or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › New Republican coordinated plan to blame Democrats for high oil prices
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Republican coordinated plan to blame Democrats for high oil prices - Page 3

post #81 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Because the the right-wing offshore drilling is a scam too.

Some people on these forums are just so gullible, and I think they know who they are.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #82 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

Nice link. I've been thinking very similar thoughts, and just finished composing the following......

I must say..... it's been fun to watch the massive assault of oil reserve and production facts being deflected by the mighty fact-proof shields of The Usual Suspects, along with a barrage of personal digs running in both directions.

But I'd like to move back to the original point of how the Republicans are mounting a huge coordinated assault around this issue.

It looks to me like Republicans are trying to reframe the entire 2008 election around domestic oil drilling.

This is the issue they are going to try to hammer the Democrats with - over, and over. They know the Democratic party is going to fight this, and that's exactly what they want them to do. They couldn't give less of a damn if drilling is actually approved.

That way, they can shift the blame for high gas prices away from the devalued dollar, ongoing Middle East instability, rampant speculation, and rising worldwide demand, which are the actual causes.

The real beauty of it all is that they are actually trying to benefit from a crisis of their own making. It's positively..... ROVIAN!

Whether or not it works on moderates and independents nationwide, they're throwing California right out the window, and pushing Florida hard towards it.

... only people are willing to open their own eyes up to the actual facts.

Just look at the asinine finger pointing in this thread. It in it's entirety, minus the facts that some of us have put forward, amounts to so much name calling. And when the name callers get called out on their lies, because they don't present any hard data, they just throw out old tired stereotypes, and then they really look foolish and stupid.

I mean seriously, I agree with your coordinated attack by the Republicans, but all it is, is a facade, to avoid the central issue, long term planning. Something this administration will never get to regardless of their current posturing.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #83 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Al Gore could use a nuclear power plant across from his mansion.


Or 609,696,000 households for 1 second each. Got to love their math. \

And unless I actually see Gore's electric meter running, I'll take the TPCC numbers with a grain of salt. Gore probably paid mush more per kilowatt-hour since he was using energy obtained from renewable sources. We don't know how many kWh Gore's household actually used, unless the TPCC is forthcoming with their numbers, or what Gore's household paid per kWH.

As of right now, considering that this is the 3rd time that TPCC has pulled this stunt, I'll just have to assume they took his total bill and divided it by the lower per kWh charged for regular fossil fuel based energy.

[CENTER]
Quote:
I am happy to provide more information about this from the Gores perspective. First, this release yesterday are a mere re-release of old bills. If any of you have ever worked with contractors, you know that renovations take years. The Gores renovated a 80 year old house from stem to stern. This took about 3 years to go through all the ducwork, to install a geothermal system, to replace all the windows, to put in solar panels (which used to be illegal in Bellemeade and took 6 months to reverse).

So, to be clear, the Gores achieved Gold LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification in November 2007. The reduction in the electricity and natural gas billsyou need to look at both in order to truly evaluate their carbon footprint, really kicked in in 2008. At that point, evaluating both, there is about a 40 percent reduction.

Their natural gas bill has seen the biggest reduction as a result of the geothermal system. For electricity, they purchase green power through their utility, which is called Green Power Switch. It isnt an offset, any customer can purchase green power (solar, wind, methane gas) and its a wonderful program.

[/CENTER]

Further Refutation Of Al Gores Alleged Energy Guzzle

Thought so.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #84 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Some people on these forums are just so gullible, and I think they know who they are.

One thing is true. We didn't go into Afghanistan or Iraq to spread freedom and democracy..
post #85 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

One thing is true. We didn't go into Afghanistan or Iraq to spread freedom and democracy..

I'd definitely agree with the Iraq part.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #86 of 297
I hope the Iraqis are getting the best deal for them.
post #87 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I'd definitely agree with the Iraq part.

Ahem...

Also...The Oil Connection: Afghanistan and Caspian Sea oil pipeline routes.
post #88 of 297
[quote=groverat;1266740]SDW2001:

Are you honestly saying we should base energy policy on unproven oil reserves?

"Let's jump off a cliff and hope we evolve wings before landing."

Quote:
I'm saying that we should, you know, drill for the oil we know we have. We're not even doing that.

Quote:



And then you post an article about underestimation in 1920.

Your desperation is embarrassing. It's like seeing flop-sweat accumulate, just on the Internet.

It's just an example, and it's not the first time or last time it happened. The USGS has consistently underestimated oil reserves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... about increasing domestic production and if it would reduce the price of gas at the pump. Guess what his answer was? Unlikely.

That's dumb. Of course it would decrease prices.

Quote:

An error of 5-6 million barrels per day is not a small number, that's an error of 25+ percent.

IT DOESN'T MATTER, FRANK. And honestly, perhaps you and your genius could show me where I went wrong. I added up domestic oil production and imports. Where does the other 5m come from?

Quote:

Oh, ans since you've gone off on a tangent, you never responded to my Q.E.D. GAT post, I was itching to provide a rigorous proof that temperature measurements made 158 years ago are just as good as today's, when rounded to the nearest whole degree. See Binomial distribution, and use the AVERAGE, STDEVP, MEDIAN, RAND, and ROUND functions in an Excel spreadsheet, it's really quite easy.

