I Guess we didn't need lower oil prices afterall...

[OklahomaTuba]

According to our liberal masters...



The Senate Appropriations Committee today narrowly defeated Sen. Wayne Allard's attempt to end a moratorium related to oil shale development in Colorado.
It was a big day for Colorado energy issues on Capitol Hill as Gov. Bill Ritter testified before a senate committee asking lawmakers to move cautiously on oil-shale development until more is known about the environmental impact and other issues.
Meanwhile downstairs, the appropriations committee was considering a massive Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill. Allard, a member of the committee, attempted to insert an amendment that would reverse the moratorium that lawmakers approved late last year.
The moratorium prevents the Department of Interior from issuing regulations so that oil companies can move forward on oil-shale projects in Colorado and Utah. Allard said the moratorium has left uncertainties at a time when companies need to move forward and in the long term make the United States more energy independent.
"If we are really serious about reducing pain at the pump, this is a vote that would make a difference in people's lives," Allard argued.
But in a 14-15 vote, the committee spilt strictly on party lines and rejected the amendment.
One of the key votes was from Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who said Sen. Ken Salazar had urged her to reject the amendment even though she personally thinks the moratorium on oil-shale development is unjust.
Landrieu vowed to try to lift the moratorium when the large appropriations bill reaches the floor of the U.S. Senate in coming weeks.


God Bless Mary Landrieu!!!

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/15/panel-defeats-attempt-end-oil-shale-moratorium/

[r5TPsooner]

Politics as usual in Washington.

[OklahomaTuba]

I hope they vote on this on the Senate floor.

Make Hussien vote on something that will directly increase the supply of crude oil which will lower prices for gas, food, the trade debt, and increase royalties, etc.

Of course, he will vote NO (or Present), cause oil is evil and causes man-killing hurricanes.

I want to see him explain that away while people are paying nearly $4.00 a gallon for gas.

[Sooner_Havok]

Just an FYI. Average price of gas in London today, in US dollars in $8.30/g

[r5TPsooner]

I hope they vote on this on the Senate floor.

Make Hussien vote on something that will directly increase the supply of crude oil which will lower prices for gas, food, the trade debt, and increase royalties, etc.

Of course, he will vote NO (or Present), cause oil is evil and causes man-killing hurricanes.

I want to see him explain that away while people are paying nearly $4.00 a gallon for gas.

Because most people in the world are paying twice that amount.

[soonerhubs]

Is there any way I could justifiably tell Goldman-Sachs and the other speculators to go to hell?

[Sooner_Havok]

look at it this way. Here in the US, we allow the markets to set prices. If Mr. Abdula is getting $120 a barrel for his oil, I am sure Mr. Smith is going to want close to that for his refined from oil shale. With the added supply, prices will drop some, but they can't drop to far because then refining from oil shale become unprofitable. The only way something like this works is to close down our borders like the Japanese did, and isolate ourselves from the the rest of the world.

That is the sad truth guys. Oil shale and coal to gas is only profitable now because of the high price of oil. It cannot lower the prices significantly otherwise it becomes unprofitable and we stop refining from it. The only way this could work to lower prices now is to have the government subsidize it, but in the end we still pay for that.

[r5TPsooner]

This looks like a job for Super Obama, Savior of the universe.

[soonerhubs]

**** on Saudi Arabia (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356238,00.html) as well.

[soonerboomer93]

exactly, the fact is that lower oil prices is bad. consumers won't change how the comsume oil if they aren't almost forced into it by higher prices.

My co-worker just traded in his sons full size truck for a much more fuel efficient car. They were spending almost $100/week in gas just on that 1 vehicle

[JohnnyMack]

I want to see him explain that away while people are paying nearly $4.00 a gallon for gas.

You realize gas is already nearly $4 a gallon, right? You also get that he isn't the POTUS, right? So who should would be asking, right now, about gas prices?

[mdklatt]

So who should would be asking, right now, about gas prices?

Bill Clinton, duh!

[Sooner_Havok]

You realize gas is already nearly $4 a gallon, right? You also get that he isn't the POTUS, right? So who should would be asking, right now, about gas prices?

I think he wants Obama to vote for it on the senate floor. Justing Saying

[soonerscuba]

The more things change, the more they stay the same. I greatly look forward to Tuba's new fangled Iraq War stance in January.

[mdklatt]

"If we are really serious about reducing pain at the pump, this is a vote that would make a difference in people's lives," Allard argued.

How long before any oil would start flowing? How much would it increase supply and how much would it reduce oil prices?

Any bets on whether or not Sen. Allard also supports higher CAFE mandates?

[Sooner_Havok]

How long before any oil would start flowing? How much would it increase supply and how much would it reduce oil prices?

Any bets on whether or not Sen. Allard also supports higher CAFE mandates?

Like I said, it couldn't lower prices very much. Any of you oil types out there know how much a barrel of crude made from oil shale would cost to produce? I just have this feeling that if oil ain't selling for $100+ that this won't work

[SoonerInKCMO]

They were spending almost $100/week in gas just on that 1 vehicle

Yesterday, for the first time, I filled up the Yaris I've been renting since April 27th. $39.76 for 18 days worth of gas. :texan:

[mdklatt]

Just an FYI. Average price of gas in London today, in US dollars in $8.30/g

I'm not buying the "gas is cheaper in the US than everywhere else" argument as a reason to feel better. It's not the price that's a problem, but the price increase. Gas prices have tripled in what, 5-6 years? Have gas prices tripled in London during that time period? No, because the majority of their cost is in taxes.

[mdklatt]

Yesterday, for the first time, I filled up the Yaris I've been renting since April 27th. $39.76 for 18 days worth of gas. :texan:

Damn, how big of a fuel tank can a Yaris possibly hold?

[Sooner_Havok]

I'm not buying the "gas is cheaper in the US than everywhere else" argument as a reason to feel better. It's not the price that's a problem, but the price increase. Gas prices have tripled in what, 5-6 years? Have gas prices tripled in London during that time period? No, because the majority of their cost is in taxes.

Oh No? (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/gas1.html)

[SoonerInKCMO]

Damn, how big of a fuel tank can a Yaris possibly hold?
The innerweb tells me 11.1 gallons; I put 10.25 in yesterday after driving 374 miles since picking it up.

