SuperCharger Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 I'm rooting for gas prices to continue to rise until we're forced off fossil fuels. I see no other way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 I'm rooting for gas prices to continue to rise until we're forced off fossil fuels. I see no other way. Forced off to what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twiley Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Forced off to what? Duh... It's a well known fact, that there's a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as The Pentavirate, who run everything in the world, including the gas prices and alternative energy sources, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado, known as The Meadows. It will all be solved in no time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted June 11, 2008 Author Share Posted June 11, 2008 Duh...It's a well known fact, that there's a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as The Pentavirate, who run everything in the world, including the gas prices and alternative energy sources, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado, known as The Meadows. It will all be solved in no time. Including Colonel Sanders until he went tits-up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 (edited) I'm rooting for gas prices to continue to rise until we're forced off fossil fuels. I see no other way. That's a bit extreme, but I agree with the underlying sentiment. Sure, we could drill in the arctic. That gives the nation what, like gas for like a year; maybe two? Whoppy. The way I see it, those are strategic reserves, the value of which has appriciated tremoundoulsy over the last few years. It should be protected and conserved for a true national emergency; not squandered upon the first instance of national economic discomfort. If you think $4.00 a gallon gas constitutes a "national emergency" then you need to rub some dirt on your bagina and toughen up. During past wars the nation was compelled to ration meat, rubber, fuel, etc. All we're being asked to do now is pay more for a resource that's remains readily available to all. Edited June 11, 2008 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twiley Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Including Colonel Sanders until he went tits-up Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee *beady* eyes, and that smug look on his face. "Oh, you're gonna buy my chicken! Ohhhhh!" He puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes ya crave it fortnightly, smartass! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperCharger Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Forced off to what? Nuclear, Solar, Wind, Geo-Thermal... $4.00/gallon is nothing, wait til $6.00+/gallon. My family has already made the lifestyle changes to reduce the impact of soaring oil prices and hopefully one day before I die my house and car won't be powered by burning dead dinosaurs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoopazz Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 For what its worth, we are (finally) starting to get alot of funding interest from DoE and DoD for our carbon to liquids development center. Until recently, we've operated on mostly private investor funding, but the gubmit is finally coming around (always behind the ball). DoD is really becoming serious about reducing their dependence on middle eastern oil...<insert joke here>. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 come on now... how about some love for some cleaner coal technology Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Public transportation, bicycling, electric cars... at least until a better fuel system is put in place. Nuclear, Solar, Wind, Geo-Thermal... That's all fine and dandy, but you realize none of that would come close to making a dent in moving the people of this country let alone the world for quite some time? Be careful what you wish for there SuperCharger. If we see prices at $6, we'll also see inflation like back in the 70s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoopazz Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 come on now... how about some love for some cleaner coal technology My take is, coal gasification and expanded nukes for power generation. Increased fuel efficiency in vehicles (market drive of course, but how about some incentives?), hybrids, and biofuels in transportation sector. Major investment in H2 development. Increased drilling for oil is a bandaid at best, and most likely a bad investment and idea overall. I prefer to not get political about energy, but lets just say that some folks just don't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Sure, we could drill in the arctic. That gives the nation what, like gas for like a year; maybe two? You, not anyone else has any idea. How about the shale oil I spoke of above? How about all the oil 50 miles off floriduh that China, India and Brazil are fighting for? In other news.. Historically, says Fadel Gheit, a veteran oil analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. in New York, oil prices have run about three times what it costs to physically extract a barrel from the ground. Given that these extraction costs run between $15 to $19 a barrel worldwide, the "correct" price should be somewhere between $45 to $57. Indeed, as recently as 2005, OPEC itself claimed that $45 was a reasonable price. If that's true, we're paying a speculative premium of up to $45 for each barrel, or about $1 for each gallon of gasoline. If nearly half the price of oil isn't justified by fundamentals like supply and demand, then sooner or later the price must fall. I think the price will drop BIG in september-november time frame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 its really not that difficult. drill for the oil that is there in anwar and the gulf. also begin the search and transition to alternative sources and means of power. a smooth transition is what we need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee *beady* eyes, and that smug look on his face. "Oh, you're gonna buy my chicken! Ohhhhh!" Brother, you ain't kidding. Then he'd turn off the lights and you'd regret you'd worn shorts that day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 There honestly isn't much to do about the short-term pain. The country (government, citizens, and businesses) need take a long-term approach to this issue. Nobody likes to hear that, but its the only honest answer there is to give. Do you think China is going to stop growing anytime soon? India? Do we really believe more oil is going to magically appear underneath the earth's crust? There are certain factors that could certainly help out, like stability in the middle east. But even if the US halts the war in Iraq and was magically gone tomorrow that place is going to be a mess for a long time; it always has been. We've benefited from low-cost gas for decades, relative to other developed countries. Those days are over. We can sit around and lament about those days, like a Detroit auto worker wondering where the hell his job went. Or we can rise to the challenge and reinvent how we consume and produce energy. It just might take a couple decades. I agree with that, but the long-term look absolutely needs to include ways of increasing domestic production over the next several decades. it isn't just about alternative fuels. even under the most optimistic "alternative" scenario, we are still going to be using a lot of oil for a good two, three decades minimum. that is 20 or 30 years where we should be producing every drop of oil we can domestically because it is one less drop we have to buy from sheik yerOPEC or hugo chavez. part of the problem is that a lot of people (some have said it in this thread), think high oil prices are GOOD. the higher the better, baby -- and that is ultimately why they oppose measures like drilling in ANWR. the pain will force us to adapt, they say. well....high oil prices are NOT good. they cripple the economy. they create hugh inflationary pressure. quite simply they negate economic value ("happiness"). all things given their due, energy prices this high are NOT good for america. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 That's a bit extreme, but I agree with the underlying sentiment. Sure, we could drill in the arctic. That gives the nation what, like gas for like a year; maybe two? Whoppy. The way I see it, those are strategic reserves, the value of which has appriciated tremoundoulsy over the last few years. It should be protected and conserved for a true national emergency; not squandered upon the first instance of national economic discomfort. dude. it takes 10 years to do all the groundwork to get it pumping. so, we're supposed to wait until we have a "national emergency", and then to help us out of that emergency we'll have some new domestic oil supply 10 years later? bottom line is 10 years from now, that is supply that will either be online or it won't. and however many barrels a day that is, it is oil we can either be producing domestically or we can buy it from opec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 (edited) one more thing...the world is going to move away from fossil fuels either way, because they are more expensive and less efficient (at least prospectively) than alternative sources. that process is already well underway, and I have faith in technology. we really don't need to hasten it by wilfully and intentionally crippling the world economy with higher oil prices, that is simply dumb. damn envirofundamentalist ascetics trying to force their morality down everyone's throat Edited June 12, 2008 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 (edited) dude. it takes 10 years to do all the groundwork to get it pumping. so, we're supposed to wait until we have a "national emergency", and then to help us out of that emergency we'll have some new domestic oil supply 10 years later? bottom line is 10 years from now, that is supply that will either be online or it won't. and however many barrels a day that is, it is oil we can either be producing domestically or we can buy it from opec. First, experts estimate that it would take 5-10 years to get it pumping. How objective of you to round to the upper most extreme. Second, I'm not that concerned about that time frame because we've got the United States' Strategic Petroleum Reserve: an emergency petroleum store maintained by the Department of Energy. It is the largest emergency supply in the world and its at near 100% capacity. Bottom line: as you pointed out, drilling in the Arctic won't give anyone relief at the pump anytime soon. Furthermore, we would never have to rely on the Arctic on an emergency basis. That's why we we have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Ergo, drilling in the Arctic now makes no sense at all for consumers or for the nation. There's only one segment of our country that benefits from drilling that oil now. Better to leave it until we *really* need it for something. And for the record, I could give a rat's ass about the caribou. I'm coming at this from the utilitarian perspective of allocating finite resources. If we can't use that oil for another 5-10 years anyways, and it fails to offer a long-term solution, then we're better of continuing to store that oil and developing alternative fuels with the same 5-10 year horizon in mind. Edited June 12, 2008 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 First, experts estimate that it would take 5-10 years to get it pumping. How objective of you to round to the upper most extreme. Second, I'm not that concerned about that time frame because we've got the United States' Strategic Petroleum Reserve: an emergency petroleum store maintained by the Department of Energy. It is the largest emergency supply in the world and its at near 100% capacity. Bottom line: as you pointed out, drilling in the Arctic won't give anyone relief at the pump anytime soon. Furthermore, we would never have to rely on the Arctic on an emergency