I'm Tired of All The Crap

[Ivar the Red]

I guarandamntee you that if we decide to drill for our own oil, the effect would not take twenty years or ten or even five. It would be immediate. The price is up because supply is constant and demand is going up. The prospect of future increased supply would drive the price down. That's how commodity speculation works, whether it's oil, gold, soybeans or pork bellies. That's why they call them "futures" - they're speculating on a future price.

Joseph

The market is currently bidding on oil for Audgust/September delivery.

Unless you know how to drill for oil really fast, I don't think opening up new fields is going to lower prices anytime soon.

I'm not opposed to some additional drilling in the US, including offshore and in ANWR. But, let's not fool ourselves. If we don't change our consumption practices, we are not going to significantly lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Drilling alone is not going to do the job.

That's where compromise comes in. The left wants conservation measurers, and the right wants to drill, drill, drill. Through negotiation and compromise, you draft legislation that does some of both.

CD

Don't you think if OPEC thinks we soon will be useing our own oil that they won't lower the prices to try and make us stop drilling?

[Miriam C.]

Don't you think if OPEC thinks we soon will be useing our own oil that they won't lower the prices to try and make us stop drilling?

OPEC no longer directly controls prices. They can influence prices by flooding the market with oil or fuel. We are not living in the 70's anymore. The folks who make the most money control the price now.

Now that means any rich person can bid up oil futures and screw up life for the rest of us. Any group of determined poor people can do the same.

[caseydog]

I guarandamntee you that if we decide to drill for our own oil, the effect would not take twenty years or ten or even five. It would be immediate. The price is up because supply is constant and demand is going up. The prospect of future increased supply would drive the price down. That's how commodity speculation works, whether it's oil, gold, soybeans or pork bellies. That's why they call them "futures" - they're speculating on a future price.

Joseph

The market is currently bidding on oil for Audgust/September delivery.

Unless you know how to drill for oil really fast, I don't think opening up new fields is going to lower prices anytime soon.

I'm not opposed to some additional drilling in the US, including offshore and in ANWR. But, let's not fool ourselves. If we don't change our consumption practices, we are not going to significantly lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Drilling alone is not going to do the job.

That's where compromise comes in. The left wants conservation measurers, and the right wants to drill, drill, drill. Through negotiation and compromise, you draft legislation that does some of both.

CD

Don't you think if OPEC thinks we soon will be useing our own oil that they won't lower the prices to try and make us stop drilling?

Well, yes, but why? There isn't enough oil here to end our dependence.

They actually did keep prices artificially low for about a decade, to keep consumption high, and dependence high. That's part of the reason the price increase hurts so much now. If it would have happened on a more even and gradual pace, we would have adapted better.

Low crude prices also made it economically unattractive for oil companies to drill for new oil domestically, too. Do you remember seeing all those oil derricks around Oklahoma sitting idle when oil was $25 per barrel? Now that oil is over 100 bucks, those pumps are being restarted all over the place.

And, keep in mind this important fact. Unless oil prices are high, there is no incentive for oil companies to drill here. If it is more profitable to buy from OPEC suppliers than it is to explore for it here, then why spend the money, if your mission as a company is to make higher and higher profits every quarter.

Deep water exploration needs reliably high oil prices to be considered viable by oil companies. Other fossil fuel exploration like oil shale and tar sands extraction requires even higher oil prices -- with little or no risk of OPEC cutting prices -- to be considered safe ventures for the oil industry.

It's a catch-22. Now that prices are high, we need new sources of domestic oil, but, in order for new domestic exploration to be profitable enough to pursue, we need high oil prices.

CD

[caseydog]

Don't you think if OPEC thinks we soon will be useing our own oil that they won't lower the prices to try and make us stop drilling?

OPEC no longer directly controls prices. They can influence prices by flooding the market with oil or fuel. We are not living in the 70's anymore. The folks who make the most money control the price now.

Now that means any rich person can bid up oil futures and screw up life for the rest of us. Any group of determined poor people can do the same.

That's true, but I don't think it is the whole story. Without the speculators, I don't think oil would cost $25 per barrel again. Speculation may be the difference between $100 and $130 per barrel, which is a bunch, but fundamental supply and demand issues play a bigger role, IMO.

However, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the oil industry and it's overpaid executives to find a solution to any problems in the oil marketplace -- not while they are raking in huge profits and big bonuses off of record high oil prices.

CD

[Ivar the Red]

Do you remember seeing all those oil derricks around Oklahoma sitting idle when oil was $25 per barrel? Now that oil is over 100 bucks, those pumps are being restarted all over the place.


CD

Yep, and that's what's keeping me at work 12 hours a day/6 days a week. Oh well, gotta pay the bills somehow, so I'm not gonna complain too much. Just when I drop 80 bucks in my Durango for a tank of gas.

[Wolf]

Nikola Tesla!

[caseydog]

Nikola Tesla!

What, we need a new invention that someone else can take credit for?

CD

[sdtripper2]

The colorful yet insightful Mr. T. Boone Pickens of (BP Capital)
testified at the Senate Full Committee Hearing: to examine the challenges
and regional solutions to developing transmission for renewable electricity resources (SD 366)


Pickens has some thought provoking ideas on the expansion of wind energy and
diverting natural gas to the auto consumption arena, to have the US become
self sufficient with energy for electric Transmission and auto consumption.
If you read his logical facts on the amount of money we are pouring out to
our enemies as well as the 85 Billion cap on oil production. You will see that
with the middle classes of India and China will exasperate the cost of crude
oil. Pickens makes a good argument for self sufficiency with the will of
Government focus on Wind transmission and Natural gas for cars. Read his
testimony below and see charts and explanations.

Mr. T. Boone Pickens
Written testimony Tuesday, June 17, 2008 10:00 AM
http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/ ... 061708.doc
or here > http://tinyurl.com/497g7y

Full list of Hearing participants and information:
http://tinyurl.com/3jg9m7
View the whole hearing here: http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/energy061708.ram

[wanders]

Since we are on to politics, let me share this. Don't agree 100%, but the idea of a tripartisan agenda for the US is interesting to speculate on. Ideas in this are favored by majorities regardless of party.

If nothing else, it should promote discussion..

http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=bf4a5257-45e3-4a94-97fc-57e2d7ecb6f9

[caseydog]

Since we are on to politics, let me share this. Don't agree 100%, but the idea of a tripartisan agenda for the US is interesting to speculate on. Ideas in this are favored by majorities regardless of party.

If nothing else, it should promote discussion..

http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=bf4a5257-45e3-4a94-97fc-57e2d7ecb6f9

Well, I can't say I agree with even 50% of it.

I read it, and it looked vaguely familiar. So, I checked the "About" section of the website. Newt Gingrich is behind this.

Newt Gingrich was one of the people who started all the partisan bickering in Congress. IMO, he deserves credit (or blame) more than any single person for the fighting and dirty pool being played in Washington today. I can't see this as being bipartisan, or tripartisan with him involved.

It looks to me like just a reincarnation of Newt's previous attempts to make America what he believes the founding fathers intended it to be. He and his supporters have always felt that they alone know how America SHOULD be, and anyone else can move to France.

CD

[Joseph]

Well, I can't say I agree with even 50% of it.

I read it, and it looked vaguely familiar. So, I checked the "About" section of the website. Newt Gingrich is behind this.

So what? Either an idea has merit or it does not. If you disagree with the ideas presented, fine, then argue them on their merit or lack thereof, not because you don't like the author. Ad hominem BS, IMHO.

Newt Gingrich was one of the people who started all the partisan bickering in Congress. IMO, he deserves credit (or blame) more than any single person for the fighting and dirty pool being played in Washington today. I can't see this as being bipartisan, or tripartisan with him involved.

CD you have GOT to be kidding! For Gingrich to have started all the partisan bickering in Congress he'd have to be about 250 years old, since it's been going on since day one! There has seldom if ever been a time when there was NOT partisan bickering in Congress.

As for partisan fighting and dirty pool, which party was the first in history to fillibuster Presidential nominations?

[sarcasm] Yeah, that's non-partisan politics. [/sarcasm]

It looks to me like just a reincarnation of Newt's previous attempts to make America what he believes the founding fathers intended it to be. He and his supporters have always felt that they alone know how America SHOULD be, and anyone else can move to France.

Does not EVERY politician seek to make America what they believe it should be? My concern is that the visions of the two contenders are way the hell too far out in left field for my taste. And France is starting to look good. From what I've heard, President Zarkozy sounds more American than most American politicians I've heard lately, especially the two we're saddled with chosing between.

Joseph

[caseydog]

My concern is that the visions of the two contenders are way the hell too far out in left field for my taste. And France is starting to look good. From what I've heard, President Zarkozy sounds more American than most American politicians I've heard lately, especially the two we're saddled with chosing between.

Joseph

Let me know if you need help packing -- or a ride to the airport.

CD

[Miriam C.]

The colorful yet insightful Mr. T. Boone Pickens of (BP Capital)
testified at the Senate Full Committee Hearing: to examine the challenges
and regional solutions to developing transmission for renewable electricity resources (SD 366)


Pickens has some thought provoking ideas on the expansion of wind energy and
diverting natural gas to the auto consumption arena, to have the US become
self sufficient with energy for electric Transmission and auto consumption.
If you read his logical facts on the amount of money we are pouring out to
our enemies as well as the 85 Billion cap on oil production. You will see that
with the middle classes of India and China will exasperate the cost of crude
oil. Pickens makes a good argument for self sufficiency with the will of
Government focus on Wind transmission and Natural gas for cars. Read his
testimony below and see charts and explanations.

Mr. T. Boone Pickens
Written testimony Tuesday, June 17, 2008 10:00 AM
http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/ ... 061708.doc
or here > http://tinyurl.com/497g7y

Full list of Hearing participants and information:
http://tinyurl.com/3jg9m7
View the whole hearing here: http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/energy061708.ram

Now I just wonder what T Boon had to say in 1972-'73 about the subject but I am just too lazy to look it up. Course he could have been laying low---but I doubt it.

[Jason and Amanda]

http://water-gas.org/

That does look interesting. Anybody ever see it in action?

[caseydog]

http://water-gas.org/

That does look interesting. Anybody ever see it in action?

I haven't read this one, but this idea has been floating around forever.

Using water in an internal combustion engine is supposed to make it A) more powerful, or B) more fuel efficient. Let's just say I won't be doing it to my car. I might try it on a $500 piece of junk, but not on any car I paid good money for.

The only way to make water into a fuel is to break it up into Hydrogen and Oxygen. That requires energy. The trick is to create more energy with the fuel you create than you use to make the fuel.

Fuel Cell technology kinda-sorta what a fuel cell does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell

CD