OT-Gas in Europe $9

[jrnychick]

Red herring alert!!!

I'm just making the point that you want to copy Europe. An idea that is normally reacted with unanimous kneejerk derision and scorn from the right. That is all.

Europe is better off in how they produce their electricity than the U.S. is. This is in no way comparable to the healthcare debate, where socialized medicine is the norm.

Nuclear and Clean Coal both suck. Not the answer.

Just curious... Why do you think nuclear energy sucks?

[AlteredDNA]

Who are you? An oil company exec? A stock holder?

Millions of ordinary people own stock in the oil companies through their pension plans, 401k, etc.

I stand by my statements.

Would you feel the same way if you paying, say, $1.00 - $1.20 per gallon? Lower?

No, because the price wouldn't be affecting the vast majority of the populations wallets and subsequently the economy as a whole, in an unreasonable manner like it is now. There is a line and it has been crossed. What you guys seem to be saying is there should never be a line. Sorry, but that's unreasonable.

I'm not against reasonable profit for the oil companies. I'm against the obscene record breaking profits at the expense of the masses. If the masses had a choice, there would be fair competition and they could charge whatever they wanted without issue. There would be risk on their part that they would lose their customer base. With oil, there is no risk of that whatsoever. None. That's a monopoly and monopolies are illegal for a reason.

I'm saying (and probably we) that there is a line, but that the market should dictate it, not the government, based on some arbitrary, feel good number.

[piecesofeight]

Who are you? An oil company exec? A stock holder?

Millions of ordinary people own stock in the oil companies through their pension plans, 401k, etc.

I stand by my statements. If I had alternative choices, it wouldn't be an issue. I have no choice, so it is.

I'm different on the thinking and have never understood getting worked up over something I can't do anything about right now.
It's just not my thing to debate over and over again and have to voice my opinion over and over..it won't change anyone's thinking..for the most part.
I don't have much energy sometimes these days right now..and I choose to not spend what I have focusing on the negative.
Unless I can do something about it..I don't have the time or eneergy to let most things bother me..but that's a lot what this board is about..voicing one's opionion over and over..hoping someone will see something our way.
I am usually just content with stating my opinion on something and letting it be..most people need to come back over and over to disagree and try and keep getting their point across.

[conversationpc]

No, because the price wouldn't be affecting the vast majority of the populations wallets and subsequently the economy as a whole, in an unreasonable manner like it is now. There is a line and it has been crossed. What you guys seem to be saying is there should never be a line. Sorry, but that's unreasonable.

I'm not against reasonable profit for the oil companies. I'm against the obscene record breaking profits at the expense of the masses. If the masses had a choice, there would be fair competition and they could charge whatever they wanted without issue. There would be risk on their part that they would lose their customer base. With oil, there is no risk of that whatsoever. None. That's a monopoly and monopolies are illegal for a reason.

You're not listening. The price of oil is determined MOSTLY by supply and demand. Current worldwide demand for oil is higher than the supply. This is mostly because of the rapid rise in demand from Indian and, to a greater extent, China. Until we find a way to increase our domestic supply, the price is not going to go down very much for very long. That's why the government needs to step out of the way and allow exploration.

[RedWingFan]

No, because the price wouldn't be affecting the vast majority of the populations wallets and subsequently the economy as a whole, in an unreasonable manner like it is now. There is a line and it has been crossed. What you guys seem to be saying is there should never be a line. Sorry, but that's unreasonable.

I'm not against reasonable profit for the oil companies. I'm against the obscene record breaking profits at the expense of the masses. If the masses had a choice, there would be fair competition and they could charge whatever they wanted without issue. There would be risk on their part that they would lose their customer base. With oil, there is no risk of that whatsoever. None. That's a monopoly and monopolies are illegal for a reason.

You're not listening. The price of oil is determined MOSTLY by supply and demand. Current worldwide demand for oil is higher than the supply. This is mostly because of the rapid rise in demand from Indian and, to a greater extent, China. Until we find a way to increase our domestic supply, the price is not going to go down very much for very long. That's why the government needs to step out of the way and allow exploration.

Guess STORY TELLER wasn't to interested in my 2 questions.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Just curious... Why do you think nuclear energy sucks?

A few reasons.....

As I already noted, there is only so much high grade uranium ore remaining, meaning we will have to switch over to breeder plutonium-fueled reactors at some point.
Many cite nuclear as an obvious clean alternative without noting that the energy intensive cycle required by it (mining, conversion, enrichment etc) all contributes to greenhouse gas emissions.
Nuclear also does precious little to displace our reliance on foreign oil.
Lastly, as part of their everday routine, nuclear plants release radioactive substances into our air, water and soil as deemed "permissible" by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

America can do better.

[STORY_TELLER]

Who are you? An oil company exec? A stock holder?

