Oil at $87 and rising - still no alternative energy

Steve
You are very correct.
Among the four sentenses from the fox news quote above
the first one is a general sentense and the third and forth one should be the first and second one..
Developing countries are far far behind the Americans thirst for energy.

0 Replies

Ramafuchs wrote:

Steve
You are very correct.

I've always liked you Rama

0 Replies

tHANK YOU sTEVE:

"Here are the top 20 nations sorted by production, and their production and consumption figures. Saudi Arabia produces the most at 8,711,000.00 bbl per day, and the United States consumes the most at 19,650,000.00 bbl per day, a full 25% of the world's oil consumption
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/politics/GlobalOil.html

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Bush today at the press conference:

Quote:
" I believe oil prices are going up because the demand for oil outstrips the supply for oil. Oil is going up because developing countries still use a lot of oil. Oil is going up because we use too much oil. And the capacity to replace reserves is dwindling. That's why the price of oil is going up."

source: FoxNews

Pretty simple concept that few people have grasped.

To expand on his simple concept, if we (the U.S.) want to attempt to help ourselves in terms of our capacity to replace reserves so that the financial shock of rapidly rising oil prices could be more gradual, we should step up our drilling efforts in more places in the U.S., which is opposed at every turn by treehuggers. So two points in regard to supply and price, tree huggers should be happy to see prices rise, and if they aren't, they should quit complaining because they have done nothing to improve the oil supply problem. Include in that group all Democrat presidential candidates.

Secondly, the price rise will do more to prompt the free market to find other alternatives, thus eventually relieving pressure on demand for oil. It will be private enterprise that ultimately will accomplish this from the bottom up, not the top down. Government attempting to figure out and work out a solution from the top down is simply a waste of time and resources. They would do alot more to ease the problem by simply getting out of the way by streamlining and simplifying the regulatory hurdles required for companies to do anything nowadays in regard to energy.

0 Replies

We also have big, wide open country that demands long travel distances often without any alternative to passenger vehicles and trucks. I have to drive 70 miles a day round trip just to get to work. Why not move closer? Because if I did the company would probably move the business. No point.

0 Replies

Question of the day: who and what is determining the price of oil and your gasoline and home heating bills? Don't ask Uncle Sam, because George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are running a regime marinated in oil that does not issue reports which explain the real determinants of petroleum pricing beyond the conventional supply-demand curves.

Meanwhile, the government of Big Oil runs Washington, D.C. It thumbed its nose at pleas from then Chairman of the powerful Finance Committee, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) who asked the major companies, swimming in massive profits, to contribute some charitable dollars to help the poor pay for their winter home heating bills, and has smugly watched the major Presidential candidates avoid the subject in their debates and declarations.

Oil companies seem to spend more executive effort looking for oil by merging with other companies (note the unchallenged merger of Exxon and Mobil under the Clinton administration) than with developing efficient oil-producing and consuming technology or expanding their solar energy subsidiaries.

So long as the price of crude oil is set by speculators on trading floors, so long as the oil-indentured politicians are not challenged by new candidates standing tall for people and environments, so long as we do not protest for change and press ourselves to prevent wasteful habits and uses, get ready for higher oil prices.

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader11062007.html

0 Replies

$87

?

thats cheap

0 Replies

Ramafuchs wrote:

So long as the price of crude oil is set by speculators on trading floors, so long as the oil-indentured politicians are not challenged by new candidates standing tall for people and environments, so long as we do not protest for change and press ourselves to prevent wasteful habits and uses, get ready for higher oil prices.

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader11062007.html

Maybe you need to read an economics book? Speculators exist in virtually every commodity, for a legitimate purpose, do they not?

I thought oil companies control the price, or Bush and Cheney control the price, not speculators? Which is it?

0 Replies

Maybe you need to read an economics book? Speculators exist in virtually every commodity, for a legitimate purpose, do they not?

I thought oil companies control the price, or Bush and Cheney control the price, not speculators? Which is it?

Read the link carefully please.

0 Replies

From your link:

"Old factors like inadequate oil company investment in refinery capacity, longer down times for repairs than some observers believe necessary, and the slumping dollar are factors that western governments, especially the Bush regime, have not wanted to investigate. After all, with consumers paying sky-high prices for these fuels, free market theorists are supposed to expect expanded supplies from recoverable reserves to grow. But, of course, the global market for oil is anything but a free market from the producers- both corporate and governmental- toward the downstream companies to the consumers."

What a total krock of nonsense. The Bush regime? Give us a break, please. Which party has opposed the building of refineries and drilling of new oil reserves? Which party has practiced obstructionism now for the last 30 years? What in the world do you expect oil to sell for when the demand curve threatens to outstrip the supply curve? $3 a barrel? Should you expect stable prices in an unstable supply and market?

This is more typical leftist nonsense, wherein they obstruct the free market at every turn, then turn around and blame the free market for not providing cheap oil forever.

0 Replies

The reason oil companies have not invested in refining capacity is that there is no point in building plant to refine oil thats not there.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

The reason oil companies have not invested in refining capacity is that there is no point in building plant to refine oil thats not there.

Huh? We are sitting on vast amounts of untapped resources. They may be right in your own backyard. Do you want an oil well there? What is your aesthetic?

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
The reason oil companies have not invested in refining capacity is that there is no point in building plant to refine oil thats not there.

Huh? We are sitting on vast amounts of untapped resources. They may be right in your own backyard. Do you want an oil well there? What is your aesthetic?

The oil is getting harder to get out of the ground. We are trying harder than ever before and still not getting any more. Thats because oil globally has peaked. No point in building new refineries which will be underused.

(There is in fact huge quantities of oil in my back yard. Prospecting rights are available. Cash only).

Whats your anesthetic cj?

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

The reason oil companies have not invested in refining capacity is that there is no point in building plant to refine oil thats not there.

To restate the obvious, there is more oil than we are currently willing to develop. It would not by any means entirely solve our problem, but it would at least ease the pressure. Blame? Squarely in the laps of the treehuggers and their accomplices in Congress and the media. We will eventually develop the oil when the people with their heads in the sand eventually wake up and retract their heads into reality once again.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
The reason oil companies have not invested in refining capacity is that there is no point in building plant to refine oil thats not there.

To restate the obvious, there is more oil than we are currently willing to develop. It would not by any means entirely solve our problem, but it would at least ease the pressure. Blame? Squarely in the laps of the treehuggers and their accomplices in Congress and the media. We will eventually develop the oil when the people with their heads in the sand eventually wake up and retract their heads into reality once again.

LOL

0 Replies

Remember this tree hugging bullshit starts in the land of fruits and nuts aka San Francisco. Talk about drinking the Kool Aid - it runs through the city water supply (that's what happens when you let Wavy Gravy be the water commissioner).

0 Replies

When I was a little kid, I was a San Francisco Giants fan, mainly because of Willie Mays, Willie McCovey, and Juan Marischal, and I think I thought it was a cool sounding name for a town, plus we had relatives living there, but after growing up it dawned on me that I had never lost a thing in that town. I drove across the Golden Gate Bridge one time and walked around a few streets, and concluded I had seen enough. I wonder if a few other people are now thinking the same thing?

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/10/socketsites_san_francisco_listed_housing_inventory_upda_2.html

0 Replies

okie wrote:

When I was a little kid, I was a San Francisco Giants fan, mainly because of Willie Mays, Willie McCovey, and Juan Marischal, and I think I thought it was a cool sounding name for a town, plus we had relatives living there, but after growing up it dawned on me that I had never lost a thing in that town. I drove across the Golden Gate Bridge one time and walked around a few streets, and concluded I had seen enough. I wonder if a few other people are now thinking the same thing?

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/10/socketsites_san_francisco_listed_housing_inventory_upda_2.html

Damn few based upon the hordes of tourists I see every day.

You would never make it in this city, okie so stop with the sour grapes. It is so transparent. Gosh, even those who live across the bay suffer from San Francisco envy, well, the East Bay anyway, I could very easily live in the North Bay.

0 Replies

Gotta agree with Rox. It's better then the shitty places you guys live, I guarantee.

Natural beauty everywhere - great climate - public transit - nice people. Not much to say against it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Sometimes I feel like I am living in a dream living here, just walking hand in hand with my new girlfriend (I switched again) is something one might not feel comfortable doing in most places... arriving at the Powell Street station at 9:45 at night and seeing hordes of people on the streets and feeling the energy, the only think like in the US is NYC but there one is not surrounded by the awesome natural beauty like what is here in the Bay Area.

0 Replies

Oil at $87 and rising - still no alternative energy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know