View Poll Results: Additional domestic drilling will reduce oil prices

Voters
68. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    33 48.53%
  • No

    19 27.94%
  • Maybe

    16 23.53%
Page 13 of 25 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 244

Thread: Domestic Drilling

  1. #121
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993

    Re: Domestic Drilling

    We were talking about once production started

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    Then stop opposing drilling off shore....
    Prove that another BP won't happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    What environmental costs? Disturbing a mosquitoe breeding ground is something only Wendy Pleakley can realisticly object to.
    The environmental cost of getting natural gas is poisoned water supplies and ruined farm land. The environmental cost of getting oil from tar sands is 1000s of gallons of tainted water plus 1 barrel of oil to produce 2-3 barrels, not to mention the massive amount of CO2 emissions. But, if you don't give a **** about the environment why not just look at the fact that it takes 1 barrle of oil to price 2-3 barrels. Talk about a waste of energy, thus the profitability of the entire process.

    The US could cut its dependence on fossil fuel to virtually nothing in a 5 year period by littering the Midwest with wind farms. But thats not profitable because wind is free.

    Only people on the left can argue that drilling won't reduce price and with the same mouth insist that a 25% drop is irrelevant.
    Or I was being generous with the affect of the middle east turmoil on the price of gas? Drilling is unsustainable. It will only show short term drops in price, and not by much unless the government drills the oil in the US and only sell the by product in the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    In other words, if you people hadn't worshipped mosquitoes more, ten years ago, when Bush first took office, the oil from Alaska would be now coming on line...
    You know nothing about eco-systems do you. And I think its more to do with the Karabu.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbbtx View Post
    That was my first hit. It's really not worth argueing about. You want us to stop drilling. You say we are running out, I say we have plenty and we are finding more all the time. We are finding new technologies to get to it. I really don't care if we're at peak oil. Sounds like fear mongering to me. Much like global warming.
    What did you think of the video? I still don't know what to make of it.
    Peak oil has nothing to do with fear mongering. Its an economic devise to figure out how long cheap oil can exist before it starts becoming harder to find/process and becomes less profitable, unless demand is high in which case it becomes even more profitable, it just takes more capital.

    You know why they are using tar oil now? Because most of the other stuff is gone. Do you realize how expensive it is? The only reason its profitable is because oil demand is skyrocketing.
    Last edited by xpiher; 05-09-11 at 04:29 AM.

  2. #122
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Domestic Drilling

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbbtx View Post
    That was my first hit. It's really not worth argueing about.
    I see, it was worth making a claim you couldn't back up, and when confronted to prove your claim, you say its not really worth argueing about. Got it.

    You want us to stop drilling.
    Please quote where I have ever said that.

    You say we are running out,
    I have not said that either, I (and most of the world's experts, including the US military who uses more oil than any other entity in the world, have said we are getting close to the point where demand exceeds supply, the end of cheap oil.

    I say we have plenty and we are finding more all the time. We are finding new technologies to get to it.
    The problem with that is the new finds are smaller or such inferior quality as to make their usage prohibitively expensive. Neither are a low cost means of dealing with the world reaching the point where demand exceeds supply.

    I really don't care if we're at peak oil. Sounds like fear mongering to me. Much like global warming.
    Then stop whining about the gas prices and the weak economy, because peak oil is having a big effect on both! And every president from Nixon to Obama has warned us.

    What did you think of the video? I still don't know what to make of it.
    I think it is a very old video that was made to try to warn people they should take actions to avert the crisis that we face unprepared today.
    Last edited by Catawba; 05-09-11 at 04:40 AM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  3. #123
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Domestic Drilling

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    We were talking about once production started



    Prove that another BP won't happen.
    Why?

    The Mayor didn't really give a **** when it was happening that time.

    Nor does the Mayor decline to take needed action because perhaps maybe someday some boob will make a mistake. Boo hoo hoo.

    Guess what the Deepwater Horizon accident was?

    it was the opportunity to learn how to prevent similar events in the future. Stupid people refuse to learn from their mistakes, enterprising people see the learning opportunities.

    The environmental cost of getting natural gas is poisoned water supplies and ruined farm land.
    Not when the drilling is off-shore....

