Gas prices are outrageous... still Bush's fault??

I still think we should just drill in Alaska. Who cares if we kill some freaking caribou? OPEC is the cause of high gas prices. They limit supply to keep prices high. If they wanted to they could flood the market with oil and we could have plenty of cheap gas, but greedy people exist outside of the "the west" too.

Either Obama has big oil buddies too or it's still Bush's fault. That's the only reasons I can think of.

There is absolutely NO REASON why gas couldn't be priced at $1.50/gal. The various oil companies would STILL make money hand over fist.

quote:

Originally posted by Dusty1963:
Either Obama has big oil buddies too or it's still Bush's fault. That's the only reasons I can think of.

Yeah, but Obama's big oil buddies are the towel head dictators, you know; his fellow Muslims.

It is the law of supply and demand, which the libtards who were blaming Bush did not understand. As long as third world merging countries such as India, and the sleeping giant China, continue their pursuit of a car in every garage and their massive building projects, the US will have to compete with them on the world oil stage, and we will pay more for our fuel.
There is no reason that all of it has to be bought from foreign companies though, we have resources here we can tap into and lessen the burden until more fuel alternatives come into play, but we are to stupid to drill in our own back yards. Instead we can let the Russians and Canadians, and the Chinese, horizontal drill our resources out from under us.
Anyone blaming Bush and Cheney nowadays is simple showing their ignorance. Barry could do more to help the situation, but he is bound by his promises to the tree huggers and environmentalists.

quote:

Originally posted by 47.m450n.47:
I still think we should just drill in Alaska. Who cares if we kill some freaking caribou? OPEC is the cause of high gas prices. They limit supply to keep prices high. If they wanted to they could flood the market with oil and we could have plenty of cheap gas, but greedy people exist outside of the "the west" too.

It is estimated that there are between 5.7 and 16 billion barrels of oil in ANWR. The Department of Energy website states that the US uses about 6.9 billion barrels of oil per year. Therefore, all of the oil in ANWR would last us anywhere between a little less than one year, to a little more than two years.

The answer is to find an alternative energy source. (NOT ethanol!)

It seems like we're making big advances in the automotive industry to bring feasible electric vehicles to market. Granted that the automotive sector is just one market for oil, and there are tons of others. Either way, I would be happy with a year or two of cheaper gas.

Also, those are only estimated figures. There could be more, or there could be less. I still say we should go drill it and find out.

US oil is readily available. To maximize its value, that oil will not be tapped until prices jump to $5-6-7/gallon. Mexico and South America have lots of oil, available now.

quote:

It is estimated that there are between 5.7 and 16 billion barrels of oil in ANWR. The Department of Energy website states that the US uses about 6.9 billion barrels of oil per year. Therefore, all of the oil in ANWR would last us anywhere between a little less than one year, to a little more than two years.

Yes, but crude oil is a highly fungible commodity. In other words, the oil in ANWR could be easily substituted with the oil from, well, anywhere else.

It's not as if we would exclusively use that oil for 1-3 years, run out, and then be begging other countries for their oil. Just adding that oil to the world market could drive prices down and put pressure on other oil producing countries to avoid price manipulation. That could simultaneously lower the demand for ANWR oil, thus ensuring it lasts longer.

quote:

Originally posted by O No!:

quote:

Originally posted by 47.m450n.47:
I still think we should just drill in Alaska. Who cares if we kill some freaking caribou? OPEC is the cause of high gas prices. They limit supply to keep prices high. If they wanted to they could flood the market with oil and we could have plenty of cheap gas, but greedy people exist outside of the "the west" too.

It is estimated that there are between 5.7 and 16 billion barrels of oil in ANWR. The Department of Energy website states that the US uses about 6.9 billion barrels of oil per year. Therefore, all of the oil in ANWR would last us anywhere between a little less than one year, to a little more than two years.

The answer is to find an alternative energy source. (NOT ethanol!)

By your logic, if $100,000 was located beneath the ground in your back yard and you lost your job, you would pass on it because it would only replace your earnings for a year or two.

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:

quote:

Originally posted by O No!:

quote:

Originally posted by 47.m450n.47:
I still think we should just drill in Alaska. Who cares if we kill some freaking caribou? OPEC is the cause of high gas prices. They limit supply to keep prices high. If they wanted to they could flood the market with oil and we could have plenty of cheap gas, but greedy people exist outside of the "the west" too.

It is estimated that there are between 5.7 and 16 billion barrels of oil in ANWR. The Department of Energy website states that the US uses about 6.9 billion barrels of oil per year. Therefore, all of the oil in ANWR would last us anywhere between a little less than one year, to a little more than two years.

The answer is to find an alternative energy source. (NOT ethanol!)

By your logic, if $100,000 was located beneath the ground in your back yard and you lost your job, you would pass on it because it would only replace your earnings for a year or two.

No, I would FIND ANOTHER JOB! Because if that $100,000 were like oil, if I dug it up I would have to give it to the "money companies" who would charge me just as much to use it as if I had never found it. Sure, it sounds simple enough, but really, oil companies are earning record profits. No matter how much oil we find and drill, do you think they are going to lower their profit margin?

If we drill in ANWR, a lot of that oil will go to China or India, just as the oil available today does. We can't strongarm the oil companies into letting only Americans have that oil, and at cheaper prices too.

All I am saying is that we need to find a alternative energy source. We have known for decades that someday we would run out of oil. If the Obama administration would challenge scientists to find a cheap, reliable source of energy before the decade is out, sort of in the same way Kennedy did with the moon landing, I would be willing to bet they could come up with something.

Nice try, but you are wrong. Please refer to teyates' post on supply and demand. Also, you lost any credibility when you started whining about oil companies making money. They have some of the lowest profit margins compared to most other industries. What are they supposed to do? Give it away for free? OPEC's power is the real issue and as long as we continue to fight oil discovery on our own soil prices will continue to rise.

Sorry Illini, but YOU are wrong. Oil companies have a profit margin of anywhere between 7 to 10 percent. Except for copper, right now most companies have about the same average profit margins, or less. I'm talking about stores, manufacturers of cleaning products, you name it. Here is an interesting website that shows profit margins for various industries:

http://www.theonlineinvestor.c...margins/gas_utility/


Because oil companies are the only players in the game, they can charge whatever they want. That is why they have been making record profits throughout this recession, and have been giving record bonuses.

I'm not "whining" about oil companies. I'm being realistic.

Does anyone know what country supplies the most oil to the United States? Try to answer without an internet search. You might be suprised. Take a guess.

Canada

Correct.

LOL, yeah and what really makes it a head scratcher is when you factor in the #2 importer. (You know the answer as well dontcha LE89)

I've sat here and wondered several times what was really behind NAFTA AND CAFTA. Did we exchange our textiles etc for an oil market under those agreements?

Thoughts LE89???????

quote:

Because oil companies are the only players in the game, they can charge whatever they want. That is why they have been making record profits throughout this recession, and have been giving record bonuses.

Incorrect.

If oil companies could charge whatever they wanted, their margins would be higher. They are seeing record profits in actual dollars because oil is getting more expensive due to increased demand. Many industries achieve higher margins than oil. Additionally, I've already pointed out that oil is a highly fungible commodity, making oil from anywhere in the world interchangable with oil from other parts of the world. It is a global commodity, and in the global market the largest oil companies are state owned. The profit motive is not driving oil prices.

There is a school of thought that demands that high oil prices will force us to change our habits , vehicle selections and develop renewable energy sources. I think its true.

George Bush is a dullard and a war criminal, his negative impact on our country will be felt for generations, just as Clinton's signing of NAFTA will be a thorn in our sides until it's changed.

/the price of oil is only important because it affects us daily. You can thank Wall Street speculators for that.

I found an interesting article that tells us basically, the consumer is SOL no matter what the government OR the oil companies do.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/201...company_tax_breaks_1

If, the federal government would adopt the Brazilian strategy, we would prosper. Brazil, formerly an oil importer, is now independent and a future exporter.

