Ironically, the tourist economy will be suffer either way - less travel due to high prices at the pump, or environmental accidents occur.(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
Their goal has to been to protect beaches and coastal states' tourism economies.
If you invest into other alternative energy without committing to look for more oil sources in the future you will not change the current prices at all. You would be telling the speculators that oil will still be in high demand due to the lack of supply. A combination of the two is ideal (unless you think alternative energy will happen instantly). Perception and opinion do in fact impact immediate prices. This could be in the form of ME tensions, Brazilian strikes, or the search for more sources.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Not to mention that drilling now wouldn't really ease prices right now, and it's speculation at best as to what (if any) effect that would have on our (US) gas prices. Either way you have to make an investment for the future - do you want to focus on offshore drilling and increased production of oil, do you want to funnel money to energy alternatives, or should we do both? Personally, I don't see any major tangible effect on lifting the offshore ban; it's more of a move to ease public perception and opinion.Kmarion wrote:
Oil future contracts can be bought relatively cheap due to the weak dollar. There is not a shortage of oil now... there is not a need to drill now. One way to curve the rush to get these contracts is to require a greater initial investment into the contract. Oil prices are driven largely by what might happen. Does that make sense?God Save the Queen wrote:
not a rebuttal. Im not trying to argue. Im not debating. If I had known more about it, I would have said it. I dont. Im not going to go google surfing just so i could post something that will make it seem like I know what Im talking about. I asked questions.
edit: fuck you.
I would rather see concrete, tangible examples of our government's commitment to alternative fuel and energy supplies.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I agree. It's about sending a message. The message that the United States is serious about getting off that Saudi Sauce will in turn affect the international investors attitude. It will force them today to rethink how much they invest into futures. Bush officially lifting the long standing ban is one way of conveying that message. Passing new fuel standards and offering other incentives for using various alternative fuels was another.Pug wrote:
I think "Both" is the answer Ken.
All the oil we have now was developed, and if you look around, we're not ready for oil alternatives. So oil development will help three years from now. Given what's happening now, I think most people are thinking about getting away from oil.
The problem is most people WANT to drill (there was a poll somewhere recently about this) rather than develop alternative fuel sources. Why do people think this way? Because right now we don't have the technology or infrastructure to be without oil. So there is no alternative until it's developed.
More oil in the short run will help us get to the long run.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
we already have oil, we need refineries
Finally, they have been wanting to drill off the coast of Florida for a long time. Hopefully gas prices here will be dirt cheap
I think there's a more self-serving reason not to tap your own resources, and it can be described by Warcraft II strategy:
Early in the game, mine out all the gold and oil closest to your enemy's base before tapping your own. That way, you can deprive them of resources from early on and come out on top (if you can defend your gambit).
Early in the game, mine out all the gold and oil closest to your enemy's base before tapping your own. That way, you can deprive them of resources from early on and come out on top (if you can defend your gambit).
If the US is pulling the oil out for US consumption, it may not affect the price paid elsewhere in the world, but it should affect the price paid in the US...which is what increased drilling/refinement capacity is focused on. So...even if it doesn't drop worldwide oil prices, it should reduce the amount of oil the US must import, thereby reducing overall energy costs.CameronPoe wrote:
I hate to break it to you guys but it ain't going to make a shit of a difference - from the Energy Information Administration branch of the US government:
"With respect to the world oil price impact, projected ANWR oil production constitutes between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030, based on the low and high resource cases, respectively. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. Relative to the AEO2008 reference case, ANWR oil production is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light (LSL) crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 in the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 in the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 in the high oil resource case. Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount."
Or am I missing something?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I'm hope full that the new process to turn water into the gas {HHO}will lift our dependence on foreign oil completely, the inventor is meeting with the government to discuss applications of the new technology & has a meeting with one of the big car company's.
Fuck off mideast.
Fuck off mideast.
Last edited by TrollmeaT (2008-07-14 18:48:48)
Yea... Too bad the Congress has to vote on it now.Kmarion wrote:
I agree. It's about sending a message. The message that the United States is serious about getting off that Saudi Sauce will in turn affect the international investors attitude. It will force them today to rethink how much they invest into futures. Bush officially lifting the long standing ban is one way of conveying that message. Passing new fuel standards and offering other incentives for using various alternative fuels was another.Pug wrote:
I think "Both" is the answer Ken.
All the oil we have now was developed, and if you look around, we're not ready for oil alternatives. So oil development will help three years from now. Given what's happening now, I think most people are thinking about getting away from oil.
The problem is most people WANT to drill (there was a poll somewhere recently about this) rather than develop alternative fuel sources. Why do people think this way? Because right now we don't have the technology or infrastructure to be without oil. So there is no alternative until it's developed.
More oil in the short run will help us get to the long run.
Game over. Thank you for playing.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/13/ … index.html
how the hell are these clowns at 9%?
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
If the Dems want to see their popularity plummet form 9% to 1% i dare them to keep the ban in place. Actually we may see tenth of a percent for the first time.DBBrinson1 wrote:
how the hell are these clowns at 9%?
Stingray24 wrote:
If the Dems want to see their popularity plummet form 9% to 1% i dare them to keep the ban in place. Actually we may see tenth of a percent for the first time.DBBrinson1 wrote:
how the hell are these clowns at 9%?
