$135 a barrel

[Smarta$$]

I agree. Start writing your congressmen to START DRILLING NOW!!! Although it will take ~10 years to see that oil, the price will drop immediately!! Speculators will then stop betting that the price of oil will keep going up because they will know that we will have alot more oil from our own country.

Write your congressman to start drilling now!!

Thats all WE can do.[/quote]

Why waste your time writing the 535 'morons' in Washington DC, they won't listen. They spent most of the hearings with the oil company exec. asking them "how much money they make"?? At least they are paid to create 'value' for the U.S. economy, their companies, and their shareholders; the people questioning them are paid, $200,000+/yr. (of taxpayer's money), and create 'NO value' for the people, the economy or anyone, and have NO Answers to the problem of 'world oil supply.' The oil company execs. told congress to open up areas in the U.S. for oil exploration (U.S. coastal waters, etc).
However, all of that is going to fall on 'deaf ears' as congress is just looking for 'someone to BLAME.'
The U.S. congress has done absolutely NOTHING in the last 30yrs. to improve the energy situation for this country. At least the oil companies have done their part (and are willing to do more) and made a profit along the way, and aren't we still a 'capitalist country' Again, NOTHING has changed in the last 30yrs. and probably won't until gas prices hit $9.00/gal., we have gas lines and shortages, and the economy is close to being destroyed, then 'maybe' just maybe they will do something. (probably not even then, sorry to say).

We are one of the only countries in the world that refuses to drill for oil and natural gas in 'our own' Terrritorial Waters.

A Government of 'special interest' by special interest and for special interest; for a country populated by totally ignorant/stupid people. A majority of the American public don't even understand the problem, as I keep hearing people just say, "its those greedy oil companies, or the evil speculators, or the Saudis"

Blame, Blame, Blame. NO Solutions, and don't want to even understand the problem.

Ethanol; a policial, 'special interest scam' most people in the know admit that now, congress won't stop it.

ALL of the presidential candidates are proposing 'CO2 Caps' (McCain has already introduced legislation), noticed that none of them have told the American public that one 'big' result is that Your electric Bill will 'double or triple' in the next 3-4 yrs. That will go great with the $5-6.00/gal. for gas.

PCL128, that 'PFT moron' said on this thread, that more regulation is what is needed, but he really, really is STUPID; too much Gov't regulation and control is part of what has got us into this situation. We haven't built a new oil refinery in this country in about 30yrs., even though there is a company in AZ that has been trying to build a refinery for the last 8-9yrs., unable to get the EPA and appropriate Gov't approval. Thanks to the innovation of the oil companies that have 'expanded and improved' existing refinery capacity in this country, or we would be dependant on Foreign countries (imports) for most of our gas/diesel/jet fuel. As a result of the current regulations and current environment, it is unlikely that a new refinery will NEVER be built again in this country, maybe one, but that will be it.

Again, NO ONE, especially the congress or any of the presidential candidates have any knowledge, real solutions, or are smart enough to solve the problem, short term.

So get used to oil at $120-160/bbl (possibly 180-200), and gas at $4.00-6.00/gal. for the next few years. Sorry to say.

Said enough for now, for what its worth. Now rant away.

PD

You do alot of name calling and disrespecting of others including the amercan public. I did not realize that you were the only smart one around.

 

[embpic1]

Drilling for more oil is not "being a part of the solution." It's a continuation of the same problem.

DING DING DING!! We have winner!!

Drilling for more oil is not the answer. That would just delay the inevitable. Finite resources will run out! Sure, we might delay the problem for us and out children. What about our grandchildren and great grandchildren. I sincerely hope that my grandchildren will know oil as a hazardous substance that you have to pay to get rid of.

Nuclear and solar power used to produce hydrogen and electricity really needs to come to the forefront. Sure there is the nuclear waste issues, but I am sure we can come up with a smart solution.

 

[PCL_128]

Frankly, oil platforms and wind farms miles off the coast are not a concern to the non-sailing population of the US. Being able to afford liquid energy is. I'm truly sorry if that upsets the .000001% of the citizens that like to sail.

The voters disagree with you. The voters of Florida and California have spoken with their votes repeatedly about not wanting anything to do with off-shore drilling. I lived in Florida for a while, and I remember it being a huge issue during a couple of state elections while I was there. The people just don't want those things off their coast. Period.

 

[Smarta$$]

You have a good point. Having worked in nuclear for 7 years, I will tell you I'm not a big fan from the "hazardous waste" standpoint, but if we really want hydrogen as an alternative fuel, then we have to make it cheaply (from a carbon footprint standpoint).

