Skip to main content

Gas prices don't seem to be going down any, in fact, they are climbing. Some speculate we'll be hitting "Katrina" numbers come summertime.

HOW CAN THIS BE??

Gas prices were Bush's fault right? Well... he's been out of office for 3 years now and they keep on climbing.

So, any libs like to recant their blaming of Bush on this issue? And in doing so, tell us evil ol conservatives that we were right back then, that the president doesn't dictate gas prices?

Either you do that, and agree with us, or I need to start seeing some libs blasting King Barry about these gas prices. Wink
"Remember, it's not a lie if YOU believe it" George Costanza
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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:
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:
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

Add Reply


Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×