Navy Pride

Read my Lips........There is 2 reasons that the price of gas has gone up........One is supply and demand..........The other is Oil speculators........Yesterday the president announced that he was lifting the moratorium on drilling off coast......In the last 2 days for the first time in a couple of months the price of oil went down over $10.00 the biggest drop in 18 years...That was not and accident my left wing friend.........By lifting the moratorium he shot the speculators out of the saddle.....

Thank you President Bush.............

__________________
FOR THE LIKES OF LIBERALS LIKE KERRY AND DURBIN:

"IF YOU CAN'T STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS FEEL FREE TO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM."

jfuh

Ahh, well cracking is quite BTU negative. Gasoline is very energy rich.

Sadly, they don't need to rely on much else - the kingdom is quite rich as is - huge wealth gap but then the royals don't exactly care

The initial isn't no, but the sky rocket prices are because of imposed taxes by the government. Otherwise they're not that dissimilar from our prices.

Which I think is perhaps the biggest problem. Most people are short sighted and only care about the here and now rather than the long term.
If you (grammatical sense) think it's bad now, wait till you see what'll happen next if your habbits don't change.

True, but just think 25% is all consumed by a nation of no more than 300 million people. I dare not fathom of what would happen should Chinese and Indians be as "industrious" as Americans.
For electric power - PLZ - seriously more nukes.

We're not quite self sufficient in corn production for fuel purposes - our corn and various other agriculture is seriously hardcore subsidized by the government. Take that away and it's not that "self-sufficient" anymore.
BTw just to throw this out, I don't think our corn should be subsidized.

Ironic isn't it?

I think for the rest we are in agreement.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

disneydude

You forgot to mention the main reason.....good old American Free market commercialism......so that oil companies can increase their already record profits....

__________________
Thank you President Obama, for restoring honor and integrity to the whitehouse

MC.no.spin

Your conclusion omits the fact that oil prices at current rates are ideal for more drilling wherever they can drill oil at reasonable cost. An oil company is trying to make profits. The profit potential at current rates for a company is astronomical and only grows if they can in increase their own supply seperate from OPEC and other companies. It's what Democrats ignore. Adam Smiths "invisible hand" is not excluded from operation in the oil industry.

But some areas are more expensive to drill than others. Why are we barring oil companies from drilling areas that are ripe with oil and can be drilled at a lower cost? How much tax revenue are we losing each year this is prolonged? How weak is our dollar going to have to get because of unfavorable balance of trade, growing national debt and low interest rates before it is taken more seriously than bogus envioronmental concerns?

Why would the oil companies pay millions to lease land that is not ever going to produce? If they lease it, and don't drill, they lose it. That is the spin that the Democrats are trying to give you, indicating that these leases are open ended. They are not open ended. The leases expire, and may not be renewed, if the oil company that leased the land does not build a producing well.

Leasing the land gives the oil company the opportunity to do exploration which cannot be done until the lease is complete AND PAID FOR before they explore. This is no guarantee there is any oil there as the government doesn't do the exploration and geological surveys, the oil companies do. Oil companies lease the land due to the information they have at the time which may be a survey done back in the 60's.

I was talking to a liberal today about this and he actually enjoys this cost of oil and the fact it pushes us towards alternative energy, and pulled this same stunt of "they should be drilling on the leased lands they already have."

Bull****. If Democrats had any sense of economics they would be jumping for joy at the chance to balance the budget through increased domestic product by way of oil. Run your alternative energy agenda Democrats, but don't set up road blocks to gaining economic independence and stopping this alarming transfer of wealth to foreign nations while you are getting there. It's pathetic and treasonous.

__________________
"The guy’s a phony. He has no experience, he has no record; he’s not nearly ready to be commander in chief."
Bill Clinton on Obama (from the book Game Change)

Orion

And this is why offshore drilling won't really affect price. You are simply replacing some foreign supply with domestic supply, which does not affect over all price... all it affects is who gets the revenue: the domestic oil companies, and their investors. What makes you think that the benefits will transfer down the chain to the every day consumer? Chances are, they won't... and if you actually think that all the revenue from that domestic oil is going to be syphoned back into the economy, you are living in la la land. It's going to be syphoned into the pockets of a select few. The oil companies are happy that prices are so high... what they're not happy about is that they aren't the ones getting the money--and this is the very reason why Bush lifted the moratorium. This is all about taking advantage of high prices, and not trying to lower them. High prices are good for business, and the President is playing right into that. He has just given it the additional spin of making it look like he is trying to ease prices, since the average American does not understand ECON 101, and it can easily be used against the opposition that is not in favour of this plan.

The long-term solution is still to convert to alternatives. You were right earlier in saying there is more than sufficient investment in those areas. Right now the missing piece of the puzzle is government legislation to back these technologies, but with the fossil fuel industry continually lobbying Congress and lining the pockets of politicians, the barrier to entry is quite high. It also doesn't help when the Executive branch has ties to big oil.

It may just take a transfer to a Democratic cabinet, one who doesn't have the same oil biases, to make a change to alternative energy. Alternative energy sources also decrease the demand pressure on domestic oil, which would in turn lower price per barrel. This would take pressure off of industry that relies on it, and the economy could improve. Since you are so savvy when it comes to economics, you should know what substitutes are and how they affect supply/demand.

Can you please provide evidence that domestic oil supply would last long enough to have long-term, positive economic impacts? The only way price can be lowered to positively benefit the economy is if the domestic supply in production is sufficiently large enough to offset the supply of foreign oil. That is in the range of millions of barrels per day. If you think that this can be feasibly done, then maybe it could work... however there is no evidence outside of hypoethical speculation to suggest that building rigs now would deliver such benefits.

MC.no.spin

You seem to misunderstand the basic economic supply/demand concept that when the supply of anything is increased, the price drops. We're not replacing foreign supply, we would be adding to it. It's an international market. The benefits of a lowered price to the consumer guarantees the benefit.

The government makes more money on oil than the companies do. The more the oil companies make, the more taxes they pay, which of course goes into our economy. This is aside from what the shareholders do with their profits, such as spend it on American products, companies, etc. and re-invest on domestic projects.

Link?

And I'm sure you think 9/11 was an inside job and that we never landed on the moon. Some of us prefer facts instead of wild speculations.

There is significant incentives for alternative energy already, such as a 30 % tax rebate for installing solar, and others. A bill is working through the Senate now with these benefits:

The problem is the technology has not advanced far enough to make it cost competitive with traditional technologies like oil and coal. However, the gap narrows continually and will be surmounted in the very near future.

It's not so simple as switching to Democrats, as they have their own issues, such as being against nuclear energy. The cap and trade program will also cripple some businesses and drive them to foreign nations with no such limitations. The environmentalist who screams in agony over birds flying into wind turbines is another barrier. This is the Democratic party of today.



It is my conclusion based on numerous experts commenting on the vast untapped oil resources on U.S. territory, whether it's off the coast, in Alaska or the rockies. We apparently have a lot of oil, but have been impeded in getting to it.

__________________
"The guy’s a phony. He has no experience, he has no record; he’s not nearly ready to be commander in chief."
Bill Clinton on Obama (from the book Game Change)

obvious Child

Now you're just regurgitating your already refuted arguments.

There's a term for that.

Argument via Ad Nauseum.

Donaldsutherland has already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that supply is not the problem. Demand itself has only risen 1% annual for several years. Refinery capacity has not radically changed.

Once you start stripping out factors, only one or two remain to explain the ridiculous price increases.

Oil as a hedge (minor) and the decline of the dollar.

__________________
No J-Mac, Cops cannot threaten to rape and murder your family during interrogations.

obvious Child

Perhaps.

Not sure about THAT. High inflation and high unemployment in a radical Islamic state is not good for the survival of the Monarchy.

True, but my point was that even in self sufficient countries that operate non-state hydrocarbon extraction enterprises, the products produced are not priced differently then elsewhere.

Agreed.

Well that depends on how they power their economies. If China goes massively nuclear and heavily electric car, then we won't have a problem. India's a bigger issue, especially since they won't sign the NPT. I have A REAL problem with giving nuclear tech to a Non-NPT member. But that's another thread.

That's just for votes. Strip that out and we still grow enough corn to feed the world over. Remember we are even paying people not to grow corn. Messed up isn't it? I'd love to enter the not growing corn industry.

But fully expected in this life.

Most likely. I look at the data and start stripping out factors. Nothing has radically changed in four years aside from the dollar. Supply hasn't changed in a real way, demand is barely up, refinery capacity hasn't changed. Of course instability from our little adventures in the Middle East play a part, but they can't account for doubling.

Given the data, I can't see any other major factor other then the declining dollar. We need to get that dollar back up to reduce prices and lower inflation.

__________________
No J-Mac, Cops cannot threaten to rape and murder your family during interrogations.