Which side will cry uncle first, those supporting cheap gas or more expensive gas

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: sandorski

It is currently impossible for the People of Earth to all share the lifestyle that exists in the US and other Western Nations.

Actually there is plenty of resources for everyone on earth to have a 1st world lifestyle. While America is rich in natural resources, other countries such as Japan, Israel, Taiwan, etc, are extremely poor in natural resources, and their economies are very strong. Other countries, particularly in Africa, are extremely rich in natural resources yet their populations are destitute. When people are poor, generally the problem is government.

No, there aren't enough resources for everyone to live like we do.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=100210


The earth has about 11.4 billion hectares of productive land and sea space, after all unproductive areas of icecaps, desert and open spaces are discounted, or about a quarter of its surface area. Divided between the current estimated global population of 6.4 billion, this total equates to 1.78 hectares per person.

?While the EF of the average African or Asian consumer was less than 1.4 hectares per person in 1999, the average Western European?s footprint was about 5.0 hectares, and the average North American?s was about 9.6 hectares,? says the WWF.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
$6 here myself. Oil will come down and so will gas, but I agree with above. Tax the flying fuck out of it and develop alternative transportation, energy, and infrastructure.

Do it slowly (so consumers can sell their gas guzzlers or move to areas with better public transportation) and predictably

Agreed, shocking the system isn't good.

It'd be interesting to see how a phased implementation would drop gas prices, if the government increased taxes to keep the prices relatively steady they'd be able to ramp up the taxes. As they approached $6, the majority of it would be taxed, call it $4 out of the $6.

It'd have dual effects, raising MPG through purchases of more efficient vehicles, researching advanced tech, and getting better roads which would help all around.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Queasy


Schumer doesn't want to bring costs down. If he wanted to bring costs down, he wouldn't have effectively said that extracting 1 million gallons of oil per day from ANWR would only bring down the cost of gas 1 penny and then said a few days later that getting Saudi Arabia to increase production by 1 million gallons of oil per day would bring down the cost of gas by $0.62.

Do you mean 1 million barrels or gallons? Yesterday, you stated 1 million gallons on one and 1 million barrels on the other. One million gallons wouldn't do shit for gas prices. One million barrels would do some lowering, just depending whether those with money (speculators, hedge funds, etc) kept it running or not.

As for the OP, the current high prices and going higher prices just highlights that you can't sit on your ass and wait until prices go out of sight and then try to get new technology and infastructure in place to deliver it. Maybe the gas will stay high (or higher) and we'll finally follow through on something new.....

Maybe the tax idea of Europe isn't so bad, eh?

Maybe we can get relatively inexpensive hydraulic hybrid technology out there quicker (or something like it) more quickly and then we can work on replacing oil with something else...

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Queasy


Schumer doesn't want to bring costs down. If he wanted to bring costs down, he wouldn't have effectively said that extracting 1 million gallons of oil per day from ANWR would only bring down the cost of gas 1 penny and then said a few days later that getting Saudi Arabia to increase production by 1 million gallons of oil per day would bring down the cost of gas by $0.62.

Do you mean 1 million barrels or gallons? Yesterday, you stated 1 million gallons on one and 1 million barrels on the other. One million gallons wouldn't do shit for gas prices. One million barrels would do some lowering, just depending whether those with money (speculators, hedge funds, etc) kept it running or not.

As for the OP, the current high prices and going higher prices just highlights that you can't sit on your ass and wait until prices go out of sight and then try to get new technology and infastructure in place to deliver it. Maybe the gas will stay high (or higher) and we'll finally follow through on something new.....

Maybe the tax idea of Europe isn't so bad, eh?

Maybe we can get relatively inexpensive hydraulic hybrid technology out there quicker (or something like it) more quickly and then we can work on replacing oil with something else...

As you stated, high priced/high taxed fuels have been a way of life in Europe for decades, yet it's not led to amazing technological breakthroughs there. So why should it be different here, does the United States have magical R&D powers that the Euros don't?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Queasy


Schumer doesn't want to bring costs down. If he wanted to bring costs down, he wouldn't have effectively said that extracting 1 million gallons of oil per day from ANWR would only bring down the cost of gas 1 penny and then said a few days later that getting Saudi Arabia to increase production by 1 million gallons of oil per day would bring down the cost of gas by $0.62.

Do you mean 1 million barrels or gallons? Yesterday, you stated 1 million gallons on one and 1 million barrels on the other. One million gallons wouldn't do shit for gas prices. One million barrels would do some lowering, just depending whether those with money (speculators, hedge funds, etc) kept it running or not.

As for the OP, the current high prices and going higher prices just highlights that you can't sit on your ass and wait until prices go out of sight and then try to get new technology and infastructure in place to deliver it. Maybe the gas will stay high (or higher) and we'll finally follow through on something new.....