[Condescending Sooner]

look at it this way. Here in the US, we allow the markets to set prices. If Mr. Abdula is getting $120 a barrel for his oil, I am sure Mr. Smith is going to want close to that for his refined from oil shale. With the added supply, prices will drop some, but they can't drop to far because then refining from oil shale become unprofitable. The only way something like this works is to close down our borders like the Japanese did, and isolate ourselves from the the rest of the world.

That is the sad truth guys. Oil shale and coal to gas is only profitable now because of the high price of oil. It cannot lower the prices significantly otherwise it becomes unprofitable and we stop refining from it. The only way this could work to lower prices now is to have the government subsidize it, but in the end we still pay for that.

I read that the shale oil is profitable as long as oil is over $40.00 a barrel. Do you really think the vote is a good idea or are you just sticking up for your liberal brethren?

[Sooner_Havok]

I read that the shale oil is profitable as long as oil is over $40.00 a barrel. Do you really think the vote is a good idea or are you just sticking up for your liberal brethren?

The AAPG doesn't seem to think so (http://emd.aapg.org/technical_areas/oil_shale.cfm)

If it was profitable at just $40 a barrel, why the hell didn't we do this, oh I don't know, 8 friggen years ago? It's because it isn't.

And as far as my "liberal brethren" go, **** em. I have no allegiance to either side of the aisle. I happen to hate big government in any form. As things look right now though, I would rather me be taxed to death by the donks plans than my children be riddled with debt from the "conservatives" plan. Yah, good job guys, you don't want to tax people so you just borrow money, get a long enough term and your generation won't have to pay the bill:rolleyes:

[yermom]

The innerweb tells me 11.1 gallons; I put 10.25 in yesterday after driving 374 miles since picking it up.

36 and change isn't that crazy for mileage. i'm still jealous :D

the Yaris was the Vitz in other markets if you guys played Gran Turismo, you might remember it

[Sooner_Havok]

36 and change isn't that crazy for mileage. i'm still jealous :D

the Yaris was the Vitz in other markets if you guys played Gran Turismo, you might remember it

Heh, didn't know that. That car succs

[SoonerInKCMO]

36 and change isn't that crazy for mileage. i'm still jealous :D

Yeah, with the amount of 60 mph highway driving I do here, I hoped it would be more. I get better than that with my Corolla in similar driving conditions.

[mdklatt]

The AAPG doesn't seem to think so (http://emd.aapg.org/technical_areas/oil_shale.cfm)





However, petroleum-based crude oil is cheaper to produce today than shale oil because of the additional costs of mining and extracting the energy from oil shale.

Without any way to date that statement, we have no idea whether or not this is still true. However, continuing to pour money down oil wells is not a long-term solution. When you factor in all the indirect costs of oil, it's costing us a lot more than $4 a gallon.

[yermom]

Heh, didn't know that. That car succs

i thought it was the best of the ****ty little cars

i liked the way you could get it to oversteer :D

[jkjsooner]

look at it this way. Here in the US, we allow the markets to set prices. If Mr. Abdula is getting $120 a barrel for his oil, I am sure Mr. Smith is going to want close to that for his refined from oil shale. With the added supply, prices will drop some, but they can't drop to far because then refining from oil shale become unprofitable. The only way something like this works is to close down our borders like the Japanese did, and isolate ourselves from the the rest of the world.

That is the sad truth guys. Oil shale and coal to gas is only profitable now because of the high price of oil. It cannot lower the prices significantly otherwise it becomes unprofitable and we stop refining from it. The only way this could work to lower prices now is to have the government subsidize it, but in the end we still pay for that.

I'm not so worried about the price of oil/gas now. I'm worried about what it will be next year or the year after. Functioning oil shale or coal to gas production might put a cap on how high the prices will go.

OPEC may see this as a threat and increase production (assuming they can) so that these technologies are no longer profitable. I'll let you decide whether that's good or bad. I personally think we should subsidize these technologies enough so that they can mature even if it isn't cost effective. At least we'll have a bargaining tool with OPEC.

[Sooner_Havok]

I just can't get behind subsidies. Just another form of wealth redistribution. If your product ain't good enough to survive in the market on its own, tough luck son, go back to the drawing board. On that note, I am going to go enjoy some cheap corn :rolleyes:
:D

[OUstudent4life]

Somewhere, somehow, this is all Obama's fault.

And he hates puppies.

;)

[MR2-Sooner86]

Somewhere, somehow, this is all Obama's fault.

And he hates puppies.

;)

Well he is a liberal and we all know liberals are the cause of all of life's problems.

He also eats babies and calls in bomb threats to the special olympics.

[soonerscuba]

He also eats babies
If eating babies is wrong, I don't want to be right. However, because of Obama's lust for baby meat, I have had to settle for gamey toddler, such is life.

[WILBURJIM]

I'm not so worried about the price of oil/gas now. I'm worried about what it will be next year or the year after. Functioning oil shale or coal to gas production might put a cap on how high the prices will go.

OPEC may see this as a threat and increase production (assuming they can) so that these technologies are no longer profitable. I'll let you decide whether that's good or bad. I personally think we should subsidize these technologies enough so that they can mature even if it isn't cost effective. At least we'll have a bargaining tool with OPEC.

Put a tariff on OPEC oil, then.

[Jerk]

Anyone else notice that liberals don't mind the price of gas being so high?

What irks the poor souls is that individuals within the oil industry are getting rich.

Srsly, they don't give a sh*t that joe blow is paying $4 / gallon. Maybe joe will drive less and that is good for the environment. But, these companies like EXXON making record profits just eats them alive. If it all the money were going to the government so they could re-distribute the wealth, then they wouldn't mind one bit.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You realize gas is already nearly $4 a gallon, right? You also get that he isn't the POTUS, right? So who should would be asking, right now, about gas prices?Oh, I don't know...how about the dems and RINOS in freakin' congress, who continue to block drilling in so many deomestic areas with proven oil reserves? You don't have enough mental confusion to blame it on W, do you?

[GottaHavePride]

There is exactly one thing we can do that will lower the price of oil, and that is to become sufficiently independent of oil that demand decreases drastically.

The next 50 years or so will suck hard as far as transportation costs until cities rearrange themselves to move people around more efficiently. We can't keep doing the "work in the center, live on the outskirts" nonsense. Cities need to get fractal.