Yes, and 15mpbd is just as accurate as 20mpbd, if we round up. I mean shit...one can't make this stuff up!

Quote:

Oh, I also recall your claim for Ronald Reagan doubling revenues, which needed 10 FY's for that claim to be true, you sort of disappeared when I proved you wrong on that one also.

I did respond. Again though, you chose to move the goal posts as well as focus on semantics and minutiae. In your typical liberal way, you do so to the point of missing the overall point. Even if using your numbers, revenue went up dramatically. Alright, so maybe it's 40% intead of 50. Who cares. I even demonstrated that after inflation and large tax cuts, revenue went up significantly. The point was that revenue went up...a lot. But you don't care.

Quote:

Quote:
The truth is that you can't deal with factual objective data honestly.

See my post above, which I believe, supports your POV. Surprised?

Didn't read it. My Frank Filter was engaged.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

We are allowed to do except for some areas near the shore. We explored the GoM and found a new field there.

Those areas are perfectly safe to drill, and we need to do so. Our current fields are clearly not enough, not when we import 65% of our oil.

Quote:


EIA estimates is that ANWR peaks at around 750K bpd.

I'm betting it's more, but even if that's true...it would be almost 10% of what we import.
Think that might have an impact.

Quote:


US production will continue to drop and there was already an assumption that new fields would be found to replace current fields that are depleted in the timeframe.

It doesn't have to drop. We have billions of barrels of oil, perhaps hundreds of billions of barrels. IT's more than enough to offset a lot of our foreign imports, at least until we can begin to ween ourselves from oil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

" I'd rather direct you to the fact that your personal insults and pseudo-"gotchas" do not contribute to any real exchange of ideas. "

Well I seem to remember it wasn't SDW who first decided ( instead of an exchange of ideas ) to correct my spelling instead of replying to my arguments.

Why do you think you ended up on my ignore list for awhile?

jimmac, you must live in a fucking bizzaro world. You NEVER post data to support your opinions. See the discussion on Obama v. McCain. This pattern has been repeated dozens of times on various topics. Your responses vary from "no one's buying today" to "people want change" to ones that include words you don't understand how to us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Now McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/...nukKgjSD.s0NUE

Think he'd like one across the street from his mansion?

This is really it with liberals: No solution is acceptable. We can't have more oil. We can't use Ethanol because it hurts food prices. Coal is dirty. Nuclear power is dangerous.

The answer to you is to "conserve." You're perfect as an Obama voter, because you believe this: Americans must do with less. You think that we can conserve our way out of energy problems, but we cannot. The energy has to come from somewhere, Berg.

Otherwise you won't be able to type your inane liberal rantings on your nice Mac, while sitting in the comfort of air conditioning, munching your organic banana peels right before you smoke your bong and listen to Rage Against The Machine.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #89 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

And we've been told they aren't Socialists (or Marxists or Communists).


Hinchey is likely to get thrown under the bus for being such a dumbass.
post #90 of 297
I'd like to slow down and ask:

Who is at fault for high oil prices? My contention is that Congress bears the vast majority of the responsibility, as does the current administration and previous ones. The oil companies bear some it, because they are taking advantage of the situation and making tens of billions every quarter too.

Secondly, there can be no doubt that it is primarily Democrats that have made sure supplies have been tight. Clinton vetoed ANWR when oil was $19 a barrel. Democrats, whom are beholden to the environmental lobby, have forbidding new drilling and exploration, as well as the construction of refineries. At the same time, they have blocked nuclear power, coal, etc.

Your thoughts....
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #91 of 297
PERHAPS 60% OF TODAY'S OIL PRICE IS PURE SPECULATION

Quote:
The price of crude oil today is not made according to any traditional relation of supply to demand. It’s controlled by an elaborate financial market system as well as by the four major Anglo-American oil companies. As much as 60% of today’s crude oil price is pure speculation driven by large trader banks and hedge funds. It has nothing to do with the convenient myths of Peak Oil. It has to do with control of oil and its price.

Of course this a pyramid scheme and the floor will drop out on the last people who buy those futures at the peak. No one knows when that will come.

This is a shakedown and a sham. A result of loopholes in the regulation of oil price market power. NYMEX and London ICE traders can buy their own exchanges' products at the opposing exchanges trading desks without oversight. This is a huge problem.

Perhaps...because we shouldn't ignore Peak Oil either.

A lot of people out there are trying to spout their wisdom...from Ahmadinejad (Oil crisis is fake!), Olbermann (Enron and McCain!) and Glenn Beck (DUH!) of all people.

And I wonder which one you believed in...
post #92 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Who is at fault for high oil prices?

Looking for "fault" is only going to rile people up.

The reality is that there are multiple factors that have lead to higher prices on this resources and they all boil down to either (and probably both) supply and demand side issues.

On the supply side there are restrictions that limit exploration and refinery capacity expansion, there is an oil cartel which tries to limit production/supply.

On the demand side we have, again, multiple factors. We have a developing world that is demanding more and more energy. More people are "coming on line" into the energy consuming world. We certainly also have increased consumption (per person) in the developed world.