True, they use ethanol from sugar cane after the juice is removed, but that accounts for less than 15 percent of their fuel. The main strategy was drill everywhere -- in the marginal areas, off the near coast, off the deep coast, everywhere!

quote:

Originally posted by 47.m450n.47:
It seems like we're making big advances in the automotive industry to bring feasible electric vehicles to market.

What is the ultimate source of energy for electric cars?

They are coal or nuclear powered.

You greenies have been duped, which is not difficult.

quote:

Originally posted by O No!:We have known for decades that someday we would run out of oil.

When is that day?

It had been predicted that we would have run out by now, but that hasn't happened.

But our manipulative government is trying to run us out, by denying drilling in ANWAR, the deep Gulf, and restricting new refinery development.

This is what we need to be doing as "infrastructure" development. New roads, bridges, and rail systems are worthless without fuel.

http://mistalinc.com/Maps/Bull...rthern%20Alabama.pdf

Finding oil in the US really isn't that big of a problem. Actually a source of oil is located relatively close to the Shoals. It unfortunately is in the form of oil sands like those being mined and processed in Canada and would be more expensive than light crude to process. But it is there.

There is lots of oil here in alabama. I can remember back in the 80's a well known oil company came to my dad's farm & did test. They found oil but said they did not want it now. For serveral years they paid him thousands of dollars not to let another company come in to test.

quote:

Originally posted by uwsoftball:
LOL, yeah and what really makes it a head scratcher is when you factor in the #2 importer. (You know the answer as well dontcha LE89)

I've sat here and wondered several times what was really behind NAFTA AND CAFTA. Did we exchange our textiles etc for an oil market under those agreements?

Thoughts LE89???????

#2 Importer is Mexico if I understand your question correctly.

NAFTA, I hate it, point blank.

CAFTA, I'm ignorant.

quote:

George Bush is a dullard and a war criminal, his negative impact on our country will be felt for generations,

What does that make the stupid sono7a6itch that is in the white house now?

quote:

Originally posted by mad American:

quote:

George Bush is a dullard and a war criminal, his negative impact on our country will be felt for generations,

What does that make the stupid sono7a6itch that is in the white house now?

Unwelcomed??????

quote:

Originally posted by mad American:

quote:

George Bush is a dullard and a war criminal, his negative impact on our country will be felt for generations,

What does that make the stupid sono7a6itch that is in the white house now?

A one term president.

quote:

Originally posted by Winston Niles Rumfoord:

What is the ultimate source of energy for electric cars?

I'll take "The Sun" for five thousand Alex!

quote:

I'll take "The Sun" for five thousand Alex!

The last I heard, the price of solar power has finally dropped to an equivalent cost to simple cycle gas turbines. That would mean the cost would be about double that one pays for our present utility bill (assuming the sun shines for 24 hour periods). With inflation coming from our deficits and national debt, that $5000 utility bill could be coming sooner than later.

The technology that is opening up shale natural gas fields might open up shale-oil deposits:

quote:

A new drilling technique is opening up vast fields of previously out-of-reach oil in the western United States, helping reverse a two-decade decline in domestic production of crude.

Companies are investing billions of dollars to get at oil deposits scattered across North Dakota, Colorado, Texas and California. By 2015, oil executives and analysts say, the new fields could yield as much as 2 million barrels of oil a day -- more than the entire Gulf of Mexico produces now.

This new drilling is expected to raise U.S. production by at least 20 percent over the next five years. And within 10 years, it could help reduce oil imports by more than half, advancing a goal that has long eluded policymakers.

"That's a significant contribution to energy security," says Ed Morse, head of commodities research at Credit Suisse.

Oil engineers are applying what critics say is an environmentally questionable method developed in recent years to tap natural gas trapped in underground shale. They drill down and horizontally into the rock, then pump water, sand and chemicals into the hole to crack the shale and allow gas to flow up.

Because oil molecules are sticky and larger than gas molecules, engineers thought the process wouldn't work to squeeze oil out fast enough to make it economical. But drillers learned how to increase the number of cracks in the rock and use different chemicals to free up oil at low cost. "We've completely transformed the natural gas industry, and I wouldn't be surprised if we transform the oil business in the next few years too," says Aubrey McClendon, chief executive of Chesapeake Energy, which is using the technique.

Petroleum engineers first used the method in 2007 to unlock oil from a 25,000-square-mile formation under North Dakota and Montana known as the Bakken. Production there rose 50 percent in just the past year, to 458,000 barrels a day, according to Bentek Energy, an energy analysis firm.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011...ields/#ixzz1DZNU1ETv

It will be technology from the evil oil companies and not our wonderful omniscient and beneficent leaders that will increase the US oil supply. Perhaps this increase in supply will cause fuel prices to decrease.

quote:

Production there rose 50 percent in just the past year, to 458,000 barrels a day, according to Bentek Energy, an energy analysis firm.

Quite an increase.

quote:

Originally posted by dogsoldier0513:
There is absolutely NO REASON why gas couldn't be priced at $1.50/gal. The various oil companies would STILL make money hand over fist.

The price of a gallon of gas is actually less than $1.50 a gallon. The rest is taxes.

quote:

Originally posted by ferrellj:

quote:

Originally posted by dogsoldier0513:
There is absolutely NO REASON why gas couldn't be priced at $1.50/gal. The various oil companies would STILL make money hand over fist.

The price of a gallon of gas is actually less than $1.50 a gallon. The rest is taxes.

Bull. The highest gasoline tax is in NY and that is only $0.60/gallon.

http://www.commonsensejunction...es/gas-tax-rate.html

You're right, 4 years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by ferrellj:
You're right, 4 years ago.

I'm almost always right. And you will always be ignorant.

http://www.api.org/statistics/...el_summary_pages.pdf

http://www.api.org/statistics/...e_Diesel_Summary.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by O No!:
The answer is to find an alternative energy source. (NOT ethanol!)

What's your suggestion?

quote:

Originally posted by uwsoftball:

quote:

Originally posted by Winston Niles Rumfoord:

What is the ultimate source of energy for electric cars?

I'll take "The Sun" for five thousand Alex!

Sorry, the answer is the coal and nuclear powered grid, unless you want to spend $$$$$ for solar panels to charge your go-cart.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:

quote:

Originally posted by ferrellj:
You're right, 4 years ago.

I'm almost always right. And you will always be ignorant.

http://www.api.org/statistics/...el_summary_pages.pdf

Is that what got you banned? And I am not ignorant.

quote:

Originally posted by ferrellj:

The price of a gallon of gas is actually less than $1.50 a gallon. The rest is taxes.

A ridiculous statement, and after showing you that the highest combination of local, state, and fed gasoline tax in the US is less than $0.70(AL=about $0.43), you still dont comprehend.

Per your link taxes 4 years ago was in fact less than 70 cents. What is the tax today? I don't know. What is the "real" cost of a gallon of gas? I'm willing to bet it is less than $1.50.

quote:

Originally posted by ferrellj:
Per your link taxes 4 years ago was in fact less than 70 cents. What is the tax today? I don't know. What is the "real" cost of a gallon of gas? I'm willing to bet it is less than $1.50.

I suppose that record profits by oil companies pretty much tell the tale. They would love for you to believe its high taxes.

http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html

The actual amount is actually over $5 a gallon that we are paying. Most of it hidden. I was referring to the actual cost of refining a gallon of gas.

Back in early 2009, when Alabamians all but quit driving, I bought gas for $1.39 per gallon. Three months earlier I paid $4.25 per gallon. Are taxes in $ per gallon or a percentage?????

The direct taxes that we "know" about are in $ per gallon. The indirect or hidden costs such as federal subsidies and tax breaks for the oil industry are much higher. Who do you think pays for these? It is you and I therefore thay are taxes. I think I can now say dittohead(juanhunt) is the ignorant one.

They are a set price per gallon. The information is displayed on the pump. barack obama in one of his campaign speeches was hoping to increase the tax on gasoline by fifty cents per gallon to pay for research of alternative fuel.

quote:

I suppose that record profits by oil companies pretty much tell the tale.

What is wrong with profits? Go and try to run a business without profit and see what happens. What the hell is the public education system coming to?

quote:

Originally posted by mad American:

quote:

I suppose that record profits by oil companies pretty much tell the tale.