[mdklatt]

When people can't afford health care, it's their own fault and they need to get a better job. When people can't afford gasoline, the government better do something about it by God!

What's the difference? Just a guess, but it might have something to do with the fact that most jobs subsidize health insurance but not gasoline.

[mdklatt]

Oh, I don't know...how about the dems and RINOS in freakin' congress, who continue to block drilling in so many deomestic areas with proven oil reserves?

Gimme gimme gimme now now now! Why plan for the future? It's never going to get here anyway.

[Jerk]

Gimme gimme gimme now now now! Why plan for the future? It's never going to get here anyway.

Cars powered on flowers and pot leaves are far, far off. Right now we should drill for our own oil.

We have it. Why not? Cuz' someone will get rich, and some people just hate that.

[Mongo]

When people can't afford health care, it's their own fault and they need to get a better job. When people can't afford gasoline, the government better do something about it by God!

How about this: government reduce the heavy tax burden that is in place on the oil and gas exploring/producing companies. which in turn they, like every other company does, relay that tax onto the consumer. I bet that would ease the cost at the pump a little.


Gimme gimme gimme now now now! Why plan for the future? It's never going to get here anyway.


I see where you are trying to get with this, and you have made this type of point several times, but now, and in the next few years, there just isnt a viable replacement. There is nothing there for mass production or to fit the current infrastructure in the next few years. I do agree that more drilling and refineries is a temporary solution to a long term problem, but it is what it is, and we do need to do it right now.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Gimme gimme gimme now now now! Why plan for the future? It's never going to get here anyway.We should take the wraps off that Magical Mystey Fuel, and start the Brave New World. Why didn't I think of that?

[mdklatt]

Cars powered on flowers and pot leaves are far, far off.

This...


Right now we should drill for our own oil. We have it. Why not


Is because of attitudes like this.


The human brain will always choose short term gratification even if we know it's going to cause problems in the future. Intelligent design indeed.

Thirty years ago the gasoline situation was even worse than it is now. People starting driving smaller cars. Speed limits were lowered. Oil usage fell. Eventually, the worst possible thing happened--oil prices fell. Our memories are even more limited than our foresight, and we acted like the whole thing never happened. Cars got bigger again, fuel economy stagnated, speed limits went back up, and we've gone balls deep in the Middle East and other places where the people and/or government can't stand us.

[mdklatt]

How about this: government reduce the heavy tax burden that is in place on the oil and gas exploring/producing companies. which in turn they, like every other company does, relay that tax onto the consumer. I bet that would ease the cost at the pump a little.

That sounds like a win-win plan for the oil companies and a lose-lose plan for consumers. First of all, any price reduction at the pump is going to be less than the tax reduction. And even that is going to be temporary. Price goes down. Demand goes up. Price goes back up. Consumer gets nothing. Deficit goes up. Future taxpayers get the bill.



In the next few years, there just isnt a viable replacement.

I've been hearing this my whole life, and I'm sure it's been said even longer than that. There is never going to be a viable replacement until it's too late (if it's not already). The time to do something about it was when gas was less than $1/gallon, but there's no way that was going to happen was there? Why fix today what we can pawn off on our grandchildren.

[mdklatt]

We should take the wraps off that Magical Mystey Fuel, and start the Brave New World. Why didn't I think of that?

Classic conservative defeatist attitude.

[mdklatt]

Say what you will about T. Boone, he knows a thing or two about the oil industry.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13223



PHILIP KLEIN: Why is it so important for America to develop alternative sources of energy?

T. BOONE PICKENS: According to the crude oil report, as of today [March 12] we have imported crude oil at the cost for $1.4 billion for the week. Multiply 52 weeks times $1.4 billion. You'll get right at $600 billion a year you're paying for imported crude oil. We can't keep doing that. It's the greatest transfer of wealth ever recorded in the history of the world.

...

PK: In the 1970s oil was very expensive, then it went back down. In the late '90s we had very cheap oil. Why can't that happen again?

BP: That will never be repeated, because we've had a fundamental change. The world's oil production has peaked. Now supply is capped at 85 million barrels a day and demand is growing. We've never seen that before. It's also going to be declining at a rate probably of 6 percent a year. This time next year you're probably going to have 80 million barrels a day.

...

PK: What about discovering new oil or drilling in Alaska or in the oil sands?

BP: I don't think the ANWR is going to be released to be developed, but you're familiar with the transportation of crude oil off of the North Slope in the pipeline area. Do you know what the capacity of that is? Some people have the idea that ANWR could solve a problem for the United States, which is ridiculous.

...

PK: In Congress, "alternative energy" often translates into ethanol subsidies, or other pork barrel spending projects. How much of the move toward alternative energy is going to have to be aided, at least in the short term, by government subsidies? Why won't companies see it in their interests to invest in alternative energies without government help?

BP: There's no question you're going to have to have the production tax credit. That's a must, because it can't stand alone without it. You're better off to create jobs at home, and recycle the money. I was against ethanol originally, but hell, I'd rather have ethanol than I would Saudi oil.

...

PK: People have been talking about alternative energy since the 1970s. What is different now?

BP: In the '70s, there wasn't a shortage of oil. Whenever oil would go up, and activity would start in alternatives, they would make more oil available, and drop the price. It would stop all of that activity. It's entirely different today, because you've peaked on the oil. In the Mideast, they can't give you any more oil than they're giving you. The game has changed.

[PhilTLL]

Say what you will about T. Boone, he knows a thing or two about the oil industry.


That's the most infuriating thing about him. A-hole is good. Like "I have a time machine and all next year's business pages" good.

[Vaevictis]

How about this: government reduce the heavy tax burden that is in place on the oil and gas exploring/producing companies. which in turn they, like every other company does, relay that tax onto the consumer. I bet that would ease the cost at the pump a little.

Doubtful. Consumers are clearly willing to pay the current prices. If you decrease taxes on the oil companies, the rational thing for them to do would be to increase prices 1:1 with the tax decrease and pocket the difference. This, of course, is in the short term.

In the long term, what it might do is stimulate production, given increased possibility of profit. Considering the rate at which demand is growing, I expect that this won't result in actual price decreases, but might retard price increases to a small degree.