    The environmental cost of getting oil from tar sands is 1000s of gallons of tainted water plus 1 barrel of oil to produce 2-3 barrels, not to mention the massive amount of CO2 emissions.
    Sounds like Canada's problem.

    But, if you don't give a **** about the environment why not just look at the fact that it takes 1 barrle of oil to price 2-3 barrels.
    Because it's Canada's problem, not America's.

    Talk about a waste of energy, thus the profitability of the entire process.
    Two independent methods of extracting oil from oil shale for roughly $30 per bbl have been developed. Oil is currenly over $100, granting a profit of some $70 per barrel.

    Te US could cut its dependence on fossil fuel to virtually nothing in a 5 year period by littering the Midwest with wind farms.
    That's just a stupid comment.

    Windmill's don't work on cars.

    But thats not profitable because wind is free.
    And wind turbines are not. Just in case you missed it, someone has to build the things, someone has to maintain them.

    [quote]Or I was being generous with the affect of the middle east turmoil on the price of gas? Drilling is unsustainable. It will only show short term drops in price, and not by much unless the government drills the oil in the US and only sell the by product in the US.[/quote


    The US has a trillion barrels of reserves. That's a hell of a long short term.

    You know nothing about eco-systems do you. And I think its more to do with the Karabu.
    Caribou like the warm pipes. And they're stupid deer, they'll **** in the middle of the road if that's where it happens.

    Also, Caribou aren't endangered, anyway, so who cares?

    Santa?

    No, Santa uses reindeer.

  4. #124
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Domestic Drilling

    More U.S. Oil Drilling Won't Lower Gas Prices, Experts Say

    "Republicans used the politically potent argument about the cost of gas Thursday to pass a bill expanding offshore oil and gas exploration. But analysts say there's a major flaw in their case: More drilling will barely budge prices.

    The Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act, which passed 266 to 144 with 33 Democrats buying into the scheme, orders the Department of the Interior to move quickly to offer three leases to drill in the Gulf of Mexico and one off the coast of Virginia. The bill demands that the leases be executed by next year.

    But the legislation won't reduce the price at the pump, experts said. Nor would a vastly more ambitious effort have much impact.

    "It's not going to change the price of oil overnight, and it's probably not going to have a huge impact on the price of oil ever," said Mike Lynch of Strategic Energy and Economic Research, Inc. referring not just to those four leases, but to expanding all U.S. drilling."
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  5. #125
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Domestic Drilling

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Well, that would just encouraging investment in production to go elsewhere. If you can't sell your oil for the highest price because of export restrictions, then they'd go elsewhere where they don't have such restrictions. Furthermore that would actually drive prices up. I've never heard of an export restriction that didn't rack up prices. Sizable amounts of food commodities right now are high due to export restrictions from Egypt to Russia to Thailand. Rice and Wheat are artificially high as inventory is sitting around isolated from global commodity markets.
    Hmmm...

    Unless we in the US were paying more than anyone else in the world, which I do not believe is the case. And there are probably other factors that might counter that. But I'm not too clear on this area, so you are probably correct.



    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    In the short run I suppose, but wouldn't that just cause less imports? After all, if refined products can't be exported, won't extractors send oil to non-restricted refineries? US refineries are exporting refined oil products: What Energy Problem? U.S. Oil Exports Are on the Rise - Yahoo! Finance
    I was thinking of a total export block, on both crude and refined. Possibly a bad idea though...



    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    I don't see how these help. Export/Import restrictions as I understand history don't reduce prices. Trade barriers rarely do anyways.

    Honesty, the best way to reduce oil is to reduce demand. A 10% reduction in US demand would have pretty drastic reductions in price. A 50% would change how Russia behaves. a 70% would get rid of all of the oil backed dictators in the world.
    The problem is, at least as I understand it, that so far it's cheaper to keep oil-based systems in place.

    Until we have alternate fuel vehicles that are cheaper overall than oil-fueled vehicles, including the initial cost and the upkeep, we're going to have people/businesses sticking with oil as a power source unless they're making a political or ideological statement.

    This same argument would seemingly apply to any other area that uses oil as a power source or base material.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  6. #126
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,069

    Re: Domestic Drilling

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Fungibility is precisely why your argument is utter crap.
    not at all. supply remains supply.

    #5 actually.
    now that's interesting - that's changed in the past couple of years. Guess nationalization isn't everything it's cracked up to be.