I'm someone who THINKS about the subject instead of moping about what other people have.
Please answer these questions.

I'm not moping about what other people have. I'm against taxation without representation. You know, one of the principles this country was founded on? Oil companies are the new monarchs of days old who used to tax the populous without limit or penalty.

1. Do you agree that oil/gas prices are determined by supply and demand????

Partially. Mostly, especially lately, prices rise and fall based on perceived regional stability. That means they're based on futures. If they're based on futures, then that's concern for their potential profits because of potential supply disruption. That's speculative. It's virtual. It's not real because it hasn't happened yet and odds are, it won't happen. With all the war it still hasn't happened!

Ask yourself this: With all that speculation, not a single oil field in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, etc. are affected. They're pumping out the same amount of oil and can even increase production on a whim. The costs for producing or shipping the oil hasn't drastically changed from day to day but the pump prices do. So what then, is causing these drastic shifts in pump pricing? Speculative concern for profit loss.

2. If Exxon were to waive all their (4%) profits it would save you approx. $ .16 @ $4 a gallon. How would this increase SUPPLY to lower the price substancially?

If the government can't do something about it at home, they need to press the issues that affect the countries in question in their collective wallets. Stop the outsourcing of jobs to their countries. Stop allowing free trade with those countries. Stop accepting their products in this country. We are, in fact, their majority customer base for their collective products. I say close up shop for a few months and see how they like it.

[RedWingFan]

Just curious... Why do you think nuclear energy sucks?

A few reasons.....

As I already noted, there is only so much high grade uranium ore remaining, meaning we will have to switch over to breeder plutonium-fueled reactors at some point.
Many cite nuclear as an obvious clean alternative without noting that the energy intensive cycle required by it (mining, conversion, enrichment etc) all contributes to greenhouse gas emissions.
Nuclear also does precious little to displace our reliance of foreign oil.
Lastly, as part of their everday routine, nuclear plants release radioactive substances into our air, water and soil as deemed "permissible" by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

America can do better.

Yeah, $4 a gallon.

[STORY_TELLER]

Guess STORY TELLER wasn't to interested in my 2 questions.

Unlike you, wise ass, I have work to do.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Yeah, $4 a gallon.

I thought you were the party of ideas, all I hear from you is a resignation to and defense of the status quo.
By the way, ANWR was deemed protected by a Republican president, back when the GOP still cared about trifling things like clean air and water.

[STORY_TELLER]

No, because the price wouldn't be affecting the vast majority of the populations wallets and subsequently the economy as a whole, in an unreasonable manner like it is now. There is a line and it has been crossed. What you guys seem to be saying is there should never be a line. Sorry, but that's unreasonable.

I'm not against reasonable profit for the oil companies. I'm against the obscene record breaking profits at the expense of the masses. If the masses had a choice, there would be fair competition and they could charge whatever they wanted without issue. There would be risk on their part that they would lose their customer base. With oil, there is no risk of that whatsoever. None. That's a monopoly and monopolies are illegal for a reason.

You're not listening. The price of oil is determined MOSTLY by supply and demand. Current worldwide demand for oil is higher than the supply. This is mostly because of the rapid rise in demand from Indian and, to a greater extent, China. Until we find a way to increase our domestic supply, the price is not going to go down very much for very long. That's why the government needs to step out of the way and allow exploration.

That's fine. It's the profit I take issue with. Record breaking profit. Cost is one thing, profit is another. Tax the profit, return it to the taxpayer and it would balance out.

[AlteredDNA]

Yeah, $4 a gallon.

I thought you were the party of ideas, all I hear from you is a resignation to and defense of the status quo.
By the way, ANWR was deemed protected by a Republican president, back when the GOP still cared about trifling things like clean air and water.

Another straw man...

The status quo of government restriction and intervention in the market is the problem. That's what needs to be changed...

[RedWingFan]

If the government can't do something about it at home, they need to press the issues that affect the countries in question in their collective wallets.

President Bush just visited the Middle East and asked them to pump more oil. They said no. Why should we ask them to do what we refuse to do? (ie pump more oil)

Stop the outsourcing of jobs to their countries.

The only control government has to retain non-federalized jobs in this country is by making it business friendly, ie, low taxes and lower regulation. But we can't do that because Al Gore said the Earth has a fever. And Walmart, Exxon, and all other American companies need to be destroyed. Remember?

Stop allowing free trade with those countries. Stop accepting their products in this country.

President Bush tried that with the steel industry soon after taking office. Do you remember? You are from Pennsylvania aren't you? That seemed like a good answer but was a disaster.

I say close up shop for a few months and see how they like it.

Isolationism isn't the answer.

[STORY_TELLER]

I'm different on the thinking and have never understood getting worked up over something I can't do anything about right now.

I'm not worked up at all. Redwingfan is, but I'm not. I've got a big ol' grin on my face.

