*YOU* are responsible for high gas prices

Page 7 of 8  
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 07:57:33 -0500, The Daring Dufas

Nah, they're way too dim.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/19/2012 11:45 AM, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Sorry, I couldn't help it. ^_^
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

so you think pencils that are cheap and can be ordered anytime you need more make a good analogy to a valuable natural resource like oil?
I happen to think we SHOULD build the Keystone pipeline and drill in the US for oil, because we ARE going to need every drop we can get. But by the same token we need to find a way to get folks to stop wasting it.. and the only way I see to do that is raise the price.
I also agree alternatives are not ready yet.
It's going to get really ugly if the tank runs dry and have no altenatives ready to go.
I'd say the world supply tank is at 1/2 now and that includes all the new places you want to drill.
Lets just keep going with the A/C cranked at full and cruising at 85?
Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark wrote:

So, then, the difference between your position and that of a die-hard Luddite is not great.
Put on a sweater. Drive 55. Better yet, get back to nature. Live as God intended, at one with the beasts of the field and the lilies of the valley. Have a life that is brutal and short, but filled with contentment.
Explain why you say "we ("we" who?) need to find a way to get folks to stop wasting [energy]..."
Look, the Romans denuded the forests of Europe and North Africa for wood to make charcoal. When Europeans ran out of wood, they used coal. When coal became too expensive to mine and transport, oil came to the fore. The known world was ruled by charcoal, industrial revolution was run by coal, space was conquered during the reign of oil.
We have 200 years worth of (known) oil in the U.S., 400 years worth of coal, and way beyond both of those in natural gas. It is way premature to get all exercised about "running out."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark wrote:

"Estimated U.S. oil shale reserves total an astonishing 1.5 trillion barrels of oil - or more than five times the stated reserves of Saudi Arabia."
Oil Shale Reserves http://dailyreckoning.com/oil-shale-reserves/#ixzz1penlmFCg
"Currently, the United States consumes 19.6 million barrels per day, of oil..." http://maps.unomaha.edu/peterson/funda/sidebar/oilconsumption.html
Now I know that maths is hard, but follow along:
1,500,000,000,000 bbl of shale oil / 20,000,000 bbl/day = 75,000 days 75,000 days / 365 days/yr = 205.479 years
That's just for shale oil.
I agree with you about minimizing waste, but definitions of "waste" vary. I view driving 85 instead of 55 as better use of my productive time while others (you?) would claim I was wasting gasoline!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/20/2012 7:02 AM, HeyBub wrote:

Time is money. ^_^
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So, you're responsible for the high prices?
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
On 3/20/2012 7:02 AM, HeyBub wrote:

Time is money. ^_^
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

you need to understand the difference between reserves and economically recoverable. Reserves are recoverable but not at todays price. so there is 200 years of oil there, but not recoverable AT TODAY's PRICE. As the price goes up, more of that oil becomes economically recoverable.
So the discussion has come full circle, to get more oil, the price needs to go up.
Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Might I suggest an alternative answer?
To get more oil, more drillers need to get permission from Der Fuehr^h^h^h^h Der Prezident.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
So the discussion has come full circle, to get more oil, the price needs to go up.
Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark wrote:

Nope. Consider "fracking" for the recovery of natural gas. The price of such gas has fallen through the floor.
Using newer methods does NOT automatically mean higher prices.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Go back and study Econ-101 again. As long as there are artificial controls (see: OPEC and Komrad O'Hussein) on production, such simplistic a analysis as you attempt is meaningless propaganda. These artificial barriers leave a *lot* of room for technology to sneak "more expensive" oil into the market, keeping prices *DOWN*. If another barrier is broken down (I suggest that Komrad O'Hussein is the easiest for us to control) the price will fall even lower.
IOW, bullshit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree, it's all BS. Saudi Arabia just yesterday (?) announced they'll increase the oil they supply, and promptly oil prices dropped. I'm sure President Obama is grateful, and so am I. Nevertheless, the only real solution to the energy problem is to get off imported oil. Everyone. Especially China and India, and the rest of the developing world. I really wish that the nuclear industry get off their duff and solve the safety, reliability and disposal problems. Unfortunately, I think that is becoming less and less likely, or at least more and more costly. That leaves conservation and solar and wind power. And they have a few drawbacks too.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I like your "studiously ignored problem". In fact, it's just that problem that should be solved with new technology rather than old technology coal and oil generating plants. I'm not /totally/ excluding the fuels, but there needs to be cleaner and more efficient burning taking place if those old fuels are used. I believe that for baseload, nuclear should be good enough, if properly constructed (a real big if).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You can do it anywhere a govt wants to heavily subsidize it as that is the only way it's competitive. They're doing it right here in the Peoples Republic of NJ using the money from YOUR electric bill. They give that money to the yuppies putting those panels on their McMansion. Obama chips in too.

There are some new nukes in the works. One good reason there aren't more is that it's kind of bad for your financial health to spend maybe $50mil on all kinds of studies, legal battles, taking on all the environmentalists, etc on the HOPE that one day they might actually let you build the thing. Usually they don't and you're $50mil is gone.
How much do you think Keystone has spent on that pipeline that Obama is blocking..... Oh wait.... Late breaking news. I just heard Obama is going to Oklahoma tomorrow for a photo op with the proposed pipeline. Seems for some reason he now wants us to think he's really in favor of it. What a surprise.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which means much of pricing, is illusion.
Greg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Excessive speculation. Can't find the video now.
Here is another.
http://www.fox19.com/story/17051124/reality-check-the-fiat-dollar-is-the-real-reason-for-high-gas-prices#.T2QBOpnBKZY.facebook
Greg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A convenient boogey man. The only way speculators could keep the price of oil high would be for them to actually buy the oil, take delivery of it and do something with it. Otherwise, the most they can do is perhaps slightly exaggerate price moves in either direction.

That reporter has a valid point. The decline of the dollar is a significant factor and it's perfectly legitimate. However he is quite the buffoon too. He denies that supply and demand are factors, which is just plain nuts. And he claims that oil needs to rise even more because it must maintain some fixed relation to the price of gold. The problems with that are obvious. Gold has skyrocketed in the last few years. Just look around you at all the other things that have not. The level of inflation in the overall economy is still low. So, if oil must maintain this sacred fixed relationship to oil, why not say cars and refrigerators? And that relationship between gold and oil could just as easily be fixed by gold declining.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SMS wrote:

Are you insane? Ninety percent of oil products go for transportation. You can't operate an 18-wheeler off of windmills or solar power (not to mention hydroelectric, nuclear, or geothermal).

First, it's not EVERY scientist, it's a few mendacious pseudo-scientists. Second, India and China have zero pressure to reduce fossil fuel, that's half the planet right there.

Correct, although the price of the raw material is the larger part. If, for example, the price of oil dropped to $50/bbl or increased to $200/bbl, there would obvously be a large change in the pump price.

price of oil. There are seven major oil companies in the U.S., but hundreds more around the world. They'd ALL have to be in on any funny business.

Heh! A vote for Obama in smaller states will also be wasted.
But we may be too hard on the president. Just today, while visiting Oklahoma, he said: "... we have approved enough miles of pipelines to circle the globe."
Way to go, Big O!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Do you ever wonder, if the both major parties are controlled by a larger force? Or, maybe the Republicans are fools? Was it 1992, Slick Willie (young guy with great hair) versus the war cripple. Bob Dole. The young guy with the silver tongue and great hair won.
Forward to 2008. Socialist O, young guy with great hair. Versus John McSame, the war cripple. Am I seeing a pattern?
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
Obama. With economy recovering, the Republicans self-destructing with their obsession with sex and contraception, and the lack of a credible Republican candidate, increasing gasoline prices is a way to make voters unhappy enough to oust an incumbent.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stormin Mormon wrote:

Maybe. It looks like 2012 will be a Mormon with great hair vs. a man with a burr cut.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.