[mdklatt]

That's the most infuriating thing about him. A-hole is good. Like "I have a time machine and all next year's business pages" good.

Heh. :D

T. Boone is building hisself a big *** wind farm in West Texas. Are any big oil companies willing to transform themselves into energy companies?

[Blue]

The more things change, the more they stay the same. I greatly look forward to Tuba's new fangled Iraq War stance in January.


What does this mean? What's your solution?

[Blue]

When people can't afford health care, it's their own fault and they need to get a better job. When people can't afford gasoline, the government better do something about it by God!

What's the difference? Just a guess, but it might have something to do with the fact that most jobs subsidize health insurance but not gasoline.

Nothing is different. I say deal with it, cause you can't do anything about it.

"Ask not what your country can do for you..." That **** sure turned around didn't it?

[mdklatt]

A question for all of you Fair Tax (i.e. national sales tax) supporters. What if we had a national carbon tax instead of a national sales tax? No income tax, just a carbon tax. Why not have a tax on something that we need people to do less of instead of taxing spending, which we want people to do more of?

[sooneron]

If eating babies is wrong, I don't want to be right. However, because of Obama's lust for baby meat, I have had to settle for gamey toddler, such is life.

Speculators are pricing the baby meat way too high!:mad:

[Jerk]

This...



Is because of attitudes like this.


The human brain will always choose short term gratification even if we know it's going to cause problems in the future. Intelligent design indeed.

Thirty years ago the gasoline situation was even worse than it is now. People starting driving smaller cars. Speed limits were lowered. Oil usage fell. Eventually, the worst possible thing happened--oil prices fell. Our memories are even more limited than our foresight, and we acted like the whole thing never happened. Cars got bigger again, fuel economy stagnated, speed limits went back up, and we've gone balls deep in the Middle East and other places where the people and/or government can't stand us.

At least you've admitted it: You like high oil prices. Funny, you guys love it, but with the same mouth you blame Bush to score political points. If you're going to insult me, I can do it back. You don't get this very simple problem, because maybe your brain didn't 'evolve' well enough: There is nothing short term that can replace oil. Nothing. I can say this until I'm blue in the face but it won't matter, will it?

Why are we buying it from terrorists, third world tin pot dictators, and a commie like Chavez, when we could do a lot more here?

[Jerk]

A question for all of you Fair Tax (i.e. national sales tax) supporters. What if we had a national carbon tax instead of a national sales tax? No income tax, just a carbon tax. Why not have a tax on something that we need people to do less of instead of taxing spending, which we want people to do more of?

So, we pay a tax every time we exhale? Coming from you, this doesn't surprise me.

[Harry Beanbag]

So, we pay a tax every time we exhale? Coming from you, this doesn't surprise me.


Of course. Man-made CO2 is destroying the planet, didn't you get the memo? If we tax it everything will be fine.

[mdklatt]

At least you've admitted it: You like high oil prices.

No I don't like continuing to do the same things over and over and expecting different results. That's one definition of insanity.

OMG! Gas prices are too high!! Oil dependence is bad for America!!! Oh look, oil is cheap again. Never mind. Does that Hummer come in blue?

The only difference now is that oil is never going to be cheap again. Any money we throw at the problem (more refineries, more drilling, tax breaks, etc) is only going to be a short-term solution, so how about instead of continuing to **** money down a hole we try putting that money into a long-term solution? Crazy talk.

[sooneron]

No I don't like continuing to do the same things over and over and expecting different results. That's one definition of insanity.

OMG! Gas prices are too high!! Oil dependence is bad for America!!! Oh look, oil is cheap again. Never mind. Does that Hummer come in blue?

The only difference now is that oil is never going to be cheap again. Any money we throw at the problem (more refineries, more drilling, tax breaks, etc) is only going to be a short-term solution, so how about instead of continuing to **** money down a hole we try putting that money into a long-term solution? Crazy talk.

yes, yes it is.

[mdklatt]

So, we pay a tax every time we exhale?

http://www.carbontax.org/introduction/#what


A carbon tax is a tax on the carbon content of fuels — effectively a tax on the carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.

[Harry Beanbag]

No I don't like continuing to do the same things over and over and expecting different results. That's one definition of insanity.

OMG! Gas prices are too high!! Oil dependence is bad for America!!! Oh look, oil is cheap again. Never mind. Does that Hummer come in blue?

The only difference now is that oil is never going to be cheap again. Any money we throw at the problem (more refineries, more drilling, tax breaks, etc) is only going to be a short-term solution, so how about instead of continuing to **** money down a hole we try putting that money into a long-term solution? Crazy talk.



All kidding aside, of course you're right. Many of us have been saying the same thing for years. But WTF are we, little insignificant message board creatures, supposed to do about it?

All we care about is just trying to survive, thrive, and have a good time. Paying through the nose for gasoline, food, and taxes puts a crimp in everyone's lifestyle.

[mdklatt]

Man-made CO2 is destroying the planet, didn't you get the memo?

I guess it's the magical pixie dust that the Heartland Institute is still searching for. They'll probably pay you top dollar if you can find it.

[mdklatt]

But WTF are we, little insignificant message board creatures, supposed to do about it?

Quit accepting the same BS from politicians over and over. More insanity. Instead of worrying about actual policy issues we get all rabble rabble about who said what about whom, and how old McCain is, and what Obama wears on his lapel. And then somebody posts a picture of Hillary's cankles and its all downhill from there. If a politician is telling you something that you want to hear, they're probably lying. There are no easy answers to this stuff.



Paying through the nose for gasoline, food, and taxes puts a crimp in everyone's lifestyle.

We can pay now or we can pay later. For a long, long time we've been choosing the pay later option. When is our final notice going to be and how much more is it going to cost then?

Germany has gone whole hog into alternative energy, and their economy is booming. They were willing to make an investment in solar and wind, and now they are world leaders in that technology. On the other hand, in the US it's like it's the 18th century and we're scrounging for whales instead of investing in coal and petroleum.

EDIT: Everybody seems to agree that fossil fuel dependence is bad, but we don't seem to be willing to make any sacrifices to do anything about it. Same ****, different day.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

All kidding aside, of course you're right. Many of us have been saying the same thing for years. But WTF are we, little insignificant message board creatures, supposed to do about it?