[Tito]

Oil prices dropping because of less demand

Oil prices fell below $127 a barrel Wednesday, extending a decline of more than $3 in the previous session on a growing sense that record-high costs have cut demand for gasoline and other fuel. The summer driving season in the U.S. began with the just-ended Memorial Day weekend, and some analysts are predicting that data will show a lackluster start. U.S. Energy Department data covering the weekend won't be released until next week. But even ahead of those figures, other statistics indicate Americans are driving less because of bloated prices at the pump. The Schork Report, edited by Stephen Schork, cited the latest statistics from the Federal Highway Administration, noting that "estimated vehicle miles traveled ... on all U.S. public roads for March 2008 fell 4.3 percent, or 11 billion miles, compared with March 2007".

Time to take the business out of oil. Regardless of how it's happening, the oil companies are posting record profits. They can't on one hand say "it's not our fault" while keeping the profit on the other.

I propose a huge windfall tax on the oil companies followed by quarterly "economic stimulus checks" mailed back to the tax payers.

SOCIALIST!

[The_Noble_Cause]

Another straw man...

The status quo of government restriction and intervention in the market is the problem. That's what needs to be changed...

Drilling in ANWR would reduce costs by less than a dollar and there is only an estimated 6-month supply.
What then?

[RedWingFan]

Yeah, $4 a gallon.

I thought you were the party of ideas, all I hear from you is a resignation to and defense of the status quo.
By the way, ANWR was deemed protected by a Republican president, back when the GOP still cared about trifling things like clean air and water.

Um. Not sure I still have a party. Seeing that among the 3 losers we have to choose from, I don't know who I want to be elected as prez.
Who wants dirty air and water? I just want to drill for our own oil.
Who's happier than Al Gore about high gas prices anyway? Think he doesn't like everyone hurting at the pump and carpooling? (myself included!!! Sorry Dave, no one wants to ride with you)

[AlteredDNA]

Another straw man...

The status quo of government restriction and intervention in the market is the problem. That's what needs to be changed...

Drilling in ANWR would reduce costs by less than a dollar and there is only an estimated 6-month supply.
What then?

First, the cost / supply you are quoting is based on the US ONLY using oil from ANWAR - totally unrealistic.

Secondly, there are other places where oil exists that aren't being explored, due to government restrictions.

[RedWingFan]

Another straw man...

The status quo of government restriction and intervention in the market is the problem. That's what needs to be changed...

Drilling in ANWR would reduce costs by less than a dollar and there is only an estimated 6-month supply.
What then?

Taking Exxon's profits would only reduce the price by $0.16 reduce their ability to stay in business is a better idea?

[STORY_TELLER]

If the government can't do something about it at home, they need to press the issues that affect the countries in question in their collective wallets.

President Bush just visited the Middle East and asked them to pump more oil. They said no. Why should we ask them to do what we refuse to do? (ie pump more oil)

Stop the outsourcing of jobs to their countries.

The only control government has to retain non-federalized jobs in this country is by making it business friendly, ie, low taxes and lower regulation. But we can't do that because Al Gore said the Earth has a fever. And Walmart, Exxon, and all other American companies need to be destroyed. Remember?

Stop allowing free trade with those countries. Stop accepting their products in this country.

President Bush tried that with the steel industry soon after taking office. Do you remember? You are from Pennsylvania aren't you? That seemed like a good answer but was a disaster.

I say close up shop for a few months and see how they like it.

Isolationism isn't the answer.

The government can create whatever control they want by voting for it. If it was put to a populous vote, I'm sure the american public, out of spite, would go for an isolation period.

And while you might say isolationism isn't the answer, what is? The status quo? You're all happy that Reagan pulled down solar panels off the white house. He lead by example on that issue in the wrong direction.

Just like big business, you seem hell bent on keeping things the way they are, yet you forget that the world's oil supply isn't endless. We have needed to get off oil for decades now for many reasons. Have we made an attempt? Car companies concerned about their future profits quashed electric cars. Where will their profits be when we run out of oil?

Typical short sighted nonsense. It's the curse of a consumer society.

PS: I'm a NY'er, lived in Vegas now live in Cali. Never lived in Penn.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Secondly, there are other places where oil exists that aren't being explored, due to government restrictions.

The US has only 3% of the world's oil reserves and we use about 25% of the world's supply.
Not sure what the answer is, but it's def. not in fossil fuels and putting more of god's wilderness up on the auction block.

[STORY_TELLER]

Yeah, $4 a gallon.

I thought you were the party of ideas, all I hear from you is a resignation to and defense of the status quo.
By the way, ANWR was deemed protected by a Republican president, back when the GOP still cared about trifling things like clean air and water.

