioritize in favor of the renewable resource because it addresses other benefial goals of reducing our carbon output.

You act like we can only do one, oil exploration is paid out of the private sector and we don't have to supplement it.

















 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: Budmantom

You act like we can only do one, oil exploration is paid out of the private sector and we don't have to supplement it.

You act like you're assuming resources from the private sector are any less finite than public resources. Clue... They're not. There's only so much money and so many man-hours and so much hardware to pursue various possiblities and opportunities.
 

RY62

Senior member
Mar 13, 2005
890
153
106
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Budmantom

I have seen plenty of stories where the "experts" say they can be on line within a year or two(off shore), sorry I don't have any links. The same expert claim that us getting serious about drilling will drop to oil price by the speculators.

Any links to when we can start seeing savings by using ""alternative energy"?

Wrong question. The more meaningful question is where to invest the finite resources to achieve the best result. For example, if an investment in drilling won't produce more oil for a decade, and during that same decade, a similar investment in a renewable energy source could be brought online to produce a similar amount of power at a similar cost, then it would make more sense to prioritize in favor of the renewable resource because it addresses other benefial goals of reducing our carbon output.

What are the "finite resources" you're referring to? Are you talking about government resources or private resources?

I assume the investment in drilling would be made by the oil companies. If they aren't investing in drilling here, and thereby pumping money back into our economy, wouldn't they be investing those resources in foriegn oil and thereby investing in foriegn economies? The oil companies are involved in alternatives but they're still "oil" companies and they're going to get oil where they can.

No matter what we do, we'll still need oil for many many years to come. I'd rather see some of that oil money in our economy, putting people to work in all of the industries that support the oil industries.

I'm also fully in favor of exploring alternatives. I'm in favor of incentives for companies to work on alternatives. I don't think we should limit our options in any way.
 

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Who cares how expensive oil is?

I say keep it expensive. As long as it is cheap we won't do anything about it.


I really hope you are joking. High prices will lead to more deaths this winter than the whole IRAQ war. Youi really think the working class will be able to afford their heating bills this winter at the current prices? Then you add in the cost of every transported good going up and you have a ton of suffering. High prices will push this unstable economy over the edge in to a possible depression.

Both canidates will invest billions into alternative research and incentives. The high gas prices during an election year has turned the tide towards alternatives there is no going back. The high prices the last few months have done more than enough to ensure a real energy program by the country.

If they want to slip in speculation control into a bill that lifts the drilling ban fine by me. The speculators will just move to another market but atleast we would get some domestic drilling.

There is no reason not to do both drilling and alternative research. It amazes me so many people think a real alternative is around the corner it is not.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Budmantom

You act like we can only do one, oil exploration is paid out of the private sector and we don't have to supplement it.

You act like you're assuming resources from the private sector are any less finite than public resources. Clue... They're not. There's only so much money and so many man-hours and so much hardware to pursue various possiblities and opportunities.


Are you joking?
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Budmantom

I have seen plenty of stories where the "experts" say they can be on line within a year or two(off shore), sorry I don't have any links. The same expert claim that us getting serious about drilling will drop to oil price by the speculators.

Any links to when we can start seeing savings by using ""alternative energy"?

Wrong question. The more meaningful question is where to invest the finite resources to achieve the best result. For example, if an investment in drilling won't produce more oil for a decade, and during that same decade, a similar investment in a renewable energy source could be brought online to produce a similar amount of power at a similar cost, then it would make more sense to prioritize in favor of the renewable resource because it addresses other benefial goals of reducing our carbon output.

What are the "finite resources" you're referring to? Are you talking about government resources or private resources?

I assume the investment in drilling would be made by the oil companies. If they aren't investing in drilling here, and thereby pumping money back into our economy, wouldn't they be investing those resources in foriegn oil and thereby investing in foriegn economies? The oil companies are involved in alternatives but they're still "oil" companies and they're going to get oil where they can.

No matter what we do, we'll still need oil for many many years to come. I'd rather see some of that oil money in our economy, putting people to work in all of the industries that support the oil industries.

I'm also fully in favor of exploring alternatives. I'm in favor of incentives for companies to work on alternatives. I don't think we should limit our options in any way.
Considering they spend more money buying back their stocks than exploring new areas, I have little faith in the oil companies to reduce prices at the pump.
 

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Budmantom

I have seen plenty of stories where the "experts" say they can be on line within a year or two(off shore), sorry I don't have any links. The same expert claim that us getting serious about drilling will drop to oil price by the speculators.

Any links to when we can start seeing savings by using ""alternative energy"?

