Author Topic: Oil reserves: "Money in the bank" or "Spend it!" ?? (Read 774 times)

2Slow · « **Reply #30 on:** May 18, 2004, 03:28:42 PM »

Move some of our forces in Irag a little further south. Declare dominion over both Irag and Saudia Arabia. Pump the oil fields dry until there is nothing left but a depression in the sand.

If they resist or revolt, use a 1kt thermonuclear device on the location in revolt. They will get the message loud and clear.

Nash · « **Reply #31 on:** May 18, 2004, 06:20:12 PM »

Didn't Clinton open up the reserves in 2000?

Was there any fallout good/bad from that?

2Slow · « **Reply #32 on:** May 19, 2004, 11:28:02 AM »

Nash, love the avatar!

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #33 on:** May 19, 2004, 01:59:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by capt. apathy
when you are told that using oil from American sources reduces our dependence on foreign oil, that you are usually being told this by a guy who makes his living (or has strong ties to people that do) selling you that domestic oil. he may know the business but his advice is self-serving.

like him, maybe?
http://www.ultimatedallas.com/multimedia/dallas16_JPG.html

Sabre · « **Reply #34 on:** May 19, 2004, 02:32:48 PM »

The request being made by congressional democrats is to release 60 million barrels of the SPR, out of about 600+ million barrels. Sound like a lot, until you realize the USA's consumption is 20 million barrels a day. So you're talking about a 3 day supply for the nation. This would have no effect on oil prices. The Administration's best bet would be to announce that they would temporarily cease buying for the reserve (but leave it as is), and request Congress temporarily drop the per-gallon tax on gas by 5 cents. They should also move again to authorize drilling in that untapped oil field in Alaska. This would put Kerry and the democrats on the defensive; they would have to either cede a domestic issue victory to the President by agreeing to either or both, or be seen as an impedement to a solution.

BTW, Kerry voted against the temporary fuel tax decrease idea when Clinton was faced with the same issue. And yes, he also supported the move to raise fuel taxes by 50 cents per gallon once before. Odd positions from a man who owns so many SUVs (you know, the ones he says he doesn't own when addressing enviromentalists).

Interestingly, the same democratic voices that are demanding the release of oil from the SPR are the ones against drilling in Alaska, even though it would have a greater and more lasting affect on reducing our dependence on foreign oil than the inconsequential release of 3 days oil from the SPR.

Coolridr · « **Reply #35 on:** May 19, 2004, 09:04:15 PM »

The real thing I don't understand is thsi. Why are the prices rising so fast? When I started driving in 1992 gas was 85-90 a gallon..It took a long time to reach a dollar a gallon..then slowly creeped up from there. Now just in the past year, where I live it's gone from 1.30 to 2.00 a gallon . As far as I know there isn't a drastic change in demand over here. Is this just OPEC's way of punishing us for our involvement over there? I really haven't had the time to research most of this so I may come across as ignorant about this whole thing.

SOMETHING MUST BE DONE! I'm in the Navy and have a large family. Like most military families that are E-6 and below we are living just barely within our means. I've already had to start using my motorcycle as daily transport to save gas money, and soon I won't be able to afford that. It's utter bull**** what these oil companies are doing to us.

As far as the reserves go, what are we saving it for? The real threat of an all out war that would cause us to be cut off from the rest of the world is pretty much gone. So why not use it?

strk · « **Reply #36 on:** May 20, 2004, 12:14:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
For this administration, its a double edged sword. If they keep it reserved, the left hollars that the president could have given us relief but didn't. If they release it, the left will claim its a campaign tactic and the admin is artificially helping the economy. Just wait and see. I'll punt this come October.

you are right on. That is one of the disadvantages to being the incumbent.

I say keep the strategic reserves full. Its there for a reason, and using it to lower prices temporarily is like eating the seed corn.

Nash · « **Reply #37 on:** May 20, 2004, 12:22:24 AM »

Yeah it would have been right on, except for him saying "for this administration...".

If it was a Democrat in office, I don't think he would have worded it quite the same way. Repubs woulda been all over whoever did it like Oprah in a donut factory.

"for this administration"..... Patoohey!

Toad · « **Reply #38 on:** May 20, 2004, 12:26:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by strk
Its there for a reason, and using it to lower prices temporarily is like eating the seed corn.

See? We probably agree on more than you think!

strk · « **Reply #39 on:** May 20, 2004, 12:40:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
See? We probably agree on more than you think!

Where will it end? dogs and cats living together? peace on earth?

Charon · « **Reply #40 on:** May 20, 2004, 09:13:21 AM »

Quote

Interestingly, the same democratic voices that are demanding the release of oil from the SPR are the ones against drilling in Alaska, even though it would have a greater and more lasting affect on reducing our dependence on foreign oil than the inconsequential release of 3 days oil from the SPR.

This was pretty much covered in a recent thread, and in fact virtually the same point rasied. Cut and paste from there.

Quote

...BTW, and IMO, we should be adding to our reserves right now and not draining them.

ANWR potentially represents 4 percent of our demand after a decade or so. However, it is more expensive to produce than foreign oil is to import. It will likely displace other domestic sources of oil that are even more expensive to produce, not imports.

We currently shut down wells every year in the US that are still producing oil, but not effeciently enough for the current market. In most cases these wells can never be reopened due to hydrologic reasons.

Since the multinational oil industry that serves the US and much of the world is not regulated, Alaskan oil will not likley be produced in quantities or sold at prices that do not reflect the world market. The price of oil will still be set by OPEC, and matched by non OPEC suppliers just like it is today.

It will mean some job creation, though I don't know the figures. Alaska will ge more handouts from the oil industry. It will generate profits for the oil industry (especially since production is where you get the greatest ROI). But, Just like Kerry's "renewable energy" stuff is a BS selling point for the policy, ANWAR drilling's "reduced imports" is a BS selling point for something that has more corporate than national benefit.

If I'm a bit jaded where BOTH parties are concerned, its because both parties typically push and oppose legislation for technically accurate reasons that have little to do with the real reasons both push and/or oppose the legislation.

Who would support "Ethanol, another agri subsidy!" Farmers for sure, but perhhaps not many others.

The same for ANWAR. "Drill in the wildlife refuge. It's good for big oil but any benefits to the consumer will be a coincidence!"

Charon