Nuclear would be a good way. Solar is another. The only problem with solar is the number of solar panels it takes to make one "tank" of H2. Does anyone remember seeing "addicted to oil" on the the discovery channel. I can't remember the exact figure, but I believe it was estimated that a solar array the size of Texas would be required to make enough H2 to satisfy %10 percent of the vehicles on the road today (current technology).

Either way how much longer is it going to take to really get us moving towards a solution?

In relation to a solar array, I say an energy show on discovery that said a 100 square mile solar array in the middle of the nevada desert would create enough electricity for the entire nation. Obviously, distribution from one location would be imposible with todays technology. But it does show the potential.

 

[Soverytired]

And I for one is glad, that you stand by your answer, like I said, back of the napkin idea, there are bound to be issues that I have not considered. Same reason why there are two of us upfront, to make sure there is a sounding board.

Obviously, my proposal is very different, and as such, it requires a different set of rules, but I stil don't find it unworkable. I think you can produce US oil for US consumers, just like you can produce nuclear power for US consumers. You just wouldn't sell the oil on the open market.

Not to go all Chavez on you, because I am not planning reclaiming the current leases, after all, they have already been negotiated, not taking over the rigs or the refining facilities.

So, just for conversations sake, let's say we consider my idea, we put the exctraction up for bid and you are tasked with making it workable, how would you do it?

Agreed on the "sounding board" comment. Getting into screaming fits and gross hyperbole gets old fast.

SHORT ANSWER: (my answer)

• Open up the Gulf Coast, the Pacific and the Atlantic Shelf to exploration and development.
• Drop any and all oil company US subsidizes to anyone who participates.
• Tax oil companies on their profits, and that's where the American people get "their" cut. (SMART USE of tax = alternative fuel development / LIKELY USE = Bobblehead museum in your congressman's next earmark)
• If you think their 7% annual profit is "obscene", raise their taxes, but every other industry (including airlines) who also makes similar annual profits taxes will raise as well.
• And oil MUST be sold on the open market, unless you want to start a major trade war and a collapse of the global economy.

LONG ANSWER: (yours, as I understand it)

This is "nationalization", however way you slice it. Whomever actually was awarded the leases, under your scheme the Federal government owns everything (because why stop at oil?), and they'll set a "fair" price, presumably below fair market value.

So . . . when I go and buy this heavily subsidized government oil, may I turn around and sell it on the open market for a tidy profit? Do I own it, or do I just get to use it at the governments sufferance? Do I have private property rights, or does the government just let me pay for the privilege of using things in whatever limited ways they allow? Do you really want this much control over your freedom by the federal government?

As to the "had Chavez done it the right way" comment: Every dictator that has ever seized privately owned assets always does this. It is always done for the "good of the people." And after a few years, production falls, the dictator and his cronies get rich, and the vaunted "people" are worse off than before.

What leads you to believe it would be any different here? Tax oil companies if you must; if a government overdoes it, they'll just bow out and stop producing. But nationalization is wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

[Soverytired]

You do alot of name calling and disrespecting of others including the amercan public. I did not realize that you were the only smart one around.

While we're critiquing here, how about you stop implying that anyone who wants to use oil must de facto want to roll-back 50 years of environmental regulation?

It's a straw man, and you know it. Plenty of people here want clean alternatives, but we're decades away from it. Oil is going to be a big part of whatever ultimate energy solution comes about, and is no more "evil" than corn-based ethanol is "good".

 

[Soverytired]

The voters disagree with you. The voters of Florida and California have spoken with their votes repeatedly about not wanting anything to do with off-shore drilling. I lived in Florida for a while, and I remember it being a huge issue during a couple of state elections while I was there. The people just don't want those things off their coast. Period.

Fair enough.

With all the calls for massive federal intervention proposed here though, at some point the desires of the "locals" in Florida and California are not going to be able to resist the pressure from the rest of the country to develop oil that isn't, strictly speaking, part of their state boundaries. Ultimately, it's the federal ban, not the state ban that's preventing off shore drilling.

A national problem, a national solution, right? It's a huge hot-potato now on the federal level, but this will change if oil keeps going up and up.

And heck, when gas gets to be $12-$16 a gallon, I suspect they'll be a push for a re-vote.

 

[Ticker]

The voters disagree with you. The voters of Florida and California have spoken with their votes repeatedly about not wanting anything to do with off-shore drilling. I lived in Florida for a while, and I remember it being a huge issue during a couple of state elections while I was there. The people just don't want those things off their coast. Period.

Vote all they like, the platforms will be there soon weather they like it or not. The difference is that the platforms won't be ours.

As we speak, Cuba, our little buddy Chaves in Venezuela, and the Chi-Coms are in the process of exploring and drilling for oil off our coast. But hey, they'll be 12 miles away. And I'm sure they'll be just as careful as we would regarding the environment. They're good like that.

 

[atrdriver]

• Tax oil companies on their profits, and that's where the American people get "their" cut. (SMART USE of tax = alternative fuel development / LIKELY USE = Bobblehead museum in your congressman's next earmark)

Typical liberal solution, tax the evil corporation. You do realize that a corporation NEVER pays tax don't you? All they do is add their tax into teh cost of the product, because to them a tax is part of the cost of goods sold. Nobody is holding hearings on banks, except those poor ones that need bailing out because of the real estate crash, but they were averaging 20% profit margins, while the average oil company is making less than 10% margin.

 

[atrdriver]

Yeah those damn enviromentalists! Who needs a clean environment. We should go back to the rules of the 60's. You can poor any chemicals you want into any river or ground water supply. Just stick your hazardous waste into the land fills. That stuff takes years to make people sick. No big deal. Besides, you can't put the burden of dispossal on the helpless corporations! How would the CEO make his bonus?

And while we are in agreement, how dare the US government, or states for that matter, declare ANY land for National or State parks. What a waste. How can corporations make any money with those? What a waste of tax payers money. Who uses them things anyway?

I think we should abolish all enironmental laws. Give all of our State and National parks to the honest and honorable corporate executives. They are making it to hard for corporations to pay the shareholders.

Be a smarta$$ is you wish, that is your name after all, but our technology is a lot better now than it was in the '60s. A very small footprint at the surface can cover a vast area of drilling. And we aren't talking about state parks here. But lets sat that we are. Lets say that Yellowstone Park sits on top of the largest oil reserve ever found. With current drilling technology, they could set up rigs on 1 square mile and cover the entire area under the park. Look at all the horrible damage that the Alaskan Pipeline did to the environment. Oh wait, there hasn't been any, despite what all the "experts" said when it was being built.

 

[atrdriver]

In relation to a solar array, I say an energy show on discovery that said a 100 square mile solar array in the middle of the nevada desert would create enough electricity for the entire nation. Obviously, distribution from one location would be imposible with todays technology. But it does show the potential.

I actually think that it would take a far larger farm to power the US, but tell me. What do you do at night? Or on those pesky cloudy days? Solar is great, and it's a great idea. But it too has it's problems.

 

[Soverytired]

Typical liberal solution, tax the evil corporation. You do realize that a corporation NEVER pays tax don't you? All they do is add their tax into teh cost of the product, because to them a tax is part of the cost of goods sold. Nobody is holding hearings on banks, except those poor ones that need bailing out because of the real estate crash, but they were averaging 20% profit margins, while the average oil company is making less than 10% margin.

Sheesh. Relax skippy, I'm on your side. I love big oil, free markets, and environmentally responsible drilling in just about every possible place in the US. I'm also a big fan of a switch to alternatives the second they're economically viable, which is rapidly approaching.

"Reductio ad absurdum" . . . no corporation in the US ever pays any taxes, according to you. This is news to anyone who's ever run a business. Yes, you can pass on costs, but only to a certain point.

Taxes are the price you pay for government. While we can differ on "how much" or what they're spent on, no government worth it's name could exist without the power to tax.

Oil companies should pay no more, nor less, than any other business in America.

 

[atrdriver]

DING DING DING!! We have winner!!

Drilling for more oil is not the answer. That would just delay the inevitable. Finite resources will run out! Sure, we might delay the problem for us and out children. What about our grandchildren and great grandchildren. I sincerely hope that my grandchildren will know oil as a hazardous substance that you have to pay to get rid of.

Nuclear and solar power used to produce hydrogen and electricity really needs to come to the forefront. Sure there is the nuclear waste issues, but I am sure we can come up with a smart solution.

Drilling is the short term answer. No, it won't fix things long term, but getting those alternative sources on line and all the problems ironed out is a long term project. Long term as in maybe not in our lifetime. Sure, I hope someday there is no use for oil except lubrication. But that is a LONG way off. What do you propose we do in the meantime? I filled up my tank today and it was $85.

 

[atrdriver]

Sheesh. Relax skippy, I'm on your side. I love big oil, free markets, and environmentally responsible drilling in just about every possible place in the US. I'm also a big fan of a switch to alternatives the second they're economically viable, which is rapidly approaching.

"Reductio ad absurdum" . . . no corporation in the US ever pays any taxes, according to you. This is news to anyone who's ever run a business. Yes, you can pass on costs, but only to a certain point.

Taxes are the price you pay for government. While we can differ on "how much" or what they're spent on, no government worth it's name could exist without the power to tax.

Sorry, I thought about that after I posted... I guarantee that your airline passes it's tax burden onto the passengers, or it ends up being included in the "loss". Yes, obviously corporations write a check to the government, but that cost is passed as part of the COGS.

 

[RIDETHELIGHTING]

Coal to oil for the air force. With the Air force converting coal to fuel, wouldn't that crush oil prices to have all that Jet-A back on the market and Diesel.(Diesel a by product of the process)

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/06/airforce_coalfuel_070616/

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

It would take about 70x70 square miles of solar to power the US for electricity, which is about twice Rhode Island.

Drilling for oil won't help in the short term enough. Pickens said we need to go to natural gas for transportation fuel in the short term.

I would add nuclear power plants, and electric cars powered by coal, new nuclear, new wind, and new solar.

I think long-term straight electrical autos powered by renewable energy is the best choice.

Whatever, we've got to get on it.

The people who say oil will drop a lot soon are wrong. The MOST EXPENSIVE oil is for the 2016 contracts-well over $140/barrel-no dollar devaluation or terrorism premium built in there.

Could be topping out at $12-$15/gallon of gasoline before the renewables kick in at a high enough volume to reduce the use of oil far enough for it to matter.

cliff
YIP

 

[Soverytired]

The voters disagree with you. The voters of Florida and California have spoken with their votes repeatedly about not wanting anything to do with off-shore drilling. I lived in Florida for a while, and I remember it being a huge issue during a couple of state elections while I was there. The people just don't want those things off their coast. Period.

I would also point out, this is exactly the problem for the development of EVERY energy source in the US. Nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, wind, shale oil, tar sands . . . with the possible exception of solar, every energy source is blocked and stopped by some fear mongering group. America is more willing to demote itself to a 3rd world status than it is to provide it's energy needs . . I hope this changes before it's too late.

Fear mongering? The people of FL don't take symbolic votes against oil development due to aesthetic reasons. They've been told to fear oil spills that might ruin their coasts. Every other energy source is similarly demonized.

No energy source is risk-free. But the risks have certainly outweighed the benefits for 99.999% of the US population .. . and the rest of the world. The luxury of cheap, imported energy may be over, but the need for energy isn't going to diminish.

There WILL be drilling off the coasts. And the party in power will lead the charge. I just hope they don't wait too long.

 

[NuGuy]

I would also point out, this is exactly the problem for the development of EVERY energy source in the US. Nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, wind, shale oil, tar sands . . . with the possible exception of solar, every energy source is blocked and stopped by some fear mongering group.

Nope, add solar to the list. My homeowners association forbids them.

Nu

 

[G100driver]

Hi!

It would take about 70x70 square miles of solar to power the US for electricity, which is about twice Rhode Island.
YIP

Seem pretty reasonable if everyone puts these panals on the top of their homes.

My aunt paid the equivilant of one Chevy Tahoe to put these panals on her roof. With a swimming pool and hot tube, her highest electric bill was $.91. (she also has electric heat and A/C)

Now, imagine if everyone from LA-Florida had these panals on their homes.

If everyone makes there own power, the excess compacity can be used to create hydrogen or another form of alternative energy to power our cars.

Oil can then go back to powering mass movement of goods and people.

The world can and will change.

 

[Soverytired]

Nope, add solar to the list. My homeowners association forbids them.

Nu

Depending on where you live, it might actually be illegal for your homeowners association to do so. Many states want to encourage this, so they specifically ban HMA's from restricting it.

However, the fundamental problem is that they are still very expensive, even with tax credits and subsidizes. Most people would rather add value to their homes by spending the necessary $20-$60 thousand dollars on other improvements or larger houses.

As the investment in solar panels takes decades to recoup on a purely dollar basis, and most people rarely live in their homes for more than a few years, the financially smart play is to invest it in other things. Unfortunately.

Congress could underwrite long term tax credits to encourage this though. Not the 1-2 year, or even 5 year "farm" bill kind. 10-20 year credits would see a HUGE development of this kind of technology.

Neither party seems interested in pursing it though. Germany is an example of a country that gets this particular technology, for example.