|
Joined: Jun 2, 2008
|
Dave wrote: <quoted text>
So, why didn't Bush lift his ban a long time ago?
How do you recind an order with "force"? Did he ball up a piece of paper & throw it real hard or something?
So, oh wise one, which is better. To use the existing technology we have today to cut our gasoline use by 50% or drill in an attemp to increase our supply by 5%?
Lets see: not buy 4.4 million barrels a day, Or buy 3 million from foreign sources sending over $300 million a day,$400 billion a year to foreign companies/countries.
End up using that additional 5% to make up for lost production on past peak oil wells & increased demand or eliminating any increase in demans and the reduction in demand outpace the depleating of existing fields. Saving that oil for future use other than burning it.
But, I guess conservation isn't a plan even though it is the only option to actually reduce the price of oil within 4 or 5 years.
But noooo. You actually believe that our salvation lies in a pool of oil at most 18 billion barrels when we use 7.6 billion a year?
Tell us it ain't so! Fake Dave…Are you that dense? I’ll say it again!!!!!!!!!! 1. He didn’t lift the ban because it is CONGRESS’ JOB to do it. He waited too long for congress to get something done was his error 2. By GW lifting the ban…it has exposed the congress as a fraud…He waited too long to do this…which was a mistake 3. I've NEVER said to not conserve. On the other hand…all you think about is conservation…which is not the answer either! Again…my point proven daily by Fake Dave with the name calling and finger pointing…but ultimately…do nothing. Yep ‘Fake Dave’ may be considered name calling…but it seems to be the only thing you truly understand.
|
|
Lil John
|
If the democrats would not have blocked, stalled, obstructed an energy plan from 2001 the prices would not be at the level they are now. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-... This is the same thing we are debating today thanks to the democrats mustering just enough votes to derail any advances in production... Among Cheney's proposals: • Increased domestic production of crude oil. • Stepped-up construction of natural gas pipelines. • Massive expansion of the electrical power grid. • Renewed construction of nuclear, hydroelectric, oil- and coal-fired power plants Sound familiar??? It should thanks to democrats, not much has changed except prices.
|
|
Joined: Jun 2, 2008
|
Dave wrote: <quoted text>
Lets see: not buy 4.4 million barrels a day, Or buy 3 million from foreign sources sending over $300 million a day,$400 billion a year to foreign companies/countries.....
But noooo. You actually believe that our salvation lies in a pool of oil at most 18 billion barrels when we use 7.6 billion a year? If we produced more oil in this country...then the money wouldn't need to be sent to foreign countries now would it Fake Dave? 18 billion barrels...7.6 used per year...additional U.S.A production of only 2 Billion barrels ruduces foreign demand by more than 20%...2 billion barrel production of 18 billion barrels gives us 9 years (at least) to get alternative sources mass produced and reliable. Again Fake Dave...why is that bad?????
|
|
Joined: Jun 2, 2008
|
Fake Dave...why no response? Does this make too much sense?? Or, because I did not say the word "conservation" does this not catch your eye?
|
|
AnonyMouse
|
X Chambersburg Resident wrote: <quoted text>
If we produced more oil in this country...then the money wouldn't need to be sent to foreign countries now would it Fake Dave?
18 billion barrels...7.6 used per year...additional U.S.A production of only 2 Billion barrels ruduces foreign demand by more than 20%...2 billion barrel production of 18 billion barrels gives us 9 years (at least) to get alternative sources mass produced and reliable.
Again Fake Dave...why is that bad????? A lot of people don't know it, but oil produced in the US does not stay in the US. It's not as simple as drilling more here so we don't have to buy as much from overseas. There is ONE oil market - the world oil market. All oil produced everywhere in the world is sold on the world oil market. Every refiner purchases oil from the world oil market. What's produced in the US does not stay in the US. If US companies produced more oil from US sources they would simply add supply to the world oil market, increasing their profits. And experts predict a best-case reduction (based on best estimates of recoverable US oil) of several dollars per barrel of oil. That may translate to a reduction in gasoline of several cents per gallon, assuming that refiners don't increase their prices. The oil market has evolved into a complex system. The idea that if we produce more oil here we'd have to buy less from overseas is a simplist fantasy promoted by politicians to garner votes. It just doesn't work that way.