The thing is, higher prices should be (and are) driving two behaviors: pursuit of new (now more economically feasible) energy sources, and increase conservation.

These things take time and people are impatient and demand that things change quickly. That's usually how we get ourselves into deeper trouble, because we demand political and governmental solutions to problems that politcs and government cannot solve (and only make worse), mostly because politicians and governments don't think long term.

But the thing is with these prices is that this is exactly how the market show work (not that the energy market can be called truly free...far too much government distortion to claim that). When prices go up consumers conserve and producers look for more of the resource (unless they are artificially prohibited).

So...in what ways are conservation or production restricted and what can be done about it?

Well, on the demand side, any number of governmental regulations on the design of cars limits potential fuel efficiency. Safety and emission regulations come to mind. If automobile makers were not hemmed in here, they could change their product mix to include much more fuel efficient cars as the market demanded them.

On the supply side, there are clearly governmental limitations on exploration, drilling and refinery expansions.

If "we" decide that those limitations should remain in place (i.e., we value the limitations more than we value lower energy prices) then we probably should just shut up and suck it up. Otherwise start looking at the trade-offs.

I'll add one final thing for those thinking we need to have some kind of big government solution to all of this, I'd proceed with great caution. One of the biggest government programs ever was the nationalization of the highway and road system. The government essentially built a road system outside of the restrictions of market forces and effectively (and significantly) lower the cost of using automobiles and living more spread out than might have occurred without a subsidized road system. The result is what we're seeing now. Probably much more automobile-based transport than might have occurred otherwise. We're seeing the long-term negative consequences of a government program.
post #93 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

PERHAPS 60% OF TODAY'S OIL PRICE IS PURE SPECULATION



Of course this a pyramid scheme and the floor will drop out on the last people who buy those futures at the peak. No one knows when that will come.

This is a shakedown and a sham. A result of loopholes in the regulation of oil price market power. NYMEX and London ICE traders can buy their own exchanges' products at the opposing exchanges trading desks without oversight. This is a huge problem.

Perhaps...because we shouldn't ignore Peak Oil either.

A lot of people out there are trying to spout their wisdom...from Ahmadinejad (Oil crisis is fake!), Olbermann (Enron and McCain!) and Glenn Beck (DUH!) of all people.

And I wonder which one you believed in...

First, let me say this: Media matters? You mean a site that is dedicated to nailing conservative hosts on every mistake they might make? Please, stop. Beck was clearly wrong, as I'm sure he'd readily admit if this was pointed out.

I do agree that a lot of this is speculation. But it's not speculation without reason. More supply would ease the situation, even if the impact was psychological. However, the perception is that we won't drill for oil-- thereby keeping supplies tight. This causes more speculation. I also agree about the loopholes in the markets...that is a very serious problem.

Newt Gingrich actually had an interesting idea to nail the speculators. He said that Bush should order the immediate release of 1/3 of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (about 200 mb in one shot). This would shock the market drastically, causing the speculators to lose their shirts. They'd then think twice about driving up the cost in the way they have. Interesting thought...I don't know if it would work.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #94 of 297
Futures trading is not a pyramid scheme. It's a contract to buy something at a agreed price in the future. At some point in time oil is produced and sold for money.
post #95 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Futures trading is not a pyramid scheme. It's a contract to buy something at a agreed price in the future. At some point in time oil is produced and sold for money.

Yes, but the rules have been circumvented. Rules were setup to prevent this kind of thing, but people have found ways around them.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #96 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, but the rules have been circumvented. Rules were setup to prevent this kind of thing, but people have found ways around them.

What rules?
post #97 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

What rules?

You might want to watch that Olbermann rant...two words: Enron and Loophole.

But Olbermann's claims here are weak. This isn't a smoking gun at all. McCain has opposed the loophole in the past, in voting record and speech. The connection between him and his advisers who have histories in the future trading market is interesting, but not conclusive. Olbermann's argument about the farm bill is also weak; the thing was huge, and probably should not have passed. Just because McCain voted against it doesn't mean it was simply due to the loophole.

But this loophole has to be shut, tight.
post #98 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

What rules?

Federal law.
post #99 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Federal law.



I was looking for specifics. I haven't kept up with the whole "evil oil speculators" thing and was trying to understand what specific rules were broken. Simply saying "federal law" is vacuous. What specific rules were broken that (supposedly) have lead to the current situation (or would have prevented the situation had they been followed)? In other words, exactly what are oil speculators doing that has resulted in our current circumstances?
post #100 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

Looking for "fault" is only going to rile people up.

That's a good thing. That's when things get done. We have to know who is responsible before we can take action to correct the problem.

Quote:

The reality is that there are multiple factors that have lead to higher prices on this resources and they all boil down to either (and probably both) supply and demand side issues.

Most of it is speculation.

Quote:

On the supply side there are restrictions that limit exploration and refinery capacity expansion, there is an oil cartel which tries to limit production/supply.

On the demand side we have, again, multiple factors. We have a developing world that is demanding more and more energy. More people are "coming on line" into the energy consuming world. We certainly also have increased consumption (per person) in the developed world.

All true, but that accounts for only some of it. Most is speculation...again.

Quote:

The thing is, higher prices should be (and are) driving two behaviors: pursuit of new (now more economically feasible) energy sources, and increase conservation.