Maybe the tax idea of Europe isn't so bad, eh?

Maybe we can get relatively inexpensive hydraulic hybrid technology out there quicker (or something like it) more quickly and then we can work on replacing oil with something else...

As you stated, high priced/high taxed fuels have been a way of life in Europe for decades, yet it's not led to amazing technological breakthroughs there. So why should it be different here, does the United States have magical R&D powers that the Euros don't?

So we just need to sit then and try to do nothing? I never stated that Europe was better than the US or visa versa. However, Europe consumes far less oil per capita than the US by a long shot because of the taxes. Extensive public transportation has been established as well as far more fuel efficient vehicles induding over 50% of Europe's cars in some countries running on high mpg diesel. If the gas guzzline US had done it decades ago, we would not have been in near the shape we are now.

Regardless, unless you think that oil is going to last for many more decades at levels to substain global growth without raising prices to the point of crashing world economies, then by all means advocate sitting on our ass or drill...drill....drill instead of advocating something in the form of research (even if gasoline taxes are used to pay for it) and work to solve this "LONG TERM" energy problem instead of focusing on the short term (yes, a decade is very short term and is over in the blink of an eye).

If Brasil can kick oil in the nuts, the US should be able to....but do they want to?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer


If Brasil can kick oil in the nuts, the US should be able to....but do they want to?

Brazil has a far easier nut to crack. Smaller country, a small fraction of the number of cars we have and better geography for making ethanol. We make more ethanol than they do, so obviously we have a far larger problem to solve.

We should be making cars more efficient and industry is responding to higher gas prices. Consumers are responding as well. At the same time, we should not have be block all the areas in the US that do have oil underneath them. Just opening up these area should send a signal to opec that they are going to be losing some business if they dont get more product on the market.

 

[Legend]

I'm not wanting to mandate people to conserve.

I'm more interested in the effects of the $4+ gas in the free market. It increases pressure for real solutions to emerge that get adopted for it's effectiveness. Fuck the Corn lobby bullshit, Corn based Ethanol is dumb as hell.

If we could do something like algae biofuel and make it cheap, it would:

1. Stop draining money out of the USA.
2. Consume more carbon than it releases (green part of the plant would be dumped in sea, and that contains carbon).
3. The economy would boom, and it would be based on something substantial instead of artificial bull markets induced by government intervention.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: charrison
Just opening up these area should send a signal to opec that they are going to be losing some business if they dont get more product on the market.

This statement shows that you have not yet assimilated the current and ongoing oil market. With increased and increasing third world demand, led by China and India, NO oil producer will lose ANY business "if they don't get more product on the market."

Demand outstrips supply and will continue to do so world wide by an ever increasing margin, even if we drill everywhere in the US that is economically feasible.

And all this came to fruition under a President whose main claim to fame is that he Daddy and his family have long been in bed with the house of Saud.

Wake up and smell the crude reality. We have no real leverage in the oil marketplace. None.

Why do you think the Saudis politely declined to increase their output to us by any significant amount?

Well?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: charrison
Just opening up these area should send a signal to opec that they are going to be losing some business if they dont get more product on the market.

This statement shows that you have not yet assimilated the current and ongoing oil market. With increased and increasing third world demand, led by China and India, NO oil producer will lose ANY business "if they don't get more product on the market."

Demand outstrips supply and will continue to do so world wide by an ever increasing margin, even if we drill everywhere in the US that is economically feasible.

And all this came to fruition under a President whose main claim to fame is that he Daddy and his family have long been in bed with the house of Saud.

Wake up and smell the crude reality. We have no real leverage in the oil marketplace. None.

Why do you think the Saudis politely declined to increase their output to us by any significant amount?

Well?

I am going to have to disagree.

No doubt that world demand is going up. No doubt many state run oil companies took profits and did not invest in their fields(mexico is a prime example of this).
Also consider that current prices are driving alot of exploration. Saudi will be bringing new fields online soon. Brazil is currently leasing 3/4 of the worlds offshore rigs to tap into its new find. Things are about to heat up in north Dakota as well. Cheap oil may very well be gone, but there is no reason to ignore all the moderate priced oil out there either. We only have to produce enough oil to tip the balance of the supply and demand in our favor and prices will fall.

But also consider this, there is a limit to which oil can rise and I think we are getting very close to it. If oil continues to rise at its current we are going to see demand destruction, followed by plummeting prices. I have been shopping for a new car and from what I see, little cars are flying off the lot and those with trucks and suvs are taking a beating on their trade ins. But the good news is that these big trucks and suvs will likely priced low enough to replace older and even less efficient vehicles, further driving destroying demand. Replacing a truck/suv that gets 10mpg truck with one that gets 15mpg saves as much as jumping from 15mpg to 30mpg.

