• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

newt's 3 fold plan to drop gas prices

we could probably do 1 and 3 without touching 2. I like 1 and3 I just feel like our generation and the next 3 shouldn't consume all the oil there is.
 
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
we could probably do 1 and 3 without touching 2. I like 1 and3 I just feel like our generation and the next 3 shouldn't consume all the oil there is.
Click to expand...

You need #2 to bridge the time-gap to #3. We could limp along at $150+ per bbl and until we get to #3 but the point of his speech is to lower the price of oil until #3 is wide-spread.

TBH, I think #1 is completely ineffectual for the long term and for his desired result. All it will accomplish is a temporary reduction in the price of oil. Any smart speculator will go short oil futures and make more money. Then when the strategic reserves are gone, they go right back to driving up the price.

Really the answer is #2 for now and #3 as it becomes more and more wide spread eventually moving as far into alternative energies as possible.
 
#1 may not work. Releasing the Oil from the SR can only go on so long. Then there's the apparent Over-price as it currently stands. All Speculators need do is wait.
 
I'm against his first point because the oil reserve should be for national emergencies such as war and such, not so Americans can pay less for gas for a month or so.

I'm for the other two though.
 
Newt's nailed it,I'm for all 3.

#1 would break the backs of the speculators and make them too scared to do this again, we can buy back the oil almost immediately & refill the SOR for 75% of the current prices

#2 is going to be done sooner or later, let's do it now before we're back in the economic stone age

#3 Should have started 20 years ago,
 
Not sure about #1 (going to reserves) because if that DOESN'T work, then we're really screwed, right? 2, going after more domestic oil, is clearly necessary and 3 alternative research is, too. None of these, save 1, have a chance of an immediate respite, but I suppose that's reality.
 
Cliffs:
#1 - Release 1/3 of strategic oil reserves
#2 - Allow drilling in the US areas (gulf, shale, pacific, atlantic, alaska)
#3 - Invest in alternative fuels
 
I have heard more people than Newt suggest releasing the strategic reserve to flood the market. I think it would work but not sure if it would long term. The problem is the world is using more oil. Demand is catching upto supply. And knowing some of these dirtbag speculators they will have the scoop on the president doing this and get out of the market. Only to buy in at a lower rate and rape even more!

The rest is all sensible but wont be acted upon by congress or this admin or the next admin.
 
No one ever talks about the cost of recovering these reserves, especially Oil Shale... Shell has had an on-going project looking at in-situ recovery, after heating the formation for 3 years to 400F (from what I remember) they produced a whopping 1,500 barrels of oil. They also claim the economics make sense at $30 a barrel, but that doesn't include the funky icewall they are looking at generating to prevent ground water contamination! Strip mining the shale would cost upwards of $90 a barrel. Essentially the mined rock would need to crushed, then heated to a high temperatures. Of course as techniques are improved and new technology is applied/discovered, the overall cost would decreased, however that could take decades.

 
Oddly enough, oil shale made sense to many of the oil companies in the 70's and 80's when they were building like mad in Western Colorado...until the price of oil dropped and they shut down the operational plants. (I'm not sure if the Unocal plant outside Parachute is still in operation or not)
If these plants made sense when oil was between $15 and $25/bbl, why don't they make sense NOW?
 
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Oddly enough, oil shale made sense to many of the oil companies in the 70's and 80's when they were building like mad in Western Colorado...until the price of oil dropped and they shut down the operational plants. (I'm not sure if the Unocal plant outside Parachute is still in operation or not)
If these plants made sense when oil was between $15 and $25/bbl, why don't they make sense NOW?
Click to expand...

Government subsidies, is what drove oil shale recovery in the 70's and early 80's.
 
We need a draft for civil service in an non military army core of engineers to build solar and wind and other alternatives, rebuild the electric grid and retrofit for efficiency. All young people should have a chance to serve their country doing something that makes it better and doesn't kill people doing it.
 
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Oddly enough, oil shale made sense to many of the oil companies in the 70's and 80's when they were building like mad in Western Colorado...until the price of oil dropped and they shut down the operational plants. (I'm not sure if the Unocal plant outside Parachute is still in operation or not)
If these plants made sense when oil was between $15 and $25/bbl, why don't they make sense NOW?
Click to expand...

They do make sense now. The problem is, the technology isn't quite there yet and they are being blocked

The Senate Appropriations Committee today narrowly defeated Sen. Wayne Allard's attempt to end a moratorium related to oil shale development in Colorado.

It was a big day for Colorado energy issues on Capitol Hill as Gov. Bill Ritter testified before a senate committee asking lawmakers to move cautiously on oil-shale development until more is known about the environmental impact and other issues.

Meanwhile downstairs, the appropriations committee was considering a massive Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill. Allard, a member of the committee, attempted to insert an amendment that would reverse the moratorium that lawmakers approved late last year.

The moratorium prevents the Department of Interior from issuing regulations so that oil companies can move forward on oil-shale projects in Colorado and Utah. Allard said the moratorium has left uncertainties at a time when companies need to move forward and in the long term make the United States more energy independent.
Click to expand...

I think it is long past due that a hard look is taken at what effects politicians and bureaucrats are having with energy costs by blocking development every where.
 
Some of what he said was typical neo-con propaganda. It's illegal to drill for oil in the atlantic and pacific oceans? Thats news to the oil companies that already have oil producing platforms in those oceans.
And oil shale? Seems Newt forgets the West is already short of water and oil shale into oil requires huge amounts of water.
His idea to use the strategic petroleum reserve to counterbalance speculation used to be the policy under the Democrats, specifically Clinton did it. And the Republicans are vehemently against it, and Bush has completely ruled it out.
 
Originally posted by: techs
Some of what he said was typical neo-con propaganda. It's illegal to drill for oil in the atlantic and pacific oceans? Thats news to the oil companies that already have oil producing platforms in those oceans.
And oil shale? Seems Newt forgets the West is already short of water and oil shale into oil requires huge amounts of water.
His idea to use the strategic petroleum reserve to counterbalance speculation used to be the policy under the Democrats, specifically Clinton did it. And the Republicans are vehemently against it, and Bush has completely ruled it out.
Click to expand...

One cant drill within 100 miles of the shore for 85% of our coast. Going that far out and that deep equals high cost of production or no production at all due to not having the technology to drill in that deep of water.
 
Originally posted by: techs
It's illegal to drill for oil in the atlantic and pacific oceans? Thats news to the oil companies that already have oil producing platforms in those oceans.
Click to expand...

Off our own costs, yes it is. There's a federal block on oil and natural gas exploration off the vast majority of our coasts. Only a little bit of Alaskan coast and the Texas and Louisianan coast are open for exploration.

And oil shale? Seems Newt forgets the West is already short of water and oil shale into oil requires huge amounts of water.
Click to expand...

Technology changes.

His idea to use the strategic petroleum reserve to counterbalance speculation used to be the policy under the Democrats, specifically Clinton did it. And the Republicans are vehemently against it, and Bush has completely ruled it out.
Click to expand...

link

In May, President Bush reluctantly signed bipartisan legislation that stops him from stockpiling oil in the nation's emergency reserve through the end of this year. Supporters of the bill said it would reduce gas prices by 5 cents to 25 cents a gallon by keeping 70,000 more barrels of oil a day on the market beginning July 1.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
And knowing some of these dirtbag speculators they will have the scoop on the president doing this and get out of the market.

Only to buy in at a lower rate and rape even more!
Click to expand...

Then why not do anything against the "dirtbags"?

How much are you profiting?
 
Newt is a tool.

Shale in Colorado is a none starter until we learn to extract it without H2O. No excess of that in Colorado, can't afford to ship the ore elsewhere for processing.

Nukes make some sense but we need to go to breeders. Current tech employed only burns a couple of percent of the uranium leaving a mess of radioactive waste. If we go nuc we need to reprocess and burn the plutonium, security of which is a whole other issue.

I hope Newt didn't get paid more than 50 cents for that speech which contains little thought!:thumbsdown:

As far as selling oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve goes .... might work, might not. There are bound to be leaks from the Administration about the duration and size of the sale which the speculators would be able to profit from. And this from an Administration that has only just stopped purchasing oil on the open market to keep filling the Reserve.
 
I'm hoping that the idea of using super-capacitors to power cars will get some more federal funding and, eventually, could replace most of our automobile traffic. Centralizing our power production to nuclear, solar, and wind power plants could help make this country much 'greener' over the next fifteen years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top