Bush asks Congress to clear way for offshore oil drilling

[Parkbandit]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush asked Congress Wednesday to permit drilling for oil in deep water off America's coasts to combat rising oil and gas prices.


If President Bush can persuade Congress, more oil rigs like this one off Canada could appear off U.S. shores.

"There is no excuse for delay," the president said in a Rose Garden statement.

Bush also renewed his demand that Congress allow drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, clear the way for more refineries and encourage efforts to recover oil from shale in areas such as the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.

Bush said that the basin potentially contains more than three times as much recoverable oil as Saudi Arabia's proven reserves, and that the high price of oil makes it profitable to extract it.

"In the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil, and that means we need to increase supply here at home," said Bush, adding there is no more pressing issue than gas prices for many Americans.

The White House estimates there are 18 billion barrels of oil offshore that have not been exploited because of state bans, 10 billion to 12 billion in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve, and 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Green River Basin.

However, much of the U.S. oil is difficult or impossible to extract under current law.

Oil production cost
Here's what the price of a barrel of oil needs to be for different sources of petroleum to be profitably extracted:

- Accessible land: $19
- Shallow water: $20-60
- Deep water: $60
- Shale mining: $30-50
- Oil Sands: $50-60

Current price per barrel: $134

Sources: U.S. Govt. CERA, Rand, EnCana As for gas prices, resuming offshore exploration would not be a quick fix.

"If we were to drill today realistically speaking we should not expect a barrel of oil coming out of this new resource for three years, maybe even five years, so let's not kid ourselves," said Fadel Gheit, oil and gas analyst with Oppenheimer & Co. Equity Capital Markets Division.

But it almost certainly would be profitable.

Candida Scott, an oil industry researcher at Cambridge Research Associates, said oil needs to be priced at $60 a barrel or more to justify deep-shelf drilling. With oil now selling for $134 a barrel, companies are almost assured of profiting from offshore drilling, Scott said.

"For years, the president has pushed Congress to expand our domestic oil supply, but Democrats in Congress have consistently blocked such action," White House Press Secretary Dana Perino told CNN before Bush spoke.

She added, "As with several existing Republican congressional proposals, he wants to work with states to determine where offshore drilling should occur, and also for the federal government to share revenues with the states. The president believes Congress shouldn't waste any more time."

Democrats were quick to reject Bush's proposal.

"After eight years, President Bush and [Vice President] Dick Cheney have turned the GOP into the Gas and Oil Party. That's the legacy that they are going to leave," said Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

"The White House has become a ventriloquist for the oil and gas industry, repeating the requests of the oil and gas industry -- that they be allowed to destroy the most pristine areas of our country," Markey added.

Congressional Democrats last week introduced a bill to compel oil companies to begin utilizing federal land they already lease.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/18/bush.offshore/?iref=mpstoryview


About mother fucking time. Now, let's watch Congress drag their feet, driving up gas prices even higher and hope that the American people will somehow blame McCain for this.

JUST saying that we're going to start drilling our own reserves will immediately have a positive affect on the speculation price of oil.

[Parkbandit]

And our 2 Presidential nominees chime in:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Democrat Barack Obama Tuesday accused White House rival John McCain of "posturing" as the Republican, tapping voters' anxiety about sky-high fuel prices, called for offshore oil drilling.

ADVERTISEMENT


In a speech later in the Texas oil capital of Houston, the Arizona senator was to call for a 27-year-old moratorium on offshore exploration to be lifted -- reversing his own support for the ban when he ran for president in 2000.

McCain was again to push for a summer suspension of federal taxes on gasoline, to ease a little of the pain at the pump for voters already reeling from an epidemic of home foreclosures and job losses.

Obama, who has been hammering McCain and the Republicans on the economy, said his White House opponent's support of the moratorium in 2000 was "certainly laudable."

"But his decision to completely change his position and tell a group of Houston oil executives exactly what they wanted to hear today was the same Washington politics that has prevented us from achieving energy independence for decades," the Illinois senator said in a statement.

"Much like his gas tax gimmick that would leave consumers with pennies in savings, opening our coastlines to offshore drilling would take at least a decade to produce any oil at all, and the effect on gasoline prices would be negligible at best since America only has three percent of the world's oil.

"It's another example of short-term political posturing from Washington, not the long-term leadership we need to solve our dependence on oil."

Obama is pushing for a "windfall tax" on oil companies' record profits and for federal investment of 150 billion dollars over 10 years in renewable and green energies.

McCain backs market solutions but scents opportunity in portraying Obama as being out of touch with voters' pocketbook concerns.

"We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States," he said in excerpts from his Houston speech.

"But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. And I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use," McCain said.

"People are hurting -- small farmers, truckers and taxi drivers unable to cover their costs, small-business owners struggling to meet payroll, the cost of living rising and the value of paychecks falling."

The 1981 moratorium prevents states from allowing oil companies to conduct offshore drilling and exploration. Virtually the entire Atlantic and Pacific coastlines are protected, along with sections of the Gulf of Mexico.

McCain said environmental controls were strong enough to permit safe offshore exploration, although the Republican governors of Florida and California -- both McCain supporters -- dispute this.

But at the same time, McCain opposes drilling in "pristine" areas such as Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, putting him at odds with many in his party.

With global crude prices in sight of 140 dollars a barrel, US gasoline prices now average more than four dollars a gallon. While still low by European standards, that is a rise of one dollar in just 12 months.

In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll Tuesday, nearly 80 percent said soaring pump prices were causing them financial hardship, which the Post said was the highest figure in surveys this decade.

The poll gave Obama a narrow lead of 48 percent to 42 percent over McCain among all voters. The two fared evenly among independent voters but Obama had a 16-point lead as the best candidate for the faltering economy.

The candidates were virtually tied on which was more trusted to handle Iraq, which Obama intends to visit before the November election. McCain, however, had the edge in international affairs and terrorism.

McCain lobbied anew to suspend the 18.4 cent federal tax on gasoline and 24.4 cent diesel tax until Labor Day on September 1.

"Even in tough times for our economy, when folks are struggling to pay for gas and groceries, tax relief just isn't change he can believe in," McCain said, turning Obama's mantra of change against the Democrat.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080617/ts_alt_afp/usvote_080617152443



I love Obama, trying to paint McCain as a flip flopper on this issue. I think he forgot that there is a BIG difference between $30 a barrel oil in 2000.. and $140 a barrel oil in 2008.

[Parkbandit]

Last one...

If you want to put some 'pressure' on our do nothing Congress, there is a site called "Drill here, Drill now" where you can sign a petition that is supposedly being presented to them. Currently, there are 900K+ signatures.

http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659

[ClydeR]

I'm glad to see McCain is finally coming around. It was easy for him to say that he opposed offshore drilling when he was just a Senator. But now that he is nearly president, he is starting to see that President Bush was right about most things.

[Daniel]

Yea! that's right! Don't address the root causes of the problem, but instead look for quick fixes that won't actually do anything and use the profitibility of companies as your justification!

That's an awesome idea!!

/italics

You do realize that the profits of oil companies is not exactly high on the list of concerns for the average american right? Post something about how it will actually lower prices of gas presently. That might actually be relevant.

[Parkbandit]

Yea! that's right! Don't address the root causes of the problem, but instead look for quick fixes that won't actually do anything and use the profitibility of companies as your justification!

That's an awesome idea!!

/italics

You do realize that the profits of oil companies is not exactly high on the list of concerns for the average american right? Post something about how it will actually lower prices of gas presently. That might actually be relevant.


I would talk about profits and such, but it's obvious that would be well above your head. We could talk about the 8.7% profit of the big bad oil companies being the middle of the road for any company profit (I'm currently at 19.3% in my business) but that would again be confusing to you. You hear the term billion and just automatically think "THAT'S ALOT OF MONEY I AIN' GETTIN!" without any thought of the infrastructure or cost of getting that money.

We should just stick with your retarded idea of taxing the shit out of gas to force people to change.

I didn't use italics on purpose here.

[Daniel]

Tell me: When you read my post, did you even make an attempt to put it into context or you know...comprehend what I said?

Serious question.

[Gan]

Last one...

If you want to put some 'pressure' on our do nothing Congress, there is a site called "Drill here, Drill now" where you can sign a petition that is supposedly being presented to them. Currently, there are 900K+ signatures.

http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659


Thanks PB.

I signed and sent the link on to others as well.

[Gan]

Yea! that's right! Don't address the root causes of the problem, but instead look for quick fixes that won't actually do anything and use the profitibility of companies as your justification!

That's an awesome idea!!

/italics

You do realize that the profits of oil companies is not exactly high on the list of concerns for the average american right? Post something about how it will actually lower prices of gas presently. That might actually be relevant.

Anyone who knows about offshore drilling would tell you that the fields that are new and prohibited for drilling are anything but a quick fix with regards to how long it will take to extract the crude thats available and get it to the refineries.

I dont agree with this being a quick fix. I see it as original government intervention when the prohibition was placed to begin with. This is just an opportunity to use the same political opportunity (albiet different side) to right the original wrong that took place initially.

If there's oil there then the free market needs to be able to extract it without government interference. Not to mention any domestic contribution to our oil reserves/refinery output is that much less dependance we have on foreign crude being imported. Sure it wont match our current consumption (which is falling considerably due to the current price levels). Consumption behaviors are changing and alternative markets are being stimulated - it will just take time for those alternatives to test out as being more efficient and easily replicable.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Last one...

If you want to put some 'pressure' on our do nothing Congress, there is a site called "Drill here, Drill now" where you can sign a petition that is supposedly being presented to them. Currently, there are 900K+ signatures.

http://www.americansolutions.com/act...b-346a1e096659

Serious question. Since drilling around the Floria coastline is an actual topic how do you feel about it?

[Daniel]

I'm aware it takes time to actually set up the process to extract oil (hence my "lets see some evidence that this will actually do anything to lower oil prices presently").

The point is that this does nothing to address the underlying cause of our problems: Increasing demand along with a finite supply. This disincentives (omg buzz word) the creation of alternative energy markets and ultimately makes us dependent on oil even longer. That's what i mean by "Quick fix" because it doesn't do anything in the long run and only has a momentary political benefit.

[Gan]

I'm aware it takes time to actually set up the process to extract oil (hence my "lets see some evidence that this will actually do anything to lower oil prices presently").

The point is that this does nothing to address the underlying cause of our problems: Increasing demand along with a finite supply. This disincentives (omg buzz word) the creation of alternative energy markets and ultimately makes us dependent on oil even longer. That's what i mean by "Quick fix" because it doesn't do anything in the long run and only has a momentary political benefit.

So if it doesnt affect prices presently - exactly how does that disincentivize future investement in alternative energy markets?

[Daniel]

Presently, It gives the illusion to the market that there are sufficient resources in the market to sustain the economy. Thus, keeping pressure off the people who really need to be pushed (The government) to do what needs to be done (Invest in infrastructure).

[Parkbandit]

Tell me: When you read my post, did you even make an attempt to put it into context or you know...comprehend what I said?

Serious question.


Show me where I didn't understand it. Seriously, you need a new schtick. When you post something obviously retarded, you chalk it up to the reader not being able to understand it.

So, because I am bored right now.. let's go through the insightful post in question, shall we?


Yea! that's right! Don't address the root causes of the problem, but instead look for quick fixes that won't actually do anything and use the profitability of companies as your justification!

That's an awesome idea!!

/italics


Hey... by the way, if you need help with how to properly use italics, let me know. I think we can both agree that this was stupid and could and should be skipped over. Let's go forward to your 'serious' part...


You do realize that the profits of oil companies is not exactly high on the list of concerns for the average american right?

Again.. it's clear you know almost nothing about business or profits. I'll put a picture here in hopes that it's easier for you to understand:

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/ProfitsOilVsOtherIndust3rdQ2005.gif


But instead of concentrating the whole pea sized brain you have on the evil profits those evil oil companies make.. maybe you should concentrate on the price of oil.. which is clearly high on the list of concerns for the average American. Price of gas is up over a dollar a gallon from a year ago.



Post something about how it will actually lower prices of gas presently. That might actually be relevant.

I've already posted this:


JUST saying that we're going to start drilling our own reserves will immediately have a positive affect on the speculation price of oil.

Which is far more than you have posted regarding the reduction of oil prices.

[Daniel]

Show me where I didn't understand it. Seriously, you need a new schtick.

How about the part where I didn't say anything about oil company profits, but instead focused on the fact that using the profitibility of oil extraction is not exactly the best tactic to convince people that it's a good idea, as people don't give a fuck about oil company profits (at best).







I've already posted this:

Which is far more than you have posted regarding the reduction of oil prices.

Is this straight out of the "Wishful thinking" economic textbook?

[Gan]

Presently, It gives the illusion to the market that there are sufficient resources in the market to sustain the economy. Thus, keeping pressure off the people who really need to be pushed (The government) to do what needs to be done (Invest in infrastructure).

Presetnly there is not an offshore deepwater field that can sustain a 20mbpd consumption habit. If someone is fooled by the illusion that the prohibited offshore fields would sustain such a consumption level (or even an declining level) then they dont need to be in any position within public administration (politics).

I can see where some would say this is a political sham during an election year. And I would agree that this is the same political stunt that was used when the prohibition to offshore fields was enacted.

I would consider this simply as a righting a previous wrong, removing government interference from the petrolium market, and allowing oil companies to drill, further explore, refine deepwater drilling technologies/techiniques during live drilling (not simulation), and produce a marketable resource for those efforts.

[Parkbandit]

Serious question. Since drilling around the Floria coastline is an actual topic how do you feel about it?

I have no problem with it IF IT'S DONE PROPERLY. The last thing we want to do is hurt the tourism in Florida, which is our #1 business. But I'm damn sure we can do it safer and cleaner than who is planning on doing now.. the Cubans and the Chinese.

We are already drilling in the Gulf, and the distance will be far enough away from the coast of Florida so you wouldn't see the platforms from shore.

I'm all for it.

[Daniel]

Presetnly there is not an offshore deepwater field that can sustain a 20mbpd consumption habit. If someone is fooled by the illusion that the prohibited offshore fields would sustain such a consumption level (or even an declining level) then they dont need to be in any position within public administration (politics).

I can see where some would say this is a political sham during an election year. And I would agree that this is the same political stunt that was used when the prohibition to offshore fields was enacted.

I would consider this simply as a righting a previous wrong, removing government interference from the petrolium market, and allowing oil companies to drill, further explore, refine deepwater drilling technologies/techiniques during live drilling (not simulation), and produce a marketable resource for those efforts.

Yea. Except that's not how it's being presented.

[Parkbandit]

How about the part where I didn't say anything about oil company profits, but instead focused on the fact that using the profitibility of oil extraction is not exactly the best tactic to convince people that it's a good idea, as people don't give a fuck about oil company profits (at best).

Are you kidding me? Did you really just post "I never said oil company profits, I said profitability of oil"

Oh, and you should edit out your original post that clearly stated "the profitability of companies"

This :rofl: is for you.



Is this straight out of the "Wishful thinking" economic textbook?

Are you even familiar with the term "speculation" and it's role in the price of crude oil?

[Daniel]

Are you familiar with the term "Sticky prices"?

Are you familiar with the different actors in the economic market and the difference that wall street and consumers have on different markets?

Since you can't quote:


Are you kidding me? Did you really just post "I never said oil company profits, I said profitability of oil"

This is for you.


No. I just used the "I didn't make a complaint about oil company profits" I pointed out that the justification you gave for a policy was completely irrelevant and wasn't likely to get any traction with people who have the slightest bit of intelligence.

Thanks for trying though.

:rofl:

[radamanthys]

If it's done right.