All we care about is just trying to survive, thrive, and have a good time. Paying through the nose for gasoline, food, and taxes puts a crimp in everyone's lifestyle.Both govt. and private industry have been searching(and paying for that search) forever, for an economical and safe alternate for oil. Who knows if it will ever happen?

Meanwhile, in the "short term"(maybe your life and mine, and your kids' too), all must be done to produce the oil necessary to run the modern planet. For a long time, now, forces have been able to curtail, derail, and short-circuit the domestic oil industry. IOW, he's not quite right.

[mdklatt]

If you're going to insult me

I wasn't insulting you, I was insulting the short-sighted thinking that's been going since before you and I were born and has led to where we are today.



Why are we buying it from terrorists, third world tin pot dictators, and a commie like Chavez, when we could do a lot more here?

We're long past the point where we can get all of our oil domestically, so we're going to be dealing with these problems no matter what we do here. The only solution is to make a paradigm change and drastically reduce the amount of oil we need. I'd rather invest in a long-term solution now rather than continuing to spend money on half-***, short-term solutions.

[Harry Beanbag]

Quit accepting the same BS from politicians over and over. More insanity. Instead of worrying about actual policy issues we get all rabble rabble about who said what about whom, and how old McCain is, and what Obama wears on his lapel. And then somebody posts a picture of Hillary's cankles and its all downhill from there. If a politician is telling you something that you want to hear, they're probably lying. There are no easy answers to this stuff.


Well, no ****. I've made it quite clear that I hate just about every politician and think we should start over with Congress. My car still doesn't run on water does it? Hell, it doesn't even make me feel any better.




We can pay now or we can pay later. For a long, long time we've been choosing the pay later option. When is our final notice going to be and how much more is it going to cost then?

Germany has gone whole hog into alternative energy, and their economy is booming. They were willing to make an investment in solar and wind, and now they are world leaders in that technology. On the other hand, in the US it's like it's the 18th century and we're scrounging for whales instead of investing in coal and petroleum.


Okay? Am I supposed to go out and build a wind farm? :confused:

You still haven't given me anything that Joe Schmo can do to do create an alternate energy source. It's quite obvious that we aren't going to affect the U. S. energy policy.

[soonerboomer93]

you guys do realize that more oil does no good without more refining capacity

that's a major part of the problem since no refinieries have been built here since the 70, and even if they started today, it would take 2+ years to build a new one

[soonerboomer93]

Well, no ****. I've made it quite clear that I hate just about every politician and think we should start over with Congress. My car still doesn't run on water does it? Hell, it doesn't even make me feel any better.






Okay? Am I supposed to go out and build a wind farm? :confused:

You still haven't given me anything that Joe Schmo can do to do create an alternate energy source. It's quite obvious that we aren't going to affect the U. S. energy policy.


depending on where you live, you can buy your own turbine, that will power your home, and electric companies will buy back any excess energy it generates

[mdklatt]

You still haven't given me anything that Joe Schmo can do to do create an alternate energy source. It's quite obvious that we aren't going to affect the U. S. energy policy.

Tell your federal legislators you support the extension of the Production Tax Credit and the creation of tax incentives for homeowners to install renewable energy systems. There are already federal tax incentives, but they mainly apply to agricultural users. State incentives vary.

http://www.dsireusa.org/


If you do install your own wind or solar (more practical for most urban dwellers), you may be able to sell the excess power back to your utility. Does your utility company have renewable energy programs? Here in central Oklahoma you can either buy "wind power" from OG&E or renewable energy credits from OEC or Edmond MPA.

There are many renewable energy advocacy organizations at local and state levels. In Oklahoma we have the Oklahoma Renewable Energy Coalition.

[mdklatt]

Both govt. and private industry have been searching(and paying for that search) forever, for an economical and safe alternate for oil. Who knows if it will ever happen?

Meanwhile, in the "short term"(maybe your life and mine, and your kids' too), all must be done to produce the oil necessary to run the modern planet.


Thar she blows!

[bluedogok]

depending on where you live, you can buy your own turbine, that will power your home, and electric companies will buy back any excess energy it generates
There is a company that makes home use wind generators that is based in Norman, Bergey Windpower Co. (http://www.bergey.com/)

I plan on using wind and solar to supplement grid power when we build a new house. That is why we have been looking at lots in the "freer" neighborhoods, the ones without the "neighborhood nazis". Some of the lots have a decent wind profile for the Austin area.

[StoopTroup]

Once all the Sheiks get their Casinos, Hotels and Off-Shore Land Develoments done...the oil prices will level out.

http://guide.theemiratesnetwork.com/living/dubai/images/the_world/the_world_dubai.jpg

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Thar she blows!Behold...the genius conservationist!

You MUST realize that conservation alone will not sustain the economy, let alone allow it to grow. (you might also want to explain what you meant by "thar she blows")

[mdklatt]

You MUST realize that conservation alone will not sustain the economy, let alone allow it to grow.

You MUST realize that fossil fuels have a limited future, and all the tax holidays and refineries in the world aren't going to change it. But by all means, let's keep the status quo going rather than moving forward.





(you might also want to explain what you meant by "thar she blows")

Much of the world is moving into the energy future and we're still clinging to the last century. We seem determined to go down as the last whale oil tycoon.

[mdklatt]

Once all the Sheiks get their Casinos, Hotels and Off-Shore Land Develoments done...the oil prices will level out.


See? Even the Middle East is planning for life after oil. The US, not so much.

[GottaHavePride]

Anyone want to hear my idea?

Tough, here it is anyway:

Tax incentives based on the distance between your residence and your place of employment. The closer you live to where you work, the less taxes you pay.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Mr Klatt, there's nothing to prevent us from doing both conservation and production, except some very obnoxious politicians. Al the efforts prescribed/recommended by people on this thread are worth pursuing, and we should be producing and refining more oil, SINCE WE CAN, if politicians didn't stop the American oil industry.

[Harry Beanbag]

If you do install your own wind or solar (more practical for most urban dwellers), you may be able to sell the excess power back to your utility. Does your utility company have renewable energy programs? Here in central Oklahoma you can either buy "wind power" from OG&E or renewable energy credits from OEC or Edmond MPA..


I'm sure my HOA would love that.

But we're still stuck on the same issue. You and I can complain to our corrupt politicians, who will ignore us. You can maybe get some solar panels, I can't. That's still not finding an alternate energy source, just postponing the inevitable. Structure power is not the problem, it's tranportation.