    Then your argument does not make sense.
    in fact it does. I don't pretend there will be no effect, I point out that the effect becomes manageable.

    Uh. Thanks for admitting you don't know how commodities markets work. Your idea won't work. Venezuela will merely create a number of sham holding organizations and agents to shuffle the heavy sulfur oil around such an import restriction
    we can identify venezuelan oil. I don't care who ships it here, we don't process it. Remember that this doesn't need to be any kind of permanent exercise; that regime is already unstable enough.

    Or merely sell the oil futures over and over again
    at discounted prices each time? who buys oil futures from people with no future?

    Furthermore, your idea would require the US government to directly bar or place restrictions refineries from buying that crude
    and I'm fine with that.

    That will only increase oil prices
    you are correct.

    Furthermore, Venezuela will merely cut deals with other nations trading the oil for other items in a barter sort of way it already does with Cuba.
    and they will do what with it? they cant' turn it into gasoline.

    Which at the most liberal estimate is 10 years.
    considering that's the point where we are going to most need the revenue and growth, gosh, I guess we'd better get started right away, then, huh?

    10 years away I should stop saving for retirement - it's 40 years away. 40 years away will obviously never come and I will never wish in 40 years that I had saved now. Why plan for the future when in the long run we're all dead and I can just spend my way into prosperity?

    And that means prices go down how again?
    in the same way that Republicans are "cutting" Medicaid - we reduce them off the baseline. Why should we have (inflation adjusted) $5 a gallon gas in 2020 when we could have $4?

    That does not make logical sense (Like all your posts!). Getting off oil at least for transportation needs would dramatically reduce the price of oil and thereby revenue to Russia, Venezuela and Iran (and Saudi Arabia which is a two sided problem).
    ah, yes, the magical unicorn windmills again. And ethanol. perhaps cars in the future will run off of solar panels that are placed on windmills anchored by algae? and, pray tell, what transportation fuel is sitting on the shelves ready to be put into place that will run our vehicles cheaper than gasoline? Oh, this is a "let's just keep gas prices high and hope one comes along" plan? how in the world does that jibe with:

    But not in the way you are thinking. Chavez needs the US committed to oil to keep prices high. If the US dramatically reduces its oil demand, Chavez will fall.
    when what you propose is ostensibly a deliberate "let's keep gas high" plan.

    and on the contrary. the US need only cut it's demand for Venezuelan oil and Chavez falls. That's what being a monopsony means - when we stop buying, Chavez is F'd.

    Except that being a major supplier won't change prices with the amounts we bring and the total aggregate demand. All you have done is create some more jobs and keep American demand right where Russia wants it.
    All I have done is created more jobs. And raised revenue. And raised GDP. And raised our growth rate. kept American demand where Russia wants it? American demand for energy only goes up along with the rest of the world. When an alternative source becomes more efficient and cheaper than gas, then we go with gas. until then, let's beat Russia at her own game - we can outproduce her.

    Furthermore, the cost of getting oil to Eastern Europe far outweighs the benefits.
    Depends on whether or not Russia has decided to cut them off for political gain. You're the one who felt the need to point out how fungible oil is.

    You do realize that oil is primarily used for transportation fuel no with industrial uses for byproducts?
    and lots of byproducts at that.

    Wind and solar are base grid power sources. Not the same thing.
    yup; which is why i find it hilarious when people talk about them as alternative energy sources. not to mention that the tech isn't there, windmills are unreliable (and have to be paired with coal) and would take up too much space.

    We can replace petroleum based transportation networks with a mix of natural gas and electric fuels
    if people wanted to do that, or if it were economically efficient to do that, then we would be doing so.

    since they don't and it isn't, they aren't.

    (incidentally, just pointing out, when people discuss windmills and solar as replacements for gasoline, they are talking about electric cars receiving power from the grid. Just thought you might like to know that basic, elementary fact ).

    That alone would dramatically reduce oil demand and basically annihilate the large revenues to Russia.
    how much oil does Russia sell to the US?

    not all that much, really. but oil is fungible (again), and a reduction in demand will reduce the world price.

    but so will an increase in supply.

    the difference being that artificially increasing the price of oil in hopes of eventually producing a viable alternative reduces our productivity and destroys wealth and jobs, while increasing our production and the world supply on the market creates wealth and jobs.

    that decision is so easy, a caveman could do it. and only a modern malthusian could **** it up.
    Last edited by cpwill; 05-09-11 at 08:27 PM.