What is wrong with profits? Go and try to run a business without profit and see what happens. What the hell is the public education system coming to?

Speculation driven, inflated Gas prices contributed to our recent economic meltdown. Don't you see a disconnect when entire industries are failing while oil companies are declaring record profits?

Or haven't you developed any reasoning skills?

quote:

Or haven't you developed any reasoning skills?

I have plenty of reasoning skills, I realize that if oil companies don't make a profit, I can't ride my motorcycle, drive my car, operate a lawnmower. Go back to school and ask your teacher the right answer. What happens to a business when it doesn't make a profit? Or are you too fu32in stupid to know the answer? The answer to the second question is yes.

And while we are talking about the current prices. Why the hell hasn't the present genius in the white house said that we should drill and refine our own oil? Because he is STUPID!

quote:

Originally posted by mad American:
And while we are talking about the current prices. Why the hell hasn't the present genius in the white house said that we should drill and refine our own oil? Because he is STUPID!

We do.

quote:

Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:

quote:

Originally posted by mad American:
And while we are talking about the current prices. Why the hell hasn't the present genius in the white house said that we should drill and refine our own oil? Because he is STUPID!

We do.

Not to our actual capacity, dumb ass.

quote:

Originally posted by Stuck-In-Traffic:

quote:

Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:

quote:

Originally posted by mad American:
And while we are talking about the current prices. Why the hell hasn't the present genius in the white house said that we should drill and refine our own oil? Because he is STUPID!

We do.

Not to our actual capacity, dumb ass.

What is our actual capacity, and why haven't new and better refineries been built by your precious oil companies?

Because less supply keeps prices up. We should work to scale back our demand, not increase our capacity.

quote:

Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:

quote:

Originally posted by Stuck-In-Traffic:

quote:

Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:

quote:

Originally posted by mad American:
And while we are talking about the current prices. Why the hell hasn't the present genius in the white house said that we should drill and refine our own oil? Because he is STUPID!

We do.

Not to our actual capacity, dumb ass.

What is our actual capacity, and why haven't new and better refineries been built by your precious oil companies?

Because less supply keeps prices up. We should work to scale back our demand, not increase our capacity.

Because the tree hugging liberal panty waist interventionist will not let them drill and refine in the areas they need to.

Yes, inflated gas prices which in turns increases the cost of food etc - has contributed to our economic struggles and will continue to do so at this rate and the President isn't trying to do anything about it. After Hurricane Katrina, people including Congress screamed for President Bush to release some of the oil reserves to lower prices. Why is no one screaming for Obama to do so? It's not like we don't have reserves to use instead of depending on the Middle East. Maybe I'm missing something though.

quote:

Originally posted by Eastside:
Yes, inflated gas prices which in turns increases the cost of food etc - has contributed to our economic struggles and will continue to do so at this rate and the President isn't trying to do anything about it. After Hurricane Katrina, people including Congress screamed for President Bush to release some of the oil reserves to lower prices. Why is no one screaming for Obama to do so? It's not like we don't have reserves to use instead of depending on the Middle East. Maybe I'm missing something though.

I believe what you are missing in the equation is the very reason for the reserves in the first place. They are intended to be used in the event our supply was cut off again primarly for the military for self defense, and secondly for emergency for people. They were never intended to be used to supply cheap gas for people to waste in their H3's and gas-guzzling SUV's.
Personally, I am not for their use in an attempt to control the price of gasoline. Maybe enough people feel the same way and that is why there is not a cry to release the petroleum stores.
If you want to make a contribution in lowering the price of gasoline, quit buying it, or at least buy no more than you need to get by.

quote:

Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:

quote:

Originally posted by Stuck-In-Traffic:

quote:

Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:

quote:

Originally posted by mad American:
And while we are talking about the current prices. Why the hell hasn't the present genius in the white house said that we should drill and refine our own oil? Because he is STUPID!

We do.

Not to our actual capacity, dumb ass.

What is our actual capacity, and why haven't new and better refineries been built by your precious oil companies?

Because less supply keeps prices up. We should work to scale back our demand, not increase our capacity.

It would appear that some of the very people who align themselves with the teabaggers wanting smaller government , are the same ones wanting the government to "force" oil companies into drilling or refining more.
The myth that there is some environmentalist stopping the "drilling" is just for idiots.
Very little drilling places are off the table at this point from the federal level.
The problem is that most of the cheap easy to get at oil is pretty much tapped out. Maybe still plenty in the ground, but you can only pump so much per day.
The oil left to get by drilling is mostly in deep water and is very expensive to get at, and to get out once tapped.
Cheap oil and cheap gasoline are a thing of the past.
There are some things left that the feds can do, like bring our "wars" to an end that would free up a lot of capacity that is being diverted to supply the "war" effort, but I am not sure there is much else that is in the hands of the federal government.
There is a lot of talk here about Alaska, and actually the truth is no one really knows how much oil there really is in the federally protected area, just a bunch of guessing. However, drilling is just the beginning, getting it out would be quite a challenge, and if you think for one minute that it would make any difference at the pump, you are just plain nuts.
Oil is sold on the world market. If it is less expensive to ship it to Asia, then , just like it was with the Alaska pipe line, that's where it will go.
Instead of whining, we should be attempting to get off of oil (gasoline) as soon as possible.
Problem is , that just dosen't fit the narrative of the oil companies and senators who get a lot of money from the oil companies. What they want is what is best for them, not what is best for our country.

Large oil companies have for a decade artificially shorted the gasoline market to drive up prices.

Take this internal Texaco strategy memo excerpt:

"[T]he most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus of refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity. (The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry.) Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline."

quote:

Large oil companies have for a decade artificially shorted the gasoline market to drive up prices.

Take this internal Texaco strategy memo excerpt:

Uh, this quote is from 1996 before the US commodities traders were involved. If you are going to pull quotes out of your anus, you ought to be honest about where and when they were made. Try attributing your sources. Here, Ill do it for you: http://wyden.senate.gov/issues...wyden_oil_report.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by Flatus the Ancient:

quote:

Large oil companies have for a decade artificially shorted the gasoline market to drive up prices.

Take this internal Texaco strategy memo excerpt:

Uh, this quote is from 1996 before the US commodities traders were involved. If you are going to pull quotes out of your anus, you ought to be honest about where and when they were made. Try attributing your sources. Here, Ill do it for you: http://wyden.senate.gov/issues...wyden_oil_report.pdf

So what? Commodities traders is not an issue.

“We have too much capacity,” said Lynn D. Westfall, the chief economist at the Tesoro Corporation, a midsize refiner, who estimated that the industry’s capacity of 18 million barrels a day must be cut 5 to 8 percent. “We need refineries to be shut down.”

Refineries, especially smaller ones, have been closing for many years. The number of refineries in the United States fell to about 150 in recent years from more than 300 in 1982. At the same time, the nation’s refining capacity grew by about 13 percent, as companies expanded their most efficient refineries.



http://www.nytimes.com/imagepa...efining_graphic.html

Major refiners have been circumspect about their plans, saying that they are considering options that could include closing refineries, selling parts of their operations, laying off workers and slashing spending.

"Refineries will have to be closed," said Fadel Gheit, senior energy analyst with Oppenheimer & Co. "Unless this excess capacity is permanently shuttered, a recovery in refining margins is unsustainable."

I will leave the attribution to the trolls.

Valero Energy provides a window into the industry's changing fortunes.

Five years ago, Wall Street loved the San Antonio firm. Valero had seen a fivefold increase in share price in 2005, and fourth-quarter earnings for that year were the company's best ever.

Now Valero finds itself in a much different position. It was nearly $2 billion in the red at the end of last year, and its fourth-quarter results were among the company's worst ever, with losses of about $1.4 billion.

The recession contributed to declining fuel demand. But in that same period, vast -- some think permanent -- changes happened.

Americans drove less and switched to vehicles that got better mileage or didn't use gasoline at all. They used mass transit in record numbers. Baby boomers began retiring and stopped commuting. And gasoline gained even more of something that didn't have to be refined from oil -- ethanol

Critics complained that no new U.S. refinery had been built since 1976, leaving the country's gasoline supplies vulnerable. In fact, between 1998 and 2009, U.S. refining capacity increased by 2.2 million barrels a day, to 17.67 million barrels a day, with the addition of equipment and with improved processes at existing facilities, Energy Department data show.