[tommieharris91]

Electric Car. The technology is out there for a viable electric car that gets like 90 mph top speed and you just plug it into your house's solar cell or windmill once a week.

/end thread

[SoonerAtKU]

Of course. Man-made CO2 is destroying the planet, didn't you get the memo?

Ok, my Xbox Live Gamertag is actually ManMadeOfCO2....this was really funny to me and I'm going to use it for something.

[bluedogok]

Once all the Sheiks get their Casinos, Hotels and Off-Shore Land Develoments done...the oil prices will level out.
See? Even the Middle East is planning for life after oil. The US, not so much.
I think he is joking that once the sheiks quit blowing money and all of their grandiose developments that oil prices will get lower because they won't need as much money. Nothing in there about the Middle East thinking about anything after oil. in fact, they are probably the ones least prepared for a post oil future because it is 99% of their money. If their oil dried up, their wealth would pretty much cease to exist and why would anyone want to go there. They are creating a false world to attract people, Las Vegas has the advantage of being in the US. If that part of the world loses its source of wealth (oil) then I doubt that it would continue to survive in anything near its present state. It would become a pretty much insignificant part of the world.

What makes you certain that oil/energy companies aren't thinking about post oil solutions? Most are working on alternatives because if they come to market with "the magic pill" then they will be the one to capitalize on it. The only caveat is many of the "US Oil/Energy Companies" are actually foreign owned now. You do have other large US corporations that are heavily involved in alternative energy like GE which is one of the largest manufacturers of the commercial wind power generators.

I do agree that much work needs to be done on alternatives and renewable energy but just because you don't get a monthly marketing update from someone blowin' hot air up your tail doesn't mean that companies aren't working on something.

[StoopTroup]

See? Even the Middle East is planning for life after oil. The US, not so much.

Well...maybe not all the US...

But here in Oklahoma we still have OU Football and Casinos are thriving. As soon as someone puts a big casino out at the Port of Catoosa....Millionairre Yachts will be coming up from the Gulf to give us their wealth.

[SoonerInKCMO]

you guys do realize that more oil does no good without more refining capacity

that's a major part of the problem since no refinieries have been built here since the 70, and even if they started today, it would take 2+ years to build a new one

For the week ending 4/11, U.S. refinery utilization was at 81.4%. Outside of the disruption following Katrina, that's the lowest it's been since 1991. It's back up to 86.6% as of last week but that's still well below the average for the last decade and a half.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wpuleus3W.htm

[yermom]

Well...maybe not all the US...

But here in Oklahoma we still have OU Football and Casinos are thriving. As soon as someone puts a big casino out at the Port of Catoosa....Millionairre Yachts will be coming up from the Gulf to give us their wealth.

are they going to put one there?

you could basically shuttle people to the Cherokee one from there...

[SoonerInKCMO]

For the week ending 4/11, U.S. refinery utilization was at 81.4%. Outside of the disruption following Katrina, that's the lowest it's been since 1991. It's back up to 86.6% as of last week but that's still well below the average for the last decade and a half.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wpuleus3W.htm (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wpuleus3W.htm)


And one of the reasons that utilization is so low is that demand and profits are both down.


In the United States, there is no longer much doubt that consumers are responding to higher fuel costs by driving less. Oil consumption fell by 3.3 percent in March, compared with March of last year.


In response to falling gasoline demand and rising costs, refiners have cut their production rates. Refining utilization rates, for example, slumped to a low of 81.4 percent in the second week of April, compared with 90.4 percent at the same time last year. Earlier this month, refineries were running at 85 percent of their capacity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/business/14refine.html

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So, we are to become an unproductive and immobile society, to make the environmentalists happy...Sheer Genius!

[yermom]

the free market has spoken

why do you hate democracy?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

the free market has spoken

why do you hate democracy?The congress has prevented drilling in large areas of America, and you want to call that "the free market"?(the pain is politically induced)

[yermom]

i've yet to hear anything that suggests that it will actually help with the price of gas...

we aren't even refining all we can right now

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

i've yet to hear anything that suggests that it will actually help with the price of gas...

we aren't even refining all we can right nowIs this naivete, or devil's advocacy? If it's legit question, it's the former, and you need to think it through.

[SoonerAtKU]

I'm seeing it as companies responding to declining demand by reducing supply in order to keep prices stable. Is this econ 101 level naive, or what? I also don't understand how refining 80-85% of what we have is so much worse than refining 80-85% of a slightly larger pool of petroleum.

If you were arguing that we should increase refining levels to increase supply and lower prices, that's one thing...but I don't think that's what you're after, is it?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'm seeing it as companies responding to declining demand by reducing supply in order to keep prices stable. Is this econ 101 level naive, or what? I also don't understand how refining 80-85% of what we have is so much worse than refining 80-85% of a slightly larger pool of petroleum.

If you were arguing that we should increase refining levels to increase supply and lower prices, that's one thing...but I don't think that's what you're after, is it?Congress should quit trying to shut down the economy!

[tommieharris91]

I'm seeing it as companies responding to declining demand by reducing supply in order to keep prices stable. Is this econ 101 level naive, or what? I also don't understand how refining 80-85% of what we have is so much worse than refining 80-85% of a slightly larger pool of petroleum.

If you were arguing that we should increase refining levels to increase supply and lower prices, that's one thing...but I don't think that's what you're after, is it?

But the price of oil keeps rising because China and India need oil more than they used to.

[mdklatt]

there's nothing to prevent us from doing both conservation and production

Except that increased supply and increased conservation have been mutually exclusive forever and ever in the history of all mankind and the entire universe.

You don't cure a heroin addict by giving him more heroin.

[olevetonahill]

Except that increased supply and increased conservation have been mutually exclusive forever and ever in the history of all mankind and the entire universe.

You don't cure a heroin addict by giving him more heroin.

Sure ya do .
He ODs hes cured . dont need No Mo.

[mdklatt]

The congress has prevented drilling in large areas of America, and you want to call that "the free market"?(the pain is politically induced)


If you really want the market to decide, how about we cut off all subsidies to the oil industry? For starters they can stop relying on the military to guarantee their fuel supply. I'm sure Blackwater would be more than happy to step in (for a fee, of course). With the price at the pump more accurately reflecting the true cost of gasoline, we'll see if the free market can support electric cars after all. Then we can tack on the environmental costs of fossil fuels so that it's a truly a fair fight. Free market libertarians rejoice!