  7. #127
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:29 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,431

    Re: Domestic Drilling

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    not at all. supply remains supply.



    now that's interesting - that's changed in the past couple of years. Guess nationalization isn't everything it's cracked up to be.



    in fact it does. I don't pretend there will be no effect, I point out that the effect becomes manageable.



    we can identify venezuelan oil. I don't care who ships it here, we don't process it. Remember that this doesn't need to be any kind of permanent exercise; that regime is already unstable enough.
    Venezuela also owns most of the refineries that process its crude in the US (so unless you support nationalization/theft) Venezuela can also remove a significant portion of US refinery capacity. Causing a large spike in US gas prices

    at discounted prices each time? who buys oil futures from people with no future?



    and I'm fine with that.



    you are correct.



    and they will do what with it? they cant' turn it into gasoline.
    Not just to Cuba, Venezuela is increasing exports to China, and China is building refineries capable of handling Venezuelan crude. The US will in the future not be the monopsony that it has been regarding Ven crude

    considering that's the point where we are going to most need the revenue and growth, gosh, I guess we'd better get started right away, then, huh?

    10 years away I should stop saving for retirement - it's 40 years away. 40 years away will obviously never come and I will never wish in 40 years that I had saved now. Why plan for the future when in the long run we're all dead and I can just spend my way into prosperity?



    in the same way that Republicans are "cutting" Medicaid - we reduce them off the baseline. Why should we have (inflation adjusted) $5 a gallon gas in 2020 when we could have $4?



    ah, yes, the magical unicorn windmills again. And ethanol. perhaps cars in the future will run off of solar panels that are placed on windmills anchored by algae? and, pray tell, what transportation fuel is sitting on the shelves ready to be put into place that will run our vehicles cheaper than gasoline? Oh, this is a "let's just keep gas prices high and hope one comes along" plan? how in the world does that jibe with:



    when what you propose is ostensibly a deliberate "let's keep gas high" plan.

    and on the contrary. the US need only cut it's demand for Venezuelan oil and Chavez falls. That's what being a monopsony means - when we stop buying, Chavez is F'd.



    All I have done is created more jobs. And raised revenue. And raised GDP. And raised our growth rate. kept American demand where Russia wants it? American demand for energy only goes up along with the rest of the world. When an alternative source becomes more efficient and cheaper than gas, then we go with gas. until then, let's beat Russia at her own game - we can outproduce her.



    Depends on whether or not Russia has decided to cut them off for political gain. You're the one who felt the need to point out how fungible oil is.



    and lots of byproducts at that.



    yup; which is why i find it hilarious when people talk about them as alternative energy sources. not to mention that the tech isn't there, windmills are unreliable (and have to be paired with coal) and would take up too much space.



    if people wanted to do that, or if it were economically efficient to do that, then we would be doing so.

    since they don't and it isn't, they aren't.

    (incidentally, just pointing out, when people discuss windmills and solar as replacements for gasoline, they are talking about electric cars receiving power from the grid. Just thought you might like to know that basic, elementary fact ).



    how much oil does Russia sell to the US?

    not all that much, really. but oil is fungible (again), and a reduction in demand will reduce the world price.

    but so will an increase in supply.

    the difference being that artificially increasing the price of oil in hopes of eventually producing a viable alternative reduces our productivity and destroys wealth and jobs, while increasing our production and the world supply on the market creates wealth and jobs.

    that decision is so easy, a caveman could do it. and only a modern malthusian could **** it up.
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  8. #128
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,069

    Re: Domestic Drilling

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    Venezuela also owns most of the refineries that process its crude in the US (so unless you support nationalization/theft) Venezuela can also remove a significant portion of US refinery capacity.
    not at all. they are free to keep their refineries. we just don't let them refine anything, or let the crud in the country.

    Causing a large spike in US gas prices Not just to Cuba, Venezuela is increasing exports to China, and China is building refineries capable of handling Venezuelan crude. The US will in the future not be the monopsony that it has been regarding Ven crude
    which is yet another reason why we should take advantage of everything we have now so we can strike while the window remains.

