Obama's Fix for Gas Prices

[Matt1970]

We need a task force to tell us we need to drill oil?

 

[Jhhnn]

We need a task force to tell us we need to drill oil?

Nah. we need a task force to tell us to engage in conservation & more efficient oil use... You know, it was the same stuff that Reagan eschewed to beat Carter... You *can* have it all! Merricuh! Hell Yeh!

The notion that we can drill our way to energy independence is the greatest scam & the greatest bit of denial on the right ever conceived. At current rates of consumption, it'll just make us more dependent on foreign sources sooner, after we suck our own reserves dry & blow 'em out the tailpipes of our giant SUV's...

 

[Doppel]

Agree drilling domestically is pissing on a bonfire. Unless the government owns the operation wholesale and takes all proceeds and divvies up to Americans at cost, it makes almost no difference. This is a globally traded commodity. It is a supply being squeezed by demand. This is not a difficult concept to grasp and only if the global demand or supply change significantly will oil prices change significantly (or the speculation that they will change).

 

[Modelworks]

Thanks for the reply, but I meant

One of the major ones
http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/

I don't mind the general idea of fracture drilling it is the regulations and safety precautions that are not in place that I worry about. All these states are looking at profit not the long term . Once you destroy the water table you don't easily fix it. I would rather not risk it so that people can drive bigger cars.

pH values in MW01 and MW02 are highly
alkaline (11.2-12.0), above the pH range
observed in domestic wells (6.9-10), and
above the pH range previously reported for
the Wind River Formation with up to 94% of
the total alkalinity contributed by hydroxide
The presence of hydroxide alkalinity suggests
addition of base as the causative factor for
elevated pH in the deep monitoring wells.

The inorganic geochemistry of ground water
from the deep monitoring wells is distinctive
from that in the domestic wells and expected
composition in the Wind River formation.
Potassium concentration in MW02 (43.6
mg/L) and MW01 (54.9 mg/L) is between 14.5
and 18.3 times the mean value of levels
observed in domestic wells


Chloride enrichment in
monitoring well MW02 (466 mg/L) is 18 times
the mean chloride concentration (25.6 mg/L)
observed in ground water from domestic
wells

One additive (Aqua Clear used during well
development) contained 230 mg/L chloride in
a concentrated solution.

Potassium metaborate was used in
crosslinkers (5-10%, 30-60%). Potassium
hydroxide was used in a crosslinker (<5%) and
in a solvent. Ammonium chloride was used in
crosslinker (1-27%).

Isopropanol was detected in MW01
Diethylene glycol was detected in MW01
Triethylene glycol was detected in MW01
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
(BTEX) were detected in MW02 at
concentrations of 246, 617, 67, and 750 &#956;g/L
respectively

Diesel oil (mixture
of saturated and aromatic hydrocarbons
including naphthalenes and alkylbenzenes)
was used in a guar polymer slurry/liquid gel
concentrate (30-60%) and in a solvent (60-
100%). Petroleum raffinates (a mixture of
paraffinic, cycloparaffinic, olefinic, and
aromatic hydrocarbons) were used in a
breaker (<30-60%). Heavy aromatic
petroleum naphtha (mixture of paraffinic,
cycloparaffinic and aromatic hydrocarbons)
was used in surfactants (5-10%, 10-30%, 30-
60%) and in a solvent (10-50%). Toluene was
used in a flow enhancer (3-7%). Xylenes were
used in a flow enhancer (40-70%) and a
breaker (confidential percentage).

 

[Exterous]

Gas prices go up globally and they have been going up for a long time. It's not like the gas price sneak up and steal your wallets.

Gas in the states is not even expensive to begin with, I don't get what's with all the moaning. You're up at what, $4/gallon? We pay above $8/gallon and people are still driving. There is no anarchy. People don't lose their homes over gas expenses. The price will keep on rising no matter who's president. Deal with it.

Yes because driving habits in the US and Europe are exactly the same. I mean its not like we spend significantly more on overland transportation of goods or live in a significantly more decentralized manner or anything...

 

[Bateluer]

Democrats don't want low gas prices. They want higher gas prices because it provides more motivation for people to purchase more efficient vehicles or EVs.

 

[monovillage]

One of the major ones
http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/

I don't mind the general idea of fracture drilling it is the regulations and safety precautions that are not in place that I worry about. All these states are looking at profit not the long term . Once you destroy the water table you don't easily fix it. I would rather not risk it so that people can drive bigger cars.

You know what I asked about........

I am all for drilling but this form of it scares the crap out of me with the number of accidents that have occurred leaving whole towns uninhabitable.

Why don't you just say you were exaggerating for effect or something like that instead of tossing out garbage? Why in the world anyone ever believes environmental activists anymore when they lie about their data and the facts and the results because they feel it is justified for the cause?

 

[Modelworks]

You know what I asked about........


Why don't you just say you were exaggerating for effect or something like that instead of tossing out garbage? Why in the world anyone ever believes environmental activists anymore when they lie about their data and the facts and the results because they feel it is justified for the cause?

Ask yourself what happens when a town loses its ability to drink the water ? It becomes inhabitable, especially in towns that have low populations that cannot afford to import water. There are many towns in the USA abandoned because of corporations that destroyed the ground water. Unfortunately when people think they know everything there is about a topic they tend to assume they have covered all the possible outcomes, often at the expense of others, the rest of the people involved don't care and are concerned only with what effects them directly.

 

[PingviN]

Yes because driving habits in the US and Europe are exactly the same. I mean its not like we spend significantly more on overland transportation of goods or live in a significantly more decentralized manner or anything...

You realize Sweden is less densely populated than the United States is, right?

 

[boochi]

Carpool?

 

[Ninjahedge]

Democrats don't want low gas prices. They want higher gas prices because it provides more motivation for people to purchase more efficient vehicles or EVs.

I am not going to disagree on that, but it is not their primary goal.

It is like a fringe benefit. Economic stimulus for development is what the republicans would call it.

Fracking = Bad, M'kay?

It is ONLY economically feasible when gas prices get high like this. So the same thing that makes hybrid development attractive, makes tar sand extraction and hydrofracking viable.

What we SHOULD be doing is looking for a way to make a more efficient engine and means of utilizing things like cooking oil. Although I would prefer electric, imagine what it would be like if your car could run on Fry-oil and get 25 mpg at 200hp? Properly filtered oil runs in diesel engines as is, it would not take much, but heaven forbid we do not use something like Petroleum or that inefficient expensive Ethanol!!!!

 

[Exterous]

You realize Sweden is less densely populated than the United States is, right?

You know Sweden =/= Europe, right? Your 'we' was not specific which is why I specifically said EUROPE in my response. Overall Europe has a higher cost of gas and is more centralized than the US. And while I haven't looked up the actual population density per land area Sweden has a significantly higher % of population located in easy to reach locations -> most of your population is along the cost. We have a large number of people in the midwest that need goods transported over land to them. Hell - 17% of your population lives around Stockholm. Our biggest city only contains 2.5% of our population.

For some perspective Lincoln Nebraska is about 940 miles from the nearest port (not even a west coast port) and most of their goods would need to go overland to get there. That would be like driving goods from Paris to Stockholm. Obviously that is going to cost more than if those goods could dock a tad closer. We've got a lot of people very far away from the coast so our overland transportation costs are going to be significantly more

 

[nonlnear]

Sweden =/= Europe (Your 'we' was not specific which is why I specifically said EUROPE in my response)

And you completely ignored the second part of my statement. For some perspective Lincoln Nebraska is about 940 miles from the nearest port (not even a west coast port) and most of their goods would need to go overland to get there. That would be like driving goods from Paris to Stockholm. Obviously that is going to cost more than if those goods could dock a tad closer

Lincoln is only about 525 miles from the port of Chicago.

 

[Ninjahedge]

nl.... did that really change his argument much? 😉

The US started out with pretty good plans for networking the country using rail lines and for a nation this big, did a pretty good job.

But then cars got more reliable, and gas was cheap, so why bother building a limited rail line when you could have a town like Lincoln, 500+ miles from the nearest port, ship stuff out do major distribution hubs directly?


I always wondered why, with all the research into things like fabric trailers and cutting that extra gallon of fuel off on a long distance haul, why the trucking industry has not looked for ways to incorporate solar cells on their large, flat trailers being hauled through some of the flattest, sunniest areas of the country...

Probably too much money to start something like that. Better to wait for the government to pay for it.... 😛

 

[nonlnear]

nl.... did that really change his argument much? 😉

Not much, but it's important to get things like that right. Also, I take away a very different conclusion from the underlying argument: that may be we shouldn't be subsidizing the COL of the midwest by paying for automobile infrastructure out of general revenues just to keep the price of gas down. If roads were paid for by the fuel that wears those roads perhaps people would start living in more resource efficient arrangements. Another bonus of this is we might stop building suburbs on much of our best farmland.

 

[Exterous]

Lincoln is only about 525 miles from the port of Chicago.

Ah - I was not aware that the port of Chicago does that much in terms of container receiving. Very well then it would be like driving goods from Hamburg to Stockholm (Or I could pick a city farther west like Bismarck or Denver)

The point remains that we have a large number of cities quite far from a deap sea port

 

[Exterous]

nl.... did that really change his argument much? 😉

Not much, but it's important to get things like that right.

Nonlnear has a point. Besides - I learned that Chicago is an important container port for the upper midwest

Also, I take away a very different conclusion from the underlying argument: that may be we shouldn't be subsidizing the COL of the midwest by paying for automobile infrastructure out of general revenues just to keep the price of gas down. If roads were paid for by the fuel that wears those roads perhaps people would start living in more resource efficient arrangements. Another bonus of this is we might stop building suburbs on much of our best farmland.

I would be inclined to agree with you if it weren't for the current issues with the economy. Right now I would not want to see a large increase in gas prices as we still have a ways to go to fix things. Or course when things are better we'll probably punt the issue down the road anyway

 

[nonlnear]

Ah - I was not aware that the port of Chicago does that much in terms of container receiving.

It probably doesn't, I don't really know. With the newer larger container ships, Chicago's container volume is probably not growing. However if inland transportation costs were to increase, that would probably change pretty quickly.

Very well then it would be like driving goods from Hamburg to Stockholm

The point remains that we have a large number of cities quite far from a deap sea port

We certainly do. Perhaps we shouldn't so blithely embrace the notion that these cities' inhabitants need to be sheltered form the true cost of their location. Not every city should continue to grow - or even exist.

 

[nonlnear]

I would be inclined to agree with you if it weren't for the current issues with the economy.

If not now, when? There is always a compelling excuse to do nothing.

Right now I would not want to see a large increase in gas prices as we still have a ways to go to fix things. Or course when things are better we'll probably punt the issue down the road anyway

It wouldn't require a large shock to prices. Just a clear planned long term trajectory. If people knew that the gas taxes were targeted to fund the DoT and all road construction by 2020, and income taxes were coming down to make the act [close to] revenue neutral, it wouldn't have the same economy-dragging effect as a spike in crude prices. Not all price movements are identical in effect.

 

[rudeguy]

Help!

 

[ky54]

I'd love nothing more than to end our dependence on terrorists but right now it's sheer ignorance to think we can completely switch over to alternative fuels. As such we need to get as much of our own fossil fuels to start the switch now and shore up the precarious position we are in so we have the ability to deal with shortages and boycotts. If I ever hit the lottery my house would be completely off the grid but right now it's way too expensive.

 

[Ausm]

Democrats don't want low gas prices. They want higher gas prices because it provides more motivation for people to purchase more efficient vehicles or EVs.

You picked a funny time to start sniffing glue.

 

[m1ldslide1]

I'd love nothing more than to end our dependence on terrorists but right now it's sheer ignorance to think we can completely switch over to alternative fuels. As such we need to get as much of our own fossil fuels to start the switch now and shore up the precarious position we are in so we have the ability to deal with shortages and boycotts. If I ever hit the lottery my house would be completely off the grid but right now it's way too expensive.

Interestingly I think that most people- right and left- agree with this sentiment. Where the divergence happens is on the point of where "our own" fuels should come from. I like that government is helping to put money into green research, but this won't be feasible for a long time. I like the idea of finding sources of oil closer to home, but many people argue that the increase supply will not make a noticeable dent in our domestic prices, and instead could make things worse by depleting the resources that we could make better use of in the future (aka when a smaller % of our energy comes from fossil fuels).

Does anybody have charts and graphs that help demonstrate what the effect of adding domestic supply would be? Say, for instance if Keystone pipeline were to open up? Would it actually help like repubs say, or would it not make any difference like the dems say?

 

[nonlnear]

Keystone won't open up supply. Keystone will relieve a glut of supply of Athabasca dil-bit, and will increase gasoline prices slightly in the midwest. Now you might say why would anyone be for such a thiing, but the Canadians are going to open up a new export channel either way: either Keystone, or straight to the Pacific coast in BC. If Keystone comes through then there will be some refining jobs down on the gulf coast that wouldn't be there otherwise.

 

[werepossum]

I am not going to disagree on that, but it is not their primary goal.

It is like a fringe benefit. Economic stimulus for development is what the republicans would call it.

Fracking = Bad, M'kay?

It is ONLY economically feasible when gas prices get high like this. So the same thing that makes hybrid development attractive, makes tar sand extraction and hydrofracking viable.

What we SHOULD be doing is looking for a way to make a more efficient engine and means of utilizing things like cooking oil. Although I would prefer electric, imagine what it would be like if your car could run on Fry-oil and get 25 mpg at 200hp? Properly filtered oil runs in diesel engines as is, it would not take much, but heaven forbid we do not use something like Petroleum or that inefficient expensive Ethanol!!!!

I agree with Bateluer, Democrats want high gas prices as one of their primary goals, simply to drive people away from petroleum and toward conservation. Motivations for that goal vary - some are worried about the peak oil crash, some about global warming, some about empowering hostile theocracies, some about the environmental effects of oil spills as well as fracking, and some just don't think it's "fair" that Americans use disproportionately more energy than the rest of the world. In fact, probably the vast majority of Democrats are concerned about several of those things, and hopefully most non-Democrats are concerned about at least some of them.

I agree about the dangers of fracking, but I'm on the fence about recycled oils. I like it because it's using a product that would otherwise be wasted, but I think we really need to be moving away from combustion power altogether. I'm still pretty agnostic about CAGW, but I'm also pretty concerned about the effects of marine and to a lesser extent aquatic acidification, especially in conjunction with pollution and over-fishing. I love my IC vehicles, but the sooner we transition to electric and fuel cell power the better off the planet (and therefore we) will be.