[StoopTroup]

are they going to put one there?

you could basically shuttle people to the Cherokee one from there...

You could but I'd like to think putting it close to the Port would keep out all the rift raft truckers. ;) :D

J/K Jerk

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If you really want the market to decide, how about we cut off all subsidies to the oil industry? For starters they can stop relying on the military to guarantee their fuel supply. I'm sure Blackwater would be more than happy to step in (for a fee, of course). With the price at the pump more accurately reflecting the true cost of gasoline, we'll see if the free market can support electric cars after all. Then we can tack on the environmental costs of fossil fuels so that it's a truly a fair fight. Free market libertarians rejoice!Oil bad, smooth economy bad, economic turmoil...mmmmm good! WTF, md. How do you even dream up this stuff?(to equate oil, the energy which has allowed all of modern society, and all its wonderful developments, to cocaine addiction, is simply flabbergasting)

[tommieharris91]

Oil bad, smooth economy bad, economic turmoil...mmmmm good! WTF, md. How do you even dream up this stuff?(to equate oil, the energy which has allowed all of modern society, and all its wonderful developments, to cocaine addiction, is simply flabbergasting)

Simple, that oil is gonna run out sometime. We gotta find ways off of oil (especially foreign) within the next 10 years (maybe 5). Yea, it has been great for society and the world economy. And now, the sheiks and speculators know that whatever the going rate for oil will be will be paid by the rest of the world. Overall, I expect the price of gasoline to keep rising higher and higher. The only way we can stick it to these bastards is by not buying their product.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Simple, that oil is gonna run out sometime. We gotta find ways off of oil (especially foreign) within the next 10 years (maybe 5). Yea, it has been great for society and the world economy. And now, the sheiks and speculators know that whatever the going rate for oil will be will be paid by the rest of the world. Overall, I expect the price of gasoline to keep rising higher and higher. The only way we can stick it to these bastards is by not buying their product.Consequently, we need to immediately open up the vast domestic oil fields that have been placed off-limits by the visionaries in congress, and become (nearly) self-sufficient. Of course, not gonna happen real soon. Thanks libs, for all the wonderful contributions you continue to make to society...

[Condescending Sooner]

The AAPG doesn't seem to think so (http://emd.aapg.org/technical_areas/oil_shale.cfm)

If it was profitable at just $40 a barrel, why the hell didn't we do this, oh I don't know, 8 friggen years ago? It's because it isn't.

And as far as my "liberal brethren" go, **** em. I have no allegiance to either side of the aisle. I happen to hate big government in any form. As things look right now though, I would rather me be taxed to death by the donks plans than my children be riddled with debt from the "conservatives" plan. Yah, good job guys, you don't want to tax people so you just borrow money, get a long enough term and your generation won't have to pay the bill:rolleyes:

I found this quote in the first article to appear on Google. "They don't need subsidies; the process should be commercially feasible with world oil prices at $30 a barrel. The energy balance is favorable; under a conservative life-cycle analysis, it should yield 3.5 units of energy for every 1 unit used in production. The process recovers about 10 times as much oil as mining the rock and crushing and cooking it at the surface, and it's a more desirable grade. Reclamation is easier because the only thing that comes to the surface is the oil you want."

The reason they haven't done it before was due to them developing the necessary technology. You are wrong about it, but refuse to admit that it is a horrible idea not to explore this avenue of oil production. Only a liberal would be against this, so yes, the label fits.

[mdklatt]

Oil bad, smooth economy bad, economic turmoil...mmmmm good!

Yeah, because the economy is running so smooth right now. What about when the oil runs out? No problem, because that's when technology will save us! Even though we've been saying that for 30 years and haven't done **** all about it. Imagine how far along electric car and renewable energy technology would be right now if we'd made a serious commitment to them back in the 70s. Or the 80s. Or the 90s.

Now I think I understand why Republicans are in favor of climate change. Maybe they're hoping developing world economies will get wiped out by drought and flood so that we can more oil to ourselves.

[mdklatt]

Consequently, we need to immediately open up the vast domestic oil fields that have been placed off-limits by the visionaries in congress, and become (nearly) self-sufficient.

For how long? How much will this effect prices? What about air pollution and global warming?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Yeah, because the economy is running so smooth right now. What about when the oil runs out? No problem, because that's when technology will save us! Even though we've been saying that for 30 years and haven't done **** all about it. Imagine how far along electric car and renewable energy technology would be right now if we'd made a serious commitment to them back in the 70s. Or the 80s. Or the 90s.

Now I think I understand why Republicans are in favor of climate change. Maybe they're hoping developing world economies will get wiped out by drought and flood so that we can more oil to ourselves.Before it got edited!

[Condescending Sooner]

For how long? How much will this effect prices? What about air pollution and global warming?

You serious Clark? If we burn oil produced here versus oil produced elsewhere, why would it increase pollution? And yes, more supply equals lower prices.

[Vaevictis]

You serious Clark? If we burn oil produced here versus oil produced elsewhere, why would it increase pollution?

More oil produced -> more oil consumed -> more pollution.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

More oil produced -> more oil consumed -> more pollution.Less oil produced=less oil consumed=HELLO horse and buggy, and manure in the streets. You lefties are puzzling, indeed.

[mdklatt]

You serious Clark? If we burn oil produced here versus oil produced elsewhere, why would it increase pollution?


We need to be spewing less CO2, not just maintaining the status quo.



And yes, more supply equals lower prices.

And increased demand followed by higher prices and round and round we go.

But let's get specific. How much lower prices would prices get and for how long? Is it worth all the indirect costs of oil?

[soonerhubs]

What will the Global Warming pushers do now? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1986049/Hurricanes-'are-not-caused-by-global-warming'.html)

[mdklatt]

Less oil produced=less oil consumed=HELLO horse and buggy, and manure in the streets. You lefties are puzzling, indeed.