Yes, for the time being, getting the necessary resource back into our economic gain rather than loss is important.

With the logarithmic increase in population impending, we've really gotta solve this problem for good, before it hurts us. Unfortunately, as far as the free market is concerned, jeopardizing current profitability for an uncertain research venture isn't in the question for most oil companies.

Basically, the responsible thing to do (as far as populists are concerned) would be for big oil companies to put themselves out of business for good. Suicide is wrong, mmkay?

Someone's gonna step forward and solve this, though, which will collapse the industry naturally and more... easily. Kinda like print media today.

I call dibs on the new Sealand off the fla coast in 10 years.

[BigWorm]

Are you kidding me? Did you really just post "I never said oil company profits, I said profitability of oil"

Oh, and you should edit out your original post that clearly stated "the profitability of companies"

This :rofl: is for you.



Are you even familiar with the term "speculation" and it's role in the price of crude oil?

Are you familiar with what "speculation" means in commodity markets? It's not actually a dirty word there.

[Gan]

Yea. Except that's not how it's being presented.

So the ends doesnt justify the means?

I may not agree with the bandwagoning approach; however, since that was the method that was used to get the prohibition enacted - I dont see anything wrong with using that same tool to get it removed.

And since we're discussing intangible effects (public opinion/perception, market opinion/perception) - there has to be some positive net benefit from the speculative side of the equation if not now - in futures.

[Daniel]

So the ends doesnt justify the means?

I may not agree with the bandwagoning approach; however, since that was the method that was used to get the prohibition enacted - I dont see anything wrong with using that same tool to get it removed.

And since we're discussing intangible effects (public opinion/perception, market opinion/perception) - there has to be some positive net benefit from the speculative side of the equation if not now - in futures.

That's besides the point. The issue isn't just one of government regulation but also, strategic priorities, environmental conservation etc. You can't just isolate those things out. You have the basis for a legitimate argument, but unfortunately that can't happen while it's all about "helping the common man with gas prices".

[Clove]

And since we're discussing intangible effects (public opinion/perception, market opinion/perception) - there has to be some positive net benefit from the speculative side of the equation if not now - in futures.Agreed x10, but in the long-run they still have to eliminate the cash-swap loophole.

[Back]

http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/42047-the-real-mccain-big-oil-fuels-the-straight-talk-express


Gas prices are hitting all-time highs. Our country is in the midst of a recession thanks in part to our crippling dependence on oil, so what's John McCain's plan? Will he hold the corporate leaders of the energy industry accountable when he addresses them today in Houston? Probably not, considering they are some of his biggest fund-raisers.

The Center for Responsive Politics finds that McCain has accepted over $1 million from the oil and gas industry. Many of McCain's top advisers have lobbied for big oil, which is why he now acts in their best interests, opposing environmental legislation and alternative energy plans. And that's exactly why we want everyone to know The REAL McCain.

-------------------------------------------------

Sheds a little light on both the President and McCain’s stances.

[Daniel]

I think you're forgetting that some guy Obama met once in the subway was a crooked land owner who was involved with getting a church 100 grand for a community center.

Is that the type of person you want in office?

Think of the alternatives!!

[Sean]

Originally Posted by ParkBandit
I have no problem with it IF IT'S DONE PROPERLY. The last thing we want to do is hurt the tourism in Florida, which is our #1 business. But I'm damn sure we can do it safer and cleaner than who is planning on doing now.. the Cubans and the Chinese.

We are already drilling in the Gulf, and the distance will be far enough away from the coast of Florida so you wouldn't see the platforms from shore.

I'm all for it.

New Jersey has a similar dispute going with Virgina that you appear to have with the Cubans. That is if you lift the federal ban and make it a states rights issue you run a larger risk of cross contamination. Virgina wants to drill approx 75miles away from the South Jersey shoreline but if something goes wrong the South Jersey shore tourism industry could be devastated much in the same way that if something goes wrong down in Cuba.

[Gan]

That's besides the point. The issue isn't just one of government regulation but also, strategic priorities, environmental conservation etc. You can't just isolate those things out. You have the basis for a legitimate argument, but unfortunately that can't happen while it's all about "helping the common man with gas prices".

Who says you cant isolate that out? Did I miss that in the rules somewhere?

[Daniel]

You can if you want to be disingenuous and myopic, sure.

[Gan]

Oil should be banned completely. The byproduct of pollution from oil based engines is teh evil. Oil when extracted and spilled is teh evil. The process of exploration, drilling, extracting, refining, and distribution is all teh evil polluter to our pristine natural environment. We should all revert back to horses (scratch that - they fart ergo they pollute), we should all revert back to bicycles (scratch they - they use rubber wheels - which rubber production pollutes and thus is teh evil), we should all just walk where we need to go. I blame it on the invention of the wheel! LOOK WHAT THAT FUCKING WHEEL GOT US!!! We should be one with nature, live in grass/mud huts, wear grass clothing, and walk everywhere we want to go.

Had to get that out of my system...

[Gan]

You can if you want to be disingenuous and myopic, sure.

How about results oriented?

[Daniel]

How about results oriented?

If the only thing you worry about is money, sure. However, I'd hope that the US government is concerned with other things.

[Gan]

If the only thing you worry about is money, sure. However, I'd hope that the US government is concerned with other things.

LOL

Show me 1 thing that the government is involved with that doesnt involve money in any way or at some point either historically or in the future.

Restore my hope in government, I dare you.

[Daniel]

There is a difference between "Hope" and the way things are. That's why I don't approve of this policy because the only benefit here would be for the politicians and the oil companies.

[Parkbandit]

Are you familiar with what "speculation" means in commodity markets? It's not actually a dirty word there.

I would have to ask you that question, since I've basically explained it. And please show me where I referred to it as a dirty word.. clearly you are reading something into my post that wasn't there.

[Parkbandit]

New Jersey has a similar dispute going with Virgina that you appear to have with the Cubans. That is if you lift the federal ban and make it a states rights issue you run a larger risk of cross contamination. Virgina wants to drill approx 75miles away from the South Jersey shoreline but if something goes wrong the South Jersey shore tourism industry could be devastated much in the same way that if something goes wrong down in Cuba.

But it's different. We (America) have any control over how Cuba drills for oil.. but we have complete control over how New Jersey and Virginia does.

[Parkbandit]

Oil should be banned completely. The byproduct of pollution from oil based engines is teh evil. Oil when extracted and spilled is teh evil. The process of exploration, drilling, extracting, refining, and distribution is all teh evil polluter to our pristine natural environment. We should all revert back to horses (scratch that - they fart ergo they pollute), we should all revert back to bicycles (scratch they - they use rubber wheels - which rubber production pollutes and thus is teh evil), we should all just walk where we need to go. I blame it on the invention of the wheel! LOOK WHAT THAT FUCKING WHEEL GOT US!!! We should be one with nature, live in grass/mud huts, wear grass clothing, and walk everywhere we want to go.

Had to get that out of my system...

:rofl:

I'm sure there are some readers that are asking "What's with the italics there?"

[Parkbandit]

There is a difference between "Hope" and the way things are. That's why I don't approve of this policy because the only benefit here would be for the politicians and the oil companies.


Well.. except lower oil prices for everyone.

BUT THOSE FUCKING EVIL OIL COMPANIES!!!!11oneoen.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by ParkBandit
But it's different. We (America) have any control over how Cuba drills for oil.. but we have complete control over how New Jersey and Virginia does.

Assuming you mean we don't have control over Cuba. Right now no one can drill but if as proposed by McCain it becomes a states to state issue New Jersey and it's residents lose control over what the Virginian residents may choose to do in their water despite how it may affect them.

[Keller]

Well.. except lower oil prices for everyone.

BUT THOSE FUCKING EVIL OIL COMPANIES!!!!11oneoen.


Don't you think we'd be better off paying high prices, adjusting our multi-faceted economy, and saving those reserves for times of actual hardship? This seems like a knee-jerk political maneuver.

To be totally honest, I wouldn't mind seeing some drilling in the gulf because we've got competition and the reserves will be depleted by the time we get in there. But as far as the reserves on US soil? Save those for when our national security depends on our national oil reserves.

[Daniel]

Well.. except lower oil prices for everyone.

BUT THOSE FUCKING EVIL OIL COMPANIES!!!!11oneoen.

I'm guessing you don't know what sticky prices or what the roles of various actors in the financial market are then.

[Parkbandit]

I'm guessing you don't know what sticky prices or what the roles of various actors in the financial market are then.

I'm guessing you don't know what determines oil prices. To think "the only benefit here would be for the politicians and the oil companies" is ignorant.

[BigWorm]

Well.. except lower oil prices for everyone.

BUT THOSE FUCKING EVIL OIL COMPANIES!!!!11oneoen.

What incentive is there for the oil companies to lower prices?

[Gan]

LOL

Show me 1 thing that the government is involved with that doesnt involve money in any way or at some point either historically or in the future.

Restore my hope in government, I dare you.


There is a difference between "Hope" and the way things are. That's why I don't approve of this policy because the only benefit here would be for the politicians and the oil companies.

Heh, I didnt think you could. ;)

As for the benefit. More than politicians and oil companies would benefit. Drilling means jobs. Extracting means more jobs. Maybe this might spill over into getting more refineries built - meaning more jobs. And of course distribution at a lower cost should translate into cheaper gas (at least regionally).

You're never going to eliminate politicians benefitting from the deals they make, be it in oil, banking, real estate, etc. While a worthy goal, its not going to happen realistically without term limitations, greater accountability, and greater transparent congressional process. Thinking that stopping the drilling will achieve that goal is just cutting your nose off to spite your face. (pardon the colloquialism)

Basic rule of politics. ALL politicians lie. My freshman political theory professor based his class on that premise - I've yet to see him proved wrong.

[Gan]

What incentive is there for the oil companies to lower prices?

Enhanced public image.

Greater market share of sales (volume over price).

Basically the fundamental concept of market competition in general.

[Parkbandit]

What incentive is there for the oil companies to lower prices?

Less trips to be paraded in front of the US Congress?

Seriously though, US oil companies have very little influence on the price of crude oil.

[Gan]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll102/learningtewfly/energy.jpg

[Parkbandit]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll102/learningtewfly/energy.jpg


Too funny.. and sad at the same time. Isn't that exactly what Obama is saying right now? The only thing I've heard out of him so far is "It's the failed policy of the past" or "We can't drill our way out of this"..

I'm waiting for the "That's not the oil I knew"

[Back]

Too funny.. and sad at the same time. Isn't that exactly what Obama is saying right now? The only thing I've heard out of him so far is "It's the failed policy of the past" or "We can't drill our way out of this"..

I'm waiting for the "That's not the oil I knew"

At a Glance

Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Support Next Generation Biofuels
Set America on Path to Oil Independence
Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

[Sean]

Too funny.. and sad at the same time. Isn't that exactly what Obama is saying right now? The only thing I've heard out of him so far is "It's the failed policy of the past" or "We can't drill our way out of this"..

I'm waiting for the "That's not the oil I knew"

I guess if you consider having a plan that you know you can't get past but keep sticking to it then Bush def. has a plan.

[Apathy]

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/ProfitsOilVsOtherIndust3rdQ2005.gif


Thank you for posting this picture. Have anything more recent, like post 2007 (seriously)?

[Mabus]

At a Glance

Increase taxes on oil.
Tax "windfalls" of corporations.
Increase taxes on coal.
Increase taxes on natural gas.
Deny new nuclear power generation permits.

Sure is a "solid" plan he has.

In the 10-20 years it will take to begin to change from oil what are the poor and middle class to do in this "plan"?

Starve? Lose their jobs? Freeze come winter? Walk miles to work and stores? Come up with tens of thousands of dollars to convert (or re-buy) their cars and homes?

We need a plan for what we do before the science fiction of oil-free becomes a fact. We still need affordable transportation, food, electric and heating during this planned transition.

Neither candidate has put forward a fully fleshed-out and workable plan that includes our present and the future needs.

[Daniel]

Heh, I didnt think you could. ;)



I don't remember ever saying that I could. A corrupt system is no reason to become corrupt yourself. I'm under no obligation to support policies that I feel are corrupt, ineffective, and counter productive just because "everyone else is doing it anyway".

If you want to debate the relative merits of opening up drilling in protected areas, fine. But don't obfusicate the issue with something that you and I both know is bullshit and then try and justify it with the reasoning that the system is fucked anyway.

[Parkbandit]

At a Glance

Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Support Next Generation Biofuels
Set America on Path to Oil Independence
Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

At a glance.. which one is supposed to help with rising oil prices again? That list of his 'energy plan' makes my point.. the guy can say anything and people like you will gobble it up like it's something new and different. Like it's hope and change reincarnated.

"Hey Obama, how are you going to help with rising oil prices?"

"I'm going to set America on a path to oil independence!"

"WEEEE!!!!"

[Parkbandit]

I guess if you consider having a plan that you know you can't get past but keep sticking to it then Bush def. has a plan.

I don't get it.. care to clarify?

[Daniel]

"I'm going to set America on a path to oil independence!"

"WEEEE!!!!"

It's a lot better than "I'm going to appeal to dumb hicks in Florida who know shit about economics with some bullshit scheme that A) isn't going to make prices go down and B) won't make anything better in the long run.."

[Back]

Increase taxes on oil.
Tax "windfalls" of corporations.
Increase taxes on coal.
Increase taxes on natural gas.
Deny new nuclear power generation permits.

Sure is a "solid" plan he has.

In the 10-20 years it will take to begin to change from oil what are the poor and middle class to do in this "plan"?

Starve? Lose their jobs? Freeze come winter? Walk miles to work and stores? Come up with tens of thousands of dollars to convert (or re-buy) their cars and homes?

We need a plan for what we do before the science fiction of oil-free becomes a fact. We still need affordable transportation, food, electric and heating during this planned transition.

Neither candidate has put forward a fully fleshed-out and workable plan that includes our present and the future needs.

Bullshit. Obama has not only an immediate plan, but long term plans. McCain thinks setting up oil rigs, drilling in non-confirmed sites, extracting the oil, and then refining it is a more immediate solution.

[Parkbandit]

Thank you for posting this picture. Have anything more recent, like post 2007 (seriously)?

Profit margins across industries rarely change that much from year to year. I think Oil is sitting at 8.2% - 8.7% so far this year.. which is pretty close to what it was in 2005.

Just google industry profit margin.. then look at images. It'll at least point you into the right direction.

[Parkbandit]

It's a lot better than "I'm going to appeal to dumb hicks in Florida who know shit about economics with some bullshit scheme that A) isn't going to make prices go down and B) won't make anything better in the long run.."


Yea.. because only dumb hicks from Florida realize that if you have more supply, the price goes down.

Thank god I'm not some DC retard who hasn't a clue.

We should just "tax the shit out of oil".. that'll fix our problem!

Fucking idiot.

[TheEschaton]

Not if they artificially restrict the number of barrels per day.

[Parkbandit]

Bullshit. Obama has not only an immediate plan, but long term plans. McCain thinks setting up oil rigs, drilling in non-confirmed sites, extracting the oil, and then refining it is a more immediate solution.

WHAT IS THE FUCKING IMMEDIATE PLAN TO REDUCE THE PRICE OF OIL???

You hear him speak and forget to actually pay attention to the words.. to busy either fainting or having an orgasm.

[Parkbandit]

Not if they artificially restrict the number of barrels per day.

Who's 'they', comrade?

[Back]

WHAT IS THE FUCKING IMMEDIATE PLAN TO REDUCE THE PRICE OF OIL???

You hear him speak and forget to actually pay attention to the words.. to busy either fainting or having an orgasm.

Which candidate is more likely to be pictured holding hands with the Saudis?