You are complaining about supply and demand. If a farmer knows that there is an overabundance of wheat on the market, that farmer will try to grow something else. Its called matching supply to demand. If there is no profit in over producing gasoline then naturally refineries will be closed. During the 90's gas was cheap and unprofitable for the oil companies. Because gas was cheap, people started buying gas sucking SUV's at the same time the oil companies were closing unprofitable refineries. Commodities traders could buy both unrefined oil and refined gasoline and sit on the supply and wait for prices to inflate in the late 90's. Compounding the above factors was the increased worldwide demand for oil especially by China. It was a perfect financial storm with lots of players.

quote:

hey were never intended to be used to supply cheap gas for people to waste in their H3's and gas-guzzling SUV's.

SEEWEED, I agree with you whole heartedly.

quote:

We should work to scale back our demand, not increase our capacity.

We should work to do both. Increase capacity while decreasing demand. The most popular vehicle during the cash for clunkers debacle was a Ford F150. That don't make much sense to me. I was opposed to the cash for clunkers program because it made dependable used cars worth more than their market value. But if the supposed intent was for folks to buy fuel efeciant vehicles, why was an F150 even allowed in the program? As long as we keep buying fuel for massive SUV's and pickups the oil companies can charge as much as they want.

quote:

And gasoline gained even more of something that didn't have to be refined from oil -- ethanol

Engine destroying crap!

Back to the original post. Why ain't you liberals screaming for barack obama to step down. If high fuel prices were Bush's fault, then the current idiot in the white house is to blame. But I already know the answer, ya'll are hypocrits.

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:

quote:

Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:

quote:

Originally posted by Stuck-In-Traffic:

quote:

Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:

quote:

Originally posted by mad American:
And while we are talking about the current prices. Why the hell hasn't the present genius in the white house said that we should drill and refine our own oil? Because he is STUPID!

We do.

Not to our actual capacity, dumb ass.

What is our actual capacity, and why haven't new and better refineries been built by your precious oil companies?

Because less supply keeps prices up. We should work to scale back our demand, not increase our capacity.

It would appear that some of the very people who align themselves with the teabaggers wanting smaller government , are the same ones wanting the government to "force" oil companies into drilling or refining more.
The myth that there is some environmentalist stopping the "drilling" is just for idiots.
Very little drilling places are off the table at this point from the federal level.
The problem is that most of the cheap easy to get at oil is pretty much tapped out. Maybe still plenty in the ground, but you can only pump so much per day.
The oil left to get by drilling is mostly in deep water and is very expensive to get at, and to get out once tapped.
Cheap oil and cheap gasoline are a thing of the past.
There are some things left that the feds can do, like bring our "wars" to an end that would free up a lot of capacity that is being diverted to supply the "war" effort, but I am not sure there is much else that is in the hands of the federal government.
There is a lot of talk here about Alaska, and actually the truth is no one really knows how much oil there really is in the federally protected area, just a bunch of guessing. However, drilling is just the beginning, getting it out would be quite a challenge, and if you think for one minute that it would make any difference at the pump, you are just plain nuts.
Oil is sold on the world market. If it is less expensive to ship it to Asia, then , just like it was with the Alaska pipe line, that's where it will go.
Instead of whining, we should be attempting to get off of oil (gasoline) as soon as possible.
Problem is , that just dosen't fit the narrative of the oil companies and senators who get a lot of money from the oil companies. What they want is what is best for them, not what is best for our country.

Not, force the oil companies to drill, but force the government to end impediments to drilling.

No myth, and no idiots. Drilling off the near and far west coast is not allowed because of environmentalists working at the state level. Same for the eastern Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida.

Drilling off Cuba is proceeding, but not off the Florida coast. Because Ken Salazar continued to oppose drilling, despite a court order, Interior will have to pay millions to the reimburse the oil companies for their legal expenses. If a later administration finds Salazar acted illegally, he could be charged with reimbursing the government.

Drilling off the Alaskan coast isn't allowed, nor ANWR or the North Slope.

California stopped drilling within the state.

Now, as to Alaskan oil shipped to Japan, very little was ever shipped. None is now. About 7 percent of the oil from 1996 to 2000 was shipped to Asia.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/alaskaoil.asp

This is the fourth time I posted this fact, at least twice to you in previous guises.

I would oppose any new drilling until the oil companies learn to get it right.

Hey hypocrits, why ain't yall screaming for obama to step down, like you were when Bush was in office?

Oh, I'm sorry, as dumb as obama is, joe biden makes him look intelligent.

quote:

Originally posted by mad American:
Hey hypocrits, why ain't yall screaming for obama to step down, like you were when Bush was in office?

I never wanted Bush to step down, I wanted him impeached and imprisoned, besides, Obama is doing a great job of correcting Bush's mistakes.

Consider:

"When President Bush took office on January 20, 2001, the national average gas price was $1.46 per gallon. Six and a half years later, on August 27, 2007, the national average gas price had jumped to $2.76, roughly 89% higher. Compounded annually, this represents about a 10% jump each year Bush has been in office.

Now, let’s compare the numbers over the same time period for President Clinton.

When Clinton took office on January 20, 1993, the national average gas price was $1.06 per gallon. six and a half years later, the national average gas price had jumped to $1.22, roughly 15% higher. Compounded annually, this represents about a 2% jump each year."

http://www.dailyfueleconomytip...and-gasoline-prices/


But please understand this. I am not, in posting the above, arguing that Bush was responsible for this increase because it was "on his watch." Pricing of oil is not something that a President has a lot of control over. It is a bit simpleminded to draw the kind of cause-and-effect linkages that are sometimes cited to blame a given administration for such things as the fluctuations in the world price of crude oil. The world economy includes too many factors beyond the control of any President, including rapidly increasing demands by India and China. Those who would attach such responsibility to Bush, Obama, or any other sitting President are of the same simplistic mindset as those who look at this harsh winter and cite it as denial of global climate change.

Notwithstanding the above, I do not subscribe to the notion that international oil prices are a function of a pure market economy. There are factors that can be and are manipulated to afect the price of oil. Can you say "OPEC"?

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:

quote:

Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:

quote:

Originally posted by Stuck-In-Traffic:

quote:

Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:

quote:

Originally posted by mad American:
And while we are talking about the current prices. Why the hell hasn't the present genius in the white house said that we should drill and refine our own oil? Because he is STUPID!

We do.

Not to our actual capacity, dumb ass.

What is our actual capacity, and why haven't new and better refineries been built by your precious oil companies?

Because less supply keeps prices up. We should work to scale back our demand, not increase our capacity.

It would appear that some of the very people who align themselves with the teabaggers wanting smaller government , are the same ones wanting the government to "force" oil companies into drilling or refining more.
The myth that there is some environmentalist stopping the "drilling" is just for idiots.
Very little drilling places are off the table at this point from the federal level.
The problem is that most of the cheap easy to get at oil is pretty much tapped out. Maybe still plenty in the ground, but you can only pump so much per day.
The oil left to get by drilling is mostly in deep water and is very expensive to get at, and to get out once tapped.
Cheap oil and cheap gasoline are a thing of the past.
There are some things left that the feds can do, like bring our "wars" to an end that would free up a lot of capacity that is being diverted to supply the "war" effort, but I am not sure there is much else that is in the hands of the federal government.
There is a lot of talk here about Alaska, and actually the truth is no one really knows how much oil there really is in the federally protected area, just a bunch of guessing. However, drilling is just the beginning, getting it out would be quite a challenge, and if you think for one minute that it would make any difference at the pump, you are just plain nuts.
Oil is sold on the world market. If it is less expensive to ship it to Asia, then , just like it was with the Alaska pipe line, that's where it will go.
Instead of whining, we should be attempting to get off of oil (gasoline) as soon as possible.
Problem is , that just dosen't fit the narrative of the oil companies and senators who get a lot of money from the oil companies. What they want is what is best for them, not what is best for our country.

Not, force the oil companies to drill, but force the government to end impediments to drilling.