  9. #129
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Domestic Drilling

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Hmmm...

    Unless we in the US were paying more than anyone else in the world, which I do not believe is the case. And there are probably other factors that might counter that. But I'm not too clear on this area, so you are probably correct.
    Well. This gets complicated. There are a few large areas of refinement in the US. They aren't linked well at all. So it's hard for crude to move from one portion of the country to the other. So a refinery in Texas will buy crude from Africa because it's cheaper overall then buying Alaskan oil. For the same reason they will also export refined oil because the profit is better on exporting then to truck it across the country. If we put export restrictions, there stands to be a sizable amount of potential profit lost from exporting refined products. That should cause prices to increase as domestic supply is slowly reduced by reduced investment.

    I was thinking of a total export block, on both crude and refined. Possibly a bad idea though...
    Indeed.

    The problem is, at least as I understand it, that so far it's cheaper to keep oil-based systems in place.
    At least in the short run. But in the end we do pay for it.

    Until we have alternate fuel vehicles that are cheaper overall than oil-fueled vehicles, including the initial cost and the upkeep, we're going to have people/businesses sticking with oil as a power source unless they're making a political or ideological statement.
    Indeed. Hence the role of government comes in. People don't see this as a security issue in the aspect of propping up opposing governments. Would Putin last if oil was 50% of its current price? Maybe. Chavez would be toast though. The one place I'd worry about is Saudi Arabia. A massive price drop could potentially remove the Monarchy and considering the radically conservative Islamic views there, that might be worse off overall.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #130
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Domestic Drilling

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    not at all. supply remains supply.
    Not in the way you are thinking. Your argument is secondarily crap because you are not addressing how commodity markets work. This is probably the fundamental failing of most people when they talk about oil. They don't get how oil is priced, traded and moved. And it's painfully evident in your argument.

    now that's interesting - that's changed in the past couple of years. Guess nationalization isn't everything it's cracked up to be.
    More likely it's a combination of declining production, increasing US imports from other nations and increasing exports of Venezuelan oil to other nations. But I do not disagree that Nationalization is bad for oil production for a number of reasons.

    I don't pretend there will be no effect, I point out that the effect becomes manageable.
    And you do this where?

    we can identify venezuelan oil. I don't care who ships it here, we don't process it. Remember that this doesn't need to be any kind of permanent exercise; that regime is already unstable enough.
    So you'd force the government to intercede with the private commodities market that would effectively cause refineries to reduce their profit margins even further from where they stand now only to watch Venezuela sell its oil to China and thus actually hurt the US overall with no impacts to Chavez? That's epic fail there.

    at discounted prices each time? who buys oil futures from people with no future?
    No need discounts. The fluctuation in oil alone should ensure there is always a market. No future you say? Chavez is not going anywhere as long as oil stays near its current prices.

    and I'm fine with that.
    And thus why you're a fake conservative.

    and they will do what with it? they cant' turn it into gasoline.
    If this was 2006/2007 you'd be right. CNOOC and Sinopec have spent huge amounts of money over the past years to build high sulfur refineries. Sinopec alone increased capacity by leaps and bounds.

    considering that's the point where we are going to most need the revenue and growth, gosh, I guess we'd better get started right away, then, huh?

    10 years away I should stop saving for retirement - it's 40 years away. 40 years away will obviously never come and I will never wish in 40 years that I had saved now. Why plan for the future when in the long run we're all dead and I can just spend my way into prosperity?
    Hyperbole much? My point (which you seem content to ignore) is that we cannot bring prices down with domestic drilling. The 10 year argument is merely to contrast additional supply with additional demand to point out you are wrong. The corollary argument is that we should be getting OFF oil not getting more attached. Additional drilling is fine. That will slow prices. But it cannot reduce prices.


    in the same way that Republicans are "cutting" Medicaid - we reduce them off the baseline. Why should we have (inflation adjusted) $5 a gallon gas in 2020 when we could have $4?
    So, no, they aren't reduced. Got it.

    ah, yes, the magical unicorn windmills again.
    Still confused about base load for grids and liquid fuel eh?