[Daniel]

As you pointed out earlier in this thread supply and demand don't mean shit for prices "Do you know what speculation is??//??".

The demand for Oil has not risen at all. The price itself has not changes since Saudi Arabia announced that it will increase production by 200,000 barrels a day. So, what makes you think that the price will lower today when it will take several years for full extraction to be possible in these protective areas? Even more important, how does this fix our oil dependence?

There is a finite amount of oil in this world. Demand is rising. It's only a matter of time before this market can't sustain itself, then what?

[Daniel]

WHAT IS THE FUCKING IMMEDIATE PLAN TO REDUCE THE PRICE OF OIL???

.

I see you still haven't even taken the time to google "Sticky prices". There is no way to lower the price of oil. The oil companies know that you will pay a certain price and since you need gas to drop the kids off at school, you won't stop buying it either.

They have no reason to lower the prices.

Public image? Sure, but that implies that oil companies don't know that they have a finite life expectancy. No sense in prolonging the inevitable if they can rake it in now and use their profits to prepare for the next energy source.

[Parkbandit]

Which candidate is more likely to be pictured holding hands with the Saudis?

Don't quote if you aren't answering the question.


WHAT IS THE FUCKING IMMEDIATE PLAN TO REDUCE THE PRICE OF OIL???

You hear him speak and forget to actually pay attention to the words.. to busy either fainting or having an orgasm.

[Parkbandit]

As you pointed out earlier in this thread supply and demand don't mean shit for prices "Do you know what speculation is??//??".

The demand for Oil has not risen at all. The price itself has not changes since Saudi Arabia announced that it will increase production by 200,000 barrels a day. So, what makes you think that the price will lower today when it will take several years for full extraction to be possible in these protective areas? Even more important, how does this fix our oil dependence?

There is a finite amount of oil in this world. Demand is rising. It's only a matter of time before this market can't sustain itself, then what?


You are a walking enigma... or enema.. not sure which.

First.. show me one post where I said supply doesn't mean shit for prices. It ALWAYS has an effect. Just because I posted "Do you know what speculation is" (to which you clearly don't) doesn't mean that OMG SUPPLY R NOT MEAN NOTHIN!

And do you even read your own posts?



The demand for Oil has not risen at all.



Demand is rising.

Which is it Boy Blunder? It is either rising.. or it's not risen at all. I just want to know which one you are settling on before I make more fun of you.

[Back]

Don't quote if you aren't answering the question.

You suck at questions. One - Love.

How will opening up supposed oil fields help gas prices now?

[Parkbandit]

I see you still haven't even taken the time to google "Sticky prices". There is no way to lower the price of oil. The oil companies know that you will pay a certain price and since you need gas to drop the kids off at school, you won't stop buying it either.

They have no reason to lower the prices.

Public image? Sure, but that implies that oil companies don't know that they have a finite life expectancy. No sense in prolonging the inevitable if they can rake it in now and use their profits to prepare for the next energy source.


I don't deal in fairy tales. Are you trying to say that now that gas is above $4 a gallon, it will never be below that mark again? Are you trying to infer that gas has never dropped in price in the history, due to your 'sticky prices'?

[Parkbandit]

You suck at questions. One - Love.

How will opening up supposed oil fields help gas prices now?

Backlash.. it's a pretty simple thing. I said Obama had no energy plan to reduce gas prices.. and you said "OH YEA HE DOES! HOW DARE YOU SAY ANYTHING BAD ABOUT OBAMA" and posted the stupid list from his site.. to which not a single one addresses the problem.

So do you agree he has no plan and that list is a bunch of empty promises, much like his entire campagn? If your answer is no, please simply give us his energy plan to reduce gas prices.

[Daniel]

You are a walking enigma... or enema.. not sure which.

First.. show me one post where I said supply doesn't mean shit for prices. It ALWAYS has an effect. Just because I posted "Do you know what speculation is" (to which you clearly don't) doesn't mean that OMG SUPPLY R NOT MEAN NOTHIN!

And do you even read your own posts?



I realize logical inferences are not your strong suit, so please humor me: What is causing the drastic increase in prices?




Which is it Boy Blunder? It is either rising.. or it's not risen at all. I just want to know which one you are settling on before I make more fun of you.

You obviously have a problem with distinguishing time frame or putting things into context. Demand is rising, as it always will as more and more people live and go about their daily lives. However, increased demand does not account for the rise in prices.

Happy?

[Back]

Backlash.. it's a pretty simple thing. I said Obama had no energy plan to reduce gas prices.. and you said "OH YEA HE DOES! HOW DARE YOU SAY ANYTHING BAD ABOUT OBAMA" and posted the stupid list from his site.. to which not a single one addresses the problem.

So do you agree he has no plan and that list is a bunch of empty promises, much like his entire campagn? If your answer is no, please simply give us his energy plan to reduce gas prices.

You have a talent for exaggeration.

Two - Love.

Do you think lowering taxes on the middle class might help in the immediate future?

[Mabus]

Bullshit. Obama has not only an immediate plan, but long term plans.
His plan is to increase all taxes on carbon-based fuels and use the $150 billion (their campaign estimate) that will be generated to fund an "Apollo program" for alternate energy sources.

It does not address what the poor, working poor and middle class are supposed to do when all of these taxes are passed on to them, the consumer. The cost of home electric, heating, transportation, food...everything that requires energy, is going to increase with these taxes. Perhaps they will also offer some type of "energy tax break" to people, but that would help drain the initial taxation that is slated to be used for the research.

It will still take years, if not decades, to reach a tipping point of transition from fossil fuel to some non-fossil fueled future, and that is if we find the sources to generate the energy needed.

All of this without nuclear, as now that he is running for president he no longer admits to taking money from nuclear interests and lobbyists.


McCain thinks setting up oil rigs, drilling in non-confirmed sites, extracting the oil, and then refining it is a more immediate solution.
Allowing exploration and drilling in currently off-limits areas provides at most 10-30 years of oil. But it does provide 10-30 years of oil while we search for alternate sources, retool and prepare.

As to "non-confirmed sites", the companies will confirm the possibility before test bores are dropped to depth. They do not drill randomly.

If we do not allow drilling along the offshore areas within our borders there is nothing to stop slant drilling from outside of our international borders. It is possible to tap some deposits at a diagonal.

McCain also supports clean coal, nuclear and all of the alternate energy sources that your dreamer supports. He does this without the forced social engineering of the nanny-state, that would use taxation as a wagging finger to say "No, no, no...you have had enough.".

Neither candidate, as I have said before, has put forth a comprehensive plan for how we get from here to a full transition away from fossil fuel dependence. Neither has been fully truthful on the costs, and possible losses of living standards, that we are likely to face on the way. The truth of such explanations died when Carter wore a cardigan and talked about conservation, and next to nothing has been done by either party since.

[Parkbandit]

You have a talent for exaggeration.

Two - Love.

Do you think lowering taxes on the middle class might help in the immediate future?


In tennis, it's customary that when stating the score you start with your score first. Here:

Two - Love.

And you have no talent... and no answers. Intellectually bankrupt as usual.

[Miscast]

Tennis goes Love, 15, 30, 40...

[Parkbandit]

I realize logical inferences are not your strong suit, so please humor me: What is causing the drastic increase in prices?

I realize that putting words in other people's posts is something you CONSTANTLY do.. but really, you should stick with what people say.. not what you wish they said so you could say "AHA!" Stop trying to infer by using your warped logic.. it hasn't worked, it doesn't work.. and it just makes you look even more retarded than usual.

"What is causing the drastic increase in prices?"

There are many factors, not just a single one. Top 3, in no specific order, off the top of my head would be: speculation, supply and demand. Those are not the only reasons.. you have aging oil infrastructure, increased refinery costs, seasonal maintenance, etc.. that also contribute.


You obviously have a problem with distinguishing time frame or putting things into context. Demand is rising, as it always will as more and more people live and go about their daily lives. However, increased demand does not account for the rise in prices.

Happy?

Distinguishing time would be using past tense or present tense or future tense. You used the same tense... which was stupid, especially in the same post.

And you are incorrect. As stated above, demand is always a factor in price. Now, don't get all confused again and say "BUT U SAID SPECULATION!" I'm pretty sure it was explained to you above that it's not ONLY demand or not ONLY supply or not ONLY speculation.. but a combination of many factors.

[Parkbandit]

Tennis goes Love, 15, 30, 40...


Damn..

Edit: 30 - Love.

[Daniel]

I realize that putting words in other people's posts is something you CONSTANTLY do.. but really, you should stick with what people say.. not what you wish they said so you could say "AHA!" Stop trying to infer by using your warped logic.. it hasn't worked, it doesn't work.. and it just makes you look even more retarded than usual.

"What is causing the drastic increase in prices?"

There are many factors, not just a single one. Top 3, in no specific order, off the top of my head would be: speculation, supply and demand. Those are not the only reasons.. you have aging oil infrastructure, increased refinery costs, seasonal maintenance, etc.. that also contribute.



Distinguishing time would be using past tense or present tense or future tense. You used the same tense... which was stupid, especially in the same post.

And you are incorrect. As stated above, demand is always a factor in price. Now, don't get all confused again and say "BUT U SAID SPECULATION!" I'm pretty sure it was explained to you above that it's not ONLY demand or not ONLY supply or not ONLY speculation.. but a combination of many factors.

You are just beyond stupid.

[Parkbandit]

You are just beyond stupid.

Which part confused you again dipshit? I tried to use small words and short sentences.. but clearly that wasn't enough to counteract your ignorance.

Sorry chump :(

[g++]

I think we should do both. Drill offshore, and launch a program to find alternative energy sources. Shit use the offshore tax base to find alternative energy. I dont understand why these two are independant of each other. It will take 5 years to get the oil out of the ground anywhere and thats optomistic. Realistically even with a dramatic change in energy policy and a revolution in the way consumers utilize oil we will still be dependant on it 20years from now but that doesnt mean people wont be starting to migrate to other forms of energy. The price of oil is not going to drop dramatically simply because we start drilling the entire world is involved in the market not just us. If we get to a point where we need significantly less oil because of fuel cell technology well bully for us, that doesnt mean we have to dump the oil in the ocean we can, I know wait for. Export something to other countries::gasp::. Regardless of our plans for the future establishing a powerful oil industry cant possibly be bad for our country. While I understand the argument that if we lower the price of oil fuel cells will be less viable...well maybe I have a bleaker outlook on the world then most but I dont think we have the power to drop oil prices even if that was the stated mission.

[Miscast]

You do realize you're expecting politicians to share your enthusiasm for these grand ideas... Realistically it's just not gonna happen.

[g++]

You do realize you're expecting politicians to share your enthusiasm for these grand ideas... Realistically it's just not gonna happen.

What grand ideas? this is just energy policy. The reason were talking about it is because certain politicians are enthusiastic about it...Realistically all the things mentioned will happen, its just a matter of whether we do it now or later.

[Daniel]

Which part confused you again dipshit? (

The part where you said logic does not work.

[Parkbandit]

The part where you said logic does not work.

Ah yes.. I can see how someone like you can be so easily confused with that. Once again though, you imply something that isn't there. Let's take a look at that post of mine, shall we? Let's BOLD AND UNDERLINE out the key part you didn't understand and maybe, JUST MAYBE a tiny little light will shine on that tiny little brain of yours.


Stop trying to infer by using your warped logic.. it hasn't worked, it doesn't work.. and it just makes you look even more retarded than usual.


Hope this helps... though I doubt it will.

[Clove]

I think we should do both. Drill offshore, and launch a program to find alternative energy sources. Shit use the offshore tax base to find alternative energy. I dont understand why these two are independant of each other.We should do both. We could do both. But as long as oil is plentiful and affordable we WON'T do both.

[Parkbandit]

What grand ideas? this is just energy policy. The reason were talking about it is because certain politicians are enthusiastic about it...Realistically all the things mentioned will happen, its just a matter of whether we do it now or later.


That's the thing.. JUST lowering prices of oil isn't going to fix the problem. We DO need to invest heavily in alternative energy sources and get them up and running as quickly as possible. Once the price of oil comes back down to a 'normal' level, people will go back to their wasteful habits and we'll repeat this cycle once again UNLESS the next administrations make energy independence a top priority.

[Daniel]

That's the thing.. JUST lowering prices of oil isn't going to fix the problem. We DO need to invest heavily in alternative energy sources and get them up and running as quickly as possible. Once the price of oil comes back down to a 'normal' level, people will go back to their wasteful habits and we'll repeat this cycle once again UNLESS the next administrations make energy independence a top priority.

So of course the solution is to lower the price of gas (by depleting our strategic reserves and destroying our environment), thereby making sure that no one has an incentive to make energy independance a top priority. Brilliant!

[Parkbandit]

We should do both. We could do both. But as long as oil is plentiful and affordable we WON'T do both.


Are you suggesting like the tree huggers and stupid people that we artificially inflate the price of oil to a point where we are all forced to change now?

[CrystalTears]

We should do both. We could do both. But as long as oil is plentiful and affordable we WON'T do both.

Which is why perhaps it's not such a bad idea to make gas expensive so that people have no choice but to look for alternatives like they are doing right now.

[Miscast]

Once the price of oil comes back down to a 'normal' level, people will go back to their wasteful habits and we'll repeat this cycle once again UNLESS the next administrations make energy independence a top priority.
That sounds like proactive work... This is the gov't we're talking about.

[Parkbandit]

So of course the solution is to lower the price of gas and make sure that no one has an incentive to make energy independance a top priority. Brilliant!


And 'taxing the shit out of oil' is the answer.

You are a joke... but you already knew that.. didn't you.

[Parkbandit]

That sounds like proactive work... This is the gov't we're talking about.


Government yes.. but it's also free market enterprise. In the past month, I've heard all sorts of stuff being looked at.. like algae and insects making an oil substitute, advancements in solar power harnessing, improvements in power storage and air/water powered vehicles. Government can help by issuing grants and provide funding to the best ideas out there to get them to the market sooner.

[Parkbandit]

Which is why perhaps it's not such a bad idea to make gas expensive so that people have no choice but to look for alternatives like they are doing right now.


Who is hurt by expensive gas prices? I know I'm not. I pass along the additional costs associated with fuel onto my customers. I'll still be making the same market percentage tomorrow that I made last year at this time.

[CrystalTears]

Who is hurt by expensive gas prices?
Everyone else other than you, evidently.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by ParkBandit
Who is hurt by expensive gas prices? I know I'm not. I pass along the additional costs associated with fuel onto my customers. I'll still be making the same market percentage tomorrow that I made last year at this time.

I don't know the hard statistics but if I had to guess I'd say more Americans are employees than employers. Who are all these employees passing the additional cost onto?

[Clove]

Are you suggesting like the tree huggers and stupid people that we artificially inflate the price of oil to a point where we are all forced to change now?I'm not suggesting a policy, I'm making an observation that consumers won't change the status quo until they perceive a need to do so. Which will only happen if the price becomes prohibitively high (economically speaking). Shortages will drive it there, market speculation will (temporarily) drive it there, or policy will drive it there.

In terms of policy this means government is going to either have to put legislation in place that forces industry's hand (mandates on vehicle efficeincy, or emissions) or tax the shit out of it (and put the proceeds to developing energy alternatives). But that's a decision voters are going to have to make. In my opinion, economically speaking, it won't happen until there are vast oil shortages (which will make prices prohibitive and force industry to offer substitutes), so if we want to "be ahead of the game" we'll need to put policies in place that make it happen BEFORE the oil is all gone (if that indeed will ever happen, experts disagree).