They are not more economically feasible...they are just the opposite. Conservation isn't really going to get us there, especially if by conservation you mean not keeping our homes warm and not being able to drive to work.

Quote:

These things take time and people are impatient and demand that things change quickly. That's usually how we get ourselves into deeper trouble, because we demand political and governmental solutions to problems that politcs and government cannot solve (and only make worse), mostly because politicians and governments don't think long term.

Government helped create the problem though, by limiting supply for political reasons.

Quote:

But the thing is with these prices is that this is exactly how the market show work (not that the energy market can be called truly free...far too much government distortion to claim that). When prices go up consumers conserve and producers look for more of the resource (unless they are artificially prohibited).

No, this is exactly how it's NOT supposed to work. It's not being driven by supply and demand. If it was Oil would be $60 a barrel.

Quote:

So...in what ways are conservation or production restricted and what can be done about it?

Well, on the demand side, any number of governmental regulations on the design of cars limits potential fuel efficiency. Safety and emission regulations come to mind. If automobile makers were not hemmed in here, they could change their product mix to include much more fuel efficient cars as the market demanded them.

Agreed.

Quote:

On the supply side, there are clearly governmental limitations on exploration, drilling and refinery expansions.

If "we" decide that those limitations should remain in place (i.e., we value the limitations more than we value lower energy prices) then we probably should just shut up and suck it up. Otherwise start looking at the trade-offs.

Also agreed. That "suck it up" option is not one I'll accept, though. I think most people agree, too.

Quote:

I'll add one final thing for those thinking we need to have some kind of big government solution to all of this, I'd proceed with great caution. One of the biggest government programs ever was the nationalization of the highway and road system. The government essentially built a road system outside of the restrictions of market forces and effectively (and significantly) lower the cost of using automobiles and living more spread out than might have occurred without a subsidized road system. The result is what we're seeing now. Probably much more automobile-based transport than might have occurred otherwise. We're seeing the long-term negative consequences of a government program.

The interstate highway system was also for military transport...it's one of the prime reasons the system exists. Really though...the solution to this issue is to get government the hell out of the way.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #101 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It's just an example, and it's not the first time or last time it happened. The USGS has consistently underestimated oil reserves.

This is the second time you've made this spurious statement. Link? Other than a biased source using a purported USGS estimate from 1920. Seriously, if you make such a claim, where's your evidence, other than the words from your own keyboard. \

Quote:
That's dumb. Of course it would decrease prices.

Wrong again, it won't lower oil prices, because that oil will get the going price per barrel as the global price at that time. So only if the global price changes, will new domestic oil prices change.

Quote:
IT DOESN'T MATTER, FRANK. And honestly, perhaps you and your genius could show me where I went wrong. I added up domestic oil production and imports. Where does the other 5m come from?

Go to the EIA website, I already gave you the link to the ~21 million barrels per day data. Go tell the EIA that they are lying. And if you go to their website, they have some nice pie charts showing where the EIA numbers come from. Seek and yea shall find it on the EIA website. \

Quote:
Yes, and 15mpbd is just as accurate as 20mpbd, if we round up. I mean shit...one can't make this stuff up!

Apparently you just did. Seriously, you were/are wrong just admit it, and move on.

Quote:
I did respond. Again though, you chose to move the goal posts as well as focus on semantics and minutiae. In your typical liberal way, you do so to the point of missing the overall point. Even if using your numbers, revenue went up dramatically. Alright, so maybe it's 40% intead of 50. Who cares. I even demonstrated that after inflation and large tax cuts, revenue went up significantly. [B]The point was that revenue went up...a lot. But you don't care.

I won't belabor this one, except to say revenues always go up, short of a massive change in the taxation structure, the point, is and has been, the incremental rate of change of revenue growth/loss, in that case the data clearly shows lost incremental revenues when the tax rates are lowered, and vice versa.

Quote:
Didn't read it. My Frank Filter was engaged.

USGS graphic of Total Mean Oil Resources (Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Resources) dated April 2008.

The USGS chart suggests a mean total of 48.5 BBO (Billions of Barrels of Oil) from solely onshore sources nationally. Now it's up to you to prove that this is "once again" a "gross underestimation by the USGS" with some verifiable data/link/cited sources.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #102 of 297
China steps in...

Oil drops as China says it will raise fuel prices

Quote:
Oil prices dropped Thursday after China said it will raise fuel prices, a move that could dampen the booming Asian nation's oil consumption. Retail gas prices slid overnight.

Light, sweet crude for July delivery fell $2.82 to $133.86 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, but dipped more than $3 at times.

China disclosed that it will raise the prices of gasoline, diesel, aviation kerosene and electricity.

Growing Chinese demand for oil has underpinned the multiyear rally in oil prices, but higher prices could crimp that demand. Concerns about spiking Chinese demand for diesel due to cleanup operations in the aftermath of last month's earthquake contributed to oil's recent run-up.

"This could change the psychology of the market completely," said James Cordier, president of Tampa, Fla.-based trading firms Liberty Trading Group and OptionSellers.com.

Lower demand in China "would be a major factor in driving prices down," said Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading Corp. in Chicago.
post #103 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

China steps in...