No myth, and no idiots. Drilling off the near and far west coast is not allowed because of environmentalists working at the state level. Same for the eastern Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida.

Drilling off Cuba is proceeding, but not off the Florida coast. Because Ken Salazar continued to oppose drilling, despite a court order, Interior will have to pay millions to the reimburse the oil companies for their legal expenses. If a later administration finds Salazar acted illegally, he could be charged with reimbursing the government.

Drilling off the Alaskan coast isn't allowed, nor ANWR or the North Slope.

California stopped drilling within the state.

Now, as to Alaskan oil shipped to Japan, very little was ever shipped. None is now. About 7 percent of the oil from 1996 to 2000 was shipped to Asia.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/alaskaoil.asp

This is the fourth time I posted this fact, at least twice to you in previous guises.

I thought you were FOR states rights !
Perhaps the people of Alaska, Florida, California, and the Eastern Seaboard don't want their seafood industries put at risk- as a lover of seafood, I am with them on this. Just look at the havoc placed on the La Gulf Coast this last summer.
Our current government is doing the right thing supporting via tax breaks, the high-mileage car industry, and should continue those programs regardless of the big oil-backed Republicans. The current admin is also doing the right thing promoting high speed rail service. Rail is a much less energy intensive way to move people than airplanes or cars. Everybody in the world knows this and we are way behind .
For a solid future , we MUST invest in this type of infrastructure - teabaggers be dammed.

Just think where we may be on this issue if Reagan had continued and not dismantled Carter's start to energy independence.
More oil--- hell, we were once told that once the Alaska pipeline was completed, that would pretty much solve our foreign dependence on oil.
Yea, good job that did after we went back to gas-guzzling cars with the rise of the ego-promoting SUV truck.

I haven't seen many posts where I agree with beternU, but this is one. Oil, similar to diamonds, is controled by very few, and our demand for the precious material is governed by the fact we will continue to pay for it, at almost any cost. There still is a supply and demand curve, it just plays out at a much higher level.

Only when competition is introduced will prices be driven down, or when demand decreases, which isn't going to happen. It's kind of hard to break into the diamaond or oil supply business.

Another post commented about no new refineries being built. Government/EPA, etc. has made the codes, guidelines, restrictions, and regulations so incredibly tough, no one will "invest" in this new refineries.

When the cost of an alternate source of moving from point A to point B is made available (other than walking or bicycles or a car you have to plug in every 50 miles), then and only then will the general public make the switch.

Just as you could buy enough land to mount enough solar panels to provide for free electricity for your house, the cost of it all still outweighs the savings on your power bill.

Only when it's cheaper will we begin to use it, period. Government pushes wanting us to spend more to save in the long run, never gonna happen.

quote:

Originally posted by LE89:
level.



Another post commented about no new refineries being built. Government/EPA, etc. has made the codes, guidelines, restrictions, and regulations so incredibly tough, no one will "invest" in this new refineries.

When the cost of an alternate source of moving from point A to point B is made available (other than walking or bicycles or a car you have to plug in every 50 miles), then and only then will the general public make the switch.

The part of La along the Ms River where most of the refineries are located is also known as "Cancer Alley" some of the highest rates of cancer in the nation.
With that in mind, would you want a refinery built on the banks of our "Ole Man River" here in Florence without any guidelines from the EPA ? Just let the Koch Brothers decide how much pollution they would put into the air and river ?
Not me , keep that stuff away from my kids and grandkids unless it is regulated to the point that there is NO pollution at all.
Just the way I feel because I love my kids, maybe others may feel different, or maybe if it is some of "those" people elsewhere, maybe of a different race, it doesn't matter.

Seeweed,
You have to bring up race and the Koch brothers in every topic.

How about a nice nuclear plant in your backyard? Zero pollution to the air and water.

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:

quote:

Originally posted by LE89:
level.



Another post commented about no new refineries being built. Government/EPA, etc. has made the codes, guidelines, restrictions, and regulations so incredibly tough, no one will "invest" in this new refineries.

When the cost of an alternate source of moving from point A to point B is made available (other than walking or bicycles or a car you have to plug in every 50 miles), then and only then will the general public make the switch.

The part of La along the Ms River where most of the refineries are located is also known as "Cancer Alley" some of the highest rates of cancer in the nation.
With that in mind, would you want a refinery built on the banks of our "Ole Man River" here in Florence without any guidelines from the EPA ? Just let the Koch Brothers decide how much pollution they would put into the air and river ?
Not me , keep that stuff away from my kids and grandkids unless it is regulated to the point that there is NO pollution at all.
Just the way I feel because I love my kids, maybe others may feel different, or maybe if it is some of "those" people elsewhere, maybe of a different race, it doesn't matter.

No, I don't have the solution, I was just answering the question.

It's kinda like the Nuclear facility Ted Kennedy fought for funding for from the Feds for his State. When the site was selected and it was clear it could be seen from HIS home, he canned the project.

quote:

It's kinda like the Nuclear facility Ted Kennedy fought for funding for from the Feds for his State. When the site was selected and it was clear it could be seen from HIS home, he canned the project.

Link?

Must have been before your time, most adults remember it fairly well. Search and you shall find, that way you won't claim I supplied you with biased information.

quote:

It's kinda like the Nuclear facility Ted Kennedy fought for funding for from the Feds for his State. When the site was selected and it was clear it could be seen from HIS home, he canned the project.

It was actually a wind farm:

quote:

Oct. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Six miles offshore in Cape Cod's Nantucket Sound, an ambitious construction project threatens to mar the peaceful seascape. Cape Wind Associates proposes to build the nation's first offshore wind farm -- 130 wind turbines, each with propellers 440 feet high -- in these historic and scenic federal waters.

That plan has sparked a five-year fight against the project, bringing together some strange allies. Lame-duck Republican governor Mitt Romney has found common ground with Democratic senator Ted Kennedy; the International Wildlife Coalition is onboard with the Nantucket Chamber of Commerce; and the Cape Cod & Islands Association of Realtors is with the Wampanoag Tribal Council.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...refer=special_report

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:

quote:

Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:

quote:

Originally posted by Stuck-In-Traffic:

quote:

Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:

quote:

Originally posted by mad American:
And while we are talking about the current prices. Why the hell hasn't the present genius in the white house said that we should drill and refine our own oil? Because he is STUPID!

We do.

Not to our actual capacity, dumb ass.

What is our actual capacity, and why haven't new and better refineries been built by your precious oil companies?

Because less supply keeps prices up. We should work to scale back our demand, not increase our capacity.

It would appear that some of the very people who align themselves with the teabaggers wanting smaller government , are the same ones wanting the government to "force" oil companies into drilling or refining more.
The myth that there is some environmentalist stopping the "drilling" is just for idiots.
Very little drilling places are off the table at this point from the federal level.
The problem is that most of the cheap easy to get at oil is pretty much tapped out. Maybe still plenty in the ground, but you can only pump so much per day.
The oil left to get by drilling is mostly in deep water and is very expensive to get at, and to get out once tapped.
Cheap oil and cheap gasoline are a thing of the past.
There are some things left that the feds can do, like bring our "wars" to an end that would free up a lot of capacity that is being diverted to supply the "war" effort, but I am not sure there is much else that is in the hands of the federal government.
There is a lot of talk here about Alaska, and actually the truth is no one really knows how much oil there really is in the federally protected area, just a bunch of guessing. However, drilling is just the beginning, getting it out would be quite a challenge, and if you think for one minute that it would make any difference at the pump, you are just plain nuts.
Oil is sold on the world market. If it is less expensive to ship it to Asia, then , just like it was with the Alaska pipe line, that's where it will go.
Instead of whining, we should be attempting to get off of oil (gasoline) as soon as possible.
Problem is , that just dosen't fit the narrative of the oil companies and senators who get a lot of money from the oil companies. What they want is what is best for them, not what is best for our country.

Not, force the oil companies to drill, but force the government to end impediments to drilling.

No myth, and no idiots. Drilling off the near and far west coast is not allowed because of environmentalists working at the state level. Same for the eastern Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida.