[Clove]

I don't know the hard statistics but if I had to guess I'd say more Americans are employees than employers. Who are all these employees passing the additional cost onto?To a certain extent employers have to adjust (if they want to retain their talent pool). But yes, largely its wage-earners who can't pass their cost-of-living increases along to their employers.

[Gan]

I don't remember ever saying that I could. A corrupt system is no reason to become corrupt yourself. I'm under no obligation to support policies that I feel are corrupt, ineffective, and counter productive just because "everyone else is doing it anyway".

I believe I challenged you as a response to this quote, which should have been in my previous quote. Please tell me that you're not trying to be idealistic (like TheE) instead of realistic...

If the only thing you worry about is money, sure. However, I'd hope that the US government is concerned with other things.



If you want to debate the relative merits of opening up drilling in protected areas, fine. But don't obfusicate the issue with something that you and I both know is bullshit and then try and justify it with the reasoning that the system is fucked anyway.

So opening up drilling that has since been prohibited is bullshit and just a conversation of obsfucation? Thats the whole point of the conversation. Politics aside - I dont give a fuck how public opinion is swayed and the Hill is influenced, so long as the wrong (and yes, the prohibition of driling is wrong) is righted.

[Gan]

It's a lot better than "I'm going to appeal to dumb hicks in Florida who know shit about economics with some bullshit scheme that A) isn't going to make prices go down and B) won't make anything better in the long run.."

Florida aside, I think we have established that opening up drilling in ANWR and the gulf would have more positive gains than negative in the long run.

[Gan]

Not if they artificially restrict the number of barrels per day.

Actually, that has been the practice of oil production in Texas for almost half a century, which is now regulated by the Texas Railroad Comission.

I can point you to almost a hundred small wellhead sites in east Texas alone that have been shut off for production regulation.

It helps to have a step-father who is a oilfield consultant for downhole production/extraction. I grew up listening to this...

[Gan]

I see you still haven't even taken the time to google "Sticky prices". There is no way to lower the price of oil. The oil companies know that you will pay a certain price and since you need gas to drop the kids off at school, you won't stop buying it either.

They have no reason to lower the prices.
The oil distribution market is not so finite. Otherwise prices would be fixed across the US - which they are not. The largest issue that refutes this absolute is volume sales and market competition. Quantity over price would dictate that if given the chance - any market participant would undercut its competition for additional sales (providing it can handle the demand the lower price would bring). Thats the chief enemy of monopolistic behavior that you're describing.


Public image? Sure, but that implies that oil companies don't know that they have a finite life expectancy. No sense in prolonging the inevitable if they can rake it in now and use their profits to prepare for the next energy source.
Now you sound like a fucking conspiracy theorist.

[Gan]

I think we should do both. Drill offshore, and launch a program to find alternative energy sources. Shit use the offshore tax base to find alternative energy. I dont understand why these two are independant of each other. It will take 5 years to get the oil out of the ground anywhere and thats optomistic. Realistically even with a dramatic change in energy policy and a revolution in the way consumers utilize oil we will still be dependant on it 20years from now but that doesnt mean people wont be starting to migrate to other forms of energy. The price of oil is not going to drop dramatically simply because we start drilling the entire world is involved in the market not just us. If we get to a point where we need significantly less oil because of fuel cell technology well bully for us, that doesnt mean we have to dump the oil in the ocean we can, I know wait for. Export something to other countries::gasp::. Regardless of our plans for the future establishing a powerful oil industry cant possibly be bad for our country. While I understand the argument that if we lower the price of oil fuel cells will be less viable...well maybe I have a bleaker outlook on the world then most but I dont think we have the power to drop oil prices even if that was the stated mission.

ZOMG. Another realist in the crowd. Your post gives me hope that not all of the PC is delusional in the politics folder.

[Parkbandit]

I don't know the hard statistics but if I had to guess I'd say more Americans are employees than employers. Who are all these employees passing the additional cost onto?

That's my point. High oil prices hurts most Americans.. and to keep the price intentionally high is NOT the answer.

[Gan]

Who is hurt by expensive gas prices? I know I'm not. I pass along the additional costs associated with fuel onto my customers. I'll still be making the same market percentage tomorrow that I made last year at this time.


Everyone else other than you, evidently.


I don't know the hard statistics but if I had to guess I'd say more Americans are employees than employers. Who are all these employees passing the additional cost onto?

In all fairness, his business (PB's) is not hurt by higher gas prices if the market allows him to pass through the increase fuel costs (direct and indirect) to his customers and still allow him to remain competetive.

On a personal level, everyone's disposable income is affected by the higher prices in gas. To what degree and if that degree 'hurts' the standard of living of everyone is what differs.

[CrystalTears]

True, but keeping the status quo and not finding alternatives now is not the answer either.

[Parkbandit]

True, but keeping the status quo and not finding alternatives now is not the answer either.

So let's find some middle ground? Open up the gulf and ANWR for oil drilling. Upgrade the refinery production. Put in place a program to fund alternative energy sources and stick with them. Close the loopholes that speculators use to purposely drive up the price of crude. Invest in green companies that save energy.

"Taxing the shit out of oil" is clearly not the answer, as it hurts most Americans and will destroy the economy.

[Daniel]

I believe I challenged you as a response to this quote, which should have been in my previous quote. Please tell me that you're not trying to be idealistic (like TheE) instead of realistic...



Well. I'd hope that my usage of my word "Hope" would show you that I was being idealistic. As I said, a corrupt system is no reason to be corrupt yourself.





So opening up drilling that has since been prohibited is bullshit and just a conversation of obsfucation? Thats the whole point of the conversation. Politics aside - I dont give a fuck how public opinion is swayed and the Hill is influenced, so long as the wrong (and yes, the prohibition of driling is wrong) is righted.


That's your belief. There are plenty of other factors that need to be taken into account when discussing drilling. However, don't try to slip it in as a neccessity when we both know it won't do a god damned thing.

[Gan]

That's your belief. There are plenty of other factors that need to be taken into account when discussing drilling. However, don't try to slip it in as a neccessity when we both know it won't do a god damned thing.

In the long run it will benefit, to what extent I still am unclear. You just refuse to admit it will benefit at all because it doesnt jive with your paradigm.

[Gan]

"Taxing the shit out of oil" is clearly not the answer, as it hurts most Americans and will destroy the economy.

Surely you jest...

[Daniel]

The oil distribution market is not so finite. Otherwise prices would be fixed across the US - which they are not.



The largest issue that refutes this absolute is volume sales and market competition. Quantity over price would dictate that if given the chance - any market participant would undercut its competition for additional sales (providing it can handle the demand the lower price would bring). Thats the chief enemy of monopolistic behavior that you're describing.

Now you sound like a fucking conspiracy theorist.

The issue of gas prices varying across the country and oil prices are not exactly collineated.

There are tens of thousands of gas stations that are in a fairly competitive market. Whereas, there are very few players in the ogliopoly that is Oil production. The bottom line is that oil is not very elastic. A massive infusion to the oil supply is not going to shift the equilibrium back down to the price that it once was, because the market itself has fundamentally changed.

I'd be happy to illustrate with graphs if you have yahoo messenger later ;).

[Daniel]

In the long run it will benefit, to what extent I still am unclear. You just refuse to admit it will benefit at all because it doesnt jive with your paradigm.

That's not true at all. I've told you repeatedly that if you want to discuss the merits of off shore drilling, in relation to its costs and benefits across the whole spectum of the economy, fine.

However, I'm not just going to take your word as gospel that it's somehow better in the long run with absolutely no discussion to back that claim up.

[CrystalTears]

So let's find some middle ground? Open up the gulf and ANWR for oil drilling. Upgrade the refinery production. Put in place a program to fund alternative energy sources and stick with them. Close the loopholes that speculators use to purposely drive up the price of crude. Invest in green companies that save energy.

"Taxing the shit out of oil" is clearly not the answer, as it hurts most Americans and will destroy the economy.I have zero problem with that. I'm all for it.

I'm just saying that I know how people work and they won't change unless they are forced to. We need to be independant with our resouces AND find alternative ones. I'd like both and I don't want our government to be complacent because now they're letting the offshore drilling begin and OMG WE'LL HAVE OUR OWN OIL and not look into other options.

[Daniel]

I don't want our government to be complacent because now they're letting the offshore drilling begin and OMG WE'LL HAVE OUR OWN OIL and not look into other options.

Exactly. It's a quick fix and you're naive as fuck if you think people will do any proactive unless we force them to.

but the market will sort it out!!!11!!

[ClydeR]

Planting oil rigs off the beaches of Florida and California is a low risk activity. The amount of oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico during Hurricane Katrina was less than 60% of the oil spilled in Alaska in the Exxon Valdez incident, and Alaska is doing just fine now. Besides, they don't even have hurricanes in California.

[g++]

Exactly. It's a quick fix and you're naive as fuck if you think people will do any proactive unless we force them to.

but the market will sort it out!!!11!!

I think you really fail to grasp the size of the global oil market. The projected decrease price from offshore drilling + drilling in Anwar + drilling in Grenwich would be a drop of 3.5 cents a gallon in the year 2027. This isnt going to change the global oil market, its just going to help our economy a bit.

Im not advocating for drilling because I think it will help Im advocating for drilling because its a no-brainer influx of money and jobs for our country.

Alternative energy is going to be a top priority the idea that drilling will bring down the price of gas is silly.

[Daniel]

Alternative energy is going to be a top priority the idea that drilling will bring down the price of gas is silly.

Yea. That's essentially what I've been saying.

Thanks for paying attention.

[g++]

Yea. That's essentially what I've been saying.

Thanks for paying attention.

Did you look at what I quoted from you, it implies that drilling will derail attempts to find alternative sources of energy because people will not be proactive about it? It was posted by you. Are you arguing with yourself then?

[Gan]

That's not true at all. I've told you repeatedly that if you want to discuss the merits of off shore drilling, in relation to its costs and benefits across the whole spectum of the economy, fine.

However, I'm not just going to take your word as gospel that it's somehow better in the long run with absolutely no discussion to back that claim up.

I introduced some long term benefits about 3 pages ago with regards to what would be seen if drilling were opened up. You seem to be fixed obesesively on pricing alone as the only recognizable benefit. You're forgetting about advancements in technology and practice, jobs (lots of them), and regional impacts on domestic oil being infused into the market and how it would affect speculization depending on the size of the fields being extracted not to mention further exploration that would also be a byproduct of said drilling.

You dont have to take my word for anything. Much the same as I dont take your word for anything. ;)

*And due to IT policies at work, I have no messenger capabilities outside AIM linked to my cell phone.

[Daniel]

Did you look at what I quoted from you, it implies that drilling will derail attempts to find alternative sources of energy because people will not be proactive about it? It was posted by you. Are you arguing with yourself then?

Sorry you weren't clear then. I thought you were saying the notion that oil drilling would bring down the price of gas was silly (which was what I have been saying).

I disagree with the notion that it won't derail the attempts to find alternative energy sources, as they have already been "found". The main hinderance to their adoption is the infrastructure neccessary to make them viable*

The only way that will happen is with government support and funding. This won't happen as long as A) Politicians are beholden to Oil companies and B) They can conveniently deflect any criticism by saying they're doing everything they can to fix the problem (Hey look guys! We opened up drilling, what else do you want from us?!?!).

*Honda already has a zero emission, non oil based car in production in Southern California. It's limited to that geographical location because there is no other place that can support these cars..coincidence that Cali is one of the most environmentally strict states in the nation, while simaltaneously being one of the most supportive of alternative sources? Hmmm...No.

[Daniel]

I introduced some long term benefits about 3 pages ago with regards to what would be seen if drilling were opened up. You seem to be fixed obesesively on pricing alone as the only recognizable benefit.


Eh. If I'm "obssesed" with this it's because that's the only way it's being presented.

Show me a news story or politician that is talking about how drilling is neccessary to produce American jobs that has nothing to do with gas prices.


You're forgetting about advancements in technology and practice, jobs (lts of them), and regional impacts on domestic oil being infused into the market and how it would affect speculization depending on the size of the fields being extracted not to mention further exploration that would also be a byproduct of said drilling.

Which of course would have to be compared against damages to other industries (tourism, etc), our environment and our ability to withstand a *real* crisis. This is of course a comparison that won't happen as long as the issue is framed as being essential to relieve gas prices (which is bullshit).





You dont have to take my word for anything. Much the same as I dont take your word for anything. ;)

*And due to IT policies at work, I have no messenger capabilities outside AIM linked to my cell phone.

I was just kidding about yahoo ;)

[Gan]

Eh. If I'm "obssesed" with this it's because that's the only way it's being presented.

Show me a news story or politician that is talking about how drilling is neccessary to produce American jobs that has nothing to do with gas prices.


Way to focus on the wrapping instead of whats inside the present. Again, who cares how its presented - we all know in politics everything has a spin. Learn to look beyond the delivery and look at whats being delivered. Bottom line, drilling needs to be opened back up - its the right thing to do. It was wrong to prohibit production in the first place, now there's an opportunity to correct it.



Which of course would have to be compared against damages to other industries (tourism, etc), our environment and our ability to withstand a *real* crisis. This is of course a comparison that won't happen as long as the issue is framed as being essential to relieve gas prices (which is bullshit).
You know what they say about people who never leave the house for fear of being in an accident. You can play the 'what if' game all you want, its not going to make things any better.



I was just kidding about yahoo ;)
Thank God for small favors.

[Daniel]

we all know in politics everything has a spin. Learn to look beyond the delivery and look at whats being delivered. Bottom line, drilling needs to be opened back up - its the right thing to do. It was wrong to prohibit production in the first place, now there's an opportunity to correct it.


I find it pretty naive (idealistic maybe) that you think that all of this is happening "just to right the injustice of hindering business".

If you honestly think it's anything other than a stunt to get someone some votes and keep the pressure of washington, then I have a bridge to sell you.





You can play the 'what if' game all you want, its not going to make things any better.



Neither will making half cocked decisions without fully appreciating the different factors involved.

[g++]

Sorry you weren't clear then. I thought you were saying the notion that oil drilling would bring down the price of gas was silly (which was what I have been saying).

I disagree with the notion that it won't derail the attempts to find alternative energy sources, as they have already been "found". The main hinderance to their adoption is the infrastructure neccessary to make them viable*

The only way that will happen is with government support and funding. This won't happen as long as A) Politicians are beholden to Oil companies and B) They can conveniently deflect any criticism by saying they're doing everything they can to fix the problem (Hey look guys! We opened up drilling, what else do you want from us?!?!).

*Honda already has a zero emission, non oil based car in production in Southern California. It's limited to that geographical location because there is no other place that can support these cars..coincidence that Cali is one of the most environmentally strict states in the nation, while simaltaneously being one of the most supportive of alternative sources? Hmmm...No.


I was saying the notion that drilling will bring down the price of gas is silly. I also think that the price of gas is what will drive alternative energy. I agree the government is not going to fix the energy problem, consumers and industry will and its directly related to how expensive gas is. As much as you like to blame politicians and big oil the average person didnt give a shit about any of this until is become an economic hardship.

Politicians cant "Deflect" the rising cost of oil, its there, its going to be a hardship and private citizens and companies are going to look for ways to solve the problem. The government does not need to subsidize anything thats the good thing about high gas prices.

If you want proof of this you should look up the subsidizing the government already does in alternative energy. There are actually plants that produce biofuel and then dispose of it getting government subsidies on both ends of production. They effectively make nothing but pollution and the government pays them for it.

The reason Honda is releasing that car and the reason I believe it will catch on is because it will be economically smart, not because anyone gives a shit about politics. Also its a hyrogen-fuel cell/electric hybrid car, it still runs on gas about 60 miles to the gallon. I dont really expect the government to open hydrogen/electric stations I expect individual gas stations to integrate themselves when it becomes profitable which will happen soon as long as gas stays up. The government might subsidize the installations.

You say the only way this is going to happen is with government money....I really dont know why you would say that and then in the same paragraph talk about a private company that has released a very economically/ecologically friendly car. They didnt do it to get applause their expecting the car to be viable nationwide soon and I doubt they are banking on ted kennedy installing their stations.

[Gan]

I find it pretty naive (idealistic maybe) that you think that all of this is happening "just to right the injustice of hindering business".
I find it pretty obtuse that you fail to see the benefit and opportunity for correcting a bad decision that was made years ago too.



If you honestly think it's anything other than a stunt to get someone some votes and keep the pressure of washington, then I have a bridge to sell you.
Thats about what I expect from you. Keep that blindfold on brother, we need the dialogue to help convince others of the folly of missing this opportunity to release the drilling restrictions.





Neither will making half cocked decisions without fully appreciating the different factors involved.
Right - because you're all knowing when it comes to policy and economics. Funny that you already 'own' that bridge you're trying to sell... sucker. :lol:

[Daniel]

You say the only way this is going to happen is with government money....I really dont know why you would say that and then in the same paragraph talk about a private company that has released a very economically/ecologically friendly car. They didnt do it to get applause their expecting the car to be viable nationwide soon and I doubt they are banking on ted kennedy installing their stations.

Then you really don't understand how business works.

To correct a point you made: The cars themselve utilize hydrogen. They don't run off of fuel, and that's why they are confined to a certain geographical location.

What company do you think is going front load the massive infrastructure that will lay the basis for wide spread usage of hydrogen cars?

I'll give you a hint: There are none. That is, unless the government backs them up with money or a guarantee that they'll support the endeavor. To be clear: These stations in california wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the US government.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5935/is_200503/ai_n23936321

ChevronTexaco Corp. opened a hydrogen fueling station in Chino, Calif., the first of six pilot stations in a federal program to promote the study of the fuel's potential.

The station will fuel three or more sport utility vehicles designed for this test. The research project is part of a five-year U.S. Department of Energy cost-sharing program, designed to demonstrate safe, practical hydrogen technologies

[Gan]

AND BY THE WAY...

I just saw news reports that now gas stations along the Mexico border are complaining that they are running out of gas because too many people are crossing over from America over to Mexico to buy the cheaper subsidized gas.

I have one thing to say about that:

LOL

[Daniel]

Thats about what I expect from you. Keep that blindfold on brother, we need the dialogue to help convince others of the folly of missing this opportunity to release the drilling restrictions.


Who's being idealistic now?

I'm sorry you can't deal with reality. Maybe TheE will let you into his "fantasy world" you're always saying he has.

[g++]

Then you really don't understand how business works.

To correct a point you made: The cars themselve utilize hydrogen. They don't run off of fuel, and that's why they are confined to a certain geographical location.

What company do you think is going front load the massive infrastructure that will lay the basis for wide spread usage of hydrogen cars?

I'll give you a hint: There are none. That is, unless the government backs them up with money or a guarantee that they'll support the endeavor. To be clear: These stations in california wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the US government.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5935/is_200503/ai_n23936321

ChevronTexaco Corp. opened a hydrogen fueling station in Chino, Calif., the first of six pilot stations in a federal program to promote the study of the fuel's potential.

The station will fuel three or more sport utility vehicles designed for this test. The research project is part of a five-year U.S. Department of Energy cost-sharing program, designed to demonstrate safe, practical hydrogen technologies



Ah well I guess you know better than those FUCKING RETARDS at Honda, once again they spent millions of dollars developing a car on a whim. Ill write them a letter to inform them Daniel questions their business model.

[Gan]

Who's being idealistic now?

I'm sorry you can't deal with reality. Maybe TheE will let you into his "fantasy world" you're always saying he has.

Dude, you're the one living in the idealistic world. Way to obfuscate the issue and try to dissemble the idiocy onto others.

[Daniel]

Ah well I guess you know better than those FUCKING RETARDS at Honda, once again they spent millions of dollars developing a car on a whim. Ill write them a letter to inform them Daniel questions their business model.

You honestly think Honda would have spent all that money if they weren't sure that the government was going to provide them the assistance to demonstrate their product?

Right. Nice of you to ignore the main point there.

[Daniel]

Dude, you're the one living in the idealistic world. Way to obfuscate the issue and try to dissemble the idiocy onto others.

Absolutely. Polticians would never do anything just to get votes. This is all about them trying to correct an injustice at a politicially convenient time!

[Gan]

Again, way to focus on the spin and not the issue underneath.

:clap:

[Gan]

I bet if Obama supported removing the drilling restrictions - you'd be all FOR it.

;)

[CrystalTears]

Frankly, I don't care what the reasons were to allow offshore drilling, I'm just glad it's coming to fruition.

[g++]

You honestly think Honda would have spent all that money if they weren't sure that the government was going to provide them the assistance to demonstrate their product?

Right. Nice of you to ignore the main point there.

Daniel youve actually responded to two paragraphs out of the eight I have written in response to you and each time with petty hair splitting bullshit getting the issue smaller and smaller. Your the one ignoring the main points not me.

And once again you have just jumped to the other side.


You honestly think Honda would have spent all that money if they weren't sure that the government was going to provide them the assistance to demonstrate their product?

So now its inevitable.


The only way that will happen is with government support and funding. This won't happen as long as A) Politicians are beholden to Oil companies and B) They can conveniently deflect any criticism by saying they're doing everything they can to fix the problem (Hey look guys! We opened up drilling, what else do you want from us?!?!).

Here the government wasnt going to help us.

Which is it man, you contradict yourself every third post.

[Daniel]

Again, way to focus on the spin and not the issue underneath.

:clap:

Lol. If you want to be a homer and think that the spin is not the point. By all means.




I bet if Obama supported removing the drilling restrictions - you'd be all FOR it.

;)

Probably not. Kinda like how I don't support his views on Iraq either. I'm not wedded to the man.

[Gan]

Lol. If you want to be a homer and think that the spin is not the point. By all means.
Hey, if being a Homer is the opposite of being like you - then I'm all for it. ;) I bet if you tried hard, you can think up a few more witty names too!




Probably not. Kinda like how I don't support his views on Iraq either. I'm not wedded to the man.
What were you saying about that bridge? Thats right, you already bought it. No wonder you're trying to unload it now.

:lol:

[Daniel]

Daniel youve actually responded to two paragraphs out of the eight I have written in response to you and each time with petty hair splitting bullshit getting the issue smaller and smaller. Your the one ignoring the main points not me.



I'm sorry. I try to avoid the line by line response and instead try and address the base point being made.





And once again you have just jumped to the other side.



So now its inevitable.



Here the government wasnt going to help us.

Which is it man, you contradict yourself every third post.


Not at all. My main point of contention is that for alternative energy sources to become viable, it will require significant government assistance, in the form of research and infrastrcture development. You are making the counter argument that private market forces are going to drive this development.

I consider that perception naive and out of touch with reality of how business actually works. To support this claim I pointed out that the most significant foray of a private company into alternative energy for automobiles was assisted by the government and likely wouldn't have happened without their support.

That is completely independent from the point that MASSIVE amounts of assistance will need to be made to make this sector relevant on a national scale and that this assistance will not happen under the current political environment. Last time I checked, SoCal was a small portion of one of 50 states. A small, token investment in *one* location is not the same as a concentrated nationwide effort.

California is a very progressive and forward leaning segment of the population of America. A development there will not always translate to the rest of the country, and it's pretty naive to expect that it will. Thus, the two statements are hardly contradictory.

[Daniel]

What were you saying about that bridge? Thats right, you already bought it. No wonder you're trying to unload it now.

:lol:

Because you didn't support Iraq?

[Gan]

Because you didn't support Iraq?

Are you high?

[Daniel]

Oh, were you talking about support for Obama?

[AnticorRifling]

Show me where I didn't understand it. Seriously, you need a new schtick. When you post something obviously retarded, you chalk it up to the reader not being able to understand it.

So, because I am bored right now.. let's go through the insightful post in question, shall we?



Hey... by the way, if you need help with how to properly use italics, let me know. I think we can both agree that this was stupid and could and should be skipped over. Let's go forward to your 'serious' part...



Again.. it's clear you know almost nothing about business or profits. I'll put a picture here in hopes that it's easier for you to understand:

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/ProfitsOilVsOtherIndust3rdQ2005.gif


But instead of concentrating the whole pea sized brain you have on the evil profits those evil oil companies make.. maybe you should concentrate on the price of oil.. which is clearly high on the list of concerns for the average American. Price of gas is up over a dollar a gallon from a year ago.



I've already posted this:



Which is far more than you have posted regarding the reduction of oil prices.

As someone that works hand and hand with the pharma industry I lol at that graph and it's use as ammo.

[Deathravin]

As for the hydrogen debates:

Hydrogen is incredibly inefficient. maybe 25%[1 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Battery_EV_vs._Hydrogen_EV.png/753px-Battery_EV_vs._Hydrogen_EV.png)] grid-to-power efficiency. A plug-in electric / hydrogen hybrid would be the way to go if the grid electricity was obtained with some form of solar energy (hydro-electric, photovoltaic, wind energy etc). You would also require a better battery such as: this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanowire_battery) (Stanford guys are smizzart) Going 1600 miles before a recharge is nice.

Unfortunatly the current photovoltaics are only about 15-20% efficient at the moment. But there is a theoretical limit of around 87%[2 (http://www.laserfocusworld.com/newport/display_article/276740/12/NWPRT/MICNE//PHOTOVOLTAICS:-Research-targets-more-efficient-photovoltaics)]
With an 80% efficient solar cell, you could produce your daily day and night power requirements for your house and cars with just the area on your roof of your house during the day with the left-over energy the house could produce hydrogen via electrolisis for night-time use. And you could use excess hydrogen to fuel up your car.

You could even cover your car with the high-efficient photovoltiacs without care of direction of the sun and get maybe half of your cars requirements that way. Then whenever you park you recharge in the sun with hydrogen as your backup or for long trips.

Most likely grid power should come from a combination of clean solar sources, the right combination for the area (Pure photovoltaics or solar thermal for las vegas, wind power & solar for the midwest, tidal & solar power for the coastal areas etc).


HOWEVER. None of that is happening in the forceeable future. The only thing to overcome is price as all the technology exists today except the 80% efficient photovoltaics. Prices drop when production rises.

As for this oil drilling debate, most experts I've read agree that it would be years before we saw any benefits and those benefits would be so minute it wouldn't help us out anyway. Fixing our dependance on oil itself is what we should commit ourselves to, it fixes a lot of other problems in the process (we could get out of the middle east, eases polution etc).

If the general population stopped using oil, we can service the remaning demand (air travel, military etc) with domestic oil production.

[Parkbandit]

Exactly. It's a quick fix and you're naive as fuck if you think people will do any proactive unless we force them to.

but the market will sort it out!!!11!!

"Tax the shit out of oil" and force them to change.. that's the answer. Fuck the economy or any other problems.

[Gan]

Oh, were you talking about support for Obama?

...

[Daniel]

...

Well that was just as silly. It was a 50% shot. Win some, lose some.

[Parkbandit]

As someone that works hand and hand with the pharma industry I lol at that graph and it's use as ammo.


Feel free to use any other information you may have of profit percentages by industry.

[AnticorRifling]

Don't get me wrong it's not inaccurate data. It's just, what I would consider, showing half of the story.

Yes when a drug is in the market is very, very, very profitable but I'm not sure that reflects the loaded R&D costs as well as the fact that you've got 10 years from patent to make your money before it goes generic. If you're lucky you get 8 years of that 10 actually in the market. The fact that we incur most of the R&D costs here in the states and we there is a cap on what we can charge per pill in other countries thanks to fixed health care (which is great when you're not developing the drugs you're using....) it means we've got to get our profits stateside and in a hurry so the prices are inflated.

[Parkbandit]

Don't get me wrong it's not inaccurate data. It's just, what I would consider, showing half of the story.

Yes when a drug is in the market is very, very, very profitable but I'm not sure that reflects the loaded R&D costs as well as the fact that you've got 10 years from patent to make your money before it goes generic. If you're lucky you get 8 years of that 10 actually in the market. The fact that we incur most of the R&D costs here in the states and we there is a cap on what we can charge per pill in other countries thanks to fixed health care (which is great when you're not developing the drugs you're using....) it means we've got to get our profits stateside and in a hurry so the prices are inflated.


Much like the story of all the 'gross profits' of the oil industry don't take into account the BILLIONS of dollars they invest into getting the oil to market. That's a huge risk.

[g++]

Not at all. My main point of contention is that for alternative energy sources to become viable, it will require significant government assistance, in the form of research and infrastrcture development. You are making the counter argument that private market forces are going to drive this development.


Actually we were discussing whether drilling for oil in the ocean would effect alternative energy it just devolved into this because you change the subject every time you respond to anything.

Yes it will require some government incentives to get started but the government is not going to have to subsidize the entire hybrid industry and I think your blowing the costs out of proportion. Were talking about something that will be a profitable industry were not going to have to pay people billions of dollars as incentive for them to go make alot of money. Cable television is a huge infastructure they manage to get by without subsidies. Even the article you posted was a subsidized study by the government implemented by a private firm.

Its the equivalent of arguing that the government would have to subsidize DVD players to get people to switch over from VHS. If people start buying hybrids to save money because fuel costs are high, gas stations are going too accomadate them. With modest subsidies or even just incentives like no-intrest loans that can be accomplished.

Once again this has jack shit to do with how drilling for oil will stop any of this.

[Keller]

Im not advocating for drilling because I think it will help Im advocating for drilling because its a no-brainer influx of money and jobs for our country.


I'm slowly working my way through this thread, but I wanted to pause and say this is by far the most convincing argument yet.

[Daniel]

Actually we were discussing whether drilling for oil in the ocean would effect alternative energy it just devolved into this because you change the subject every time you respond to anything.

Actually, my position has been quite consistent from the beginning.

A) Oil Drilling will do nothing for gas prices. (You agree).

B) The answer is to develop viable alternative energy sources (You agree in principle and not technique)

C) This measure is nothing more than a political smoke screen to postpone actually taking action to do something about A and B.

I'm sorry if you can't see how all of these are related.




Yes it will require some government incentives to get started but the government is not going to have to subsidize the entire hybrid industry and I think your blowing the costs out of proportion. Were talking about something that will be a profitable industry were not going to have to pay people billions of dollars as incentive for them to go make alot of money. Cable television is a huge infastructure they manage to get by without subsidies. Even the article you posted was a subsidized study by the government implemented by a private firm.

It's funny you mention that!

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050501faessay84311/thomas-bleha/down-to-the-wire.html

In fact, as the only country that does not promote broadband acess, we've fallen behind other countries significantly. So much for the power of the free market!

P.s. You wanna take a guess on where the US stands on alternative energy utilization and energy efficiency?




Its the equivalent of arguing that the government would have to subsidize DVD players to get people to switch over from VHS. If people start buying hybrids to save money because fuel costs are high, gas stations are going too accomadate them. With modest subsidies or even just incentives like no-intrest loans that can be accomplished.

Once again this has jack shit to do with how drilling for oil will stop any of this.

Except not at all. DVD players are a money making venture in and of itself.

However, you don't sell piplines, storing stations and distribution points. This are all fixed costs associated with selling these products and you'd be silly to build them unless you *knew* that someone would be buying the product you're trying to distribute.

It's equivilant to saying that Henry Ford should have built the highway system just so he could sell more cars. (*10 points if you can tell me who built the highway system).

[g++]

Actually, my position has been quite consistent from the beginning.

A) Oil Drilling will do nothing for gas prices. (You agree).

B) The answer is to develop viable alternative energy sources (You agree in principle and not technique)

C) This measure is nothing more than a political smoke screen to postpone actually taking action to do something about A and B.

I'm sorry if you can't see how all of these are related.

Ok so were going to pass up an opportunity to make money and build infastructure so we dont trick ourselves. Nice work. I hope the strategery plant can keep us all employed.

<<your diatribe>>

whatever

[Daniel]

Ok so were going to pass up an opportunity to make money and build infastructure so we dont trick ourselves. Nice work. I hope the strategery plant can keep us all employed.


Yes, because the America economy will collapse if we don't create a few thousands jobs in one field. There is absolutely nothing more important, including oil independance or the other sectors that would be affected.


"Democratic Florida Sen. Bill Nelson also criticized McCain's plan, saying it would ruin his state's tourism industry and would not solve the problem."

Oops.


Oh..and we're building infrastructure? Really? I must have missed the part of Bush and McCain's policies where they would divert resources away from this drilling to fund that infrastructure.



<<your diatribe>>

whatever


That's right.

[Clove]

It's equivilant to saying that Henry Ford should have built the highway system just so he could sell more cars. (*10 points if you can tell me who built the highway system).Fortunately we already have an infrastructure for cars to actually travel on. What we don't have is enough support for vehicles that don't run on gasoline. However if gasoline becomes inceasingly expensive cosumers DO begin looking for substitutes, entrepeneurs have a need to fill (vehicles that don't run on gasoline). Manufacturers begin pumping out the vehicles and other entrepeneurs see a need (supporting these vehicles) etc. etc. etc.

Or to put it another way if a 18k car with an 8 year service life costs 1,500 dollars a year in fuel (assuming 3 dollars a gallon) to operate (cost to own 30k for 8 years), then people aren't interested in a 24k car with an 8 year service life that costs 500 dollars a year (in alternative energy costs) to operate (cost to own 28k for 8 years) especially if it means putting up with the inconveniences (like not having many service stations to support your car). However let's raise the cost of fuel to 5 dollars a gallon, now that same 18k car costs 2,500 a year in fuel (cost to own 38k for 8 years). Now the inconveniences of owning that alternative fuel car seems more worth it... more consumers opt for the alternative car... more get produced... encouraging more service stations to support them, and viola.

[g++]

Yes, because the America economy will collapse if we don't create a few thousands jobs in one field. There is absolutely nothing more important, including oil independance or the other sectors that would be affected.


"Democratic Florida Sen. Bill Nelson also criticized McCain's plan, saying it would ruin his state's tourism industry and would not solve the problem."

Oops.


Oh..and we're building infrastructure? Really? I must have missed the part of Bush and McCain's policies where they would divert resources away from this drilling to fund that infrastructure.




That's right.

Hmm a few thousand jobs in one field. Thats funny coming from Mr. Oh my god we cant do anything because we need a pipe line and a fleet of ships and 800 billion dollars guy. So I guess distributing fuels is only impossible when it serves your arguments. According to you 30 posts ago we would need a million men dragging barrels down the eastern shore until it suits you and then its not problem.

As for Nelson..theres a shocker a democratic senator finding a reason to be against a republican inititive. Also thanks for the academic paper on broadband access from a DC based think-tank Im sure me and you and MAYBE the author are the only people on earth who have ever read it. I can gaurantee your the only one to take it seriously since I know alot of analysts from those "Think tanks" and even they know theyr writing drivel. Not to mention once again it has nothing to do with drilling for oil.

Your analogy of hydrogen and electric distribution to oil pipe lines is idiotic. We have been distributing gas and electricity for years but all of a sudden the fact that its going into cars is going to be crippling. You dont make any sense. It is closer to a DVD player they pay the capitol investment for the machine that distributes and then make a profit everytime its used.This has nothing to do with drilling.

Infastructure, like an oil excavation and distribution infastructure. Like an industry? Divert from what? That doesnt make sense. No ones asking the government to drill anywhere their just asking the government to deregulate offshore oil platforms. Nothing is being taken away from government.

So once again you are basically seeding that offshore platforms would be good for the economy but your stance is fuck it im Liberal Elite I dont do things just because its good for the country.

The American Economy is pretty close to collapse but hey who cares right its all part of our stategy.

[Deathravin]

That really is the crux of the issue. There aren't affordable cars out there to meet the demand of the crys of tree huggers.

Tesla came out with the ultra high-end car first then are coming out with a luxury car, then a family sedan. Seems to me a bit backwards. I guess they need the money, but all the oil company backed auto companies are dragging their feet.

[Parkbandit]

Actually, my position has been quite consistent from the beginning.


Certainly has been.

"Tax the shit out of oil"

Then you just make other shit up to support that position.

[Sean of the Thread]

Quit allowing "people" from buying huge oil future contracts and we'll see a shit load of this go away.

They get rich and the price per barrel goes higher. I'm sure the people behind the drilling are a majority of the contract buyers as well.

Or we could just take over the middle east and evict them bastards to Alaska or somewhere in Africa. They can be the new Jews...

[Deathravin]

Quit allowing "people" from buying huge oil future contracts and we'll see a shit load of this go away.

They get rich and the price per barrel goes higher. I'm sure the people behind the drilling are a majority of the contract buyers as well.

Or we could just take over the middle east and evict them bastards to Alaska or somewhere in Africa. They can be the new Jews...

Why not just shoot the fuckers into the sun... or better yet, just make the lands down there a giant glass plate. Then we can still drill for oil in radiation suits.

[Clove]

Why not just shoot the fuckers into the sun... or better yet, just make the lands down there a giant glass plate. Then we can still drill for oil in radiation suits.Because it would cost too much energy to shoot them into the sun. Dump them in the Ocean instead.

[Slider]

I am all for off shore drilling, and think it is about time that these areas are opened up, if for no other reason than reducing our dependency on foreign oil, not too mention the number of jobs that it will create in these areas. I would love not having to depend on a foreign country for oil. I fail too see how this could not be a "Good Thing" but I am sure you can come up with some tinfoil-hat argument to explain it to me Daniel.

Just as an example, in 2007 (before today's record prices), the United States imported 65 percent of the crude oil and refined product it consumed at a cost of nearly $300 billion. Net petroleum imports represented 41 percent of the total 2007 U.S. trade deficit. Producing an extra 1 million barrels per day of domestic crude oil would have reduced America's import costs by $26.4 billion in 2007. Obviously it is a BAD Thing to reduce our trade deposit and stop supporting countries like Saudi Arabia right Daniel?

I also find it moronic at best when people talk about how it will "ruin the tourist economy" for Florida. First off, let’s look at areas that already have extensive offshore drilling platforms. How about Mustang Island, or N. Padre Island in Texas, both are extremely popular areas for spring break. Corpus Christi itself has a tourist based economy, and amazingly enough...OMFG...you can't even SEE an oil platform from shore. The closest one being roughly 7 miles off the coast. Take a look and at these and tell me what a hugely negative impact these oil platforms have had on the view…cause I sure don’t see it. Must not be wearing my tinfoil hat right.

http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotos-g60927-Corpus_Christi_Texas.html

As far as alternative sources of energy, again I am all for it. Tidal generators, windfarms, geo-thermal taps, even incinerating household waste to produce electricity. Again, the problem is not in developing these industries. The tech is already there to do ALL these things. The problem is not in getting gov’t to fund them, again, the tech is already there, nothing NEEDS to be developed. What needs to be done is to actually build these things. And therein lies the problem. EVERY single time something like any of the above are proposed everyone and there brother immediately goes into NIMBY mode, massive protests are lodged, the media blitz starts and the project gets killed. Hell, there are protests right now against wind farms because birds fly into them, and are killed, and thus the windfarms must be shut down. (Strangely enough, they also kill bats, but not many protests against them, just birds…?) Is it G.W. Bush who is starting all these protests? Is it the oil industry? Nope, lawsuits have been filed or threatened against wind farms in Massachusetts, Minnesota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. In addition, dozens of citizens representing several diverse groups opposed to the construction of new wind farms in undeveloped areas, especially on mountaintops, rallied at the state capitol in Pennsylvania on September 17, requesting more scrutiny of, and delays in, proposed new wind farms. The Pennsylvania rally typified state and local opposition that has been growing with the increased federal push for more wind power.

So much for your ascertain that our gov’t, and particular G.W. just isn’t trying to develop alternative energy sources, because here we have a pretty clear cut example of exactly the opposite. But don’t worry about little things like facts Daniel, just screw that tin-foil hat on a little tighter and ignore it.

Interesting link to an article that discusses these technologies that are currently in use in Scandinavia.

http://www.mlive.com/businessreview/tricities/index.ssf/2008/06/i_just_returned_from_a.html

[Deathravin]

I've never liked the phrase "not to mention" ... saying whatever's at the end of it is mentioning it!...

[Daniel]

Now the inconveniences of owning that alternative fuel car seems more worth it... more consumers opt for the alternative car... more get produced... encouraging more service stations to support them, and viola.

Except a lack of service stations is only one facet of the problem.

[Deathravin]

Not if there are ways to fuel up at home... CNG, Hydrogen, Electric can all be refueled from home with pretty small units (that's what she said!)

[Daniel]

Hmm a few thousand jobs in one field. Thats funny coming from Mr. Oh my god we cant do anything because we need a pipe line and a fleet of ships and 800 billion dollars guy. So I guess distributing fuels is only impossible when it serves your arguments. According to you 30 posts ago we would need a million men dragging barrels down the eastern shore until it suits you and then its not problem.

Huh?




As for Nelson..theres a shocker a democratic senator finding a reason to be against a republican inititive.


Absolutely, it couldn't be a florida senator representing his constituency.

Okay.




Also thanks for the academic paper on broadband access from a DC based think-tank Im sure me and you and MAYBE the author are the only people on earth who have ever read it. I can gaurantee your the only one to take it seriously since I know alot of analysts from those "Think tanks" and even they know theyr writing drivel. Not to mention once again it has nothing to do with drilling for oil.

Absolutely, no one ever reads Foreign Policy magazine.

As for the "Absolutely nothing to do with oil comment". Let's rehash here:

You say..but look at the cable industry! They do fine without infrastructure development from the government!

I say "Our Telecommunications industry is lagging far behind other countries that receive infrastructure development asisstance from the government"

You say "Fuck those economists, they don't know what the hell they are saying anyway".



Your analogy of hydrogen and electric distribution to oil pipe lines is idiotic. We have been distributing gas and electricity for years but all of a sudden the fact that its going into cars is going to be crippling. You dont make any sense. It is closer to a DVD player they pay the capitol investment for the machine that distributes and then make a profit everytime its used.This has nothing to do with drilling.

Yes. You are true. We have been distributing petroleum based gas and electricity for years. However, what we have not been distributing is "Hydrogen" which is what "Hydrogen cars" run off of.

Therefore, you can't use that system. You need a new one.



Infastructure, like an oil excavation and distribution infastructure. Like an industry? Divert from what? That doesnt make sense. No ones asking the government to drill anywhere their just asking the government to deregulate offshore oil platforms. Nothing is being taken away from government.


Uh..So?

I didn't say they were asking the government to drill anything.



So once again you are basically seeding that offshore platforms would be good for the economy but your stance is fuck it im Liberal Elite I dont do things just because its good for the country.

The American Economy is pretty close to collapse but hey who cares right its all part of our stategy.


No. I'm actually saying that off shore drilling would have no significant benefit for the country in the short to medium term and will do nothing to fix the long term problems.

[Daniel]

I would love not having to depend on a foreign country for oil. I fail too see how this could not be a "Good Thing" but I am sure you can come up with some tinfoil-hat argument to explain it to me Daniel.

]

No. I agree. That would be a good thing. I just don't think this will make that happen.


So much for your ascertain that our gov’t, and particular G.W. just isn’t trying to develop alternative energy sources, because here we have a pretty clear cut example of exactly the opposite. But don’t worry about little things like facts Daniel, just screw that tin-foil hat on a little tighter and ignore it.


Actually, I said *not enough*. There's a subtle difference there I'm sure you can appreciate.


Interesting link to an article that discusses these technologies that are currently in use in Scandinavia.

http://www.mlive.com/businessreview/...ed_from_a.html

Lol. Thanks for the link.



This business growth is no surprise, given that (1) European energy prices have been much higher than in the U.S. for some time; and (2) European government incentives routinely spawn research and commercialization of inventions in many different areas of alternative energy including advanced batteries, wind turbines, solar cells, tidal power, biomass fuel, cellulosic bioethanol, biogas, biodiesel, and geothermal energy.

[Gan]

Hmm a few thousand jobs in one field. Thats funny coming from Mr. Oh my god we cant do anything because we need a pipe line and a fleet of ships and 800 billion dollars guy. So I guess distributing fuels is only impossible when it serves your arguments. According to you 30 posts ago we would need a million men dragging barrels down the eastern shore until it suits you and then its not problem.

As for Nelson..theres a shocker a democratic senator finding a reason to be against a republican inititive. Also thanks for the academic paper on broadband access from a DC based think-tank Im sure me and you and MAYBE the author are the only people on earth who have ever read it. I can gaurantee your the only one to take it seriously since I know alot of analysts from those "Think tanks" and even they know theyr writing drivel. Not to mention once again it has nothing to do with drilling for oil.

Your analogy of hydrogen and electric distribution to oil pipe lines is idiotic. We have been distributing gas and electricity for years but all of a sudden the fact that its going into cars is going to be crippling. You dont make any sense. It is closer to a DVD player they pay the capitol investment for the machine that distributes and then make a profit everytime its used.This has nothing to do with drilling.

Infastructure, like an oil excavation and distribution infastructure. Like an industry? Divert from what? That doesnt make sense. No ones asking the government to drill anywhere their just asking the government to deregulate offshore oil platforms. Nothing is being taken away from government.

So once again you are basically seeding that offshore platforms would be good for the economy but your stance is fuck it im Liberal Elite I dont do things just because its good for the country.

The American Economy is pretty close to collapse but hey who cares right its all part of our stategy.

:clap:

[Parkbandit]

Absolutely, it couldn't be a florida senator representing his constituency.

Okay.


You are either purposely being stupid.. or really are stupid.

I can never tell though.

As a member of his constituency, he's not representing my views. He's not even representing the majority of Florida's views. If his constituency is only the Democratic party and the environmentalist lobby.. then you might be right.

[Daniel]

You are either purposely being stupid.. or really are stupid.

I can never tell though.

As a member of his constituency, he's not representing my views. He's not even representing the majority of Florida's views. If his constituency is only the Democratic party and the environmentalist lobby.. then you might be right.


Absolutely. What stupid fucker from Florida would be concerned with the tourism industry!?!

Oh right..



The last thing we want to do is hurt the tourism in Florida, which is our #1 business.

[Gan]

Absolutely, it couldn't be a florida senator representing his constituency.

LOL.

Wait. So its ok to suggest that McCain's proposal to life the ban is pure politics (what you suggested 15+ posts ago) and yet not ok to suggest that a democrat senator refutes McCain's plan beacuse of politics (during an election year)?

Again.

Are you high?

[Daniel]

LOL.

Wait. So its ok to suggest that McCain's proposal to life the ban is pure politics (what you suggested 15+ posts ago) and yet not ok to suggest that a democrat senator refutes McCain's plan beacuse of politics (during an election year)?

Again.

Are you high?


Well lets see.

On one hand you have a plan that you *admit* won't work for its stated purpose, and thus urge me to "Look past the spin".

On the other you have a senator saying something that is in support of the biggest industry of his constitutency.

Hmmm..

And you ask if I'm high?

[Parkbandit]

Absolutely. What stupid fucker from Florida would be concerned with the tourism industry!?!

Oh right..

Difference is.. I believe (and it's been proven) that drilling can happen WITHOUT ruining our tourism industry. Numb Nuts Nelson doesn't think it's possible.. because the environmentalists have him in their hip pocket.

Again.. are you pretending to be stupid.. or are you really just that dumb? Serious question.

[Parkbandit]

By the way, this thread is all full of epic Daniel fail. I'm planning bookmarking this in my favorites.. should be good for a laugh in the future.

[Daniel]

Difference is.. I believe (and it's been proven) that drilling can happen WITHOUT ruining our tourism industry. Numb Nuts Nelson doesn't think it's possible.. because the environmentalists have him in their hip pocket.

Again.. are you pretending to be stupid.. or are you really just that dumb? Serious question.

Oh? It's all a conspiracy by the environmentalists!! Break out the tinfoil hats!

[Daniel]

By the way, this thread is all full of epic Daniel fail. I'm planning bookmarking this in my favorites.. should be good for a laugh in the future.

You live a sad life.

[Parkbandit]

You live a sad life.

Actually, I live an amazing life.. making fun of you is just frosting on the cake.

[Gan]

Well lets see.

On one hand you have a plan that you *admit* won't work for its stated purpose, and thus urge me to "Look past the spin".

On the other you have a senator saying something that is in support of the biggest industry of his constitutency.

Hmmm..

And you ask if I'm high?

And how many politicians always vote based on their constituency's desires? Did said politician take a poll to determine of the majority of his constituency felt the way he did? Did the poll include all citizens or just those of his party? Or did he simply decide that he knows better than his voters and acted on what he thought was right? OR is he simply towing the party line during an election year.

Thats classic scenario(s) we covered in multiple political science classes (IR, public admin, theory, etc.) I'm thinking you should have taken more poli-sci classes. :yes:

Face it, your suggestion that the FL democrat coming out against McCain and the drilling issue is anything but pure politics is laughable. And since you actually suggested that thinking that the drilling issue (from McCain) is nothing but politics is so disingenuous that I'm suprised you can stand the smell.

:lol:

This is me laughing at you. A lot.

[Daniel]

Lol. Gan, you already said the proposal was "spin", and spent about two pages trying to convince me that the real reason that McCain was doing this was to right the wrong of government regulation (nevermind that he's never carried that mantle.) Keep in mind, I wasn't dismissing McCain's policy because he was republican.

If you want to show that this guy has a reason to shift his policies to the detriment of his constituents, feel free to present it.

But, Please don't try and lecture me about politics. You just look silly. About as silly as PB claiming some sort of intellectual victory when all of his buddies are saying that his position is complete crap.

[Gan]

Lol. Gan, you already said the proposal was "spin", and spent about two pages trying to convince me that the real reason that McCain was doing this was to right the wrong of government regulation (nevermind that he's never carried that mantle.) Keep in mind, I wasn't dismissing McCain's policy because he was republican.
Reading comprehension FTL. I never said the proposal was without spin. I simply said it was an opportunity to right a wrong - regardless of the public perception. You're the one touting spin on one hand, and disregarding it on the other.

And no you werent dismissing McCain's policy for partisanship. You simply provided a democrat senator from Florida's statement that McCain's proposal was a bad idea for Fl tourism - as giving evidence of it being a bad idea alltogether economically. Thats where I called you on being disingenuous.


If you want to show that this guy has a reason to shift his policies to the detriment of his constituents, feel free to present it.
I really dont care if McCain shifts his policies. I've stated from the beginning of this thread that we now have an opportunity to lift the ban on drilling. Thats been my focus from the start.


But, Please don't try and lecture me about politics. You just look silly. About as silly as PB claiming some sort of intellectual victory when all of his buddies are saying that his position is complete crap.
Right - because you are the professor of politics here. I get it now - you're the PC Pundit!

If anything, your performance in this thread has demonstrated your inability to remain objective towards anything anti-Obama or pro-business. You have made yourself look silly without anyone's help here. Trust me. ;)

[Stanley Burrell]

I'm glad to see McCain is finally coming around. It was easy for him to say that he opposed offshore drilling when he was just a Senator. But now that he is nearly president, he is starting to see that President Bush was right about most things.

I have this gut feeling that you're unregistered and are actually anti-politics.

[Daniel]

Reading comprehension FTL. I never said the proposal was without spin. I simply said it was an opportunity to right a wrong - regardless of the public perception. You're the one touting spin on one hand, and disregarding it on the other.



Uh. I'm the one who said it was a bullshit proposal. You are the one who said that I should look beyond "The spin".



And no you werent dismissing McCain's policy for partisanship. You simply provided a democrat senator from Florida's statement that McCain's proposal was a bad idea for Fl tourism - as giving evidence of it being a bad idea alltogether economically. Thats where I called you on being disingenuous.

Disingenuous?

Seriously? Showing that other people don't accept the universal benefit of offshore drilling is being disingenuous? His partisanship had absolutely nothing about it. Once again, if you want to make the assertation that he's doing this simply for political points, fine. I look forward to your evidence.




I really dont care if McCain shifts his policies. I've stated from the beginning of this thread that we now have an opportunity to lift the ban on drilling. Thats been my focus from the start.


I wasn't talking about McCain. I was referring to the democratic senator that you claimed was simply showing partisanship by not supporting this measure.

Project much?



Right - because you are the professor of politics here. I get it now - you're the PC Pundit!

If anything, your performance in this thread has demonstrated your inability to remain objective towards anything anti-Obama or pro-business. You have made yourself look silly without anyone's help here. Trust me. ;)

You wanna make an off hand stab at how many times I brought up "Republican", "Democrat" or "Obama" as having anything to do with my position here?

You really should stop projecting.

[Clove]

Except a lack of service stations is only one facet of the problem.Well if you'd like to discuss the other facets that's fine, but you'll have to detail them. I was using "Service Stations" as a generic term for "support".

The bottom line is that whenever new technology is released, support for it lags- the inconvenience increases the "cost" to the consumer. If gasoline-powered cars become expensive enough, alternatives WILL become attractive to consumers and worthwhile to develop, produce and support to industry. Period.

Not that I'm advocating "taxing the shit" out of gas, or artificially increasing the price of gas to effect it, but make no mistake it would create the consumer demand necessary. My point from the beginning is that until gasoline-powered vehicles become expensive enough to own and operate, consumer demand for alternatively-fueled cars will NOT happen.

[Daniel]

Well if you'd like to discuss the other facets that's fine, but you'll have to detail them. I was using "Service Stations" as a generic term for "support".

The bottom line is that whenever new technology is released, support for it lags- the inconvenience increases the "cost" to the consumer. If gasoline-powered cars become expensive enough, alternatives WILL become attractive to consumers and worthwhile to develop, produce and support to industry. Period.

Not that I'm advocating "taxing the shit" out of gas, or artificially increasing the price of gas to effect it, but make no mistake it would create the consumer demand necessary. My point from the beginning is that until gasoline-powered vehicles become expensive enough to own and operate, consumer demand for alternatively-fueled cars will NOT happen.

I don't think we're in disagreement then.

This is essentially why I think that this is not a good policy because it prolongs the inevitable without laying a way forward for the future.

You can disagree that the government needs to help spur the move forward alternative energy, but it won't happen until either\or does.

[Back]

On this particular tangent... I’d recommend people watch “Who Killed the Electric Car.” Note that this documentary takes place 10 years ago.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7202740060236675590

[Deathravin]

Okay... Take these late 90's EV cars, pop in some LIon batteries and now you have 200 miles per charge... I see not the problem.

[Parkbandit]

But, Please don't try and lecture me about politics. You just look silly. About as silly as PB claiming some sort of intellectual victory when all of his buddies are saying that his position is complete crap.


Oh, do show me where my 'buddies' said my position is complete crap.. or again, are you just hoping no one checks through the last 18 pages of posts? Dude, you are intellectually bankrupt here. Time to bow out with your whole "Teh internet r serious business" and "You thought I wuz serious?"

Or just continue to post away and allow us to continue to treat you like Backlash Jr.

God, I hope you choose the latter.

[Stanley Burrell]

On this particular tangent... I’d recommend people watch “Who Killed the Electric Car.” Note that this documentary takes place 10 years ago.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7202740060236675590

The electric car was killed more than ten years ago. It was/will (be) killed on multiple occasions (continuously.) For political, economical and conventional reasons.

Obviously, the electric car is, in fact, Jesus. Just ... not the New Testament evangelical kind that born-agains get to fondle themselves over while requesting Condi to read them their favorite bedtime Rapture verse before their goodnight coke bump.

Don't mess with Texas.

And even more obviously, in the spirit of inanimate murder. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWtHEmVjVw8)

[Parkbandit]

I wasn't talking about McCain. I was referring to the democratic senator that you claimed was simply showing partisanship by not supporting this measure.

Project much?



Dude, I seriously think you've lost it.

Here is the first post regarding Sen. Nelson.. pay special attention to who posted it:



"Democratic Florida Sen. Bill Nelson also criticized McCain's plan, saying it would ruin his state's tourism industry and would not solve the problem."

Oops.



You were implying that Nelson was criticising the plan due to the will of his constituents.. even though a majority of Floridians and Americans want to drill off the coast.

America - 67% support offshore drilling: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/67_support_offshore_drilling_64_expect_it_will_low er_prices

Florida - 61% support offshore drilling: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/florida/election_2008_florida_presidential_election

So.. what constituency is Sen. Nelson representing again and not just being a partisan bitch?

[Sean]

The question wasn't really if they support off shore drilling it was that they think off shore drilling would reduce gas prices.


most Florida voters agreed with McCain--61% said it was likely that offshore drilling would reduce gas prices.

[Stanley Burrell]

I can't agree with this motion, because Saudi Arabia might invade us preemptively to uncover our nuke-u-lar stockpile.

[Deathravin]

On this particular tangent... I’d recommend people watch “Who Killed the Electric Car.” Note that this documentary takes place 10 years ago.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7202740060236675590

3 years ago, not 10.

[Clove]

The question wasn't really if they support off shore drilling it was that they think off shore drilling would reduce gas prices.A valid distinction but in todays economy that's almost tantamount to supporting offshore drilling. I think if public perception held that sprinkling the ground entrails of 1 year old babies over gas pumps would reduce gas prices, we might try it.

[Gan]

Uh. I'm the one who said it was a bullshit proposal. You are the one who said that I should look beyond "The spin".



Disingenuous?

Seriously? Showing that other people don't accept the universal benefit of offshore drilling is being disingenuous? His partisanship had absolutely nothing about it. Once again, if you want to make the assertation that he's doing this simply for political points, fine. I look forward to your evidence.




I wasn't talking about McCain. I was referring to the democratic senator that you claimed was simply showing partisanship by not supporting this measure.

Project much?



You wanna make an off hand stab at how many times I brought up "Republican", "Democrat" or "Obama" as having anything to do with my position here?

You really should stop projecting.

LOL @ projecting.

You're just confused. If you're going to be involved in a thread, please try to keep up.

[Slider]

God Daniel, do you have to practice at being this stupid, or is it just sheer, natural talent? YOU pointed out that Obama's plan was to tax the shit out of oil, and use that tax to pay for "new development" of alternative fuel sources to the tune of $800 million dollars, not me. I pointed out that increasing our domestic oil production by 1 million barrels a day would reduce our deposit to the tune of $27 BILLION dollars…and this money could then be used to, oh I don’t know, maybe…possibly..uhhh…subsidize the very fucking thing your talking about?!?!?!

You also completely ignored the fact that it’s your tree hugging buddies that are the ones who are protesting against the very thing you are saying we should be doing. What exactly do we need to do to “develop the new technology” to put up a fucking windfarm?? The tech is THERE, it’s already in use, and it’s being protested against because it kills BIRDS!! How about tidal generators…great idea, they have ZERO carbon emissions, give off NO waste products, are cheap, easy to install, and are already available, hell, my boss uses one in his fucking backyard to power his house! Oh no…but we can’t put one in anywhere because they might destroy the ecosystem, or have some nebulous impact on sea life. Again, gov’t IS subsidizing these things; it’s the environmentalists who are preventing them from being put into use.

How about burning household waste? As that article I posted mentioned just one such plant receives 500,000 tons of household waste and 200,000 tons of sorted industrial waste, which is refined to 450 GWh of electricity and 1,700 GWh of district heating for a quarter of a million Swedes. Yet in Detroit a similar plant has been all but shut down because of environmentalists protesting it’s use. Geo-thermal taps? The convent I worked at back in 2005 wanted to put in just such a system to heat and power their building, but guess what, they got picketed by environmentalists protesting them digging a fucking hole in the ground because it would have a “detrimental impact on local wildlife”.

And that article I mentioned that you seemed to think proved your point about how the U.S. Gov’t needs to be doing more to subsidize this stuff? You obviously didn’t read the thing, because if you had you would have seen, in the very FIRST sentence of that article that the entire thing was set up by the U.S. Dep’t of Commerce to drum up interest from U.S. businesses in these technologies. Again, that have already been developed, are in use in Sweden, and merely need to be put in place here in the U.S. You also completely missed the fact that most of the increase in these technologies came as a direct result of Europe commercializing alternative energy technologies. (Fourth paragraph, seeing as how you’re too lazy to actually read the thing.) Now that there is actually (gasp) MONEY to be made in producing and using these things, the Swedish businesses started using them.

[Gan]

Again, to recap:

We need to lift the ban on domestic drilling now.


By drilling in fields where technology can start production and extraction in the short term would increase domestic supply brought to the market. Domestic supply has less RISK than foreign oil and thus has a positive impact on speculative futures which would result in a decrease in prices. Furthermore it would also translate in additional jobs and domestic investment directly back into the American economy.
By drilling in fields where technology can start production and extraction in the long term would continue to benefit domestic supply levels, stimulate advancement in technology, allow for the discovery of new techniques and new fields previously unknown, as well as stimulate more jobs (directly and indirectly in the petroleum market) as well as continue to provide low RISK supply to help keep pressure off of speculative futures prices and allow additional (free market) resources to be allocated towards renewable and more efficient energy goals. Not to mention lessen the burden of the economic dependance on foreign supply of oil.There are long term and short term benefits to opening up the availability of drilling.

I dont think these benefits will dissuade the desire or movement into focusing on energy alternatives - especially since alternatives to the major sources of our oil dependance are more than a few years off from successful development or scalable on mass production levels. Not to mention affordable (even with the current gas prices factored into the available goods equation).

[Daniel]

LOL @ projecting.

You're just confused. If you're going to be involved in a thread, please try to keep up.

I guess it's kind of hard to keep up when people try and make it seem like you did things that you didn't.

[Daniel]

Dude, I seriously think you've lost it.

Here is the first post regarding Sen. Nelson.. pay special attention to who posted it:



You were implying that Nelson was criticising the plan due to the will of his constituents.. even though a majority of Floridians and Americans want to drill off the coast.



Which has what to do with his political affiliation?

Those surveys say that people think drilling will bring down gas prices, not that it won't have an effect on their tourism industry.

[Daniel]

YOU pointed out that Obama's plan was to tax the shit out of oil, and use that tax to pay for "new development" of alternative fuel sources to the tune of $800 million dollars, not me. I pointed out that increasing our domestic oil production by 1 million barrels a day would reduce our deposit to the tune of $27 BILLION dollars…and this money could then be used to, oh I don’t know, maybe…possibly..uhhh…subsidize the very fucking thing your talking about?!?!?!

You know, it would be really helpful if you quoted whatever it is you are responding to. To be clear, I never once brought up Obama's plan.

So, I'm not even quite sure what you are talking about. I said that this plan by McCain would not result in any development for alternative energy sectors.

You seem to be making the argument that a $27 billion windfall from oil extraction would be used towards alternative energy development.

That's just conjecture and hyperbole.

I could just as easily say that pulling the troops out of Iraq will save a few hundred billion dollars to use towards energy development, but that's not anymore true either.

Why would people do something that they have no reason to?




You also completely ignored the fact that it’s your tree hugging buddies

Why would I defend people that I don't support?





And that article I mentioned that you seemed to think proved your point about how the U.S. Gov’t needs to be doing more to subsidize this stuff? You obviously didn’t read the thing, because if you had you would have seen, in the very FIRST sentence of that article that the entire thing was set up by the U.S. Dep’t of Commerce to drum up interest from U.S. businesses in these technologies.

Your problem seems to be that you don't understand the point I'm making.

I'm not saying that the government should start producing electric cars and selling it to people. I'm saying that the US government should create an environment that is condusive for businesses to do such a thing.

That means investing in infrastructure, among other things.

That also includes what the US Department of Commerce was doing, but doing it on a much more massive scale.

[Parkbandit]

I guess it's kind of hard to keep up when people try and make it seem like you did things that you didn't.


HAHAHAHAHA... the irony of that statement coming from you is priceless.

I'm lik 100% positive it is.

[Daniel]

Oh, do show me where my 'buddies' said my position is complete crap.. or again, are you just hoping no one checks through the last 18 pages of posts? .

Sure.



JUST saying that we're going to start drilling our own reserves will immediately have a positive affect on the speculation price of oil.



I can see where some would say this is a political sham during an election year. And I would agree that this is the same political stunt that was used when the prohibition to offshore fields was enacted.


. The price of oil is not going to drop dramatically simply because we start drilling the entire world is involved in the market not just us. ...well maybe I have a bleaker outlook on the world then most but I dont think we have the power to drop oil prices even if that was the stated mission.



As for this oil drilling debate, most experts I've read agree that it would be years before we saw any benefits and those benefits would be so minute it wouldn't help us out anyway. Fixing our dependance on oil itself is what we should commit ourselves to, it fixes a lot of other problems in the process (we could get out of the middle east, eases polution etc).

If the general population stopped using oil, we can service the remaning demand (air travel, military etc) with domestic oil production.

[Daniel]

HAHAHAHAHA... the irony of that statement coming from you is priceless.

I'm lik 100% positive it is.

I'm sure you are.

I hope it gives you 1\10 the mirth I receive whenever you post one of your hypocrite buttons.

[Parkbandit]

I'm sure you are.

I hope it gives you 1\10 the mirth I receive whenever you post one of your hypocrite buttons.


Calling you a hypocrite would be like me calling you an idiot. Both are extremely obvious for anyone who's read a couple of your posts.. especially in a political thread.

You have really stepped up your game.. and are quickly becoming the next Backlash here. What's next.. are you going to quit, saying you are done.. then come back with a new name?

Oops... been there, done that.. haven't ya chump.

:rofl:

[Daniel]

Calling you a hypocrite would be like me calling you an idiot. Both are extremely obvious for anyone who's read a couple of your posts.. especially in a political thread.

You have really stepped up your game.. and are quickly becoming the next Backlash here. What's next.. are you going to quit, saying you are done.. then come back with a new name?

Oops... been there, done that.. haven't ya chump.

:rofl:


Sure.

[Gan]

okayyy

[Parkbandit]

Woosh.

[Keller]

When did Daniel pull a Backlash?

[TheEschaton]

Daniel used to be called GS4Ranger, or something like that, but changed his name - I don't think it was associated with anything, but I missed a lot in the 2 years I was gone. Like the whole Backlash/Beth thing - l'sigh.

-TheE-

[Stanley Burrell]

I've never had a female come onto me as strongly as Beth did. Kind of odd.

All I remember is that she mentioned Tayre/Drew2 as having hit on her, or something, but that she didn't crave the "poopy penis." Strangely, she kind of reminded me of this bipolar chick at my last job, and I almost definitely remember her saying something like "it's okay, as long as you play with both holes." That sort of contradicted the poopy penis sentiment. She was definitely an interesting chick to talk to.

Like, I just saw some girls from Quinnipiac, and, not GemStone-types. Edit: Not that I have anything against GemStone-types.

I don't think I can score with these Quinnipiac girls. They can run in the new athletic center and have fancy student IDs and less minivans than me. This life is too complicated. I will be reborn as a magnificent flying squirrel and shit maniacally upon the uninhabited mountains of Zanzibar.

[Parkbandit]

Daniel used to be called GS4Ranger, or something like that, but changed his name - I don't think it was associated with anything, but I missed a lot in the 2 years I was gone. Like the whole Backlash/Beth thing - l'sigh.

-TheE-

You didn't miss the Backlash/Beth thing.. that was JUST before he had his meltdown.

[TheEschaton]

If it was between June 04 and August 06, I missed it.

[Keller]

I still don't see the relevence, other than being the common forum troll, of PB comparing Daniel changing his handle to Backlash changing his handle.

Can anyone explain that? Or is PB just being himself?

[Back]

It’s ancient history anyway. Do you want to talk about ancient history or about how that was then and this is now? Like, how the fuck are we going to get our $4 gas prices down now?

Opening up drilling does not seem as immediate as sending Chuck Norris to SA to drink their milkshake.

[Snapp]

I still don't see the relevence, other than being the common forum troll, of PB comparing Daniel changing his handle to Backlash changing his handle.

Can anyone explain that? Or is PB just being himself?

They aren't comparable at all. Daniel/RangerD was never banned, never tried to hide who he was, never fucked Beth (hopefully), etc.

[Parkbandit]

It’s ancient history anyway. Do you want to talk about ancient history or about how that was then and this is now? Like, how the fuck are we going to get our $4 gas prices down now?

Opening up drilling does not seem as immediate as sending Chuck Norris to SA to drink their milkshake.


But Backlash.. I thought you already gave us all the answers we could ever hope to have when you posted the link:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

?

What more do you need to know!?

[Parkbandit]

They aren't comparable at all. Daniel/RangerD was never banned, never tried to hide who he was, never fucked Beth (hopefully), etc.

All you have to do is read this thread, paying special attention to Daniel's posts to see an eerie similarity in his posting style and Backlash's old posting style (before he found God.. aka Obama.. and started posting like a space cowboy).

It's plain as day.

[Daniel]

All you have to do is read this thread, paying special attention to Daniel's posts to see an eerie similarity in his posting style and Backlash's old posting style (before he found God.. aka Obama.. and started posting like a space cowboy).

It's plain as day.

You really must be fucking losing it.

[Parkbandit]

Weird, I said the same thing about you at the start of this thread.

But in retrospect.. you can't lose something you never had, so that was my bad. I should have just stuck with the "You really are retarded" comment as that is far more accurate.

[Paradii]

Will you two just make out and get it over with.

[Stanley Burrell]

<<All you have to do is read this thread, paying special attention to Daniel's posts to see an eerie similarity in his posting style and Backlash's old posting style (before he found God.. aka Obama.. and started posting like a space cowboy).>>

<<It's plain as day.>>


You really must be fucking losing it.

I pray to my half-black God-devil, Obama, that he's pushing people's buttons, Lucas-style, and just trying to collectively fuck with us. I'd be a lot more comfortable with that, at least.

[Parkbandit]

<<All you have to do is read this thread, paying special attention to Daniel's posts to see an eerie similarity in his posting style and Backlash's old posting style (before he found God.. aka Obama.. and started posting like a space cowboy).>>

<<It's plain as day.>>



I pray to my half-black God-devil, Obama, that he's pushing people's buttons, Lucas-style, and just trying to collectively fuck with us. I'd be a lot more comfortable with that, at least.

So much for taking advice and keeping me on ignore. You can't even do that right.

Piss poor.

[Stanley Burrell]

You're on ignore, you silly man.

I was responding to what Daniel quoted you as saying, and am responding to the above (which is now ignored) because I hovered over this thread a bit without remembering to log in.

By all means, maybe you should decide to flatter yourself once in a while.

[Keller]

So much for taking advice and keeping me on ignore. You can't even do that right.

Piss poor.

Quoted for posterity.

[Parkbandit]

You're on ignore, you silly man.

I was responding to what Daniel quoted you as saying, and am responding to the above (which is now ignored) because I hovered over this thread a bit without remembering to log in.

By all means, maybe you should decide to flatter yourself once in a while.

:rofl: Good excuse. You suck at such a simple task.

[Daniel]

So much for taking advice and keeping me on ignore. You can't even do that right.

Piss poor.


Quoted for posterity.


:rofl: Good excuse. You suck at such a simple task.

The hypocrisy here is fucking astounding.

[Warriorbird]

Daniel's existence is pretty documentable if you're not an idiot.

With that said...on topic instead of wasting oil reserves we could just, y'know, build some nuclear power plants and oil refineries. Much of the problem would clear up. We've also got a ton of oil shale we're too wussy to use.

[Gan]

Oil shale... good thing to develop.
http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm

Isnt McCain proposing the construction of more nuclear plants?

[Warriorbird]

I don't disagree with all of McCain's ideas

(Woah!)

I do think that we ought to not be tapping reserves when McCain may win the election and we end up in Iran, however.

Our unwillingness to build reactors and refineries is ludicrous right now. If we had as many reactors as France does (by percentage) all of this would be much less of a problem.

[Gan]

I'm hoping McCain stays out of Iran.

[Parkbandit]

The hypocrisy here is fucking astounding.

If only you knew what the definition of hypocrisy was... since it's not in this case.

It would be hypocrisy if I had Kellerdouche off ignore.

Once again, your ignorance is hilarious.

[Parkbandit]

I don't disagree with all of McCain's ideas

(Woah!)

I do think that we ought to not be tapping reserves when McCain may win the election and we end up in Iran, however.

Our unwillingness to build reactors and refineries is ludicrous right now. If we had as many reactors as France does (by percentage) all of this would be much less of a problem.


Yea.. McCain is saying we need to build some 48 nuclear reactors in the next 20 years.

Personally, I think we should focus our efforts on solar and the storage of electricity. If someone blows up a solar panel, people don't normally die. Nuclear, for all it's safety and pollution free energy, is still too big a target for terrorists to attack.

[Daniel]

If only you knew what the definition of hypocrisy was... since it's not in this case.

It would be hypocrisy if I had Kellerdouche off ignore.

Once again, your ignorance is hilarious.

Stanley doesn't have you off ignore, per his own post. So, I guess that makes you a hypocrite then, huh?

[Parkbandit]

Stanley doesn't have you off ignore, per his own post. So, I guess that makes you a hypocrite then, huh?

:rofl:

You should quit while you are so behind. Learn the definition of a word before you try and throw it around dumbass. You are so becoming Backlash Jr... he had trouble with that word too.

[Daniel]

You really are slow.

Hypocrite: : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

You sit here and call stanley pathetic because he responded to something you said despite having him on ignore. Yet, you've responded to about 200 posts of Keller's despite having him on ignore. So, unless you are calling yourself pathetic, you are indeed a hypocrite.

[Parkbandit]

You really are slow.

Hypocrite: : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

You sit here and call stanley pathetic because he responded to something you said despite having him on ignore. Yet, you've responded to about 200 posts of Keller's despite having him on ignore. So, unless you are calling yourself pathetic, you are indeed a hypocrite.

Incorrect.

At worst, I was mistaken because I didn't see your post, quoting me. At best, you are still retarded.

I'm sticking with best.

[Daniel]

Lol. Whatever helps you sleep at night man.

I hope you don't still have this thread bookmarked, because you may make a bad day worse trying to relive old "pwnage" moments.

[Parkbandit]

I do.

This thread is chuck full of Daniel tard moments... you keep delivering.. even after the thread is dead.

[Daniel]

Please, don't stop posting. Ever.

[Parkbandit]

Please, don't stop posting. Ever.

Someone is clearly a masochist.. or just loves attention even if it's negative.

[Daniel]

The Irony.

[Stanley Burrell]

O.K., time out:

Where does the issue of oil costs actually lead us, as a people? Like, what actually becomes of us and what sort of paradigm shift will we experience that will be a turning point, where we can look back in our history books and say, "The underlying problem at the pumps was not resolved until such-and-such happened."

What is such-and-such? In relation to issues regarding oil? What impacts, both internally and globally, befall America in relation to the price of oil? And what seems more probable of happening physically; both directly and specifically, as a parallel, to its (hydrocarbon) rising costs?

I see a lot of questions, comments, suggestions and hybrid commercials: We seem very in-the-now, but... Things seem jumbled.

I need answers right now. Kthnx.

[g++]

Will you two just make out and get it over with.

It will finally settle which of them is gay.
First one to like it loses.

[Stanley Burrell]

That's fucking gross.

[g++]

O.K., time out:

Where does the issue of oil costs actually lead us, as a people? Like, what actually becomes of us and what sort of paradigm shift will we experience that will be a turning point, where we can look back in our history books and say, "The underlying problem at the pumps was not resolved until such-and-such happened."

What is such-and-such? In relation to issues regarding oil? What impacts, both internally and globally, befall America in relation to the price of oil? And what seems more probable of happening physically; both directly and specifically, as a parallel, to its (hydrocarbon) rising costs?

I see a lot of questions, comments, suggestions and hybrid commercials: We seem very in-the-now, but... Things seem jumbled.

I need answers right now. Kthnx.


On an unrelated note, I dont think oil will affect the price of crack cocaine at all.

[Stanley Burrell]

Our president has it all.

[Clove]

O.K., time out:It takes skill to use 129 words to say nothing.

[Gan]

I'm afraid I dont have that many ranks in Arcane Symbols to understand that request.

:whistle:

[Stanley Burrell]

It takes skill to use 129 words to say nothing.

Yeah, I'm working my way up to joining the GOP. Fuck teleprompters.

[Gan]

O.K., time out:

Where does the issue of oil costs actually lead us, as a people? Like, what actually becomes of us and what sort of paradigm shift will we experience that will be a turning point, where we can look back in our history books and say, "The underlying problem at the pumps was not resolved until such-and-such happened."
I would hazard a guess and say that this (and previous petrolium availability issues) built up enough pressure for the innovation and/or creation of the next major source of energy for transportation. Much like the graduation from steam engines to gas engines. The next step will be from gas engines to...



What is such-and-such? In relation to issues regarding oil? What impacts, both internally and globally, befall America in relation to the price of oil?

And what seems more probable of happening physically; both directly and specifically, as a parallel, to its (hydrocarbon) rising costs?
Not enough information for such and such?. America, because of its current consumption habits has decided (the leadership that is) that absent a reasonable alternative to fossil fuels (the finite availability issue) - it would be best to deplete supplies that are available elsewhere, even at a higher cost, rather than use up what reserves it currently has domestically. This creates debt for America at an expanding rate as global consumption creates a demand push on global prices from OPEC and other oil exporting countries.

As to the probability of what seems to happen - you'll see America and other importing countries seek to establish trade relations with exporting countries, you'll see America and other importing countries seek a more direct role in intervention with (politically) unstable exporting regions in order to ease trade and stimulate export. Some nation states could take it upon themselves to invade said exporting country in hopes of gaining access and control over those resources (which has been a crux of wars and international relations theory for quite some time). Some even argue that a modern day example would be the US invasion of Iraq. Bottom line, survivability will dominate the decision and justification behind the need to invade another country.





I see a lot of questions, comments, suggestions and hybrid commercials: We seem very in-the-now, but... Things seem jumbled.

I need answers right now. Kthnx.

I donned a set of bracers with +10 Arcane Symbols and felt up to the challenge of deciphering and answering your questions. Take it for what you will.