Current prices are going to cause demand destruction and it is going to happen worldwide if current prices continue. This bubble will burst, it is just a matter of when and how hard.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer


If Brasil can kick oil in the nuts, the US should be able to....but do they want to?

Brazil has a far easier nut to crack. Smaller country, a small fraction of the number of cars we have and better geography for making ethanol. We make more ethanol than they do, so obviously we have a far larger problem to solve.

We should be making cars more efficient and industry is responding to higher gas prices. Consumers are responding as well. At the same time, we should not have be block all the areas in the US that do have oil underneath them. Just opening up these area should send a signal to opec that they are going to be losing some business if they dont get more product on the market.

Size of Brasil isn't the real key here...it's the fact that they started 30 years ago instead of waiting for gas/oil to shoot up again and it has paid off nicely for them. While I don't disagree that we need more fuel efficient and different technologies, if we had started 30 years ago with a more agressive attitude (maybe we started one but dropped it as soon as prices fell), we would not be in the shape we are in today.

Maybe we'll learn this time around.....oil isn't going to last forever (in enough quantites to sustain our needs) so it's time to really agressively develope something else....IMO.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: Jiggz
Whoever voted for lower gas prices are still not out in the open! Wake up and smell the new prices of gas. Like gas vapor it just keeps coming up. I hope the stupid gov't does not try to interfere, instead will come up with R&D for alternative fuel, improve mass transit system and improve car mpg's to at least 75 MPG. In this and only in this way can we get off the middle eastern oil. We need to GTFO of middle eastern oil so this Al Qaeda, Iranian, and Venezuelan arrogance can be put to a stop. I sincerely believe it's only a matter of time and probably sooner if the Environmental Nazi's stays the fvck of the way of progress!

Mass transit is great for the small percentage of the populace that lives in large cities. Most of America's population lives in suburban or rural settings.

Ass backwards; besides, have you never heard of commuter rail?

 

[Pabster]

Crank it up. Apparently even $4.00 per gallon isn't enough to cause much change in culture. Despite the various media hype to the contrary, I don't see much conservation. There's no shortage of gas guzzlers at the pumps on a daily basis and while you sure here more bitching and whining, people really don't seem to have made any changes. Economists now say $5 per gallon is when people will start to balk. I think it needs to go much higher.

The price needs to go SKY high and stay there. It'll eventually force conservation, and funnel billions of dollars in to alternative energy research and development which is so desperately needed.

 

[Lemon law]

I happened to feel self masochistic last Thursday and listened to Limbaugh cackle about the seeming Schumer gaffe. And Rush waxed ecstatic about the seeming contradiction of Schumer claiming a million barrel a day ramp of of Saudi production would lower US gas prices some 60 cents and tapping Anwar would do only a penny

But indeed Schumer may be right. Right now Anwar is mere speculation and some estimates put its total yield at only
600 million barrels. And in fact, the entire North slope Alaska production peaked in 1980 and today its yield stands at 934,000 barrels a day thus short of the million barrels a day. But by Limbaugh logic, there is more instantly recoverable oil in Anwar than there is in the entire North Slope. And instead of lasting only 600 days, we just need to turn on the tap and oil will flow out in infinite and perpetual abundance with no development time or costs.

Logic to warm the brain if you happen to be a dittohead. But google will set you free.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I happened to feel self masochistic last Thursday and listened to Limbaugh cackle about the seeming Schumer gaffe. And Rush waxed ecstatic about the seeming contradiction of Schumer claiming a million barrel a day ramp of of Saudi production would lower US gas prices some 60 cents and tapping Anwar would do only a penny

But indeed Schumer may be right. Right now Anwar is mere speculation and some estimates put its total yield at only
600 million barrels. And in fact, the entire North slope Alaska production peaked in 1980 and today its yield stands at 934,000 barrels a day thus short of the million barrels a day. But by Limbaugh logic, there is more instantly recoverable oil in Anwar than there is in the entire North Slope. And instead of lasting only 600 days, we just need to turn on the tap and oil will flow out in infinite and perpetual abundance with no development time or costs.

Logic to warm the brain if you happen to be a dittohead. But google will set you free.

It appears both sides a playing up their sides of their arguments. But I think it is very safe to say that anwr would produce significant amounts of oil for the next several decades. And all this extra oil would have a non trivial impact on the world oil markets.

If you are fine with the oil staying in the ground and US being more reliant on oil imports, that is fine. Just lets not hear any bitching about people not being to afford gas and it crippling the economy. You wont be able to have it both ways.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer


If Brasil can kick oil in the nuts, the US should be able to....but do they want to?

Brazil has a far easier nut to crack. Smaller country, a small fraction of the number of cars we have and better geography for making ethanol. We make more ethanol than they do, so obviously we have a far larger problem to solve.

We should be making cars more efficient and industry is responding to higher gas prices. Consumers are responding as well. At the same time, we should not have be block all the areas in the US that do have oil underneath them. Just opening up these area should send a signal to opec that they are going to be losing some business if they dont get more product on the market.

Size of Brasil isn't the real key here...it's the fact that they started 30 years ago instead of waiting for gas/oil to shoot up again and it has paid off nicely for them. While I don't disagree that we need more fuel efficient and different technologies, if we had started 30 years ago with a more agressive attitude (maybe we started one but dropped it as soon as prices fell), we would not be in the shape we are in today.

Maybe we'll learn this time around.....oil isn't going to last forever (in enough quantites to sustain our needs) so it's time to really agressively develope something else....IMO.

Brazil only has about 2.5 million cars. That is small fraction of the total cars in the US. Size and scale is an issue. IF we had more land that could grow sugarcain, we could produce far more ethanol than we do do, and far cheaper. Size and scale and geography matter.

But if you compare a 30 year old car to one that was produced yesterday, you will find that todays cars get far better fuel economy, pollute far less, produce more power, have more standard feature and weigh more. Should we have done more, sure, but the automotive has not exactly stood still either.

The main problem was the cheap oil of the 90s that drove the consumer to want larger vehicles. It is hard to tell everyone to drive econoboxes when a $20 will fill your tank. Today the $100 fill up are driving people to the econoboxes. The auto industry is ready for this change, it will just take a while for the consumer to adapt/

 

[Lemon law]

Brazil has another unmentioned advantage. Gasoline is far more volatile at low temperatures than ethanol. And because their temperatures rarely fall below freezing their ethanol fueled cars will start and ours would not in cold weather.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer


If Brasil can kick oil in the nuts, the US should be able to....but do they want to?

Brazil has a far easier nut to crack. Smaller country, a small fraction of the number of cars we have and better geography for making ethanol. We make more ethanol than they do, so obviously we have a far larger problem to solve.

We should be making cars more efficient and industry is responding to higher gas prices. Consumers are responding as well. At the same time, we should not have be block all the areas in the US that do have oil underneath them. Just opening up these area should send a signal to opec that they are going to be losing some business if they dont get more product on the market.

Size of Brasil isn't the real key here...it's the fact that they started 30 years ago instead of waiting for gas/oil to shoot up again and it has paid off nicely for them. While I don't disagree that we need more fuel efficient and different technologies, if we had started 30 years ago with a more agressive attitude (maybe we started one but dropped it as soon as prices fell), we would not be in the shape we are in today.

Maybe we'll learn this time around.....oil isn't going to last forever (in enough quantites to sustain our needs) so it's time to really agressively develope something else....IMO.

Brazil only has about 2.5 million cars. That is small fraction of the total cars in the US. Size and scale is an issue. IF we had more land that could grow sugarcain, we could produce far more ethanol than we do do, and far cheaper. Size and scale and geography matter.

But if you compare a 30 year old car to one that was produced yesterday, you will find that todays cars get far better fuel economy, pollute far less, produce more power, have more standard feature and weigh more. Should we have done more, sure, but the automotive has not exactly stood still either.

The main problem was the cheap oil of the 90s that drove the consumer to want larger vehicles. It is hard to tell everyone to drive econoboxes when a $20 will fill your tank. Today the $100 fill up are driving people to the econoboxes. The auto industry is ready for this change, it will just take a while for the consumer to adapt/

It's not about ethanol, it's about starting earlier because we do have such a vast amount more of cars than the rest of the world, hence we get hit harder than the rest of the world when we get these spikes. I did not say that Brasil was larger or that ethanol was "our" solution. I stated that if we had started 30 years ago, who knows where we would have been but my bet is far better off than we are now. If we're so much larger and harder to implement infastructure than Brasil, don't you think that we should have been working even harder than they did to move to another primary source of energy other than oil? The longer we wait...the harder it becomes when we have no other choice than to start changing.....period.

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Brazil has another unmentioned advantage. Gasoline is far more volatile at low temperatures than ethanol. And because their temperatures rarely fall below freezing their ethanol fueled cars will start and ours would not in cold weather.

Again, it's not about ethanol (which just happens to be Brasil's solution)....it's about starting early enough before oil becomes such a large problem that there is no time to do it then. Sort of like the GOP preaching about fixing SS (or canning it in other words) before it gets out of hand with payments. Oh wait, that's a bad example because nobody is going to do anything about that either....😛

 

[OFFascist]

Cheap gas would be nice but expensive gas is going to be what happens because we have pretty much run out of cheap oil.