Drilling off Cuba is proceeding, but not off the Florida coast. Because Ken Salazar continued to oppose drilling, despite a court order, Interior will have to pay millions to the reimburse the oil companies for their legal expenses. If a later administration finds Salazar acted illegally, he could be charged with reimbursing the government.

Drilling off the Alaskan coast isn't allowed, nor ANWR or the North Slope.

California stopped drilling within the state.

Now, as to Alaskan oil shipped to Japan, very little was ever shipped. None is now. About 7 percent of the oil from 1996 to 2000 was shipped to Asia.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/alaskaoil.asp

This is the fourth time I posted this fact, at least twice to you in previous guises.

I thought you were FOR states rights !
Perhaps the people of Alaska, Florida, California, and the Eastern Seaboard don't want their seafood industries put at risk- as a lover of seafood, I am with them on this. Just look at the havoc placed on the La Gulf Coast this last summer.
Our current government is doing the right thing supporting via tax breaks, the high-mileage car industry, and should continue those programs regardless of the big oil-backed Republicans. The current admin is also doing the right thing promoting high speed rail service. Rail is a much less energy intensive way to move people than airplanes or cars. Everybody in the world knows this and we are way behind .
For a solid future , we MUST invest in this type of infrastructure - teabaggers be dammed.

Just think where we may be on this issue if Reagan had continued and not dismantled Carter's start to energy independence.
More oil--- hell, we were once told that once the Alaska pipeline was completed, that would pretty much solve our foreign dependence on oil.
Yea, good job that did after we went back to gas-guzzling cars with the rise of the ego-promoting SUV truck.

First, the state of Alaska and its citizens are in favor of drilling, it’s the federal government that’s stopping it. The citizens of the other states weren’t asked. In those cases, especially California, its cabal of environmental lobbyists and left wingers.
The problem in the Gulf was an exception, not the rule. Drilling in the North Sea has existed for decades with little problem. Didn’t help that the industry and the government agency responsible for regulating them were in bed with each other (literally).
Except, for s short portion of the TGV line in France, same for the bullet train in Japan, and the northeastern portion of Amtrack, every passenger train is a money loser. IAW, taxpayer subsidized.

As for unintended consequences, from the Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/16636101

“America’s system of rail freight is the world’s best. High-speed passenger trains could ruin it.
But the problem with America’s plans for high-speed rail is not their modesty. It is that even this limited ambition risks messing up the successful freight railways. Their owners worry that the plans will demand expensive train-control technology that freight traffic could do without. They fear a reduction in the capacity available to freight. Most of all they fret that the spending of federal money on upgrading their tracks will lead the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the industry watchdog, to impose tough conditions on them and, in effect, to reintroduce regulation of their operations. Attempts at re-regulation have been made in Congress in recent years, in response to rising freight rates. “The freight railroads feel they are under attack,” says Don Phillips, a rail expert in Virginia.

America’s railways are the mirror image of Europe’s. Europe has an impressive and growing network of high-speed passenger links, many of them international, like the Thalys service between Paris and Brussels or the Eurostar connecting London to the French and Belgian capitals. These are successful—although once the (off-balance-sheet) costs of building the tracks are counted, they need subsidies of billions of dollars a
year. But, outside Germany and Switzerland, Europe’s freight rail services are a fragmented, lossmaking mess. Repeated attempts to remove the technical and bureaucratic hurdles at national frontiers have come to nothing.”

And, the National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/...e-lou-dolinar?page=1

“Evidently, the administration thought it could build medium-to-high-speed rail on the cheap in most of the U.S. by making Amtrak trains run more frequently, increasing their speed to 110 miles per hour, and sponging off the freight system. Here’s the problem: The more passenger trains on a given rail corridor, the fewer freight trains, and the administration envisions massive numbers of new trains. Since passenger trains have to meet schedules, they take priority. The faster a passenger train travels, the more freight it displaces. According to The Economist, “One Amtrak passenger train at 110 MPH will remove the capacity to run six freight trains (which travel 50 MPH) in any corridor.” And in many areas, freight rail is already at capacity, and will require more investment to keep up with expected growth.”

quote:

Originally posted by Flatus the Ancient:
[QUOTE]
It was actually a wind farm:

I figured she had it wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by b50m:
Seeweed,
You have to bring up race and the Koch brothers in every topic.

How about a nice nuclear plant in your backyard? Zero pollution to the air and water.

Whatever it takes.

I'm sorry LE89, I just remembered you probably meant the Seabrook nuclear plant in New Hampshire. I remember there were a lot of protests by the hysterical left, but it was finally built with one unit operational, so it was not canned.

First, the state of Alaska and its citizens are in favor of drilling, it’s the federal government that’s stopping it.

That's partly my land up there and I have no reason to want to ruin it so you can drive your damm SUV more cheaply. Find another way to get from place to place.

Except, for s short portion of the TGV line in France, same for the bullet train in Japan, and the northeastern portion of Amtrack, every passenger train is a money loser. IAW, taxpayer subsidized.

Highways are subsidized , airports are subsidized, as far as I am concerned, Amtrack should be subsidized as well , especially for high speed rail service. Why do you have such a problem with that ? Just take away the subsidizes for airports and highways and put it toward a good high speed rail service nationwide. Let the airlines pay for the airports and traffic control, put tolls on the interstates and let them pay for themselves along with the gas taxes.
Amtrack should not have put high speed trains on non high speed tracks like they tried to do . I agree with you on that one. High speed trains should be on their own tracks. However, serving smaller areas, like here in the Shoals however, I believe a passenger service (not talking about high speed bullet trains here) would not necessarily have a negative impact on freight. We had it before, but when the government took the mail off the rails and put it in trucks, that spelled the end of passenger service, at least on the Southern.

quote:

Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:
I would oppose any new drilling until the oil companies learn to get it right.

Are you that greenie from Tuscaloosa that runs up and down some creek bank in a canoe screaming theres mud in the water?

quote:

Originally posted by BO:

quote:

Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:
I would oppose any new drilling until the oil companies learn to get it right.

Are you that greenie from Tuscaloosa that runs up and down some creek bank in a canoe screaming theres mud in the water?

No, I'm from Erie, Pa.

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:
First, the state of Alaska and its citizens are in favor of drilling, it’s the federal government that’s stopping it.

That's partly my land up there and I have no reason to want to ruin it so you can drive your damm SUV more cheaply. Find another way to get from place to place.

Except, for s short portion of the TGV line in France, same for the bullet train in Japan, and the northeastern portion of Amtrack, every passenger train is a money loser. IAW, taxpayer subsidized.

Highways are subsidized , airports are subsidized, as far as I am concerned, Amtrack should be subsidized as well , especially for high speed rail service. Why do you have such a problem with that ? Just take away the subsidizes for airports and highways and put it toward a good high speed rail service nationwide. Let the airlines pay for the airports and traffic control, put tolls on the interstates and let them pay for themselves along with the gas taxes.
Amtrack should not have put high speed trains on non high speed tracks like they tried to do . I agree with you on that one. High speed trains should be on their own tracks. However, serving smaller areas, like here in the Shoals however, I believe a passenger service (not talking about high speed bullet trains here) would not necessarily have a negative impact on freight. We had it before, but when the government took the mail off the rails and put it in trucks, that spelled the end of passenger service, at least on the Southern.

So, you have a deed to land in Alaska, who knew!

Highways are paid, in the main, by fuel taxes. In the past few years, funds were drawn from the federal general fund to cover the difference, same for airports.

Not sure where you would get the hundreds of billions needed to build, then run such a system. We've reached the limit on income taxes. Increase those and the revenue will drop. Regressives think taxing is infinite, it isn't!

The debt reduction committee suggested a slow increase in the fuel tax of up to 15 cents over a number of years to relieve the general fund from subsidizing highways. I agree and go further. At the rate of about 3 cents per year, the tax should rise until the 15 cent limit is met. However, I go further. About 90 percent of the tax is dedicated to federal highway projects and 10 percent to intercity commuter programs -- buses, subways and feeder rail.

