Drilling For Answers on Obama's Claims

[trik396]

Fine. I'll watch my name calling if you do the same.

[FLSTFI Dave]

Originally Posted by amishclark

umm...ok.

let's go back to that "econ 101" class everyone thinks everyone else needs to take. let's use what we should have learned to review statements quoted by AZ...claim 1 is hard to argue with, save for the fact that increasing production and decreasing price does not address the real problems of consumption and efficiency. yes, increased supply will decrease cost if demand is held constant...but demand is going up! can we increase supply faster than demand? my guess is no...econ 101. claims 2 and 3 are pretty much the same, and can be lumped into one; the response of the author is ridiculous, however...of course one-off vehicles and home-brew conversions are expensive. remember the concept of "economies of scale"? it's really fascinating. this concept states that, through mass-production and standardization of process economic gains can be made...which means costs and (hopefully) prices go down. claim 4 is probably true, but concepts of deep economy counteract the difficulties presented...produce locally, buy locally, and act responsibly...corporate fleets can (and eventually will) be more fuel-efficient, but a government mandate will help drive this. sure it will cost more upfront, but imho it's worth it.

trik396...name calling isn't nice. come with something significant, perhaps a well-formed argument contending the points i am making. please, tell me what i am ignorant about. i'm open-minded and willing to learn.

The bold is correct.....But the USA is an Oil based Economy.....If we do not meet our energy needs our economy fails, and we loose even more jobs....

Exactly, increaese supply cost goes down. Does it control demand, no....but no one is say drill and forget other energy forms. I for one say drill and continue to work to make alternate sources of energy viable...

If you want the govenments hands in it, it will cost more than it should, will have more managers than required just for starts...

Crude sells for 100 a barrel on the Commodites market for example. If drilled in the USA it is 100, if in Saudi it is 100, where ever it is drilled it is 100 dollars.

Which is cheaper to get to Lake Charles LA for refining...Crude from the Gulf of Mexico, or Crude from Saudi????

Which has a greater chance of hurting the enviornment crude on a ship from Saudi? Or crude from a rig in the Golf of Mexico traveling in a pipe on the ocean floor?

[AZXD]

I really think you need to take a few steps back and analyze the problem again.

You are viewing supply and demand as something we can control within this market. That is error number 1

We purchase crude from others to supply our needs. The dependency issue has been with us for a long time, I'll give you that. But we are at a crossroads and people are waking up. That is a good thing, but does little to address what can be done to reduce dependency on foreign oil. Solutions that are also problems tie things up in red-tape as legal battles ensue over the virtues of becoming a self-sufficient nation, AGAIN.

But you want to view this using Econ 101, GREAT.
Answer these questions and we can continue .... As a percentage, how much has the price at the pump changed in China, Great Britian, and another three nations of your choice ?? Then answer the follow-up question by stating as a percentage how much our price at the pump has increased in the United States ??

I would also like to make a suggestion to you .... Do a lot of research into PetroDollar Warfare before you develop your next solution to the issues of supply and demand within the oil industry. Because until you do this ... Your still gonna have little flakes of brown in the corner of your eyes.

Originally Posted by amishclark

umm...ok.

let's go back to that "econ 101" class everyone thinks everyone else needs to take. let's use what we should have learned to review statements quoted by AZ...claim 1 is hard to argue with, save for the fact that increasing production and decreasing price does not address the real problems of consumption and efficiency. yes, increased supply will decrease cost if demand is held constant...but demand is going up! can we increase supply faster than demand? my guess is no...econ 101. claims 2 and 3 are pretty much the same, and can be lumped into one; the response of the author is ridiculous, however...of course one-off vehicles and home-brew conversions are expensive. remember the concept of "economies of scale"? it's really fascinating. this concept states that, through mass-production and standardization of process economic gains can be made...which means costs and (hopefully) prices go down. claim 4 is probably true, but concepts of deep economy counteract the difficulties presented...produce locally, buy locally, and act responsibly...corporate fleets can (and eventually will) be more fuel-efficient, but a government mandate will help drive this. sure it will cost more upfront, but imho it's worth it.

trik396...name calling isn't nice. come with something significant, perhaps a well-formed argument contending the points i am making. please, tell me what i am ignorant about. i'm open-minded and willing to learn.

[JeffXD]

Originally Posted by amishclark

and your point is?

my previous contention is that gas prices should go UP, whether by market forces or taxes. there's a great movie called "who killed the electric car" which i suggest you watch...the technology is not new. in fact, purely electric cars make far more sense than hydrogen or alternative-fuel powered cars, as the infrastructure for energy delivery is already in place. much of the resistance to adoption of new technology in manufacturing is the cost of re-tooling. why do you think new vehicles, with new materials and power delivery systems, are initially so expensive?
.

If everyone goes out and picks up a pure electric car to offset the use of oil, where is the increase in electricty going to come from? I would venture to say that the majority of electricity is generated by burning coal and natural gas. By going totally electric, you are just burning dinosaurs at a different point in the process. Sure, there aren't emissions from the tailpipe of the car, but those emissions will still be produced at the power generation end. Don't tell me that we are going to use wind and solar, because the same people that don't want to use oil for environmental reasons, also don't want wind fields or solar panel fields because it might discombobulate the life of a lizard or bird. Furthermore, electric cars will have to utilize batteries. ALL batteries eventually have to be replaced. Where are the thousands of spent batteries going to go? They will have to be stored or recycled or something, and recycling batteries opens up a whole new can of worms.