Wrong question. The more meaningful question is where to invest the finite resources to achieve the best result. For example, if an investment in drilling won't produce more oil for a decade, and during that same decade, a similar investment in a renewable energy source could be brought online to produce a similar amount of power at a similar cost, then it would make more sense to prioritize in favor of the renewable resource because it addresses other benefial goals of reducing our carbon output.

What are the "finite resources" you're referring to? Are you talking about government resources or private resources?

I assume the investment in drilling would be made by the oil companies. If they aren't investing in drilling here, and thereby pumping money back into our economy, wouldn't they be investing those resources in foriegn oil and thereby investing in foriegn economies? The oil companies are involved in alternatives but they're still "oil" companies and they're going to get oil where they can.

No matter what we do, we'll still need oil for many many years to come. I'd rather see some of that oil money in our economy, putting people to work in all of the industries that support the oil industries.

I'm also fully in favor of exploring alternatives. I'm in favor of incentives for companies to work on alternatives. I don't think we should limit our options in any way.
Considering they spend more money buying back their stocks than exploring new areas, I have little faith in the oil companies to reduce prices at the pump.

What new areas to explore the areas that have oil they can not drill on thanks to the bans. What else they supposed to do with the money drill on land with no oil? Lift the ban and they will have lots of new areas to drill and put americans to work. They will even put billions in the pocket of the government and reduce the price of gas/heating oil helping the working class and the economy.

I can understand people thinking the oil companies are evil. They are not stupid they would love to drill as many wells as possible to maximize profits. Even the saudi's are upping production to take advantage of the high prices.

 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
I am certainly not joking.
Gas is ridiculously cheap in the US:2005 CNN article
Current Slate article

It is not that long ago that gas sold for < $2/gallon here. I do not recall new articles decrying the deaths of thousands of Americans from the run up.

We are resourceful people. We will adapt our habits, businesses will find distribution efficiencies, new businesses will crop up to address oil costs (both from a service and environmental perspective). But with cheap gas we will apply our resourcefulness elsewhere.


 

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
I am certainly not joking.
Gas is ridiculously cheap in the US:2005 CNN article
Current Slate article

It is not that long ago that gas sold for < $2/gallon here. I do not recall new articles decrying the deaths of thousands of Americans from the run up.

We are resourceful people. We will adapt our habits, businesses will find distribution efficiencies, new businesses will crop up to address oil costs (both from a service and environmental perspective). But with cheap gas we will apply our resourcefulness elsewhere.


I don't think all working class/fixed income people will find a way to pay close to twice as much to heat their homes this winter. I know who needs heat when it is -10F in the middle of january right? I guess you are counting on global warming to keep northern minnesota 40+F all winter? Then add in the skyrocketing price of food and you have a disaster this winter up north. I know my grocery bill has gone up atleast 10% this year.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Budmantom

I have seen plenty of stories where the "experts" say they can be on line within a year or two(off shore), sorry I don't have any links. The same expert claim that us getting serious about drilling will drop to oil price by the speculators.

Any links to when we can start seeing savings by using ""alternative energy"?

Wrong question. The more meaningful question is where to invest the finite resources to achieve the best result. For example, if an investment in drilling won't produce more oil for a decade, and during that same decade, a similar investment in a renewable energy source could be brought online to produce a similar amount of power at a similar cost, then it would make more sense to prioritize in favor of the renewable resource because it addresses other benefial goals of reducing our carbon output.

What are the "finite resources" you're referring to? Are you talking about government resources or private resources?

I assume the investment in drilling would be made by the oil companies. If they aren't investing in drilling here, and thereby pumping money back into our economy, wouldn't they be investing those resources in foriegn oil and thereby investing in foriegn economies? The oil companies are involved in alternatives but they're still "oil" companies and they're going to get oil where they can.

No matter what we do, we'll still need oil for many many years to come. I'd rather see some of that oil money in our economy, putting people to work in all of the industries that support the oil industries.

I'm also fully in favor of exploring alternatives. I'm in favor of incentives for companies to work on alternatives. I don't think we should limit our options in any way.
Considering they spend more money buying back their stocks than exploring new areas, I have little faith in the oil companies to reduce prices at the pump.

Any chance you could be wrong?

 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Budmantom

I have seen plenty of stories where the "experts" say they can be on line within a year or two(off shore), sorry I don't have any links. The same expert claim that us getting serious about drilling will drop to oil price by the speculators.

Any links to when we can start seeing savings by using ""alternative energy"?

Wrong question. The more meaningful question is where to invest the finite resources to achieve the best result. For example, if an investment in drilling won't produce more oil for a decade, and during that same decade, a similar investment in a renewable energy source could be brought online to produce a similar amount of power at a similar cost, then it would make more sense to prioritize in favor of the renewable resource because it addresses other benefial goals of reducing our carbon output.

What are the "finite resources" you're referring to? Are you talking about government resources or private resources?

I assume the investment in drilling would be made by the oil companies. If they aren't investing in drilling here, and thereby pumping money back into our economy, wouldn't they be investing those resources in foriegn oil and thereby investing in foriegn economies? The oil companies are involved in alternatives but they're still "oil" companies and they're going to get oil where they can.

No matter what we do, we'll still need oil for many many years to come. I'd rather see some of that oil money in our economy, putting people to work in all of the industries that support the oil industries.

I'm also fully in favor of exploring alternatives. I'm in favor of incentives for companies to work on alternatives. I don't think we should limit our options in any way.


Agreed
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Originally posted by: quest55720
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
I am certainly not joking.
Gas is ridiculously cheap in the US:2005 CNN article
Current Slate article

It is not that long ago that gas sold for < $2/gallon here. I do not recall new articles decrying the deaths of thousands of Americans from the run up.

We are resourceful people. We will adapt our habits, businesses will find distribution efficiencies, new businesses will crop up to address oil costs (both from a service and environmental perspective). But with cheap gas we will apply our resourcefulness elsewhere.


I don't think all working class/fixed income people will find a way to pay close to twice as much to heat their homes this winter. I know who needs heat when it is -10F in the middle of january right? I guess you are counting on global warming to keep northern minnesota 40+F all winter? Then add in the skyrocketing price of food and you have a disaster this winter up north. I know my grocery bill has gone up atleast 10% this year.

First off, I suggested that the price of gas should remain high. Hopefully you are not using that to heat your house.

Secondly, in climates like Northern MN (I live in the Twin Cities, and my mother-in-law lives in Superior WI) most sensible people already understand the importance of multiple heating sources.

I wish you the best, but if you live under circumstances that are untenable, you will find a way to change those circumstances. If you have the wherewithal to post on this forum, I believe that you have what it takes to get by as gas prices remain high.
 

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: quest55720
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
I am certainly not joking.
Gas is ridiculously cheap in the US:2005 CNN article
Current Slate article

It is not that long ago that gas sold for < $2/gallon here. I do not recall new articles decrying the deaths of thousands of Americans from the run up.

We are resourceful people. We will adapt our habits, businesses will find distribution efficiencies, new businesses will crop up to address oil costs (both from a service and environmental perspective). But with cheap gas we will apply our resourcefulness elsewhere.


I don't think all working class/fixed income people will find a way to pay close to twice as much to heat their homes this winter. I know who needs heat when it is -10F in the middle of january right? I guess you are counting on global warming to keep northern minnesota 40+F all winter? Then add in the skyrocketing price of food and you have a disaster this winter up north. I know my grocery bill has gone up atleast 10% this year.

First off, I suggested that the price of gas should remain high. Hopefully you are not using that to heat your house.

Secondly, in climates like Northern MN (I live in the Twin Cities, and my mother-in-law lives in Superior WI) most sensible people already understand the importance of multiple heating sources.

I wish you the best, but if you live under circumstances that are untenable, you will find a way to change those circumstances. If you have the wherewithal to post on this forum, I believe that you have what it takes to get by as gas prices remain high.

I personally don't know anyone who has more than 1 main source of heat. Sure they might have a few space heaters to heat certain rooms if something happens to the furnace. Just like me I use electic heat if the grid goes down I am SOL. I either have to tough it out or if it is to cold find some where else to stay till the grid is backup.

Sure I have what it takes because I am lucky and was able to get more hours at work to help make up the short fall. If I was not so lucky I would of had to get a part time job to pay the bills. There are those not so lucky who can not pick up more hours at work or worse yet who lost their jobs or unable to work for various reasons. Those are the people I worry about since I know people in those situations.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: quest55720
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: quest55720
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
I am certainly not joking.
Gas is ridiculously cheap in the US:2005 CNN article
Current Slate article

It is not that long ago that gas sold for < $2/gallon here. I do not recall new articles decrying the deaths of thousands of Americans from the run up.

We are resourceful people. We will adapt our habits, businesses will find distribution efficiencies, new businesses will crop up to address oil costs (both from a service and environmental perspective). But with cheap gas we will apply our resourcefulness elsewhere.


I don't think all working class/fixed income people will find a way to pay close to twice as much to heat their homes this winter. I know who needs heat when it is -10F in the middle of january right? I guess you are counting on global warming to keep northern minnesota 40+F all winter? Then add in the skyrocketing price of food and you have a disaster this winter up north. I know my grocery bill has gone up atleast 10% this year.