    And ethanol. perhaps cars in the future will run off of solar panels that are placed on windmills anchored by algae? and, pray tell, what transportation fuel is sitting on the shelves ready to be put into place that will run our vehicles cheaper than gasoline? Oh, this is a "let's just keep gas prices high and hope one comes along" plan?
    It's amusing someone like you just argued the market can't provide an alternative given the potential for profit. I guess we need more government? Inconsistent you are much. Higher gas prices make alternatives more profitable, more likely to attract investment and more likely to generate viable alternatives.

    Unless you think that people don't respond to profit. Way to totally kick your principles to the curb there.

    how in the world does that jibe with:

    when what you propose is ostensibly a deliberate "let's keep gas high" plan.
    Easy. Oil prices stay high to ensure the investment for alternatives and which we wean ourselves off from oil and watch Chavez fall to pieces. No one said (honestly) this is going to be fast.

    and on the contrary. the US need only cut it's demand for Venezuelan oil and Chavez falls. That's what being a monopsony means - when we stop buying, Chavez is F'd.
    That only makes sense if you do not account for the realities in the market today. Chavez has a ready buyer in Chinese high sulfur refineries. And any cut in US acceptance of Venezuelan oil will merely cause demand to increase for the other amounts of oil causing US based oil future demand to spike prices will inevitably will aid Chavez. Considering how everything you propose helps Chavez, one must wonder if you aren't secretly his fan. Or too ignorant to understand your own arguments.

    All I have done is created more jobs. And raised revenue. And raised GDP. And raised our growth rate.
    See above. While there will be more jobs, revenue is questionable as the impact of higher gas prices reduced GDP.

    kept American demand where Russia wants it? American demand for energy only goes up along with the rest of the world. When an alternative source becomes more efficient and cheaper than gas, then we go with gas. until then, let's beat Russia at her own game - we can outproduce her.
    Clearly not a student of geology either. Much less history. Or Russia. Or anything for that matter. The US does not have the geological economically recoverable hydrocarbon deposits that Russia does. Nor do we have the crony capitalism that allows it to produce more with basically no rules regarding labor and environmental protections.

    Depends on whether or not Russia has decided to cut them off for political gain. You're the one who felt the need to point out how fungible oil is.
    While that always is a threat, Putin knows doing that enough will ensure that Europe gets its own more reliable supply or goes alternative. Putin is play the same game as the Saudis. Oil is a tool that can only be pushed so far before there is backlash. Russia needs them to buy oil. Ticking them off to the point they invest in non-Russian energy sources is stupid.

    and lots of byproducts at that.
    True. Some of which are being replaced with organic replacements.

    yup; which is why i find it hilarious when people talk about them as alternative energy sources. not to mention that the tech isn't there, windmills are unreliable (and have to be paired with coal) and would take up too much space.
    Except you don't get the difference between base load for grids and liquid fuel. Windmills at the moment don't make sense due to the make up of how the US grid works. Wind is pretty consistent in the parts of the US where major farms are. So reliability is not the issue. It's transportation of the electricity. That can be solved though.

    if people wanted to do that, or if it were economically efficient to do that, then we would be doing so.
    Except that there is a growing number of electric and CNG vehicles in this country. CNG filling stations are starting to pop up across the country. C'mon. You are not that ignorant.

    incidentally, just pointing out, when people discuss windmills and solar as replacements for gasoline, they are talking about electric cars receiving power from the grid. Just thought you might like to know that basic, elementary fact.
    Just thought you'd like to know that the issue with windmills and solar is not their reliability. It's the issue of transferring gigawatts of power across the nation. Just thought you might like to know that basic, elementary fact anyone who bothered to educate themselves on this topic before opening their mouths should have known (clearly not you). You confused the issue of reliability with efficiency of transfer. How many times have you failed here? I've lost track.

    but so will an increase in supply
    If only we had the geological resources to do that. What a shame.

    the difference being that artificially increasing the price of oil in hopes of eventually producing a viable alternative reduces our productivity and destroys wealth and jobs, while increasing our production and the world supply on the market creates wealth and jobs.
    It's interesting how you just called the market a failure despite the rise of electric and alternative fuel vehicles. I take it a large portion of your 401K is in oil stocks?

    that decision is so easy, a caveman could do it. and only a modern malthusian could **** it up.
    Interestingly enough, you are arguing the malthusian position here. You just don't realize it.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 13 of 25 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •