Author Topic: State of the Union (Read 1388 times)

Momus-- · « **Reply #45 on:** February 01, 2006, 02:36:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Stringer
But we're not addicted to ME Oil. We purchase less than 1/5th of our oil from the ME.

Most of it comes from Canada, Venezuela, Nigeria. So cutting our reliance by 75% of ME oil isn't as grandious as it sounds.

Sorry but that is wishful thinking.

Oil is traded as a global commodity. Any disruption to the supply in the middle east will by necessity drive up prices and limit supply from Venezuela, or Nigeria or Canada or anywhere else, since more customers will be chasing a reduced supply. Moreover, since the other net importers of oil generally buy dollars with which to buy oil, you can't simply reduce the supply to them in your favour because that would drive the value of the dollar down.

The source is irrelevant; the key is the level of consumption from a limited supply..

You currently import over 55% of your total consumption and that rate is going up sharply. By 2015 you are projected to import over 60% of your requirements. By 2025 the projection is 75% of your total consumption. The middle east as a whole contains over 50% of world reserves. The more you import the more dependant on the ME you become, and that dependency is already a fact of life.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #46 on:** February 01, 2006, 02:50:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
It's possible yet not remotely probable, but if the Dems managed to change the course of the past few decades and gained control of the Senate, you can pretty much bet on an impeachment.

On what grounds?

I don't think he's been putting his man-chowder on a young woman's dress lately and BLATANTLY LYING about it...

texace · « **Reply #47 on:** February 01, 2006, 03:05:32 PM »

No, but there's a good chance he's doing the same thing to the rest of the country.

Stringer · « **Reply #48 on:** February 01, 2006, 03:21:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
Are you sure that the proportion from the ME is as little as 1/5th? Also the real problem for America is its dependence on OPEC oil, and both Venezuela and Nigeria are members of OPEC.

According to this site:

http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html

Quote

In 2002, Canada led the world in our sources of imports, at 17%, with Saudi Arabia (13.7%), Mexico (13.5%), and Venezuela (12%) in a virtual three-way tie for second. The year before the percentages were Canada - 15.4%, Saudi Arabia - 14%, Venezuela - 13%, and Mexico - 12.1%. Canada has been the leader since at least 2001. In 2002, US imports from the Persian Gulf region amounted to 19.8 percent of our total imports. The same year, a total of 40% came from OPEC member nations -- which include countries such as Venezuela and Indonesia that are outside the Persian Gulf. More Information

But as you noted, OPEC is the controlling body.

**Side note--I really need to thank Rip for sharing with me his expertise in Rip and Paste skills and etiquette

JBA · « **Reply #49 on:** February 01, 2006, 03:26:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
It's possible yet not remotely probable, but if the Dems managed to change the course of the past few decades and gained control of the Senate, you can pretty much bet on an impeachment.

Rebulicans didn't get control of house untill 1985, after 40 years of Dem control. the senate didn't come untill 2000. Jeffries went Indi after the took the senate in 2000. leaving them at 50 + 49+1 with Snow and Collonis of MA. Lincoln chaffe of RI always voteing with the Dems, they basical still have control of senate.

They just don't have any ideas.

Rolex · « **Reply #50 on:** February 01, 2006, 06:20:56 PM »

Two thirds of the world's oil reserves are in the middle east.

Nigerian and Mexican production will decline and be minor by the end of the time frame of this fanciful 'weaning' from middle east oil.

Saudi Arabia alone will be producing 55% of the world's oil in less than 20 years.

Did people applaud at this recurring fantasy that the US will wean itself of middle east oil? You couldn't write fiction more surreal than that.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #51 on:** February 01, 2006, 07:42:52 PM »

27% of the worlds coal reserves are in the USA, about 4 times the oil reserves of Saudis, about 1.3 times the oil reserves of the earth.

USA has twice the reserves of Saudi Arabia in the form of oil shale.

It is technically quite feasable if the regulatory roadblocks are cleared.

FuBaR · « **Reply #52 on:** February 01, 2006, 10:04:50 PM »

history,terror,911,no honor in retreat,Osama wants Iraq to manage his terrorism from....I left after that. And, the word victory.

FuBaR · « **Reply #53 on:** February 01, 2006, 10:06:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mighty1
I bet he didn't say "cheeseburger" much either.

Why would he?

Because he called it weapons of mass murder? lol

Rolex · « **Reply #54 on:** February 02, 2006, 01:54:08 AM »

MEMORANDUM:

TO: Mr. Holden McGroin

FROM: Rollie 'Slick' Rolex
Public Relations Director
Snake Oil Corp.

RE: Shale oil

Dear Mr. McGroin,

Thank you for your enquiry regarding our corporate plans to develop the technology necessary to harvest enormous shale oil reserves available in the U.S.

I'm happy to report to you that we at Snake Oil Corp. are proud partners in the president's goal to rid ourselves of the hideous middle-east oil addiction by exploring and investing in technology to bring shale oil to market to better serve the American people. We believe developing this technology to be paramount to helping us achieve our corporate goal of bringing affordable and reliable energy to all Americans.

Our Board of Directors and shareholders are as excited and committed to this technology as you are. I'm delighted to report to you that we have penciled in a substantial target investment of $492.50 for each of the 3 years of our preliminary 2009-2011 budget. We've also included $38 to study the possibility of considering to think about talking about building a refinery.

We hope to see this investment blossom into a small, proof-of-concept article in Science magazine.

Unfortunately, our hands are tied by regulatory issues that we financed and secretively supported to give us a plausible excuse for not investing more. You see, Mr McGroin, money, not technology or regulatory roadblocks, is at issue.

From our perspective, war is cheaper. Why spend all that money ourselves on a technology that may not return anything for decades when we can spread the financial burden among all taxpayers, drive the price up anyway, keep oil flowing (at a high price) and not have to spend the money until we absolutely, positively have sucked every last drop of pumpable oil? There are still plenty of places left we can send our fine troops, or get others to do the fighting for us, to secure the oil that we deserve.

For heaven's sake. We've just gotten Iraq's oil (the 2nd largest reserve in the world) flowing at the trickle we need to keep prices high and profits at a new US record. And now you want us to make the ultimate sacrifice of spending some of the $10,000,000,000 profit from just the last 3 months of 2005 on investing in something that will benefit the nation? What are you, a socialist? Next, you'll be asking us to build refineries domestically to crack the oil?

Technology, techschmology... we'll pump out Iraq as we need it, then find some more pumpable stuff to get our hands on, somehow. What are we going to do with all of our ships, anyway?

Once again, thank you for your interest in our shale oil initiative and we look forward to seeing you at the pump.

Yours truly,
'Slick' Rolex

Snake Oil Corp.

moot · « **Reply #55 on:** February 02, 2006, 02:43:03 AM »

Jackpot!

JB88 · « **Reply #56 on:** February 02, 2006, 04:28:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Stringer
But we're not addicted to ME Oil. We purchase less than 1/5th of our oil from the ME.

Most of it comes from Canada, Venezuela, Nigeria. So cutting our reliance by 75% of ME oil isn't as grandious as it sounds.

Now, if he would have said we are addicted to oil, period, then OK, he's got a point.

whatever.

i don't know the stats. i just know that it's not coming from here and its not gonna. therin lies a problem.

addictions are bad...regardless of who the dealer is.

slow molasses needs to step on it gasses.

88

beet1e · « **Reply #57 on:** February 02, 2006, 05:30:50 AM »

Momus - good post last night.

Yes, oil is indeed a global commodity, and as well as American oil demand set to rise, oil demand in countries like India and China will also rise sharply.

In the Carter years, the big gas guzzling cars of the 70s were discarded in favour of fuel efficient imports from places like Japan, and the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards came into being. Unfortunately, the Reagan administration decided to freeze the CAFE standard c1985. The fuel economy of vehicles on American roads peaked c1988, but it seems that successive Republican administrations wanted to cast off the CAFE "straitjacket" as if it were just a link to a period of austerity that they wanted to forget. Suddenly it became OK again to drive gas guzzling cars and trucks, and the SUV era was born, with house size vehicles like the Ford Excursion sucking up obscene amounts of gasoline.

There's only one factor that will make the American public respond to calls to cut back on oil consumption: Price.

Sixpence · « **Reply #58 on:** February 02, 2006, 05:58:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin

27% of the worlds coal reserves are in the USA, about 4 times the oil reserves of Saudis, about 1.3 times the oil reserves of the earth.

USA has twice the reserves of Saudi Arabia in the form of oil shale.

It is technically quite feasable if the regulatory roadblocks are cleared.

We need technology to catch up where we can burn and dispose of it cleanly. Burning coal is deadly.

Momus-- · « **Reply #59 on:** February 02, 2006, 06:32:37 AM »

Rolex, brilliant post - you must have too much time on your hands.