Um. Not sure I still have a party. Seeing that among the 3 losers we have to choose from, I don't know who I want to be elected as prez.
Who wants dirty air and water? I just want to drill for our own oil.
Who's happier than Al Gore about high gas prices anyway? Think he doesn't like everyone hurting at the pump and carpooling? (myself included!!! Sorry Dave, no one wants to ride with you)

The power in this country has never been in the hands of the President. It's always been with Congress.

[AlteredDNA]

If the government can't do something about it at home, they need to press the issues that affect the countries in question in their collective wallets.

President Bush just visited the Middle East and asked them to pump more oil. They said no. Why should we ask them to do what we refuse to do? (ie pump more oil)

Stop the outsourcing of jobs to their countries.

The only control government has to retain non-federalized jobs in this country is by making it business friendly, ie, low taxes and lower regulation. But we can't do that because Al Gore said the Earth has a fever. And Walmart, Exxon, and all other American companies need to be destroyed. Remember?

Stop allowing free trade with those countries. Stop accepting their products in this country.

President Bush tried that with the steel industry soon after taking office. Do you remember? You are from Pennsylvania aren't you? That seemed like a good answer but was a disaster.

I say close up shop for a few months and see how they like it.

Isolationism isn't the answer.

The government can create whatever control they want by voting for it. If it was put to a populous vote, I'm sure the american public, out of spite, would go for an isolation period.

And while you might say isolationism isn't the answer, what is? The status quo? You're all happy that Reagan pulled down solar panels off the white house. He lead by example on that issue in the wrong direction.

Just like big business, you seem hell bent on keeping things the way they are, yet you forget that the world's oil supply isn't endless. We have needed to get off oil for decades now many reasons. Have we made an attempt? Car companies concerned about their future profits quashed electric cars. Where will their profits be when we run out of oil?

Typical short sighted nonsense. It's the curse of a consumer society.

I haven't seen a single post here saying that oil is the only answer. However, TODAY it is the fuel of choice, so we (the US) should be doing everything possible to be as self-reliant as we can. We should also be looking for alternatives, but that's not going to happen overnight.

[conversationpc]

Another straw man...

The status quo of government restriction and intervention in the market is the problem. That's what needs to be changed...

Drilling in ANWR would reduce costs by less than a dollar and there is only an estimated 6-month supply.
What then?

Just in my brief reading, I've seen estimates of anywhere from 6 months to 30 years. I would venture to say that neither of those numbers are accurate.

[AlteredDNA]

Another straw man...

The status quo of government restriction and intervention in the market is the problem. That's what needs to be changed...

Drilling in ANWR would reduce costs by less than a dollar and there is only an estimated 6-month supply.
What then?

Just in my brief reading, I've seen estimates of anywhere from 6 months to 30 years. I would venture to say that neither of those numbers are accurate.

The 6 month number everyone loves assumes that every drop of oil consumed in the US would come from ANWAR - straw man argument...

[AlteredDNA]

Secondly, there are other places where oil exists that aren't being explored, due to government restrictions.

The US has only 3% of the world's oil reserves and we use about 25% of the world's supply.
Not sure what the answer is, but it's def. not in fossil fuels and putting more of god's wilderness up on the auction block.

Long term - totally agree...

Short term - we should be using what we have...

[conversationpc]

Secondly, there are other places where oil exists that aren't being explored, due to government restrictions.

The US has only 3% of the world's oil reserves and we use about 25% of the world's supply.
Not sure what the answer is, but it's def. not in fossil fuels and putting more of god's wilderness up on the auction block.

The 25% number is the major problem. People need to drive less and drive slower. My family is already probably not going on vacation this year. Both sides of our family live out of state, so the vacationing is usually not recreational but to visit loved ones.

I've been driving slower (though still over the speed limit, for the most part ) and using my cruise control much more and I can get somewhere between 30-40 additional miles per tank.

[The_Noble_Cause]

The 6 month number everyone loves assumes that every drop of oil consumed in the US would come from ANWAR - straw man argument...

The topic at hand was specifically ANWR.

[STORY_TELLER]

I haven't seen a single post here saying that oil is the only answer. However, TODAY it is the fuel of choice, so we (the US) should be doing everything possible to be as self-reliant as we can. We should also be looking for alternatives, but that's not going to happen overnight.

We haven't made a concerted effort to transition off oil since the first oil crisis under Carter. In fact, we have car companies quashing electric cars. There is an effort to maintain the status quo by big business because all they care about is their here and now profit. It's short sighted and will cause tremendous problems in the near future.

On another note, I've wasted waaaay too much time with this little debate. It's been fun, but I have work to do. Maybe I'll check in later.

[AlteredDNA]

The 6 month number everyone loves assumes that every drop of oil consumed in the US would come from ANWAR - straw man argument...

The topic at hand was specifically ANWR.

As PART of the solution, and an example of how government is contributing to the problem...