Oil drops as China says it will raise fuel prices

Raise prices? What effect would have? Reduced demand? That's umpossible!
post #104 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's a good thing. That's when things get done. We have to know who is responsible before we can take action to correct the problem.

Well I guess we'll have to disagree then. Getting people "riled up" only get them emotional. Emotionality tends to lead to irrationality. People are emotional and irrational enough.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

They are not more economically feasible...they are just the opposite.

How do you figure? When the salable price of some good rises, then other (previously too expensive) production methods become more economically feasible. That's what I was referring to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Conservation isn't really going to get us there, especially if by conservation you mean not keeping our homes warm and not being able to drive to work.

First I mean that consumers of energy will need to find more efficient ways to do the same things they currently do. Secondarily, they may have to choose to forgo some things. All resources are finite and scarce. There are no free lunches. Life is about trade offs. This is what economics is about...the allocation of scarce resources against infinite demand for those resources.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Government helped create the problem though, by limiting supply for political reasons.

Agreed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That "suck it up" option is not one I'll accept, though. I think most people agree, too.

The problem is that there are always trade offs and no free lunches. This is reality.
post #105 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'd like to slow down and ask:

Who is at fault for high oil prices?

Well isn't it obvious? It's Barack Obama's fault.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #106 of 297
[QUOTE=SDW2001;1267106]
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

SDW2001:

Are you honestly saying we should base energy policy on unproven oil reserves?

"Let's jump off a cliff and hope we evolve wings before landing."





It's just an example, and it's not the first time or last time it happened. The USGS has consistently underestimated oil reserves.



That's dumb. Of course it would decrease prices.



IT DOESN'T MATTER, FRANK. And honestly, perhaps you and your genius could show me where I went wrong. I added up domestic oil production and imports. Where does the other 5m come from?



Yes, and 15mpbd is just as accurate as 20mpbd, if we round up. I mean shit...one can't make this stuff up!



I did respond. Again though, you chose to move the goal posts as well as focus on semantics and minutiae. In your typical liberal way, you do so to the point of missing the overall point. Even if using your numbers, revenue went up dramatically. Alright, so maybe it's 40% intead of 50. Who cares. I even demonstrated that after inflation and large tax cuts, revenue went up significantly. [B]The point was that revenue went up...a lot. But you don't care.



Didn't read it. My Frank Filter was engaged.



Those areas are perfectly safe to drill, and we need to do so. Our current fields are clearly not enough, not when we import 65% of our oil.



I'm betting it's more, but even if that's true...it would be almost 10% of what we import.
Think that might have an impact.



It doesn't have to drop. We have billions of barrels of oil, perhaps hundreds of billions of barrels. IT's more than enough to offset a lot of our foreign imports, at least until we can begin to ween ourselves from oil.



jimmac, you must live in a fucking bizzaro world. You NEVER post data to support your opinions. See the discussion on Obama v. McCain. This pattern has been repeated dozens of times on various topics. Your responses vary from "no one's buying today" to "people want change" to ones that include words you don't understand how to us.



This is really it with liberals: No solution is acceptable. We can't have more oil. We can't use Ethanol because it hurts food prices. Coal is dirty. Nuclear power is dangerous.

The answer to you is to "conserve." You're perfect as an Obama voter, because you believe this: Americans must do with less. You think that we can conserve our way out of energy problems, but we cannot. The energy has to come from somewhere, Berg.

Otherwise you won't be able to type your inane liberal rantings on your nice Mac, while sitting in the comfort of air conditioning, munching your organic banana peels right before you smoke your bong and listen to Rage Against The Machine.


" jimmac, you must live in a fucking bizzaro world. You NEVER post data to support your opinions. See the discussion on Obama v. McCain. This pattern has been repeated dozens of times on various topics. Your responses vary from "no one's buying today" to "people want change" to ones that include words you don't understand how to us. "

" You're Hilarious "

" You guys are on crack "

" You're a piece of work "

" You guys are ridiculous "

" Troll "

" Dick "

" Fuck off "

Sound familure? And who's " us " ? Yes I know you forgot the " E ".

By the way your paragraph about me is a blatant lie. Yes I'm calling you a liar.

I've posted data hundreds of times complete with links. You just don't like the source. You in effect want to shoot the messenger. You then try to ignore the message.

You'll say anything to bolster your argument. And you'll say anything when backed into a corner. And conveniently forget when I gave you a pasting for it.

I've posted data you just don't like it. It's from some " Criminal Liberal Media " source you won't accept like CNN or MSNBC or ABC News. You'd much rather I get my info from some conservative, Bush supporting, rag!

This is why I don't bother much anymore. But if you'd like you could post a link to support you statement about Bush saying that he was fearful of Saddam giving or selling a terrorist one of his nonexistant WMD to attack us. Oh! And that's before the war as in support for it.

Well my dear SDW this is all coming to an end soon. I really believe Obama will be our next president ( as do most americans reflected in a recent poll here's a link and some data for you to ignore : http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/ne...ma_will_w.html ) and I also believe he'll be good for this country. A much needed tonic after the awful, long and protracted disease called the Bush administration.