First off, I suggested that the price of gas should remain high. Hopefully you are not using that to heat your house.
Secondly, in climates like Northern MN (I live in the Twin Cities, and my mother-in-law lives in Superior WI) most sensible people already understand the importance of multiple heating sources.

I wish you the best, but if you live under circumstances that are untenable, you will find a way to change those circumstances. If you have the wherewithal to post on this forum, I believe that you have what it takes to get by as gas prices remain high.

I personally don't know anyone who has more than 1 main source of heat. Sure they might have a few space heaters to heat certain rooms if something happens to the furnace. Just like me I use electic heat if the grid goes down I am SOL. I either have to tough it out or if it is to cold find some where else to stay till the grid is backup.

Sure I have what it takes because I am lucky and was able to get more hours at work to help make up the short fall. If I was not so lucky I would of had to get a part time job to pay the bills. There are those not so lucky who can not pick up more hours at work or worse yet who lost their jobs or unable to work for various reasons. Those are the people I worry about since I know people in those situations.


That just sounds like typical liberal garbage.

I hope the gas prices go down to $1 per gallon so we can go wherever, our auto industry can recover and lower/middle class can have a bit more discretionary spending, but that's just me.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: loki8481

where do the finite resources come in?

The resources to fund various possible solutions are always finite

if VA leases a plot of land 50 miles off their coasts to an oil company, how's that going to prevent or negatively impact money that's paying for the R&D guys elsewhere to research energy alternatives? it's not like funding is going to dry up -- if someone invents a technology that replaces oil as the backbone of our economy, they'll end up as the richest people in the world.
 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: quest55720
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: quest55720
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
I am certainly not joking.
Gas is ridiculously cheap in the US:2005 CNN article
Current Slate article

It is not that long ago that gas sold for < $2/gallon here. I do not recall new articles decrying the deaths of thousands of Americans from the run up.

We are resourceful people. We will adapt our habits, businesses will find distribution efficiencies, new businesses will crop up to address oil costs (both from a service and environmental perspective). But with cheap gas we will apply our resourcefulness elsewhere.


I don't think all working class/fixed income people will find a way to pay close to twice as much to heat their homes this winter. I know who needs heat when it is -10F in the middle of january right? I guess you are counting on global warming to keep northern minnesota 40+F all winter? Then add in the skyrocketing price of food and you have a disaster this winter up north. I know my grocery bill has gone up atleast 10% this year.

First off, I suggested that the price of gas should remain high. Hopefully you are not using that to heat your house.
Secondly, in climates like Northern MN (I live in the Twin Cities, and my mother-in-law lives in Superior WI) most sensible people already understand the importance of multiple heating sources.

I wish you the best, but if you live under circumstances that are untenable, you will find a way to change those circumstances. If you have the wherewithal to post on this forum, I believe that you have what it takes to get by as gas prices remain high.

I personally don't know anyone who has more than 1 main source of heat. Sure they might have a few space heaters to heat certain rooms if something happens to the furnace. Just like me I use electic heat if the grid goes down I am SOL. I either have to tough it out or if it is to cold find some where else to stay till the grid is backup.

Sure I have what it takes because I am lucky and was able to get more hours at work to help make up the short fall. If I was not so lucky I would of had to get a part time job to pay the bills. There are those not so lucky who can not pick up more hours at work or worse yet who lost their jobs or unable to work for various reasons. Those are the people I worry about since I know people in those situations.


That just sounds like typical liberal garbage.

I hope the gas prices go down to $1 per gallon so we can go wherever, our auto industry can recover and lower/middle class can have a bit more discretionary spending, but that's just me.

While it is true that I lean liberal, there are a large number of conservatives who argue the same thing that I do: that high gas prices are what will drive changes in our behavior. I would have no problem with cheaper gas (and other fuels) if it were accompanied by investments in alternatives and power saving technologies. Unfortunately, what we have seen is that if fuel is cheap, we loose interest in conservation. For some reason, we Americans think with our wallets.

 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: quest55720
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: quest55720
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
I am certainly not joking.
Gas is ridiculously cheap in the US:2005 CNN article
Current Slate article

It is not that long ago that gas sold for < $2/gallon here. I do not recall new articles decrying the deaths of thousands of Americans from the run up.

We are resourceful people. We will adapt our habits, businesses will find distribution efficiencies, new businesses will crop up to address oil costs (both from a service and environmental perspective). But with cheap gas we will apply our resourcefulness elsewhere.


