why gas is high

Perhaps we can dispense with the magic electric/hydrogen car ideas. I believe we understand that the hydrogen or electricity or whatever it is must first be created.


A far better idea is to increase vehicle occupancy. Americans simply prefer to drive their own cars, ususally with one occupant per vehicle. If we could just change that, we could stop worrying about gas prices for a long time (although not forever).


This means buses and trains. (OK, fine, make them electric). Right now, buses are for poor people and no middle class person would be caught dead on one so they're subsidized by government, offer poor service, and lose money. But if all those people in the traffic jams were on the bus, their commutes would be shorter; they could work, sleep, or read on the way; and there'd be enough usage to justify good service even without government subsidies.


Why would you rather sit in a traffic jam in your car at 5 MPH than ride the bus at 60 MPH?
 
I got a few neat pics , the last will really pee you off as China is drilling in our "no no zone"
Click to expand...

No, the last one is fake. You can tell it's from Fox News because of the question mark in the headline.

And your second one doesn't even attempt to show causality.

And your first one I had redone by a friend's 6 year old, it looks much better.
 
LightingJoe, Good idea, don`t think it`ll ever happen. Please read post`s #111-113. IMHO, best solution :#1 find alternate fuel for future, #2 drill and get oil off coast to sustain us, before someone else does, #3 drill and get oil thats in inland U.S.
 
The economy was robust, unemployment was low, gas prices were $2.00 per gallon and steady the entire Bush Administration except for the beginning of course as he inherited a genuine recession (not the hyperbolized word 'recession' we are not and have not been in) and soon after saw the economy take the huge 9/11 hit.

That is until about 2007 after the Democrats first session after taking control of Congress and started reminding folks why they were booted out before. So far this year they have done nothing better then they did in '07.

Recent reports are that the US possesses more potential oil reserves then the entire middle east but won't allow tapping them. Won't allow a refinery to be built, won't allow a nuclear power plant to be built, and are screaming for energy independence. People are saying we can't drill our way out of our energy problems but that seems very weak in light of the potential to be the #1 producer of oil in the world again (yes AGAIN). The other weak argument is that it would take 5 years to take effect. Well it may or may not but it's time to GET STARTED. Sitting on our backside dreaming of solar powered cars and homes won't get the problem solved. And I know that competitive produces of crude see us punching holes they will find $100 a barrel a far less appealing price. The per barrel gouging that is causing the problem will quickly end in the face of their best customer starting to get their own sources and becoming a market competitor. Is solar or hydrogen LESS then 5 years away from mass implementation? NOPE

START NOW AND STOP BLOCKING THE ROAD. WE CAN SEE WHO IS KEEPING THE BARRIER UP.
 
SIGH....the 67 million without oil you mean......let's drill for no reason instead of where the REAL QUANTATIES ARE. All that said and you regurgetated a talking point. Where's my pepto...the nausea...

Relaese the damn ban already. And stop covering for the road blockers. It's time to DRILL. Keep the jibber jabber and let's get the thing DONE. If your boy lacks the stomach for the work then fine, let let one that does get to it.
 
I almost dug it up but your response would be 'That source is bias/unreliable/outdated/unscientific which would lead to a veer into THAT rather then THIS, drilling OK THERE but not THERE.....WHY? OPEN THE DAMN FIELDS. ENOUGH BS. This isn't a game it's the fuel that drives our economy. What is the problem? Drill HERE or HERE. Let em' drill where the EXPERTS KNOW there IS OIL !!! WHY NOT?????
 
I almost dug it up but your response would be 'That source is bias/unreliable/outdated/unscientific which would lead to a veer into
Click to expand...

Well sure, I may have.. but I asked the question earnestly. I haven't heard anything saying that there is no oil there.. 68 million acres of off-shore, I would think that if there were no oil then there would be no problem giving back the lease . . .
 
Bruxley,
Post the source and let the chips fall.

If somebody wants to challenge the source in an intelligent way, fine. If the challenge is not intelligent or informed, it impeaches itself and should be ignored.

Given the activity on land and offshore where there is oil I am hard pressed to understand why such acreage is not being exploited, unless it is unlikely to have anything of value or there are other complications, such as being in 15K feet of water...

A year or two ago it was noted that offshore rigs were moving out the Gulf of Mexico due to higher demand elsewhere. I doubt the trend has reversed, and with the ironclad attitude of US politicians against offshore exploration/development, it makes economic sense for the rig owners.
 
Can't we all just get along? No one likes paying high oil prices, and if you really don't like it then buy a motorcycle. I just bought a CBR and it is no end of fun (chick magnet as well :)). I get 44 MPG and now i only fill up my truck once every few weeks and my jeep only once a month, its awesome.

YK

anyhow, it is not car engines that are burning up the Ozone, it is all the coal burning factories that China is putting up. The tree huggers should be going after them for countless reasons.
 
SecDef
I haven't heard anything saying that there is no oil there.. 68 million acres of off-shore, I would think that if there were no oil then there would be no problem giving back the lease . . .
Click to expand...

Now don't you think that if these nasty ol' oil companies are out to rape the American public, that they would be pulling every drop of oil that they could from these "68 million acres of off-shore" ?

And exactly why do you care if they obtain more off-shore leases? Are you planning on vacationing there any time soon?
 
Now don't you think that if these nasty ol' oil companies are out to rape the American public, that they would be pulling every drop of oil that they could from these "68 million acres of off-shore" ?

And exactly why do you care if they obtain more off-shore leases? Are you planning on vacationing there any time soon?
Click to expand...

Because it underscores the point that there is an economic interest by the oil companies to not increase supply. They are the clear winner with high oil prices.

Why would they do something that hurts their bottom line? They profit from scares of peak oil, volatile supply chains, and speculation fears.

If their is evidence that they can't drill due to hippies protesting, I'd like to hear it.
 
If there were oil on that 68 million acres I assure you the would be drilling on it some of Exxon Mobil's profit comes from producing oil which would increase the profits. They make more profit from producing oil that refining it.

Some other FYI the other side leaves out.......


Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. That's $27,000,000,000 per year, a number so large it's hard to comprehend. Here's one way to put Exxon's taxes into perspective.

According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available:

Total number of tax returns: 130 million

Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million

Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion

Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion


Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).
Click to expand...

http://seekingalpha.com/article/63131-exxon-s-2007-tax-bill-30-billion?source=side_bar_editors_picks

I never hear those numbers mention in the halls of Congress nor of those of the lets lynch the oil company mentality.
 
What some in Congress dont want you to know about that 68 million acres that are leased and used that for thier purposes of scapegoating the oil companies.

The assumption that ANWR oil production would begin 10 years after legislation approves the Federal oil and natural gas leasing in the 1002 Area is based on the following 8-to-12 year timeline:
• 2 to 3 years to obtain leases, including the development of a U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) leasing program, which includes approval of an Environmental Impact Statement, the collection and analysis of seismic data, and the auction and award of leases.
• 2 to 3 years to drill a single exploratory well. Exploratory wells are slower to drill because geophysical data are collected during drilling, e.g., rock cores and well logs. Typically, Alaska North Slope exploration wells take two full winter seasons to reach the desired depth.
• 1 to 2 years to develop a production development plan and obtain BLM approval for that plan, if a commercial oil reservoir is discovered. Considerably more time could be required if the discovered oil reservoir is very deep, is filled with heavy oil, or is highly faulted. The petroleum company might have to collect more seismic data or drill delineation wells to confirm that the deposit is commercial.
•
3 to 4 years to construct the feeder pipelines; to fabricate oil separation and treatment plants, and transport them up from the lower-48 States to the North Slope by ocean barge; construct drilling pads; drill to depth; and complete the wells.
T
he 10-year timeline for developing ANWR petroleum resources assumes that there is no protracted legal battle in approving the BLM’s draft Environmental Impact Statement, the BLM’s approval to collect seismic data, or the BLM’s approval of a specific lease-development proposal.
Click to expand...

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf

As you see you can not just lease land from the federal government to produce oil. You have to lease a patch of large acerage that may or may not have oil on it. Then you have to survey the area to determine if oil is even present. Then you have to file the forms to comply with the law. If someone objects to you drilling there then that means an additonal delay. Not eo mention delays caused by the weather and seasons.


Oil geologists say the Democratic legislation ignores the long-term realities of oil leasing, which takes years of studies to find and drill for reserves.

When federal land or waters are leased to oil companies in parcels of about 1,000 to 3,000 acres, usually for 10 years, there is typically just “a very general sense of the value of the land,” said Larry Nation, a spokesman for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

Only some portions of leased land may hold accessible oil, while other portions do not, Nation said, but companies must continue to lease the entire parcel.

“There’s the misconception that every lease has oil,” added David Curtiss, director of the association’s Washington office. “A lease is a line on a map. It has nothing to do with the geology of where oil is.”
Click to expand...

http://www.cq.com/document/display....b=CQ-NEWS&binderName=cq-today-binder&seqNum=3

I hear you guys moan and groan about the Dems in Congress about the Second Amendment saying what idiots they are and they cant be trusted yet you digest every word they say and hold it up as the untarnished truth when it comes to the oil companies.

Just think if ANWR had been opened up during Reagen's term we would be importing less than the 13 million barrels of imported oil we now import and pay dearly for *sigh* However, Congress didnt want to do that.
 
If there were oil on that 68 million acres I assure you the would be drilling on it some of Exxon Mobil's profit comes from producing oil which would increase the profits. They make more profit from producing oil that refining it.
Click to expand...

All I'm asking for is a citation that there is or isn't oil in available leases. Enough with the speculation, yes? I see talking points on both sides but no verifiable facts.
 
I just posted two links that explain how oil leases work..... You just don call the psychic hot line and ask where to drill. Remember you as a consumer also pay the cost for every dry hole that is drilled.

If Congress had opened ANWAR and other areas back in the 1980s we wouldnt be having this discussion. Congress is now telling you that the oil companys have plenty of land to drill on....and we dont need to do anything.

If you havent figured out Congress has been blowing smoke up a certain part of your anatomy for years when it comes to domestic oil drilling and prices go to $5 and $6 dollars a gallon Im just going to point and laugh at you when you complain again.
 
twenty year expected life

"Just think if ANWR had been opened up during Reagen's term we would be importing less than the 13 million barrels of imported oil we now import and pay dearly for *sigh* However, Congress didnt want to do that."

of ANWR oil production. So had ANWR been tapped it would now be defunct.

Wells finally run dry the other oil reality.
 
All I'm asking for is a citation that there is or isn't oil in available leases. Enough with the speculation, yes? I see talking points on both sides but no verifiable facts.
Click to expand...
So you assume that the left wing talking points are correct.

BTW where's your source that the 68 million acres has oil under it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top