Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on May 17, 2004, 12:51:49 PM
-
Poll in regards to this article about oil reserves:
http://www.quicken.com/investments/news_center/story/?story=NewsStory/dowJones/20040517/ON200405170007000005.var&column=P0DFP
Should we continue to horde the oil away for an emergency in these trying times of terrorism that we live in, or should we open up the "bank" and take a withdrawl to lower prices?(Assuming the latter *would* indeed lower prices, some analysts say it would do nothing but lower it a few cents a gallon)
-
"....the U.S. and other nations have a combined 1.4 billion barrels of oil stored away.."
I wonder how much of that is US reserves? The US would use 1.4 billion barrels in less than 3 months.
-
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. ;)
-
Releasing the reserves will do nothing but increase profits for the Oil companies. Until we get some sort of regulations in place to stop the wild profiteering get used to $2+ a gallon for cheap gas.
-
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. ;)
I totally agree! I think that no matter what the right does, the left will hollar foul. And whatever the left does, the right will hollar foul. Rip, the message that you continue to promote is completely valid... it just needs to be directed in BOTH directions.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Releasing the reserves will do nothing but increase profits for the Oil companies. Until we get some sort of regulations in place to stop the wild profiteering get used to $2+ a gallon for cheap gas.
Whoops! I missed one of the left rants if the reserves are free'd up. ;)
-
If we find a cheap alternative for fossil fuels it would make the reserves moot. It would also be the end of the problems in the Middle East.
But, hey....right now it is more important to have a gas guzzling cool car to cruise around and ***** about high gas prices in.
-
We could run the entire planet on the amount of hot air generated from this BBS alone!
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Curval
If we find a cheap alternative for fossil fuels it would make the reserves moot. It would also be the end of the problems in the Middle East.
ROFL I agree. It would solve them for us. But the problems would still be there... we just wouldn't care. :p
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Whoops! I missed one of the left rants if the reserves are free'd up. ;)
Call it a "left rant" if you want, it's the truth. Using the reserves would cut transportaion costs, import tarriffs and many other expenses only to drop the pump price a few cents temporarily. After we dip into the reserves we then have to replentish the reserves with more expensive crude.
We are not talking about oil wells sitting idle. The Strategic Petroleum Reserves are giant underground salt domes that have been filled. Their purpose is to provide a short term domestic military fuel source in case of war. Using them is as smart as driving down the freeway with no insurance. You can get away with it as long as you don't get in an accident...then you are screwed.
-
Even if we stopped using oil tomorrow for transportation and energy, there would still be a massive use of oil in manufacturing. It's a vital component in quite a bit of manufactured goods like plastics and so on.
Having said that, I'd still like a VIABLE alternative for transportation purposes and that hasn't shown up yet. :(
-
It's all about plastics.
No oil. No plastics.
Sod the bloody cars
ravs
-
Originally posted by Curval
If we find a cheap alternative for fossil fuels it would make the reserves moot. It would also be the end of the problems in the Middle East.
Agreed, and no ones given credit for this administrations quest to find alternative fuel sources ($$ for hydrogen and nanotechnology which go hand in hand when you discuss separating hydrogen from oxygen without burning fossil fuels)
I really think this craving to release ourselves from dependence on middle east oil (fueled by 9.11) goes across all party lines and everyone agrees with it.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Releasing the reserves will do nothing but increase profits for the Oil companies. Until we get some sort of regulations in place to stop the wild profiteering get used to $2+ a gallon for cheap gas.
Please back up this statement with facts.
-
I don't know what the big deal is about using the reserves. They can always be filled up again.
If there actually IS the kind of war to the extent that ya become tapped out, you'll simply annex Canada's... and yer laughin'.
Until then, this BS oil price manipulation should be exactly the kind of thing to trigger DIY.
-
Data of interest: http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/
Just under 700 million barrels in US reserves.
-
Those are war reserves for desperate times. You ladies realize that in adjusted dollars, we are paying less than in the 1950s for a gallon of gas?
-
we're paying a heck of a lot less for 'puters too.... but what does that actually mean?
-
Originally posted by Lizking
You ladies realize that in adjusted dollars, we are paying less than in the 1950s for a gallon of gas?
Yeah, but I bet they beetched about it too. :)
-
save it. if you really want to reduce your dependence on foreign oil the best way to do that is to use as much of theirs as possible and hang on to our own (both in reserve and in the ground).
to use up our own reserves while not doing anything to reduce consumption just puts us more under the thumb of suppliers.
-
I'll be dead before they run out of gasoline.
It's SUV from here on out. :p
-
Goes without saying I'm really lacking when it comes to numbers and the economy...
But hows about this?
Use the reserves when the price of foreign oil is high, pass a % of those savings on to the consumer, and use the money y'all save by not buying expensive foreign oil to refill your reserves when the price drops back down?
I know I'm missing something here...
-
just a couple of flaws that I see.
1. what would make you think any savings in price would ever make it to the consumer?
2. why would any oil producing country lower there prices after we'd blown our reserves? they'd have us over a barrel (maybe a little pun intended). with no reserves we'd become even more desperately Dependant on foreign oil, and they could do whatever they want.
you simply can not reduce your dependence on foreign oil by using up your own oil, and doing nothing about your consumption rates.
aside from reducing consumption, the next best thing you can do is use foreign oil to supply as much of your needs as possible. the result of this will be that as each day goes by you would find your own country in control of more and more of the worlds oil. since each day you use foreign oil their available supplies dwindle and yours stay constant. burning up your own just has the opposite effect.
you need to keep in mind, that 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. mathematicaly it just doesn't work out though. it is just impossible when dealing with a limited resource, to use up your own supply and still control a growing share of the supply.
it's actually the biggest problem I have with drilling in Alaska. not so much drilling in a preserve(it can be done relatively cleanly, if properly monitored), but that it will be more oil that we control that is used up now, and further increases our dependence on outside sources in the future.
I know the prices suck now, things are pretty far apart out west and on an average I drive about 25-40k miles per year, so we really feel the increased price. but it is only going to get worse, paying up now will not only leave us in a stronger bargaining position in the future, but while higher prices are really hurting us now they are really the only way to reduce consumption.
as it is petroleum is still relatively cheap when compared with most other sources of fuel. as the price rises many alternative sources become worth considering, and the profitability of exploring new energy ideas rises (personally, I can tell you that nothing in the last 30 some years has done more to spur my mind into thinking of how to get more business done on less gallons of gas than $2.35 a gallon)
-
Whoop, der it is! (Yesterday)
PORTLAND, Ore. (Reuters) - With the retail price of gasoline topping $2 a gallon for the first time, Democratic White House hopeful John Kerry on Tuesday chided President Bush for failing to offer hard-hit consumers any help.
Okay, will punt this again *if* they release the reserves, then you'll see "Its an election campaign tactic" next. :D
-
well you could always invade alberta (or just buy it from ralph for a lifetime supply of alcohol) and use our oil
-
PORTLAND, Ore. (Reuters) - With the retail price of gasoline topping $2 a gallon for the first time, Democratic White House hopeful John Kerry on Tuesday chided President Bush for failing to offer hard-hit consumers any help.
Didn't Kerry want to raise the gas tax by .50?
-
Originally posted by Gyro/T69
Didn't Kerry want to raise the gas tax by .50?
Which day?
:eek:
:rofl
-
(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/images/05/18/top.gas.prices.ap.jpg)
-
It does not matter if it is a Democrat or Republican that wants to use the reserves...it's a BAD IDEA.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
It does not matter if it is a Democrat or Republican that wants to use the reserves...it's a BAD IDEA.
Thats twice in a month we've agreed on a topic regarding politics. :eek:
-
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.
-
Didn't Clinton open up the reserves in 2000?
Was there any fallout good/bad from that?
-
Nash, love the avatar!
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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!
-
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!
-
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?
-
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.
...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