I don't think all working class/fixed income people will find a way to pay close to twice as much to heat their homes this winter. I know who needs heat when it is -10F in the middle of january right? I guess you are counting on global warming to keep northern minnesota 40+F all winter? Then add in the skyrocketing price of food and you have a disaster this winter up north. I know my grocery bill has gone up atleast 10% this year.

First off, I suggested that the price of gas should remain high. Hopefully you are not using that to heat your house.
Secondly, in climates like Northern MN (I live in the Twin Cities, and my mother-in-law lives in Superior WI) most sensible people already understand the importance of multiple heating sources.

I wish you the best, but if you live under circumstances that are untenable, you will find a way to change those circumstances. If you have the wherewithal to post on this forum, I believe that you have what it takes to get by as gas prices remain high.

I personally don't know anyone who has more than 1 main source of heat. Sure they might have a few space heaters to heat certain rooms if something happens to the furnace. Just like me I use electic heat if the grid goes down I am SOL. I either have to tough it out or if it is to cold find some where else to stay till the grid is backup.

Sure I have what it takes because I am lucky and was able to get more hours at work to help make up the short fall. If I was not so lucky I would of had to get a part time job to pay the bills. There are those not so lucky who can not pick up more hours at work or worse yet who lost their jobs or unable to work for various reasons. Those are the people I worry about since I know people in those situations.


That just sounds like typical liberal garbage.

I hope the gas prices go down to $1 per gallon so we can go wherever, our auto industry can recover and lower/middle class can have a bit more discretionary spending, but that's just me.

While it is true that I lean liberal, there are a large number of conservatives who argue the same thing that I do: that high gas prices are what will drive changes in our behavior. I would have no problem with cheaper gas (and other fuels) if it were accompanied by investments in alternatives and power saving technologies. Unfortunately, what we have seen is that if fuel is cheap, we loose interest in conservation. For some reason, we Americans think with our wallets.


And hurt our economy...
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Budmantom

I have seen plenty of stories where the "experts" say they can be on line within a year or two(off shore), sorry I don't have any links. The same expert claim that us getting serious about drilling will drop to oil price by the speculators.

Any links to when we can start seeing savings by using ""alternative energy"?

Wrong question. The more meaningful question is where to invest the finite resources to achieve the best result. For example, if an investment in drilling won't produce more oil for a decade, and during that same decade, a similar investment in a renewable energy source could be brought online to produce a similar amount of power at a similar cost, then it would make more sense to prioritize in favor of the renewable resource because it addresses other benefial goals of reducing our carbon output.

What are the "finite resources" you're referring to? Are you talking about government resources or private resources?

I assume the investment in drilling would be made by the oil companies. If they aren't investing in drilling here, and thereby pumping money back into our economy, wouldn't they be investing those resources in foriegn oil and thereby investing in foriegn economies? The oil companies are involved in alternatives but they're still "oil" companies and they're going to get oil where they can.

No matter what we do, we'll still need oil for many many years to come. I'd rather see some of that oil money in our economy, putting people to work in all of the industries that support the oil industries.

I'm also fully in favor of exploring alternatives. I'm in favor of incentives for companies to work on alternatives. I don't think we should limit our options in any way.
Considering they spend more money buying back their stocks than exploring new areas, I have little faith in the oil companies to reduce prices at the pump.

Then you have nothing to worry about. Lift the ban, the oil companies will buy up the leases and, like a lot of others have pointed out, sit on them to keep the prices high.

No drilling and the Government makes money off the leases. win/win
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
They wouldn't sit on ANWR because it's an extremely economical location to develop. I don't know about what kind of reserves they expect to find in the coastal shelf, though.

And don't get me wrong, I'm all for lifting the bans, I'm just skeptical of how quickly new reserves will be discovered and developed. Oil companies spent 1% on stock buybacks and dividends in 1993, 30% in 2000, and 55% in 2007. Meanwhile, the amount spent on exploration has remained constant. They want to go after the easy oil (ANWR, for example), but the problem is the easy oil is running out. They're going to have to suck it up and start dumping more money into exploration and development of less economical reserves. Of course, if the oil bubble bursts and prices drop significantly, this could seriously cut into their bottom line. Can't be having that can we? ;)
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Budmantom
And hurt our economy...

Only in the short run. God forbid we have to R&D a new way of doing things and sell that to the world. It might actually spur innovation, investment, and economic growth. We could have a second industrial revolution.

But fuck it, let's stay tied to oil forever, because, you know, it's easy.

Personally, I have no problem seeing gas at $5.00/gal. I would just like that amount over the cost to be taxes, supporting improving infrastructure (rather than selling toll roads to foreign "investors"), and offering tax credits to companies researching better ideas.

But again, being myopic is the American way of life.