Wasn't aware there was only one Republican Senator and 25 Reps.The House vote was 385-25, the Senate vote was 97-1.
But then they make money alot faster than you do.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I think there's a more self-serving reason not to tap your own resources, and it can be described by Warcraft II strategy:
Early in the game, mine out all the gold and oil closest to your enemy's base before tapping your own. That way, you can deprive them of resources from early on and come out on top (if you can defend your gambit).
Oddly enough I've been playing that game lately for PS1.
The SPR is a different issue, this is July, not May. The Dems are blocking a vote even coming to the floor on the lifting the drilling ban.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
If the Dems want to see their popularity plummet form 9% to 1% i dare them to keep the ban in place. Actually we may see tenth of a percent for the first time.DBBrinson1 wrote:
how the hell are these clowns at 9%?Wasn't aware there was only one Republican Senator and 25 Reps.The House vote was 385-25, the Senate vote was 97-1.
Last edited by Stingray24 (2008-07-14 20:31:46)
Keeping the bill in committee. Dems are sucking hard on the enviro tit here. Or maybe it's the other way around...Stingray24 wrote:
The SPR is a different issue, this is July, not May. The Dems are blocking a vote even coming to the floor on the lifting the drilling ban.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
If the Dems want to see their popularity plummet form 9% to 1% i dare them to keep the ban in place. Actually we may see tenth of a percent for the first time.Wasn't aware there was only one Republican Senator and 25 Reps.The House vote was 385-25, the Senate vote was 97-1.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
gg Bush. For once.
Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136.
Now isn’t this interesting?
Democrats keep saying that it will take 10 years or longer to produce oil from the offshore areas. And they say that oil prices won’t decline for at least that long. And they, along with Obama and McCain, bash so-called oil speculators. And today we had a real-world example as to why they are wrong. All of them. Reid, Pelosi, Obama, McCain — all of them.
Traders took a look at a feisty and aggressive George Bush and started selling the market well before a single new drop of oil has been lifted. What does this tell us? Well, if Congress moves to seal the deal, oil prices will probably keep on falling. That’s the way traders work. They discount the future. Psychology and expectations can turn on a dime.
Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136.
Now isn’t this interesting?
Democrats keep saying that it will take 10 years or longer to produce oil from the offshore areas. And they say that oil prices won’t decline for at least that long. And they, along with Obama and McCain, bash so-called oil speculators. And today we had a real-world example as to why they are wrong. All of them. Reid, Pelosi, Obama, McCain — all of them.
Traders took a look at a feisty and aggressive George Bush and started selling the market well before a single new drop of oil has been lifted. What does this tell us? Well, if Congress moves to seal the deal, oil prices will probably keep on falling. That’s the way traders work. They discount the future. Psychology and expectations can turn on a dime.
Brent Crude Oil $/barrel 144.90ATG wrote:
gg Bush. For once.
Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136.
West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil $/barrel 146.35
??
Edit: No, it's futures that have dropped. Sorry.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-07-15 16:16:50)
@atg
^^ I was trying to explain that yesterday . Oil is driven by future demand. Contracts are sold years and years in advance.
^^ I was trying to explain that yesterday . Oil is driven by future demand. Contracts are sold years and years in advance.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
trying?Kmarion wrote:
@atg
^^ I was trying to explain that yesterday . Oil is driven by future demand. Contracts are sold years and years in advance.
I understood
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-07-15 16:16:17)
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/15/markets … 2008071516CameronPoe wrote:
Brent Crude Oil $/barrel 144.90ATG wrote:
gg Bush. For once.
Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136.
West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil $/barrel 146.35
??
Edit: No, it's futures that have dropped. Sorry.
However this could also be a reflection of a slowing demand because of the economy. Probably a combination.
@GS .. sorry ..lol. You get my point .
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I bet there would be boycotts and strikes before 10$ a gallon.SealXo wrote:
I hope congress takes it off, though I doubt they will.
I mean how long will we be using oil? 20 years max?
We have what? A 90 year supply?
So we should start tapping into it, i mean thats weaning off foreign oil correct?
And obama like wah oh no that wont do anything for 5 years.
But id rather act now then be crying in 5 years when gas is like 15 bucks a gallon.
Oh boy.The#1Spot wrote:
I bet there would be boycotts and strikes before 10$ a gallon.SealXo wrote:
I hope congress takes it off, though I doubt they will.
I mean how long will we be using oil? 20 years max?
We have what? A 90 year supply?
So we should start tapping into it, i mean thats weaning off foreign oil correct?
And obama like wah oh no that wont do anything for 5 years.
But id rather act now then be crying in 5 years when gas is like 15 bucks a gallon.
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.....
http://www.latimes.com/news/printeditio … 4892.story
Strikes where?The#1Spot wrote:
I bet there would be boycotts and strikes before 10$ a gallon.SealXo wrote:
I hope congress takes it off, though I doubt they will.
I mean how long will we be using oil? 20 years max?
We have what? A 90 year supply?
So we should start tapping into it, i mean thats weaning off foreign oil correct?
And obama like wah oh no that wont do anything for 5 years.
But id rather act now then be crying in 5 years when gas is like 15 bucks a gallon.
They'll be worldwide.
I'm not striking, must have paycheck.