|
|
Lil John
|
Today in another attempt to stop any production off shore-- The democratic leadership suspended the rules AGAIN. What do you call that hmmm obstructionist, blocking politizing any attempt to have a real energy plan Way to go Democrats!!!! 9% approval rating confirmed! ''Republicans were blocked from amending the bill. Republicans say they had enough votes to pass the bill with an amendment lifting the ban on offshore drilling, which the Democratic leadership opposes''' The House voted 268 to 157 in favor of the legislation, but the measure fell short of obtaining a two-thirds "yes" vote that is required when the chamber suspends its rules to quickly act on a bill. Under the suspension of the rules, Republicans were blocked from amending the bill. Republicans say they had enough votes to pass the bill with an amendment lifting the ban on offshore drilling, which the Democratic leadership opposes http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080724/pl_nm/con... Reuters!
|
|
Joined: Jun 2, 2008
|
AnonyMouse wrote: <quoted text>
A lot of people don't know it, but oil produced in the US does not stay in the US. It's not as simple as drilling more here so we don't have to buy as much from overseas.
There is ONE oil market - the world oil market. All oil produced everywhere in the world is sold on the world oil market. Every refiner purchases oil from the world oil market. What's produced in the US does not stay in the US.
If US companies produced more oil from US sources they would simply add supply to the world oil market, increasing their profits. And experts predict a best-case reduction (based on best estimates of recoverable US oil) of several dollars per barrel of oil. That may translate to a reduction in gasoline of several cents per gallon, assuming that refiners don't increase their prices.
The oil market has evolved into a complex system. The idea that if we produce more oil here we'd have to buy less from overseas is a simplist fantasy promoted by politicians to garner votes. It just doesn't work that way. Agreed... However...what binds countries to work this way? Who controls where it goes? If I am correct, it's the financial futures traders that do the buying and selling. What about Venezuela? They seem to control who gets their oil...so why not the United States? If the loopholes of futures trading would be closed...Like only allowing 'futures' to be bought if you could take delivery within 90 days, I think we would see a pretty good drop in the price of oil...
|
|
Lil John
|
AnonyMouse wrote: <quoted text>
A lot of people don't know it, but oil produced in the US does not stay in the US. It's not as simple as drilling more here so we don't have to buy as much from overseas.
There is ONE oil market - the world oil market. All oil produced everywhere in the world is sold on the world oil market. Every refiner purchases oil from the world oil market. What's produced in the US does not stay in the US.
If US companies produced more oil from US sources they would simply add supply to the world oil market, increasing their profits. And experts predict a best-case reduction (based on best estimates of recoverable US oil) of several dollars per barrel of oil. That may translate to a reduction in gasoline of several cents per gallon, assuming that refiners don't increase their prices.
The oil market has evolved into a complex system. The idea that if we produce more oil here we'd have to buy less from overseas is a simplist fantasy promoted by politicians to garner votes. It just doesn't work that way. Other than north slope oil, what oil leaves the U.S.? I didn't realize that we had that much excess capacity to produce oil.
|
|
|
|
AnonyMouse
|
Lil John wrote: <quoted text>
Other than north slope oil, what oil leaves the U.S.?
I didn't realize that we had that much excess capacity to produce oil. My understanding is that it ALL is sold on the world market - north slope and everywhere else. Is that untrue? The politicians are saying we need to drill offshore and in ANWAR. I'm guessing that's where they think all the excess capacity is.
|
|
Joined: Jun 2, 2008
|
AnonyMouse wrote: <quoted text>
My understanding is that it ALL is sold on the world market - north slope and everywhere else. Is that untrue?
The politicians are saying we need to drill offshore and in ANWAR. I'm guessing that's where they think all the excess capacity is. I believe you are correct in that it is a world market...but I think the individual companies can decide who they sell to. Additionally, many socialist countries are making 'back door' deals to other countries and this has taken oil off of the open market...which reflects in the price of a barrel of oil.
|
|
Lil John
|
AnonyMouse wrote: <quoted text>
My understanding is that it ALL is sold on the world market - north slope and everywhere else. Is that untrue?