I'm sure after this comes to past you'll try to continue to attack but your efforts will be increasingly hollow as times will have changed. Haven't you noticed that it used to be just you and me sparing about your alternate, bizzaro ( that's my coin not yours ) reality? Now I hardly have to make an effort as many take on your odd viewpoint.

With a democratic house, senate, and whitehouse some much needed healing will have begun. It will take some time. I don't envy the next president because he'll be inheriting a mess.

You've got to see it SDW. The old tricks and rhetoric don't work anymore.

The curtains been pulled back for all to see and Bush really doesn't have any clothes.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #107 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Well isn't it obvious? It's Barack Obama's fault.

Yup! That SOB!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #108 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

This is the second time you've made this spurious statement. Link? Other than a biased source using a purported USGS estimate from 1920. Seriously, if you make such a claim, where's your evidence, other than the words from your own keyboard. \


You must be a bored, lonely man. I cannot believe you're actually asking me to prove that we have consistently underestimated oil reserves. There are examples everywhere. I cited one. Now, let's look a few others.

Here's one re: Iraq.


Here's a piece on the Saudis.

And Ghana.

Oh, and Alaska:



Wrong again, it won't lower oil prices, because that oil will get the going price per barrel as the global price at that time. So only if the global price changes, will new domestic oil prices change.[/quote]

Well that confirms it...you really MUST work for the government, because you've demonstrated a stunning lack of understanding re: the free market. Just...wow.

More supply...especially on the scale of millions of barrels per day, will result in the price of crude dropping. It doesn't matter what the going price is...if supply is greater than demand, the price will go down (ignoring other factors like speculation, of course).

Quote:

Go to the EIA website, I already gave you the link to the ~21 million barrels per day data. Go tell the EIA that they are lying. And if you go to their website, they have some nice pie charts showing where the EIA numbers come from. Seek and yea shall find it on the EIA website. \



Apparently you just did. Seriously, you were/are wrong just admit it, and move on.

I was just explaining where I pulled the data from. I added imports and domestic production. Since you're a Genius®, I suggest you show me where I went wrong...not that it fucking matters anyway.

Quote:


I won't belabor this one,

...because you're wrong.

Quote:
except to say revenues always go up,

Not if the economy goes into a deep recession or depression, they don't.

Quote:
short of a massive change in the taxation structure, the point, is and has been, the incremental rate of change of revenue growth/loss, in that case the data clearly shows lost incremental revenues when the tax rates are lowered, and vice versa.

No, that's not true. The data shows that revenue goes up despite lower tax rates. This is because the underlying economy is stimulated, which increases the base from which revenue comes in the first place. Not hard to understand, for a Genius®.

Quote:



USGS graphic of Total Mean Oil Resources (Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Resources) dated April 2008.

The USGS chart suggests a mean total of 48.5 BBO (Billions of Barrels of Oil) from solely onshore sources nationally. Now it's up to you to prove that this is "once again" a "gross underestimation by the USGS" with some verifiable data/link/cited sources.

Since I'm not a geologist, I can't do that. I can however say with confidence that we tend to underestimate proven reserves. I also can say that there are many other reserves that we know exist, but technically fall into the "unproven" category.

What really gets me though is your intellectual dishonesty on this issue. I think you know very well that we have far more oil in the US than the proven reserves indicate. I cannot believe, in all seriousness, that you think adding a million barrels per day to supply would not lower prices.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #109 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You must be a bored, lonely man. I cannot believe you're actually asking me to prove that we have consistently underestimated oil reserves. There are examples everywhere. I cited one. Now, let's look a few others.

Here's one re: Iraq.


Here's a piece on the Saudis.

And Ghana.

Oh, and Alaska:



Wrong again, it won't lower oil prices, because that oil will get the going price per barrel as the global price at that time. So only if the global price changes, will new domestic oil prices change.

Well that confirms it...you really MUST work for the government, because you've demonstrated a stunning lack of understanding re: the free market. Just...wow.

More supply...especially on the scale of millions of barrels per day, will result in the price of crude dropping. It doesn't matter what the going price is...if supply is greater than demand, the price will go down (ignoring other factors like speculation, of course).



I was just explaining where I pulled the data from. I added imports and domestic production. Since you're a Genius®, I suggest you show me where I went wrong...not that it fucking matters anyway.



...because you're wrong.



Not if the economy goes into a deep recession or depression, they don't.



No, that's not true. The data shows that revenue goes up despite lower tax rates. This is because the underlying economy is stimulated, which increases the base from which revenue comes in the first place. Not hard to understand, for a Genius®.



Since I'm not a geologist, I can't do that. I can however say with confidence that we tend to underestimate proven reserves. I also can say that there are many other reserves that we know exist, but technically fall into the "unproven" category.

What really gets me though is your intellectual dishonesty on this issue. I think you know very well that we have far more oil in the US than the proven reserves indicate. I cannot believe, in all seriousness, that you think adding a million barrels per day to supply would not lower prices.[/QUOTE]


" You must be a bored, lonely man. "

Why is it with you that you feel you have to boltster your argument with personal observations in the form of an insult?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #110 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You must be a bored, lonely man. I cannot believe you're actually asking me to prove that we have consistently underestimated oil reserves. There are examples everywhere. I cited one. Now, let's look a few others.

Here's one re: Iraq.


Here's a piece on the Saudis.

And Ghana.

Oh, and Alaska:



Wrong again, it won't lower oil prices, because that oil will get the going price per barrel as the global price at that time. So only if the global price changes, will new domestic oil prices change.

Well that confirms it...you really MUST work for the government, because you've demonstrated a stunning lack of understanding re: the free market. Just...wow.

More supply...especially on the scale of millions of barrels per day, will result in the price of crude dropping. It doesn't matter what the going price is...if supply is greater than demand, the price will go down (ignoring other factors like speculation, of course).



I was just explaining where I pulled the data from. I added imports and domestic production. Since you're a Genius®, I suggest you show me where I went wrong...not that it fucking matters anyway.



...because you're wrong.



Not if the economy goes into a deep recession or depression, they don't.



No, that's not true. The data shows that revenue goes up despite lower tax rates. This is because the underlying economy is stimulated, which increases the base from which revenue comes in the first place. Not hard to understand, for a Genius®.



Since I'm not a geologist, I can't do that. I can however say with confidence that we tend to underestimate proven reserves. I also can say that there are many other reserves that we know exist, but technically fall into the "unproven" category.

What really gets me though is your intellectual dishonesty on this issue. I think you know very well that we have far more oil in the US than the proven reserves indicate. I cannot believe, in all seriousness, that you think adding a million barrels per day to supply would not lower prices.

Seriously, you really are losing it, you need to have your head examined. Seriously.

Your claim was that the USGS grossly underestimates oil in the ground. You then proceed to post four links, none of which support your claim with respect to the USGS.

So for the 3rd effin' time present some evidence that the USGS grossly underestimates potential U.S. oil reserves in the ground.

Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Ghana, and Forest Oil are not the USGS, and they are not any branch of the U.S. Government.

You are like the shifting sands of the desert, and obviously about as stable, mentally speaking.

Stop wasting my time on your dodgy pointless rants.

n00b!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #111 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Well that confirms it...you really MUST work for the government, because you've demonstrated a stunning lack of understanding re: the free market. Just...wow.

More supply...especially on the scale of millions of barrels per day, will result in the price of crude dropping. It doesn't matter what the going price is...if supply is greater than demand, the price will go down (ignoring other factors like speculation, of course).

Why don't you give us your best guesstimate, or SWAG, on the timeline for increased U.S. oil production.

You are suggesting "on the scale of millions of barrels per day" from where, solely from increased U.S. oil production? Present a timeline with annual amounts.

But here's another EIA link for you to stew about (dated June 10, 2008);

Short-Term Energy Outlook

I kind of like Figure 5;

[CENTER][/CENTER]

That link also has this figure in Excal format.

In that figure you will find that current consumption is 86.4 Million barrels per day. The annual rate of world growth is approximately 1.2 Million barrels per day per year.

There is no effin' way that the U.S. can match the annual growth in global consumption. Not today, and certainly not in any reasonable realistic future scenario. Growth in world consumption of oil will always outpace any future expectations of future U.S. oil production, or growth thereof.

So you see, I present evidence, that directly refutes your specious and spurious claim with respect to lower oil prices in the U.S. via increased U.S. oil production.

And what do you have to present to support your claims? Words, just words.

Like I said before, stop wasting my time on your specious rants.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #112 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

There is no effin' way that the U.S. can match the annual growth in global consumption. Not today, and certainly not in any reasonable realistic future scenario. Growth in world consumption of oil will always outpace any future expectations of future U.S. oil production, or growth thereof.

Yes and no.

No, neither ANWR nor near shore oil from the US contiential shelf will enter the market before any addition is dwarfed by growing demand based on the curve from the recent 10 years or so. To get to millions of barrels per day from these new sources would take over a decade.

However, world consumption of oil is currently dominated by the US. The price could be quickly be dropped by reducing demand.

Something the "conservative" side of this argument is steadfast against because it requires giving up their SUVs or driving 80 miles an hour. OMFG that would be the end of the American dream. Although I gotta admit that driving at 60 drives me insane. It's just so slooooow...but it really does give me a 10-15% bump in gas mileage over driving 75 like I used to do.

This is a direct result of "talk show conservatism". I recall one talk show moron (some no name gasbag that I don't recall now) who claimed that we could solve the DC traffic problem by widening the beltway to 16 lanes. Given I was driving on the beltway at the time, could see million dollar homes pressed up against the beltway and the dumbass was from San Diego I called him up and told him he was a complete idiot...moderately politely.

To which he replied that he was sure that you could squeeze in more lanes if we really wanted to.

At which point I called him a complete idiot.

Conservatives today are nearly completely out of touch with reality. It really pisses me off because it makes me look like a complete moron for being on the same "side".

There should be more fucking Republicans driving a Pious (okay, Prius) than tree hugging Democrats. Energy Independence is just like Financial Independence. It's a hell of a lot easier to spend less than it is to make more.
post #113 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Yes and no.

No, neither ANWR nor near shore oil from the US contiential shelf will enter the market before any addition is dwarfed by growing demand based on the curve from the recent 10 years or so. To get to millions of barrels per day from these new sources would take over a decade.

However, world consumption of oil is currently dominated by the US. The price could be quickly be dropped by reducing demand.

