Freeing ourselves from the gas crisis?

I just filled up my F-250 Super Duty 4x4

Then don't complain about your gas bills. Whatever happened to the F-250 regular Duty, or the F-150? Is the truck just super awesome, or do you actually need it for work? Are you towing a horse trailer? Is there a heap of construction equipment, or all the waitresses from the local Hooters, or an off-road motorcycle in the truck bed, daily?

You could always buy one of those weak Toyota Prius's, slap an OBAMA '08 sticker on the back, and make sure the seats and cupholders are stain-proof to ease the clean-up process everytime your Starbucks venti soy hazelnut caramel macchiato spills.

11.7 billion a quarter? That's a small profit? That's coming straight out of your pocket!

Consider the profit *margins.* They're quite slim, when compared to other industries. Grocery stores: pathetic margins. Starbucks: awesome margins. Energy: oil profit margins are slim, offset by other energy ventures.
 
The US House of Representatives recently approved legislation allowing the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices. If this is the best plan that our elected geniuses can come up with to improve things, then we are in deep, deep trouble.
 
Until Congress has the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the over zealous environmentalists and allow drilling in Alaska, off Florida, California, and New Jersey we have little choice but to be captive to OPEC. Yes, drilling presents some risks but not drilling presents serious risks to our ecomony too.

The enviros don't want nuclear - too dangerous, don't want coal - too pollluting, want to restrict wind - kills birds and wouldn't look nice near Nantucket, don't want hydro electric - too hard on the fish. Perhaps they can come up with a cheap perpetual motion machine to replace everything they're against.
 
The enviros don't want nuclear - too dangerous, don't want coal - too pollluting, want to restrict wind - kills birds and wouldn't look nice near Nantucket, don't want hydro electric - too hard on the fish.


These are all just bait and switch ploys. The real objective is a shift in world power structures. Oil is the life blood of any economy / nation. All this stuff is simply efforts to diminish U.S. strength in the world. At the very least it can be used to weaken our influence in international affairs. Potentially it could do far, far worse. Huntergirl described what is happening in her town. If you take that scenario and apply it across the nation and then carry it to its logical conclusion it spells really bad, bad things.
 
Profits are what is left over after paying operations and other costs and taxes. Look up the finacial statements and look up the costs and taxes to get that gasoline to you.

Then google up the amount of gas taxes that have been paid to the federal government and the states...then you will know that they have made more on gasoline than the oil companies have.

Plus oil compnanies have other revenue sources than gasoline production.

OPEC controls 80% of the worlds oil supply.
 
Is your point that when a western company makes obscene profit all is well and good but if the arab countries make that same profit we should blow them off the planet and take their oil?
No, my point was that the oil companies are NOT making "obscene profit" as so many of the ill-informed keep parroting. They are making considerably less profit as a percentage of investment than most other industries.

And I certainly didn't suggest we should "blow them off the planet and take their oil" in reference to OPEC. It is their oil and they can charge whatever they like for it. We can either buy it or not buy it, that is our choice.
They're just practicing capitalism as well.
Exactly! Now you've got it! :)

When buying their oil becomes too inconvenient due to cost or any other factor, we will either develop our own petroleum resources, alternate bio-mass fuels, or one of the other options I mentioned in my earlier post. But the bottom line is that whatever we do and whenever we do it will be based on free-market pressures, not on emotional outbursts of mostly misinformation. :)
 
zxcvbob said:
Drilling in ANWR doesn't solve as much as some of y'all think. Oil is fungible -- The oil we pump out of ANWR doesn't go to our oil supply, it goes (directly or indirectly) into the world supply.

What we need is a comprehensive energy policy that includes conservation, alternative energy sources, and oil exploration and development, in that order of priority. Jimmy Carter tried to get us on that path, and Ronald Reagan dismantled everything Carter did as fast as he could.

Chrysler/Mercedes sells a little 2-seater car called the "Smart ForTwo". The ones they sell in the USA get 41 MPG on the highway, and need premium gasoline. I had a 1996 Buick LeSabre (that's a big one) that got 30 mpg of regular unleaded on the highway. Back in the 80's, you could get a diesel VW Rabbit that got 50 mpg. Now here's the sad part: the ForTwo sold in Canada gets 70 mpg (diesel). The EPA won't let them import the diesel into the USA because it doesn't meet the Sept 2006 diesel emissions standards. Ya think just maybe they could relax the standards for vehicles getting 50 or more mpg? But instead the EPA keeps putting up barriers to discourage diesel development, and subsidies for corn-based ethanol which uses almost as much oil to produce as an equivalent amount of gasoline and it drives up food prices. Between that and the way the Fed is debasing the dollar, I think the .gov might actually be /trying/ to wreck the economy, I just can't figure out what the motive would be.

Excellent post! I could not agree more. :cool:

To address the question of fuel efficient small diesel powered cars - one of the reasons that they have not propagated here is because of our ridiculous diesel emissions regulations, as you have pointed out.

In the USA our regulators write diesel emissions regulations very similar to gasoline engine regulations. The problem is that the combustion of diesel fuel and the combustion of gasoline result in quite different by products, making it very difficult to get a diesel engine to emit like a gasoline engine.

In Europe, their regulators understand that, and they have completely separate and logical emission regs for both diesel and gasoline. In some parts of Europe, diesel passenger vehicles outsell the gassers. And the tax structure encourages the use of small fuel efficient engines.
 
zxcvbob said:
We need to attack this problem from both the supply side and the demand side. (and the demand side reacts faster) Strengthening the dollar would also help tremendously.
Excellent point! This has been largely overlooked regarding the price of oil. As the value of the dollar has declined steadily over the past 10 years or so, prices have risen. If we adjust the price of a barrel of oil to the value of the dollar in 1997 we are paying almost exactly the same for a barrel of oil today as we did 11 years ago!

The cause of the decline of the dollar? Simple. DEBT! This country is in debt up to its ears. The National Debt is currently over 9 trillion dollars! That is over $30,000 for every man, woman, and child living in the US! That horrible debt is killing the dollar and weakening our economy. And, unfortunately, the idiots in Washington who could actually do something about it are in a perpetual state of denial!

It is impossible to spend our way out of debt! The collapse of the dollar is inevitable. The only question is, "When?" :(
 
Let me put it this way: We either start drilling offshore beyond 12 miles from our coastline, or China will. Whom do you want out there tapping into the resource?

Mineral resources in the continental shelf belong to the country who's coast borders that shelf. China can not drill off the California coast without the permission of the U.S. government.

We need to quit making lame excuses on why NOT to drill. We need to QUIT belly aching about saving the pigmy goats and DRILL. The solutions are there. The problem is solved. Now, we need to act on the formula.

Yes, let's try to drill our way out of this problem. Never mind the consequences...

If we didn't elect the tree hugging stiffs in Washington 30 years ago we wouldn't be in this mess today. The EPA has regulated the crap out of building refineries. Oil companies remain a monopoly. NAFTA impedes with trading freely with Brazil to have competing gas prices. Ultimately everybody is to blame because we as Americans elected and KEEP electing these bozos in office.

If we had listened to the tree-huggers who advocated investing in alternative energy, we wouldn't be in this mess!

We can't drill our way out of this problem. Drilling may help the economy in the short term, but unless huge investments are immediately made to develop alternative energy, further drilling will ultimately make things worse. In the long run, it will simply make our economy more dependent on oil, and the reserves are not infinite.
 
If we listen to the tree huggers who are adamant about not drilling we will continue to get gouged at the gas pump while our inept congress argues about how / when to do anything meaningful about alternate sources of energy. Drilling probably isn't a long term solution but it buys time while alternative sources are developed

They went head over heels about corn fed ethonal and it seems to have had a wonderful effect on food prices and little effect on gas prices (but boy has it enchanced the congressmen with farm states and builders of ethanol facilities).
 
If we had listened to the tree-huggers who advocated investing in alternative energy, we wouldn't be in this mess!

Unfortunately, we (or Congress) did listen to the tree-huggers - all of them. We listened to the ones who were against nuclear power, and offshore drilling, and onshore drilling, and coal production, and shale oil, and hydroelectric, etc. ad nauseum. The only options that one or another of the groups of tree-huggers did not object to were pipe dreams that offer no realistic prospects of solving our energy problems.
 
We need to attack this problem from both the supply side and the demand side. (and the demand side reacts faster) Strengthening the dollar would also help tremendously.

I agree. Drilling isn't the only thing we need to do.

OPEC controls 80% of the worlds oil supply.

Imagine what would happen if smaller companies were able to drill, build their own refineries, and sell their own oil/gas to the consumer?

Mineral resources in the continental shelf belong to the country who's coast borders that shelf. China can not drill off the California coast without the permission of the U.S. government.

Beyond 12 miles, it's international waters. China can give us the Hawaiian Peace sign to our government and I don't think we can't do anything about it.

Yes, let's try to drill our way out of this problem. Never mind the consequences...

And what consequences would that be, pray-tell? Relying on ourselves instead of being at the mercy of other countries' oil prices? Bagdad has GAS prices AT THE PUMP for roughly $.75/gal. I wonder why we pay so much...

If we had listened to the tree-huggers who advocated investing in alternative energy, we wouldn't be in this mess!

Your argument doesn't hold a candle to my assertion. Yours is a hypothetical. Mine became the reality it is today. Tree huggers were wanting to start walking before learning to crawl. Going from one source of energy to the next takes more time than what most people honestly think. And, in the mean time, tree huggers prevented oil companies to build refineries to help keep up with demand. They regulated the crap out of energy companies to hinder building efficient power plants.

You know, in the aviation field we have a long standing joke and also a curse. Ever heard of "Hi, I'm from the FAA and I'm here to help." BHWWAAAHHHAAHHAA! Just juxtapose the EPA in that statement and the meaning remains the same...

Unfortunately, we (or Congress) did listen to the tree-huggers - all of them. We listened to the ones who were against nuclear power, and offshore drilling, and onshore drilling, and coal production, and shale oil, and hydroelectric, etc. ad nauseum. The only options that one or another of the groups of tree-huggers did not object to were pipe dreams that offer no realistic prospects of solving our energy problems.

Well, gc, you have me there. I will concede to that point...

If we listen to the tree huggers who are adamant about not drilling we will continue to get gouged at the gas pump while our inept congress argues about how / when to do anything meaningful about alternate sources of energy. Drilling probably isn't a long term solution but it buys time while alternative sources are developed

My point exactly...

In the long run, it will simply make our economy more dependent on oil, and the reserves are not infinite.

Well, they haven't exactly started to deminish either...have they....

We'll have another source of energy to depend on long before oil is depleted...
 
Beyond 12 miles, it's international waters. China can give us the Hawaiian Peace sign to our government and I don't think we can't do anything about it.

That's incorrect; read this.

Well, they haven't exactly started to deminish either...have they....

There are several good answers to that. The best is probably that they have -- by definition (any pumping reduces the amount of actual reserve... though perhaps not the "known" reserve). Another answer is "it depends on who you talk to," but it seems that the OPEC nations have greatly overestimated their reserves.
 
Offshore drilling is the best thing that ever happened to saltwater fishing. If oil and gas platforms were a bad thing for the environment there wouldn't be oodles of fish around them all the time. Some of the biggest fish I've ever caught in the Gulf were directly on them and they're the hands down favorite of everyone who goes out there.

I think my next car will be a natural gas powered Civic. Anyone here have one of them or looking at it?
 
Cuba is drilling 50 miles off the coast of Florida with the help of Venezuela, since it's their nation's continental shelf too, but US oil companies are not allowed.

http://www.townhall.com/
...excerpt...

...In 2005, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act, requiring the Department of Interior to inventory the oil resources that could be found both onshore and offshore in U.S. territory. In February 2006, Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS) published the report on offshore oil resources on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). It determined there were 85.9 billion barrels of "undiscovered technically recoverable" oil sitting off our beaches.

Just this offshore portion of our undiscovered oil is more than all the proven oil in Venezuela, and more than all the proven oil in Russia, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain combined.

What does the government mean when it says this oil is "undiscovered technically recoverable" oil? It means we can go get it with off-the-shelf technology, but the government makes no judgment about the profitability of doing so. This oil, the government says, is "in undiscovered accumulations analogous to those in existing fields producible with current recovery technology and efficiency, but without any consideration of economic viability."

Last month, with almost no attention from the liberal media, the Bureau of Land Management released the report estimating the other part of America's undiscovered oil riches, the onshore resources. This added another 53 billion barrels to the national petroleum pot.

"The nation's undiscovered oil resources total about 139 Bbbls (billion barrels)," says the report. "Of that total, the MMS estimates that 86 Bbbls are offshore under the OCS, comprising 62 percent of the nation's resources. State waters and nonfederal onshore resources are the second largest potential source of production (21 percent), followed by Federal onshore oil resources (17 percent)."

Yet, so long as Congress and the president retain the federal moratoria that forbid most offshore drilling, the 85.9 billion barrels of crude offshore won't be tapped.

The May BLM report explains why most onshore oil won't be tapped, either. Of the 279 million acres of federal land "with potential for oil or natural gas resources," 60 percent is off limits to leases as a matter of federal statute or administrative policy. Another 23 percent is open to leases with "restrictions." These include such things as "lands that can be leased but ground-disturbing oil and natural gas exploration and development activities are prohibited" and "lands that can be leased, but stipulations ... limit the time of the year when oil and gas exploration and drilling can take place to less than 3 months."

A final 17 percent of federal land is open to oil drilling on more or less the same environmental terms as private land.

"All oil and gas leases on Federal lands, including those issued with only the standard lease terms, are subject to full compliance with all environmental laws and regulations," says the report. "These laws include, but are not limited to, the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act. While compliance with these laws may delay, modify or prohibit oil and gas activities, these laws represent the values and bounds Congress believes appropriate to manage Federal lands."

You elected Congress. It paid you back with $4.00-per-gallon gas.
 
If a viable alternate energy source were such a simple or obvious thing I think someone would have come up with at least a model for it by now.

The person who comes up with such a thing is going to be so rich as to make Bill Gates look like a bag man pushing a grocery cart. I think, given the incentives, that there are lots of people working on the idea and so far it ain’t materializing. That ought to tell you something.
 
What baffles me is that the greens are worried about 0.01% of ANWR land but won't consider how many tens of thousands of acres more of solar panels it would take to produce equivalent energy, not to mention the toxic waste from solar panel production.

Folks are actively working on algae-sourced oil for biodiesel production. Only 10 acres in Arizona could supply all of Arizona's current annual diesel use - Valcent Products is developing their "Vertigro" system for use in algae farming, claiming potential yields of 10,000 gallons of oil per acre per year.

The only problem is that diesel-fueled passenger cars are mostly banned in the US.
 
That's incorrect; read this.

I only skimmed over the definitions and meanings, but from what I read it further supports my opinion:

An exclusive economic zone extends for 200 nautical miles (370 km) beyond the baselines of the territorial sea, thus it includes the territorial sea and its contiguous zone.[3] A coastal nation has control of all economic resources within its exclusive economic zone, including fishing, mining, oil exploration, and any pollution of those resources. However, it cannot regulate or prohibit passage or loitering above, on, or under the surface of the sea, whether innocent or belligerent, within that portion of its exclusive economic zone beyond its territorial sea. Quoted from Wikipedia
 
Back
Top