The politicians are saying we need to drill offshore and in ANWAR. I'm guessing that's where they think all the excess capacity is. ALL is sold on the world market"""" That's true to a certain extent -- the price is set on the world market! However why would you want to buy oil from the US if you were in Norway? Why would you want to buy oil from a distant place if you could buy it closer to the refinery and not pay the cost of transport, insurance, etc? It would seem it would be cheaper to buy US OIL for the US because of the transportation costs. I understand that north slope oil is bought by Japan and Asia because it's closer to Alaska than the refineries in CONUS. Making it cheaper for Japan than it would be for the US when you consider the additional cost other than the base price/. Ther are other factors like quality of the oil you're looking for also. Heavy vs light etc. If profit is the driving force as it should be, if you eliminate transportation costs then most of the oil produced by the US would be used by the US... The world price may be set by international standards but other costs that a buyer can avoid would be more profit for him. Speculators are not oil buyers, they don't want the oil just the profit from the sale of it. They never take physical delivery of the oil.
|
|
“Bidden or unbidden God is Here”
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
|
This is not pretty, and its a sad, sad statement for both Dems and Repubs, but here it is: Sometimes I think we should just dump them all. Plan B For Pelosi And Reid http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/200...
|
|
“Bidden or unbidden God is Here”
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
|
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jan/25/world... Decline in Oil Output Dims Iraq’s Recovery Lil John wrote: <quoted text>
Just how much oil was Iraq producing?
You do know that there was an oil embargo on IRAQ ever since 1990 when saddam invded Kuwait--
So again how much oil was Iraq producing prior to us liberating Iraq??/
You have no clue, just babbling what sounds like a liberal mantra but even they know history unlike you!!
Here's a hint -- agreement between Iraq and the United Nations to sell $2 billion worth of oil twice a year to buy food and medicine, officials said.--
So your post is just the run of mill drivel you known for!
|
|
THE WATCHER
|
|
|
Lil John
|
THE WATCHER wrote: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/ news?pid=20601082&sid=aqED MhrCvp28 do you see any reference to Iraq in the article you posted ---
|
|
Lil John
|
''formation beneath the North Pole claimed by Russian scientists last year probably holds just 1.2 percent of the Arctic's crude, the U.S. report showed.'''''''
What is 1.2% of 90 billiom barrels???
1.08 billion -- and is that what you were claiming iraq was pumping prior to liberation including the oil for food program administered by the U.N.--- incredible!---
|
|
THE WATCHER
|
Lil John wrote: <quoted text>
do you see any reference to Iraq in the article you posted --- Nope not at all...Why? So how our friend Dave the Enviro/lib/al Gore lover doing tonight...think he maybe in bed playing pup tent again...*L*
|
|
Lil John
|
THE WATCHER wrote: <quoted text>
Nope not at all...Why?
So how our friend Dave the Enviro/lib/al Gore lover doing tonight...think he maybe in bed playing pup tent again...*L* He'll have a hemorage when he resds that. The part about Iraq is when carol posted #1184 and tried to link that story somehow with iraq by forging a sentence like it was part of the report/ LOLL Busted!!!!
|
|
THE WATCHER
|
Lil John wrote: <quoted text>
He'll have a hemorage when he resds that.
The part about Iraq is when carol posted #1184 and tried to link that story somehow with iraq by forging a sentence like it was part of the report/
LOLL Busted!!!! What else is new with the 3 stooges...Dave,Carol-1 and Gomer...*LMAO* Think they have a vendetta agaist me as one of them keeps clicking the report abuse button...*L* typical liberals...they get upset so easily...and they preach tolerance...*LOL* Funny they can call me names like racist,bigot,redneck etc...I don't complain just go with the flow...but one or more of those 3 are real thunb suckers....*LOL*
|
|
Lil John
|
THE WATCHER wrote: <quoted text>
Nope not at all...Why?
So how our friend Dave the Enviro/lib/al Gore lover doing tonight...think he maybe in bed playing pup tent again...*L* Did you see today where the democrats are again playing parlor games with the energy bill in both houses?
|
Olympics
Judge it!
Taurus
Most Popular