Something the "conservative" side of this argument is steadfast against because it requires giving up their SUVs or driving 80 miles an hour. OMFG that would be the end of the American dream. Although I gotta admit that driving at 60 drives me insane. It's just so slooooow...but it really does give me a 10-15% bump in gas mileage over driving 75 like I used to do.

This is a direct result of "talk show conservatism". I recall one talk show moron (some no name gasbag that I don't recall now) who claimed that we could solve the DC traffic problem by widening the beltway to 16 lanes. Given I was driving on the beltway at the time, could see million dollar homes pressed up against the beltway and the dumbass was from San Diego I called him up and told him he was a complete idiot...moderately politely.

To which he replied that he was sure that you could squeeze in more lanes if we really wanted to.

At which point I called him a complete idiot.

Conservatives today are nearly completely out of touch with reality. It really pisses me off because it makes me look like a complete moron for being on the same "side".

There should be more fucking Republicans driving a Pious (okay, Prius) than tree hugging Democrats. Energy Independence is just like Financial Independence. It's a hell of a lot easier to spend less than it is to make more.

I rarely exceed 60 MPH, never accelerate or brake excessively, actually I kind of like going slow. Everyone passes me, I don't have to speed up or slow down or pass anyone. Just stay glued to that right hand lane and let the world pass me by.

As to the whole minivan/SUV end around of the CAFE standards, and that even for passenger vehicles the CAFE standard "stalled" in 1990;

[CENTER]

Quote:
CAFE standards signaled the end of the traditional long station wagon, but Chrysler's Lee Iacocca developed the idea of the minivan, which would fit into the separate truck category and allow automakers to comply with emissions standards. Eventually, this same idea led to the development of the SUV.

[/CENTER]

Don't get me started. Even now, there must be 10's of millions of SUV's on the road, and there will still be millions on the roads 10-20 years from now.

I don't think I've ever seen a fully occupied SUV, the majority of the of the time I see just a single person in a SUV, the driver. D'oh!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #114 of 297
I really have to wonder about the investments of the people who pin the oil prices on...the democrats. Wow. If you are going to just piss away what little money you have...
post #115 of 297
Bill O'Reilly's on board.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369005,00.html

Dependable Bill. No integrity of any kind whatsoever.
post #116 of 297
I was reading CNN's article on the offshore drilling scam, er scheme, er bill and came across this quote buried deep in the article...

Quote:
"The White House has become a ventriloquist for the oil and gas industry, repeating the requests of the oil and gas industry: that they be allowed to destroy the most pristine areas of our country," Markey added.

Congressional Democrats introduced a bill last week to compel oil companies to begin utilizing federal land they already lease.

"Oil companies are sitting on 68 million acres they have already leased from the American people for the purpose of oil and natural gas production," said Sen. Bob Menendez, D-New Jersey.

"It is about time they use these resources already at their disposal instead of waiting for more federal handouts and pushing to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or up and down our coasts," he added.

I'm even more confused, angered and bewildered...
post #117 of 297
What a bunch of bullshit. High oil prices are caused by paying them.
post #118 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Seriously, you really are losing it, you need to have your head examined. Seriously.

Your claim was that the USGS grossly underestimates oil in the ground. You then proceed to post four links, none of which support your claim with respect to the USGS.

So for the 3rd effin' time present some evidence that the USGS grossly underestimates potential U.S. oil reserves in the ground.

Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Ghana, and Forest Oil are not the USGS, and they are not any branch of the U.S. Government.

You are like the shifting sands of the desert, and obviously about as stable, mentally speaking.

Stop wasting my time on your dodgy pointless rants.

n00b!


So your point is is that the USGS is more accurate than....oh, EVERYONE?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #119 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Why don't you give us your best guesstimate, or SWAG, on the timeline for increased U.S. oil production.

You are suggesting "on the scale of millions of barrels per day" from where, solely from increased U.S. oil production? Present a timeline with annual amounts.

But here's another EIA link for you to stew about (dated June 10, 2008);

Short-Term Energy Outlook

I kind of like Figure 5;

[CENTER][/CENTER]

That link also has this figure in Excal format.

In that figure you will find that current consumption is 86.4 Million barrels per day. The annual rate of world growth is approximately 1.2 Million barrels per day per year.

There is no effin' way that the U.S. can match the annual growth in global consumption. Not today, and certainly not in any reasonable realistic future scenario. Growth in world consumption of oil will always outpace any future expectations of future U.S. oil production, or growth thereof.

So you see, I present evidence, that directly refutes your specious and spurious claim with respect to lower oil prices in the U.S. via increased U.S. oil production.

And what do you have to present to support your claims? Words, just words.

Like I said before, stop wasting my time on your specious rants.

Frank, what does the growth in consumption have to do with it? The rest of the world will also continue to pump more oil, not just the US. More supply is more supply. Even if it takes 10 years for us to add, say, 1mbpd, that would represent a sizable impact to supply.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #120 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So your point is is that the USGS is more accurate than....oh, EVERYONE?

The question remains, provide some evidence that the USGS grossly underestimates oil in the ground.

You have yet to provide any.

Therefore, until such time as you do so, you are a liar.

Q.E.D.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › New Republican coordinated plan to blame Democrats for high oil prices