basis. That's why we we have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Ergo, drilling in the Arctic now makes no sense at all for consumers or for the nation. There's only one segment of our country that benefits from drilling that oil now. Better to leave it until we *really* need it for something. And for the record, I could give a rat's ass about the caribou. I'm coming at this from the utilitarian perspective of allocating finite resources. If we can't use that oil for another 5-10 years anyways, and it fails to offer a long-term solution, then we're better of continuing to store that oil and developing alternative fuels with the same 5-10 year horizon in mind. My question....and it always has been....is if the oil companies get their wish and get to drill in the arctic and the plain states......do they have to buy the oil from the American people....since it would be them that own the oil? Or, would the oil companies get all the profit from the drilling and refining of the oil? Just curious how this would work since it is the Nations land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 First, experts estimate that it would take 5-10 years to get it pumping. How objective of you to round to the upper most extreme. could be, but all I've ever heard is 10 years. probably from people arguing against drilling there saying, as you do below, "hey, what good does it do to drill there now if we won't see the oil for 10 years?" Bottom line: as you pointed out, drilling in the Arctic won't give anyone relief at the pump anytime soon. Furthermore, we would never have to rely on the Arctic on an emergency basis. That's why we we have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Ergo, drilling in the Arctic now makes no sense at all for consumers or for the nation. There's only one segment of our country that benefits from drilling that oil now. Better to leave it until we *really* need it for something. nobody benefits from it now, except maybe the US government who owns the land and would be getting a few bucks on the oil leases. the companies doing the drilling don't benefit until the oil goes to market. in any case, your argument here doesn't make sense. it won't have an immediate impact on oil supply, we don't need it as a strategic reserve, therefore it doesn't make sense to drill? are those the only two reasons why we would drill? let me offer another reason: in 10 years, or 5 if you prefer (all the better), we can have an additional significant domestic oil supply...or we can not have that additional supply and buy those million barrels per day from OPEC. I would submit that we will be much better off having that additional domestic supply and being less dependent on foreign oil. And for the record, I could give a rat's ass about the caribou. I'm coming at this from the utilitarian perspective of allocating finite resources. If we can't use that oil for another 5-10 years anyways, and it fails to offer a long-term solution, then we're better of continuing to store that oil and developing alternative fuels with the same 5-10 year horizon in mind. I am assuming that in a few decades, drilling for oil will basically be economically obsolete due to technological advances with more efficient energy sources. if we start drilling now, and start pumping in 8 years or whatever...according to this, the potential production from the ANWR fields would peak at least two decades after drilling started, and presumably continue (if needed) for a few decades after that. so let's say we've got 8 years to get it up and running, 20 more of grandually increasing production up to its peak output, and then 20 more years of slowly declining production (it's probably more than that but let's just say 20 years). that is a 48 year window. well, in 48 years, I am assuming the oil is going to be obsolete, not even worth taking out of the ground. so what possible good can we get from sitting on this oil and doing nothing with it? which just brings us back to the only relevant question here....in 8 years, is the US better off producing an additional million or so barrels a day domestically or buying that million barrels per day from saudi arabia and venezuela? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 There's only one segment of our country that benefits from drilling that oil now The citizens of alaska. Right. Listen, you really don't know anything about this issue at all, if we announced TODAY that we were going to drill ANWR, and off Floriduh, and in the rockies, the price would DROP immediatly. To say otherwise shows quite ignorance on the topic of how this all works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 My question....and it always has been....is if the oil companies get their wish and get to drill in the arctic and the plain states......do they have to buy the oil from the American people....since it would be them that own the oil? Or, would the oil companies get all the profit from the drilling and refining of the oil? Just curious how this would work since it is the Nations land. I believe they would purchase an oil lease from the government, just like they would purchase an oil lease from you if they wanted to dig a well in your backyard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 The citizens of alaska. Right. Listen, you really don't know anything about this issue at all, if we announced TODAY that we were going to drill ANWR, and off Floriduh, and in the rockies, the price would DROP immediatly. To say otherwise shows quite ignorance on the topic of how this all works. You fix computers. I'm was in-house counsel at a major oil and gas company. Yeah, I see your point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 You fix computers. I'm was in-house counsel at a major oil and gas company. Yeah, I see your point. well maybe h8 fixed computers for a major oil and gas company? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 well maybe h8 fixed computers for a major oil and gas company? Perhaps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.