• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gasoline prices zip toward $3 mark

Dirty Harry said:
The deregulation actually began under Carter, not Reagan. Carter deregulated airlines, trucking, railroads, oil and interest rates, and set up much of the deregulation machinery that Reagan would later use.
The bill Reagan signed a week after he took office was initiated by Carter. Reagan did not come up with the deregulation bill in 7 days.
Click to expand...

It's not a bill, it's an actual executive order. That is really funny though about Carter being a big deregulation guy. :lol:
 
Porchev said:
It's not a bill, it's an actual executive order. That is really funny though about Carter being a big deregulation guy. :lol:
Click to expand...

First, Carter announced gradual decontrol of oil prices and the phasing out of the Keystone-Cops like government allocation system. However, Carter also pushed a "Windfall Profits Tax" on the belief that decontrol would bring higher prices and, thus, higher profits to oil companies that "really don't deserve them." The Wall Street Journal so opposed Carter's oil tax that it published an editorial, "Death of Reason," on the day Congress passed the tax, bordering the editorial in black.

Full decontrol was scheduled to take place in the spring of 1981, but Reagan upon taking office lifted controls almost immediately, thus receiving credit for what was mostly the action of his predecessor. While Carter was mistaken in his belief that decontrol would automatically increase oil profits (many investors also made the same error), one must also recognize the political heat he took for his actions, especially from the left. Ralph Nader, who had endorsed Carter as a "breath of fresh air" just four years earlier, denounced oil decontrol as "the greatest anti-consumer action of this century" and predicted $600 a barrel oil by 1990.
 
Last edited:
Porchev said:
It's not a bill, it's an actual executive order. That is really funny though about Carter being a big deregulation guy. :lol:
Click to expand...

First, Carter announced gradual decontrol of oil prices and the phasing out of the Keystone-Cops like government allocation system. However, Carter also pushed a "Windfall Profits Tax" on the belief that decontrol would bring higher prices and, thus, higher profits to oil companies that "really don't deserve them." The Wall Street Journal so opposed Carter's oil tax that it published an editorial, "Death of Reason," on the day Congress passed the tax, bordering the editorial in black.

Full decontrol was scheduled to take place in the spring of 1981, but Reagan upon taking office lifted controls almost immediately, thus receiving credit for what was mostly the action of his predecessor. While Carter was mistaken in his belief that decontrol would automatically increase oil profits (many investors also made the same error), one must also recognize the political heat he took for his actions, especially from the left. Ralph Nader, who had endorsed Carter as a "breath of fresh air" just four years earlier, denounced oil decontrol as "the greatest anti-consumer action of this century" and predicted $600 a barrel oil by 1990.
 
Dirty Harry said:
First, Carter announced gradual decontrol of oil prices and the phasing out of the Keystone-Cops like government allocation system. However, Carter also pushed a "Windfall Profits Tax" on the belief that decontrol would bring higher prices and, thus, higher profits to oil companies that "really don't deserve them." The Wall Street Journal so opposed Carter's oil tax that it published an editorial, "Death of Reason," on the day Congress passed the tax, bordering the editorial in black.

Full decontrol was scheduled to take place in the spring of 1981, but Reagan upon taking office lifted controls almost immediately, thus receiving credit for what was mostly the action of his predecessor. While Carter was mistaken in his belief that decontrol would automatically increase oil profits (many investors also made the same error), one must also recognize the political heat he took for his actions, especially from the left. Ralph Nader, who had endorsed Carter as a "breath of fresh air" just four years earlier, denounced oil decontrol as "the greatest anti-consumer action of this century" and predicted $600 a barrel oil by 1990.
Click to expand...

I am new here, but I think the rules on this forum say this should have a link.
(Painting Carter this way is pretty entertaining to me.)
 
Dirty Harry said:
You do know the difference between commodities like crude oil and gasoline and a retail company like Walmart, don't you?
Remember when crude was at it's peak? Oil profits were at theirs too.
The truth is whether you will admit it or not is that oil companies like high gas prices.

Interesting article:
Gas Prices Are High and Likely Going Higher in Spring and Summer 2010 - DailyFinance

The second major reason U.S. gasoline prices are rising is tied to the companies that actually produce the product. Refiners' margins -- the profit they earn from refining crude oil into gasoline -- have dropped, so they've decreased production, which has resulted in less gasoline being made. Refiners are buying high-cost crude, but gasoline demand remains modest, which lowers the price they can sell the refined crude (gasoline) for. As the profit margin shrinks to unacceptably low levels, refiners stop refining gasoline.
Click to expand...
Since you failed to explain the difference you don't know it either. Carry on.
 
American said:
Since you failed to explain the difference you don't know it either. Carry on.
Click to expand...

I explained it already in a previous post. Read it and then get back to me.
 
Catawba said:
Drill away baby. But you better start using solar and wind power as well, because we haven't produced enough oil to meet our needs for decades.
Click to expand...

Solar/wind power are completely unusable except as a supplement to other power sources, in which case their production often actually increases the the need for non-renewable resources.

PeteEU said:
Yea drill all you want.. it wont impact prices for years if at all.
Click to expand...

True, but I fail to see how that's a justification for not doing so. We're suffering now because we decided not to drill years ago.
 
Dav said:
Solar/wind power are completely unusable except as a supplement to other power sources, in which case their production often actually increases the the need for non-renewable resources.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your opinion but I have already shown here they are completely usable. We have known for over 3 decades how to cut the energy needed for heating and cooling by a minimum of 50%.
 
Dav said:
Solar/wind power are completely unusable except as a supplement to other power sources, in which case their production often actually increases the the need for non-renewable resources.
Click to expand...

What makes you think they're unusable? :confused:
 
ptif219 said:
Still, if only half can be extracted, scientists believe the amount is nearly triple the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem. The energy needed to extract and process it is greater than the energy produced from shale oil.

"In a 1999 speech he gave while still CEO of Halliburton, Cheney stated:

By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth
in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a
three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That
means by 2010 we'll need an additional 50 million barrels per day. Source

Cheney's assesement is supported by the estimates of numerous non-political, retired, and now disinterested scientists, many of whom believe global oil production will peak and go into terminal decline within the next five years, if it hasn't already. Source

Many industry insiders think the decline rate will far higher than Cheney anticipated in 1999. Andrew Gould, CEO of the giant oil services firm Schlumberger, for instance, recently stated that "An accurate average decline rate of 8% is not an unreasonable assumption." Source Some industry analysts are anticipating decline rates as high as 13% per year. Source A 13% yearly decline rate would cause gobal production to drop by 75% in less than 11 years.

If a 5% drop in production caused prices to triple in the 1970s, what do you think a 50% or 75% drop is going to do?
Peak Oil, Matt Savinar, Life After the Oil Crash


"What About the Oil Shale in the American West?"


"The huge reserves of oil shale in the American west suffer from similar problems. While Shell Oil has an experimental oil shale program, even Steve Mut - the CEO of their Unconventional Resources Unit - has sounded less than optimistic when questioned about the ability of oil shale to soften the coming crash. According to journalist Stuart Staniford's coverage of a recent conference on Peak Oil:
In response to questions, Steve guesstimated that oil shale production would still be pretty negligible by 2015, but might, if things go really well, get to 5 mbpd by 2030. Source

Disinterested observers are even less optimistic about oil shale. Geologist Dr. Walter Youngquist points out:
The average citizen . . . is led to believe that the United States really has no oil supply problem when oil shales hold "recoverable oil" equal to "more than 64 percent of the world's total proven crude oil reserves." Presumably the United States could tap into this great oil reserve at any time. This is not true at all. All attempts to get this "oil" out of shale have failed economically. Furthermore, the "oil" (and, it is not oil as is crude oil, but this is not stated) may be recoverable but the net energy recovered may not equal the energy used to recover it. If oil is "recovered" but at a net energy loss, the operation is a failure. Source
This means any attempt to replace conventional oil with oil shale will actually make our situation worse as the project will consume more energy than it will produce, regardless of how high the price goes. Plenty of money, however, will likely be thrown at attempts to develop the oil shale as most investors are as energy-illiterate as the general population.

Further problems with oil shale have been documented by economist Professor James Hamilton who writes:

A recent Rand study concluded it will be at least 12 years before oil shale reaches the production growth phase. And that is a technological assessment, not a reference to the environmental review process. If it takes 15 years to get an oil refinery built and approved, despite well known technology and well understood environmental issues, viewing oil shale as something that could make major contributions to world energy supplies in the immediate future seems highly unrealistic. Source"
Peak Oil, Matt Savinar, Life After the Oil Crash
 
Doom and gloom seldom happens. Keep believing it but if you have to go back to 10 year old predictions it shows what a fallacy it is.


We Will Never Run Out of Oil


In conclusion, if markets are allowed to function freely the supply of oil will never run out, in a physical sense, though it's quite likely that in the future gasoline will become a niche commodity. Changes in consumer patterns and the emergence of new technology driven by increases in the price of oil will prevent the oil supply from ever physically running out. While predicting doomsday scenarios may be a good way to get people to know your name, they are a very poor predictor of what is likely to happen in the future.
 
ptif219 said:
Doom and gloom seldom happens. Keep believing it but if you have to go back to 10 year old predictions it shows what a fallacy it is.


We Will Never Run Out of Oil


In conclusion, if markets are allowed to function freely the supply of oil will never run out, in a physical sense, though it's quite likely that in the future gasoline will become a niche commodity. Changes in consumer patterns and the emergence of new technology driven by increases in the price of oil will prevent the oil supply from ever physically running out. While predicting doomsday scenarios may be a good way to get people to know your name, they are a very poor predictor of what is likely to happen in the future.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the link which confirms we have passed peak oil!

It seems you are confusing peak oil with oil depletion. This may help:
"Peak oil is often confused with oil depletion; peak oil is the point of maximum production while depletion refers to a period of falling reserves and supply."
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil]Peak oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

We have not been able to produce the oil we require domestically since the 70's.

There is a summary here of the world oil reserves data as of 2008. It shows the number of years left for reserves country by country:
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves]Oil reserves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Catawba said:
Thank you for the link which confirms we have passed peak oil!

It seems you are confusing peak oil with oil depletion. This may help:
"Peak oil is often confused with oil depletion; peak oil is the point of maximum production while depletion refers to a period of falling reserves and supply."
Peak oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have not been able to produce the oil we require domestically since the 70's.

There is a summary here of the world oil reserves data as of 2008. It shows the number of years left for reserves country by country:
Oil reserves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

You can't have oil if the government prevents drilling.
 
ptif219 said:
You can't have oil if the government prevents drilling.
Click to expand...

The oil companies have cut back on drilling as demand dropped. The government is not preventing drilling. Oil companies have been drilling in the US for a hundred years but no matter how much more they drill they could not get it out of the ground fast enough to eliminate imports. Only a few hundred to a few thousand barrels come out of each oil well.
 
ptif219 said:
You can't have oil if the government prevents drilling.
Click to expand...

More drilling is not the solution or the Republicans would have done it during the 12 years they were in control of Congress. Drill, baby drill is just a conservative campaign slogan aimed at those not aware we have already passed peak oil in the US. Even the oil people admit we can't drill our way out of this problem.

See post 88.

You also may want to read up on peak oil. I provided a link in my previous post.
 
Dirty Harry said:
The oil companies have cut back on drilling as demand dropped. The government is not preventing drilling. Oil companies have been drilling in the US for a hundred years but no matter how much more they drill they could not get it out of the ground fast enough to eliminate imports. Only a few hundred to a few thousand barrels come out of each oil well.
Click to expand...

The government is preventing drilling and put so many laws and rules on building a refinery it is not profitable.


CNSNews.com - Let Oil Drilling Ban Expire, Top Republican Says
 
ptif219 said:
The government is preventing drilling and put so many laws and rules on building a refinery it is not profitable.


CNSNews.com - Let Oil Drilling Ban Expire, Top Republican Says
Click to expand...

Only in a few areas is drilling banned. There are plenty of places left to drill in this country. Plenty.
Oil companies are shutting down refineries and cutting back production. There is no need for new refineries. Your political talking points don't hold water.
The GOP had 6 years to open up all areas for drilling. They didn't do it because they knew it wouldn't make any difference.
 
Dirty Harry said:
The oil companies have cut back on drilling as demand dropped. The government is not preventing drilling. Oil companies have been drilling in the US for a hundred years but no matter how much more they drill they could not get it out of the ground fast enough to eliminate imports. Only a few hundred to a few thousand barrels come out of each oil well.
Click to expand...

The government is preventing drilling and put so many laws and rules on building a refinery it is not profitable.


CNSNews.com - Let Oil Drilling Ban Expire, Top Republican Says

H.R. 5254 [109th]: Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act (GovTrack.us)
 
ptif219 said:
The government is preventing drilling and put so many laws and rules on building a refinery it is not profitable.


CNSNews.com - Let Oil Drilling Ban Expire, Top Republican Says

H.R. 5254 [109th]: Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act (GovTrack.us)
Click to expand...

Drilling is only banned in a few areas. There are plenty of places in the US the oil companies could drill. Oil companies have cut back new drilling and exploration until prices go back up.
Refineries are being shut down and production cut. There is no need for new refineries. They are not very profitable right now because the price of gas is down and crude is up.


After years of failed energy policies that contributed to skyrocketing fuel prices and environmental degradation, the Bush-Cheney White House and their congressional allies now seek to divert the public's attention.

After almost eight years of subsidizing a wealthy oil industry and refusing to appropriately diversify our energy resources, their best and brightest solution is drilling — a path that would further distance us from what should be our shared goal of reducing our dependency on fossil fuels.

From 1999 to 2007, drilling permits issued for the development of public lands increased by more than 361 percent. Despite this increase, gasoline prices rose exponentially. At that rate, the United States, which uses about 25 percent of the world's energy, but has only an estimated 2 percent of energy reserves, will never drill its way to a solution.

Additionally, oil companies have refused to even file for permits to build refineries that could process crude oil, thus keeping supplies of gasoline and heating fuel low and prices — and their profits — high. Furthermore, companies already lease 91.5 million acres of on-land and offshore federal lands; yet only 23.7 million acres are actually used for production. One could be justified in concluding that the industry is simply speculating by stockpiling more federal lands.

There are ways to affect fuel prices. Although it would have slow and minimal effect on current prices, we could start by compelling oil companies to actually develop the already-leased acres or risk losing their permits or incurring an escalating charge for letting them lie unused. The money collected could be applied to lowering prices for consumers or for research and development of alternative sources of energy. Such a bill is being passed by the New Majority in Congress.

That same New Majority Congress has already passed a law — over strenuous administration opposition — mandating new fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles and requiring new standards for appliances and building materials. The U.S. House of Representatives has also passed bills to combat price fixing, market manipulation and price gouging by unscrupulous companies. It is moving to curb unregulated market speculation that experts claim may be adding $30 or more to the cost of every barrel of oil.

The Bush administration and its accomplices are opposing these obvious solutions, as well. Pundits are right when they suggest that if this oil-oriented White House isn't going to lead, then it should get out of the way.

Still, we should not have to wait for sensible action. Together, with the aforementioned legislation, we should act now to move forward on support for mass transit, and on the redirection of fossil fuel subsidies of big oil companies toward support for efficiencies and alternative energy resources.

So, yes, drill the leases already available as a bridge to the future, but stop misleading the public by claiming that drilling in fishing grounds and conservation areas is the solution America needs and deserves, and let us move forward with an honest and effective energy policy for the future.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom