Gas is cheap and headed for cheaper!
- Thread starter Lud
- Start date
I hope when fuel prices drop that the public doesn't credit it to the Bush administration. I can only imagine what it would do to the progress of the raping of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (correct name?)
right skim83....... it's a good idea to remain dependent on other countries in unstable areas for our petroleum needs, isn’t it? I'd much rather increase domestic production.
Justin,
What I was trying to say is that people probably have heard about the drilling of ANWR more than the thing about Russia lowering prices. This might lead to people connecting lower prices with the pro-oil Bush Admin. instead of with Russia. This would help Bush get drilling rights into ANWR, something which I'm against. And if I remember correctly there isn't even that much oil in the ANWR.
Just some extra info. incase anyone was interested =)
The amount of oil that America buys from OPEC has decreased in the past few years. Ever since OPEC decreased production in order to raise fuel prices other more expensive methods of oil extraction have become more attractive. I forget the actual numbers but it's something like $1 to extract 1 barrel of oil in Saudi Arabia and $9 to extract oil from Canada. Before when 1 barrel of oil was $10-$12 America bought from OPEC. Now that 1 barrel is something nearer $24 America buys oil from countries other than OPEC. Although Saudi Arabia is still America's leading supplier of oil Canada ranks the highest among non-OPEC countries that supply the US. If I remember correctly they supply something like 30%. Also, remember that OPEC isn't made up of just Middle-Eastern countries.
What I was trying to say is that people probably have heard about the drilling of ANWR more than the thing about Russia lowering prices. This might lead to people connecting lower prices with the pro-oil Bush Admin. instead of with Russia. This would help Bush get drilling rights into ANWR, something which I'm against. And if I remember correctly there isn't even that much oil in the ANWR.
Just some extra info. incase anyone was interested =)
The amount of oil that America buys from OPEC has decreased in the past few years. Ever since OPEC decreased production in order to raise fuel prices other more expensive methods of oil extraction have become more attractive. I forget the actual numbers but it's something like $1 to extract 1 barrel of oil in Saudi Arabia and $9 to extract oil from Canada. Before when 1 barrel of oil was $10-$12 America bought from OPEC. Now that 1 barrel is something nearer $24 America buys oil from countries other than OPEC. Although Saudi Arabia is still America's leading supplier of oil Canada ranks the highest among non-OPEC countries that supply the US. If I remember correctly they supply something like 30%. Also, remember that OPEC isn't made up of just Middle-Eastern countries.
Lud... what a thread to start! This is a topic that can start wars!
As for credit to the Bush administration for lower oil prices, the drop appears to be a simple function of supply and demand. The US, Europe, and most Asian economies are in recession.
For the record, Bill Clinton and his incompetent stooge, Bill Richardson, were utterly incompetent guardians of the nation's energy supply. As for their ethics, the record also speaks loudly that they had none.
As for credit to the Bush administration for lower oil prices, the drop appears to be a simple function of supply and demand. The US, Europe, and most Asian economies are in recession.
For the record, Bill Clinton and his incompetent stooge, Bill Richardson, were utterly incompetent guardians of the nation's energy supply. As for their ethics, the record also speaks loudly that they had none.
i've seen gas for regular as low asr .82 cents and $1.02 for 93 octane it was at a shell in south Ga about 3 days ago. The tampa area seems to be running about .12 cents more per gallon
skim83, while it is certainly possible that some of the more ignorant general population may try to string the logic together as you outline, the more informed population will not. As it so happens, the more informed population are also the ones that vote (for the most part) and would be the ones in congress that would give him the rights to the refuge. So if I can take your concern one step further, I would imagine (I'm speculating - you didnt say this) you are concerned that Bush would be reelected because gas prices dropped. While he might be reelected, I doubt that would be the reason. Looking forward, it would probably because things went well in Afghanistan and he got bin laden. Although his daddy wasn't reelected after desert storm and at the time he looked like a shoe-in.
Regarding the wildlife reserve, I would venture a guess and say I have personally been farther north than most on the forum ( in the ocean into the bearing sea and on land I have been to Fairbanks) and I can tell you it is beautiful country up there, and it is too bad that 99.9% of our population will never see and appreciate. However, this same population that will never end up seeing this land would appreciate petroleum at lower cost and higher supply stability. Most of the people actually impacted geographicaly by the decision to drill are in favor because of the jobs created. So I for one am in favor of drilling. People against drilling paint this picture that the lands will be completely destroyed, etc. which simply isn't true. Is your objection to drilling something other than possible environmental concerns?
[This message has been edited by justin hall (edited 18 November 2001).]
Regarding the wildlife reserve, I would venture a guess and say I have personally been farther north than most on the forum ( in the ocean into the bearing sea and on land I have been to Fairbanks) and I can tell you it is beautiful country up there, and it is too bad that 99.9% of our population will never see and appreciate. However, this same population that will never end up seeing this land would appreciate petroleum at lower cost and higher supply stability. Most of the people actually impacted geographicaly by the decision to drill are in favor because of the jobs created. So I for one am in favor of drilling. People against drilling paint this picture that the lands will be completely destroyed, etc. which simply isn't true. Is your objection to drilling something other than possible environmental concerns?
[This message has been edited by justin hall (edited 18 November 2001).]
...while it is certainly possible that some of the more ignorant general population may try to string the logic together as you outline, the more informed population will not.
***
well, that would be *your* opinion.
...the more informed population
***
yawwwwn
...I would imagine (I'm speculating - you didnt say this)
***
so, why don't you ask instead of speculate to further your own agenda? if he wants this kinda stuff, he can turn on any "hot talk" radion station around the dial.
Regarding the wildlife reserve, I would venture a guess and say I have personally been farther north than most on the forum
***
and that makes you an expert on oil drilling in remote areas, on long term damage to these types of environments, on accidental spills? your parents must be very proud of you.
So I for one am in favor of drilling.
***
there you go... simply stating your point wasn't so hard, was it?
People against drilling paint this picture that the lands will be completely destroyed, etc. which simply isn't true.
***
how much of it shall we destroy so that our SUVs, multiple family vehicles and race cars can run on gas that costs less?
hal
***
well, that would be *your* opinion.
...the more informed population
***
yawwwwn
...I would imagine (I'm speculating - you didnt say this)
***
so, why don't you ask instead of speculate to further your own agenda? if he wants this kinda stuff, he can turn on any "hot talk" radion station around the dial.
Regarding the wildlife reserve, I would venture a guess and say I have personally been farther north than most on the forum
***
and that makes you an expert on oil drilling in remote areas, on long term damage to these types of environments, on accidental spills? your parents must be very proud of you.
So I for one am in favor of drilling.
***
there you go... simply stating your point wasn't so hard, was it?
People against drilling paint this picture that the lands will be completely destroyed, etc. which simply isn't true.
***
how much of it shall we destroy so that our SUVs, multiple family vehicles and race cars can run on gas that costs less?
hal
You think oil is cheap now wait till Afghanistan is leveled. Then the pipe line can be built form Tajikistan where there is a supply that is at least 10 times greater than that of Saudi Arabia. OH and Pakistan is the only country that has a sea port. HMM. There is a lot more going on here than is being told.
For many here in the West, the last thing we need are some sanctimonious East Coasters telling us what do with our land.
When the State of Virginia or the State of New York permits boring into the Shenandoahs or Adirondack Mountains for a permanent depository for HIGH LEVEL nuclear waste, then, maybe, there can be rational dialogue on the ANWR issue.
When the State of Virginia or the State of New York permits boring into the Shenandoahs or Adirondack Mountains for a permanent depository for HIGH LEVEL nuclear waste, then, maybe, there can be rational dialogue on the ANWR issue.
Regarding ANWR --
1) It is possible to drill there without causing an environmental catastrophe; however,
2) We don't need the oil right now. Other sources are sufficient for the time being. In the future, who knows? Maybe Mr. Fusion will save us.
Regarding the coming lower prices --
Two factors, as I see it:
1) Global recession = reduced demand = lower prices. Adam Smithian ECON 101 stuff.
2) OPEC is spooked that the war and general anti-Middle Eastern sentiment will cause the US to look elsewhere for oil. To keep us on the Arab black-gold teat, they lower prices. For now...
Regarding this thread --
Keep it civilized, folks. There's no room for name-calling on this forum.
-Bob ('94 #496 -- still paying $1.99<sup>9</sup>/gallon here in CA)
1) It is possible to drill there without causing an environmental catastrophe; however,
2) We don't need the oil right now. Other sources are sufficient for the time being. In the future, who knows? Maybe Mr. Fusion will save us.
Regarding the coming lower prices --
Two factors, as I see it:
1) Global recession = reduced demand = lower prices. Adam Smithian ECON 101 stuff.
2) OPEC is spooked that the war and general anti-Middle Eastern sentiment will cause the US to look elsewhere for oil. To keep us on the Arab black-gold teat, they lower prices. For now...
Regarding this thread --
Keep it civilized, folks. There's no room for name-calling on this forum.
-Bob ('94 #496 -- still paying $1.99<sup>9</sup>/gallon here in CA)
Good point at the beginning of your post Justin. The part about me being afraid of Bush being reelected is wrong (I know you said that it's just your speculation and that I didn't directly say it so no hard feelings =) I'm just afraid that it will help in the push for drilling in ANWR. Frankly, at the moment, I don't really mind if Bush returns to the Whitehouse.
The information may have changed but last I heard ANWR drilling will allow a certain amount of acres to be drilled. What they don't mention is this. The acres refer only the amount of space taken up on the ground. Lets say that they allow 3000 acres to be drilled. You would think that then they would build a 3000 acre building. In essence what they can do is build a 100000000acre building resting on pillars that come in contact with 3000 acres of ANWR land. You can imagine how much of an eye-sore a building of that size would be. Again, I want to restate that this information may have changed since I last read.
Someone mentioned somethign about East Coast and nuclear waste disposal. I understand what you're saying and I'm against it but since this topic dealt with oil I only mentioned oil related stuff =)
The information may have changed but last I heard ANWR drilling will allow a certain amount of acres to be drilled. What they don't mention is this. The acres refer only the amount of space taken up on the ground. Lets say that they allow 3000 acres to be drilled. You would think that then they would build a 3000 acre building. In essence what they can do is build a 100000000acre building resting on pillars that come in contact with 3000 acres of ANWR land. You can imagine how much of an eye-sore a building of that size would be. Again, I want to restate that this information may have changed since I last read.
Someone mentioned somethign about East Coast and nuclear waste disposal. I understand what you're saying and I'm against it but since this topic dealt with oil I only mentioned oil related stuff =)
]Good point at the beginning of your post Justin. The part about me being afraid of Bush being reelected is wrong (I know you said that it's just your speculation and that I didn't directly say it so no hard feelings =) I'm just afraid that it will help in the push for drilling in ANWR. Frankly, at the moment, I don't really mind if Bush returns to the Whitehouse.
The information may have changed but last I heard ANWR drilling will allow a certain amount of acres to be drilled. What they don't mention is this. The acres refer only the amount of space taken up on the ground. Lets say that they allow 3000 acres to be drilled. You would think that then they would build a 3000 acre building. In essence what they can do is build a 100000000acre building resting on pillars that come in contact with 3000 acres of ANWR land. You can imagine how much of an eye-sore a building of that size would be. Again, I want to restate that this information may have changed since I last read.
Someone mentioned somethign about East Coast and nuclear waste disposal. I understand what you're saying and I'm against it (meant to say I'm against the nuclear waste disposal, not your opinion =) but since this topic dealt with oil I only mentioned oil related stuff
[This message has been edited by skim83 (edited 18 November 2001).]
The information may have changed but last I heard ANWR drilling will allow a certain amount of acres to be drilled. What they don't mention is this. The acres refer only the amount of space taken up on the ground. Lets say that they allow 3000 acres to be drilled. You would think that then they would build a 3000 acre building. In essence what they can do is build a 100000000acre building resting on pillars that come in contact with 3000 acres of ANWR land. You can imagine how much of an eye-sore a building of that size would be. Again, I want to restate that this information may have changed since I last read.
Someone mentioned somethign about East Coast and nuclear waste disposal. I understand what you're saying and I'm against it (meant to say I'm against the nuclear waste disposal, not your opinion =) but since this topic dealt with oil I only mentioned oil related stuff
[This message has been edited by skim83 (edited 18 November 2001).]
Hi queenie, sorry the second ppg of my post was hard to follow, I went back and created more of a run-on first sentence (combining the original first and second sentences). The initial writing was early Saturday morning, I must have been a bit tired since I did not make my point clearly. All I was saying was Alaska is quite beautiful and unlike most (including probably you) I have actually seen it. Actually having been there does not make me an expert on drilling (wow, thanks for clearing that up) but it does make me an expert on what I consider visually appealing.
We can all point to examples of where oil companies have screwed up, but there are many many more examples of successful drilling with little environmental impact. I would not be in favor of drilling in ANWR if there were a hign probability of environmental damage, but the governments paramaters around drilling here will be so stringent risk will be as low as possible. In fact, I recently read that one oil companies analysis was the cost of extracting the oil would exceed the benefit - so this whole discussion might be moot anyway.
oh, by the way queenie one other thing, my parents are quite proud of me - thanks for your concern.
[This message has been edited by justin hall (edited 18 November 2001).]
- Joined
- 3 February 2000
- Messages
- 3,942
Geez, take a pill folks. Name calling and snide comments are way out of place here. Kiss and make up, or take it private if you want to be rude.
P.S. Technically it is not the "State of Virginia," it is the "Commonwealth of Virginia." PA, MA and KY are also Commonwealths. There is no functional or legal difference, just a matter of political terminology.
[This message has been edited by Lud (edited 18 November 2001).]
P.S. Technically it is not the "State of Virginia," it is the "Commonwealth of Virginia." PA, MA and KY are also Commonwealths. There is no functional or legal difference, just a matter of political terminology.
[This message has been edited by Lud (edited 18 November 2001).]
I went back and created more of a run-on first sentence (combining the original first and second sentences).
***
i HATE when that happens, but have been guilty of it, myself.
All I was saying was Alaska is quite beautiful and unlike most (including probably you) I have actually seen it.
***
contrary to your psychic vision, my man, i have been to ak. i'm guessing you and i aren't the only nsxprime posters who may have, in fact, been to such *remote* environs as ak. who knew?!
...but it does make me an expert on what I consider visually appealing.
***
i know there are few things that strike me as beautiful as the drilling platforms off the ca coast... when i was a kid in so cal, when we looked offshore, all we could see were the channel island chains and, eventually, the horizon. now there are the beautiful "towers of oil" dotting the offshore area - i'm sure the residents of ak can only *dare* to hope they, too, can enjoy these visions of beauty.
We can all point to examples of where oil companies have screwed up, but there are many many more examples of successful drilling with little environmental impact.
***
to me it's how we calibrate "little". my experience is that it's usally "little" or minor when it affects someone else and not us, specifically.
I would not be in favor of drilling in ANWR if there were a hign probability of environmental damage, but the governments paramaters around drilling here will be so stringent risk will be as low as possible.
***
bwahahahaha. "government parameters" and "stringent" in the same sentence. stop, you're killing me!
In fact, I recently read that one oil companies analysis was the cost of extracting the oil would exceed the benefit - so this whole discussion might be moot anyway.
***
if you read a report by an oil company saying they were doing this for the good of the country, and not their shareholders, then it *must* be true.
on the flip side, the report you cite may well have been done by the same people who are pushing the guardians of our health, philip morris, into changing their name so they're not identified with actually causing harm. sure, i'll believe them - they're looking out for me :>)
be well.
hal
[This message has been edited by queenlives (edited 18 November 2001).]
***
i HATE when that happens, but have been guilty of it, myself.
All I was saying was Alaska is quite beautiful and unlike most (including probably you) I have actually seen it.
***
contrary to your psychic vision, my man, i have been to ak. i'm guessing you and i aren't the only nsxprime posters who may have, in fact, been to such *remote* environs as ak. who knew?!
...but it does make me an expert on what I consider visually appealing.
***
i know there are few things that strike me as beautiful as the drilling platforms off the ca coast... when i was a kid in so cal, when we looked offshore, all we could see were the channel island chains and, eventually, the horizon. now there are the beautiful "towers of oil" dotting the offshore area - i'm sure the residents of ak can only *dare* to hope they, too, can enjoy these visions of beauty.
We can all point to examples of where oil companies have screwed up, but there are many many more examples of successful drilling with little environmental impact.
***
to me it's how we calibrate "little". my experience is that it's usally "little" or minor when it affects someone else and not us, specifically.
I would not be in favor of drilling in ANWR if there were a hign probability of environmental damage, but the governments paramaters around drilling here will be so stringent risk will be as low as possible.
***
bwahahahaha. "government parameters" and "stringent" in the same sentence. stop, you're killing me!
In fact, I recently read that one oil companies analysis was the cost of extracting the oil would exceed the benefit - so this whole discussion might be moot anyway.
***
if you read a report by an oil company saying they were doing this for the good of the country, and not their shareholders, then it *must* be true.
on the flip side, the report you cite may well have been done by the same people who are pushing the guardians of our health, philip morris, into changing their name so they're not identified with actually causing harm. sure, i'll believe them - they're looking out for me :>)
be well.
hal
[This message has been edited by queenlives (edited 18 November 2001).]
apples to oranges, big difference between santa barbara and ANWR. the latter is largely inhabited by polar bears. as previously stated, the humans that are there want the drilling for the jobs. but I'm sure the polar bears appreciate your concern.
...but I'm sure the polar bears appreciate your concern.
***
indeed.
in light of lud's comments, i'm fine acknowledging that we're polar opposites on this and let it rest with whatever final comments you may choose to close with.
***
indeed.
in light of lud's comments, i'm fine acknowledging that we're polar opposites on this and let it rest with whatever final comments you may choose to close with.
nice little pun "polar opposites"
agree to disagree.
agree to disagree.
Similar threads