Instead of the federal government collecting the tax, the states should collect it. That would allow the federal government to cut positions used to collect the federal portion of the tax and cut down on the overhead. The states would be required to spend 80 percent on federal highway projects in their states and 10 percent on the intercity commuter systems. Then, forward 10 percent to the US Department of Transportation for projects the federal government felt were of extreme importance. The National Highway Administration would shrink to a small advisory role, plus a few audit teams to ensure the states reported and used the funds correctly.

The placing of mail on planes and only peripherally on trucks speeded up mail delivery. The mail contracts certainly didn't pay the losses for the passenger rail routes.

quote:

Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:

quote:

Originally posted by BO:

quote:

Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:
I would oppose any new drilling until the oil companies learn to get it right.

Are you that greenie from Tuscaloosa that runs up and down some creek bank in a canoe screaming theres mud in the water?

No, I'm from Erie, Pa.

Oh, no need for a canoe up there this time of the year I guess.

So, you have a deed to land in Alaska, who knew!

Actually, I do (or did) have several deeds to land in Alaska, but I have misplaced them down thru the years.
But, you SHOULD have known that as a citizen of the United States, I, along with you and every other citizen, are part owners in all the National Parks, and National Forrest, etc.
I'm surprised you did not know that >

quote:

Originally posted by BO:

quote:

Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:

quote:

Originally posted by BO:

quote:

Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:
I would oppose any new drilling until the oil companies learn to get it right.

Are you that greenie from Tuscaloosa that runs up and down some creek bank in a canoe screaming theres mud in the water?

No, I'm from Erie, Pa.

Oh, no need for a canoe up there this time of the year I guess.

I thought you lived down the street from Rand Paul?

quote:

Opie Cunningham
Rand Paul is a flake. I know because he lives down the road from me.


b50m
You live in Kentucky?

Opie Cunningham
Posted 26 January 2011 09:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
You live in Kentucky?


You bet.

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:
So, you have a deed to land in Alaska, who knew!

Actually, I do (or did) have several deeds to land in Alaska, but I have misplaced them down thru the years.
But, you SHOULD have known that as a citizen of the United States, I, along with you and every other citizen, are part owners in all the National Parks, and National Forrest, etc.
I'm surprised you did not know that >

Sorry, no! Most of the deeds to that land are held by GSA, Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management. I'm surprised YOU didn't know that!

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:
So, you have a deed to land in Alaska, who knew!

Actually, I do (or did) have several deeds to land in Alaska, but I have misplaced them down thru the years.
But, you SHOULD have known that as a citizen of the United States, I, along with you and every other citizen, are part owners in all the National Parks, and National Forrest, etc.
I'm surprised you did not know that >

Sorry, no! Most of the deeds to that land are held by GSA, Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management. I'm surprised YOU didn't know that!

Somewhere I remember reading about a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" . In the same way that First Tennessee Bank has title deed to the building at 165 Madison, as a stockholder in that banking holding company, part of whatever belongs to 1st Tn belongs to me.
So , by extension, if something belongs to the United States government, part of it also belongs to me as a part of that entity.
In some other places it is not that way, and that makes them some sort of a monarchy, where the head person owns most of everything .
I'm surprised that line of logic is not followed by you.

As to the actual deeds to land in Alaska, they were given to me when I was a kid, and they are currently misplaced, who knows , maybe lost forever, but probably somewhere , somehow , I may still have property up there.

quote:

Originally posted by b50m:

quote:

Originally posted by BO:

quote:

Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:

quote:

Originally posted by BO:

quote:

Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:
I would oppose any new drilling until the oil companies learn to get it right.

Are you that greenie from Tuscaloosa that runs up and down some creek bank in a canoe screaming theres mud in the water?

No, I'm from Erie, Pa.

Oh, no need for a canoe up there this time of the year I guess.

I thought you lived down the street from Rand Paul?

quote:

Opie Cunningham
Rand Paul is a flake. I know because he lives down the road from me.


b50m
You live in Kentucky?

Opie Cunningham
Posted 26 January 2011 09:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
You live in Kentucky?


You bet.

Wanna bet?

You said you did, you betting yourself?

I don't care where you live, maybe you forgot.

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:

quote:

Originally posted by Eastside:
Yes, inflated gas prices which in turns increases the cost of food etc - has contributed to our economic struggles and will continue to do so at this rate and the President isn't trying to do anything about it. After Hurricane Katrina, people including Congress screamed for President Bush to release some of the oil reserves to lower prices. Why is no one screaming for Obama to do so? It's not like we don't have reserves to use instead of depending on the Middle East. Maybe I'm missing something though.

I believe what you are missing in the equation is the very reason for the reserves in the first place. They are intended to be used in the event our supply was cut off again primarly for the military for self defense, and secondly for emergency for people. They were never intended to be used to supply cheap gas for people to waste in their H3's and gas-guzzling SUV's.
Personally, I am not for their use in an attempt to control the price of gasoline. Maybe enough people feel the same way and that is why there is not a cry to release the petroleum stores.
If you want to make a contribution in lowering the price of gasoline, quit buying it, or at least buy no more than you need to get by.

You do understand that we have enough in reserves to provide for the current consumption rate for at least a decade without batting an eye. If we use the reserves we have to keep prices reasonable and then drill on American soil to provide for ourselves in the future we can cease and desist with the Middle East until we can come to a new way of fuel that is reliable and just as cheap or at least until it is more settled and prices go down.

Comments like "providing for you to drive you H3's and SUV's is rather condescending. I drive a mid-size sedan and I only buy what I need and I have cut down on my driving because of gas prices so I am doing all I can to save my wallet regardless.

With the new healthcare rule that demands I pay for my insurance or pay a penalty, higher gas prices raising food prices and no end to this depression in sight -- any help that can help would be appreciated for my low income self even if that is reaching in the reserves just to help lower gas prices.

I have a major issue with gas companies making BILLIONS in profit and gas prices rising and our economy in the tank. I don't know what to do about it anymore but it doesn't seem like our commander in chief has a clue either.

Tonight wife and I went over to Florence to eat some ribs. Then, by the mall, over to WalMart and back South of the river.
I have come to the conclusion that the price of gas must NOT be too high. Traffic was horrible, lines of cars on Cox Creek Pkwy, parking lots full of cars . If gas prices were really as high as all this whining would suggest , there wouldn't be nearly as much traffic out running up and down the roads.
To Eastside, I apologize for the condescending remark about your SUVs and H3s. To imply that was your vehicle is as crass and wrong in me as all those people who characterize Progressives. My apologies !!! Seriously.

By the same token, I DID notice while I was out amongst all that traffic that it just seems that there are more trucks than cars out there. At one light where I was stopped, the two vehicles in front of me were trucks, the vehicle beside of me was a truck, a car behind me, and a truck beside it. 4 trucks, 2 cars, and we wonder why we use so much more gasoline than most other countries..

People were driving the same vehicles when gas was $4 a gallon. Trucks seem to be 'in' right now.

The mall looks like it does during Christmas holidays. I guess all the unemployed people are bored so they go to the mall! LOL

I make one trip a week for errands, saves time and gas.

Yea, I try to avoid driving my truck, especially this time of year. My PU is diesel, and gets about 21 on the road, but averages 18 to 19 around town. Diesel fuel is very expensive and during the cold weather I can't blend in that free fry oil because of the viscosity. Come warm weather, however, and I'll be driving it again. Better yet, the 50MPG Harley- AND it's a helluva lot more fun. For the time being, my 30MPG Buick will have to do.

What size Harley?

quote:

Originally posted by b50m:
What size Harley?

Ultra Classic - 80CI
Gets about 40 in town, a little over 50 on the road.

Well I blew it on the wind farm/Nuclear reactor thing, old age I guess. My apology to Opie, however, the point doesn't change. I'm for prisons, dams, nuclear, wind, etc. but like most I don't want it in my backyard either.

Point was and is still, when a cheaper alternative to anything is created, it will then and only then be accepted by the General Public.

I would love free electricity, but when it cost a gazillion dollars for my initial set up, a gazillion dollars is pretty hard to recover over my lifetime.

When VCR's came out and were $1200, very few people went out and bought one. When they quickly dropped to $400, lots of us bought one. Now that they are $39.99 and you can't really get $5 for a used one in a yard sale isn't because I'm waiting on a more expensive method, it's because cheaper alternatives exist.

Couple of decades ago, steel framed houses were touted as "soon to be cheaper" than wood framed houses. Didn't happen, probably never will.

As I said before, the general public will respond when a cheaper method is available and still accomplishes the necessary requirements. The Public will not go green because it is the right thing to do, they will go green when it is cheaper than any other method.

There will always be those who buy the $1200 VCR's first, build a house out of metal, or buy an electric car which is your right, just don't tell me I'm evil or wrong for not jumping out there and buying one with you. I'll buy when it is the best choice for me, not when it's the best choice for you.

quote:

Originally posted by LE89:


I would love free electricity, but when it cost a gazillion dollars for my initial set up, a gazillion dollars is pretty hard to recover over my lifetime.


Couple of decades ago, steel framed houses were touted as "soon to be cheaper" than wood framed houses. Didn't happen, probably never will.

As I said before, the general public will respond when a cheaper method is available and still accomplishes the necessary requirements. The Public will not go green because it is the right thing to do, they will go green when it is cheaper than any other method.

Depends upon how long range your views are. Green , in the LONG run, is almost always cheaper. In the short run, not so much.
For example, take the CFLs that are causing a bit of a fuss right now. Yes, a CFL cost about $3 each compared to 4 incandescents for less than a dollar. Which is cheaper in the short run - of course the incandescents. HOwever, in the longer run, the CFLs last on average so much longer than incandescents and to top it off, they save enough in power alone to make them cheaper, but still we have whiners,
If you have reason to believe that you will live for another 20 or so years, a solar hot water heater will be cheaper than an electric type, even they are much more costly right now.
My point is, that for some reason we have become a very short sighted society-- "I want what I want and I want it NOW" mentality. Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, that mentality has become a millstone around the neck of our country. Our politicians do what will be good to get them elected next term, not what is in the long term best interest of the country.
It is what it is, and I'm not complaining, just pointing out that the so called "green" way actually is less expensive, just not tomorrow.

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:

quote:

Originally posted by LE89:


I would love free electricity, but when it cost a gazillion dollars for my initial set up, a gazillion dollars is pretty hard to recover over my lifetime.


Couple of decades ago, steel framed houses were touted as "soon to be cheaper" than wood framed houses. Didn't happen, probably never will.

As I said before, the general public will respond when a cheaper method is available and still accomplishes the necessary requirements. The Public will not go green because it is the right thing to do, they will go green when it is cheaper than any other method.

Depends upon how long range your views are. Green , in the LONG run, is almost always cheaper. In the short run, not so much.
For example, take the CFLs that are causing a bit of a fuss right now. Yes, a CFL cost about $3 each compared to 4 incandescents for less than a dollar. Which is cheaper in the short run - of course the incandescents. HOwever, in the longer run, the CFLs last on average so much longer than incandescents and to top it off, they save enough in power alone to make them cheaper, but still we have whiners,
If you have reason to believe that you will live for another 20 or so years, a solar hot water heater will be cheaper than an electric type, even they are much more costly right now.
My point is, that for some reason we have become a very short sighted society-- "I want what I want and I want it NOW" mentality. Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, that mentality has become a millstone around the neck of our country. Our politicians do what will be good to get them elected next term, not what is in the long term best interest of the country.
It is what it is, and I'm not complaining, just pointing out that the so called "green" way actually is less expensive, just not tomorrow.

Exactly my point, I use CFL's now because they are cheaper now including operational cost. I put a timer on my waterheater to save money. I bought a Kill-o-watt gadget, did a little study around the house and cut my electric bill by about one third. I installed new windows and added insulation to my attic, installed an energy effecient heat/AC unit, cut my heating bills in half.I am a unit price guy to the max, drives my wife crazy, but I analyze to the hilt. My payback is about 6-8 years. I'm not against green, I'm just not buying the $1200 VCR, I'm waiting.

I don't have a green car or a green house because it hasn't proven to be cheaper yet. My guess is it will be for our kids, probably.

I've lived with solar water heating, wood heat in a central furnace, etc. before.

I'm hoping my timeline will make 100 years.

quote:

Originally posted by LE89:

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:

quote:

Originally posted by LE89:


I would love free electricity, but when it cost a gazillion dollars for my initial set up, a gazillion dollars is pretty hard to recover over my lifetime.


Couple of decades ago, steel framed houses were touted as "soon to be cheaper" than wood framed houses. Didn't happen, probably never will.

As I said before, the general public will respond when a cheaper method is available and still accomplishes the necessary requirements. The Public will not go green because it is the right thing to do, they will go green when it is cheaper than any other method.

Depends upon how long range your views are. Green , in the LONG run, is almost always cheaper. In the short run, not so much.
For example, take the CFLs that are causing a bit of a fuss right now. Yes, a CFL cost about $3 each compared to 4 incandescents for less than a dollar. Which is cheaper in the short run - of course the incandescents. HOwever, in the longer run, the CFLs last on average so much longer than incandescents and to top it off, they save enough in power alone to make them cheaper, but still we have whiners,
If you have reason to believe that you will live for another 20 or so years, a solar hot water heater will be cheaper than an electric type, even they are much more costly right now.
My point is, that for some reason we have become a very short sighted society-- "I want what I want and I want it NOW" mentality. Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, that mentality has become a millstone around the neck of our country. Our politicians do what will be good to get them elected next term, not what is in the long term best interest of the country.
It is what it is, and I'm not complaining, just pointing out that the so called "green" way actually is less expensive, just not tomorrow.

Exactly my point, I use CFL's now because they are cheaper now including operational cost. I put a timer on my waterheater to save money. I bought a Kill-o-watt gadget, did a little study around the house and cut my electric bill by about one third. I installed new windows and added insulation to my attic, installed an energy effecient heat/AC unit, cut my heating bills in half.I am a unit price guy to the max, drives my wife crazy, but I analyze to the hilt. My payback is about 6-8 years. I'm not against green, I'm just not buying the $1200 VCR, I'm waiting.

I don't have a green car or a green house because it hasn't proven to be cheaper yet. My guess is it will be for our kids, probably.

I've lived with solar water heating, wood heat in a central furnace, etc. before.

I'm hoping my timeline will make 100 years.

Sounds like you are becoming a "greenie", so , come on, admit it, you're one of us.

I'm probably more of a cheapie than I am a greenie, but when greenie becomes more cheapie, count me in.

Funny how we all work sometimes. We'll turn left accross 8 lanes of traffic to a gas station that is 1 cent cheaper per gallon than the one on the right, to put 12 gallons in our car to save 12 cents. Probably didn't even pay for the left turn.

But then we don't look at the price of a can of beans as we proceed to putting 200 items in a shopping cart. I'm as guilty as anyone, but I have started to pay alot more attention to everything that makes me pull my wallet out.

The only green in "greenie" is all that money they're trying to scam.

quote:

Originally posted by LE89:
I'm probably more of a cheapie than I am a greenie, but when greenie becomes more cheapie, count me in.

Funny how we all work sometimes. We'll turn left accross 8 lanes of traffic to a gas station that is 1 cent cheaper per gallon than the one on the right, to put 12 gallons in our car to save 12 cents. Probably didn't even pay for the left turn.

But then we don't look at the price of a can of beans as we proceed to putting 200 items in a shopping cart. I'm as guilty as anyone, but I have started to pay alot more attention to everything that makes me pull my wallet out.

Yea, we all have our weaknesses. If the weather continues to improve, I'm gonna waste/burn some of that $3 + /gal gasoline and run down to the Gulf Coast and go eat at Wolf Bay Lodge.
Back to my other point tho, I was out today to go to the bank and go by WalMart. Traffic was backed up on Avalon from the light on Woodward, past the light on John R for about what would be another block.
Plenty of traffic = cheap gasoline prices ?

BTW, I did go on my Harley so don't hit me too hard about being out burning gas.

Gas is cheap again. It wont expensive until it hits $4.00. If you're the guy selling the USA crude oil, wouldnt you be charging absolutely as much as you can???...making all the profit you can?...and limiting output to prop up the price??? Its just capitalism.

Might work, if there were only one supplier of oil. Fortunately, there aren't. We saw what happened in nations with monopolies on commodities.