Electric cars are not the salvation of the planet and life as we know it. Its just trading one set of unfortunate byproducts for another set and destroying the economy in the process. Like I have heard on a few commercials lately... "you can't pull a horse trailer with a Prius".

BTW, I like my SUV. On a fairly regular basis I have to buy lumber, mulch, or other building products and going in some goofy little care isn't going to cut it. Have you even tried to load full sheets of plywood in the trunk? What about 15 or 20 bags of mulch? What I can't get in the Expedition, I have to take the 14' trailer. So, there are people I am sure that hire someone to do everything for them and live in town. Fine and dandy, but don't impose your way of living on me. I want to do projects for myself. I want the ability to haul away a trailer full of brush after I cut up a tree that fell in a storm. Buy your electric car if you want to, but don't impose that crap on me.

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by trik396

Even if America drastically cut usage, there are several BILLION people from India and China that are thirsting for oil for the first time. Quell that demand. Yeah right.

And you started with the name calling first, FOOL.

Let China and India do what they need to do for their energy needs. The U.S. should focus on technology for developing renewable resources. We have the best technology and the best scientists in the world (and if we don't, we can get them). That's where the economy should grow - in new technology.

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by FLSTFI Dave

The bold is correct.....But the USA is an Oil based Economy.....If we do not meet our energy needs our economy fails, and we loose even more jobs....

Exactly, increaese supply cost goes down. Does it control demand, no....but no one is say drill and forget other energy forms. I for one say drill and continue to work to make alternate sources of energy viable...

If you want the govenments hands in it, it will cost more than it should, will have more managers than required just for starts...

Crude sells for 100 a barrel on the Commodites market for example. If drilled in the USA it is 100, if in Saudi it is 100, where ever it is drilled it is 100 dollars.

Which is cheaper to get to Lake Charles LA for refining...Crude from the Gulf of Mexico, or Crude from Saudi????

Which has a greater chance of hurting the enviornment crude on a ship from Saudi? Or crude from a rig in the Golf of Mexico traveling in a pipe on the ocean floor?

I think Saudi Arabia is third or fourth on the list of places where the U.S. gets oil. We get most of it from Canada and Mexico.

Get out of Iraq. Close down some overseas bases. Get our military to patrol the border and build mass transportation networks. Refocus our resources internally and toward making the U.S. THE leader in alternative energy and reduced greenhouse gasses.

[AZXD]

Wake up Etta!!!
The nation is growing in that direction as we type these words, and I agree we have some of the best technology available. But it is counter-productive to cripple production by promoting exorbitant price increases on something we need and use to develop alternative technologies.

Our economy will grow, if we do not stifle it with excessive counter-productive legislation.

Originally Posted by Etta Place

Let China and India do what they need to do for their energy needs. The U.S. should focus on technology for developing renewable resources. We have the best technology and the best scientists in the world (and if we don't, we can get them). That's where the economy should grow - in new technology.

[FLSTFI Dave]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

Let China and India do what they need to do for their energy needs. The U.S. should focus on technology for developing renewable resources. We have the best technology and the best scientists in the world (and if we don't, we can get them). That's where the economy should grow - in new technology.

China is doing just that....Starting to Drill 45 miles from FL. Where we can not drill in our own back yard.....

Every heard of persuing two paths to achive a goal? Or can only one thing be focused on at a time??

Here is how I see it, While working full time to support my family, I worked to get a 4 year degree to better support my family in the future. Should I have quite supporting my family to get my degree, and then be able to support them better?

Well my senario sounds like what you want....Dont drill (support my family) work on alternative energy only (dont support family, work on degree only) then in the future have good alternative energy (support family better)

I knew a degree would help my family better in the future, but I continued working full time to support them, while I also worked for my degree. Now I am able to support them better.

[FLSTFI Dave]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

I think Saudi Arabia is third or fourth on the list of places where the U.S. gets oil. We get most of it from Canada and Mexico.

Get out of Iraq. Close down some overseas bases. Get our military to patrol the border and build mass transportation networks. Refocus our resources internally and toward making the U.S. THE leader in alternative energy and reduced greenhouse gasses.

40 percent of our Crude comes from the USA
Canada is next
Saudi after canada...

but it does freguantly swap between Mexico and Saudi as to who is number 3 and number 4.

So you are advocating sending more jobs to Saudi and Mexico to get the oil we need until Alternatives are viable?

So you are for sending more money to Saudi and Mexico, rather than keeping it in the USA?

So you are for burning lots of fuel to ship crude to the usa, on Forgien ships with forgien crews?

Crude drilled in the USA goes by pipeline....

Lets see your agains Nuke....

Are you like Kennedy, no wind farms near me either?

[Palmguy]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

Let China and India do what they need to do for their energy needs. The U.S. should focus on technology for developing renewable resources. We have the best technology and the best scientists in the world (and if we don't, we can get them). That's where the economy should grow - in new technology.

Are you opposed to nuclear power?