OMG, mass transit will destroy the world!!! :eek:

[JohnnyMack]

Many years ago the USA stopped making the effort at getting dinosaur leftovers out of its own soil. It did it for two reasons. The first being that it had become uncouth to start up yet another refinery, cause more pollution, impact more of our coastlines (where they typically do best) and do overall bad things to the environment. The second was that it was simply cheaper overall to buy it from the brown man in the sand and ship it over here than it would be to build said earth killing refinery. So both sides got what they wanted. The left prevented more refineries from getting built and the right kept their powerful oil lobbyists happy (and rich). Everyone was pretty happy about it, until the brown man got angry about whitey stomping on his turf, taking his resources, not paying enough for oil and looking luridly at his women.

So now, after 30 years of half hearted efforts at developing an alternative fuel source we're faced with gas prices that make us uncomfortable. And we don't have any sort of short term solution to this problem. Welcome my friends to the systemic failure that is Big Oil. One side will point at the other and say, "it's his fault", when in reality we collectively sold out a long, long time ago and neither side wants to admit their error.

[Fugue]

I enjoy horses and manure.

http://www.smiliearchiv.com/smilies/tiere/tiere_63.gif

[soonerscuba]

So, Obama wants to take away my guns, car, and bible? Did I miss anything? The list grows longer and longer each day.

[mdklatt]

So, Obama wants to take away my guns, car, and bible? Did I miss anything?

Cheeseburgers.

[tommieharris91]

So, Obama wants to take away my guns, car, and bible? Did I miss anything?

Money.

[mdklatt]

Money.

Well that's a given. Stupid liberals and their crazy ideas about expecting us to pay for our own government. :mad:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Many years ago the USA stopped making the effort at getting dinosaur leftovers out of its own soil. It did it for two reasons. The first being that it had become uncouth to start up yet another refinery, cause more pollution, impact more of our coastlines (where they typically do best) and do overall bad things to the environment. The second was that it was simply cheaper overall to buy it from the brown man in the sand and ship it over here than it would be to build said earth killing refinery. So both sides got what they wanted. The left prevented more refineries from getting built and the right kept their powerful oil lobbyists happy (and rich). Everyone was pretty happy about it, until the brown man got angry about whitey stomping on his turf, taking his resources, not paying enough for oil and looking luridly at his women.

So now, after 30 years of half hearted efforts at developing an alternative fuel source we're faced with gas prices that make us uncomfortable. And we don't have any sort of short term solution to this problem. Welcome my friends to the systemic failure that is Big Oil. One side will point at the other and say, "it's his fault", when in reality we collectively sold out a long, long time ago and neither side wants to admit their error.True enough. Now, let's continue with the domestic production and refining we let slide back in the '70's, and let them desert folks send their oil to india and China.(while we "seriously" go after the new mystery fuel, that is abundant and economical)

[mdklatt]

while we "seriously" go after the new mystery fuel, that is abundant and economical

Certainly I don't have to explain THE SUN to an AGW-denying Rush disciple do I? And I don't what it's like in Arizona, but in Oklahoma and throughout the plains we have this thing called WIND. Other places have a lot of FLOWING WATER. There's also the most abundant element in the universe, HYDROGEN. Not very new, and not much of a mystery. Even natural gas is better than oil, although I have no idea how long it's going to be before that runs out.

But by all means, lets do everything we can to forestall development of new technologies and perpetuate the oil industry's monopoly.

[soonerhubs]

Well that's a given. Stupid liberals and their crazy ideas about expecting us to OVERpay for our own government that squanders the money away on nonsensical issues such as Baseball hearings, Fictitious Global Warming theories based on some moron's slideshow, and their own greedy agendas. :mad:

Fixed it. ;)

[soonerhubs]

Other places have a lot of FLOWING WATER.

I'm all for exploring new technologies, but if you think this congress is going to allow new development for hydroelectric or Nuclear power you've got another thing coming. Just ask all the lefties who drink water stored in the Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams how they feel about those reservoirs.

[mdklatt]

Fixed it. ;)

I don't see either side jumping up to reduce spending, so I assume you mean "balancing the budget" when you say overpaying.

tax and spend > tax and sell ourselves to China

[mdklatt]

I'm all for exploring new technologies, but if you think this congress is going to allow new development for hydroelectric

Hydroelectric doesn't necessary mean building a dam. And if all the environmental loonies can demonstrate that building a dam (or wind farm, in Oklahoma) is worse for the environment than another coal plant, then more power to them. Otherwise they can shut it.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Certainly I don't have to explain THE SUN to an AGW-denying Rush disciple do I? And I don't what it's like in Arizona, but in Oklahoma and throughout the plains we have this thing called WIND. Other places have a lot of FLOWING WATER. There's also the most abundant element in the universe, HYDROGEN. Not very new, and not much of a mystery. Even natural gas is better than oil, although I have no idea how long it's going to be before that runs out.

But by all means, lets do everything we can to forestall development of new technologies and perpetuate the oil industry's monopoly.apparently, the "free" stuff like wind and sun aren't all that cheap. When their use is less expensive than using oil, I'm sure we will all be happy to participate. Meanwhile life must go on, and most people, when they know the real reason for the problem, don't appreciate having to throw money away, due to govt. edict.

[JohnnyMack]

apparently, the "free" stuff like wind and sun aren't all that cheap. When their use is less expensive than using oil, I'm sure we will all be happy to participate. Meanwhile life must go on, and most people, when they know the real reason for the problem, don't appreciate having to throw money away, due to govt. edict.

On the other side of that argument Rush is the one that says the Oil Companies aren't clamoring too loudly to have to spend the time and money on new refineries when they're already bringing in record profits.

[soonerhubs]

tax and spend > tax and sell ourselves to China

You're right, and I don't mean to come off preachy because I know far less than most peeps. It just appears to me that both parties are hitting on the wrong issues.

Specifically, if W and his crew would've focused more on economic growth versus a National Do Not Call list, a billion dollar industry that still calls people wouldn't be located overseas.

And if the Democrats would have worried more about the regulation of the Mortgage market versus the taxing of Big Businesses many Americans may still have their houses and the Dollar wouldn't be such a weak currency.

The whole lot of them in DC should be ashamed of themselves for the failure they've caused in America. I'm for leaders with a little vision and a lot less sticking of their fingers in the air to catch whatever whim or fad may be the hot topic of the week on CNN or Fox News.

Indeed power is the safest and used the most effectively in the hands of those who want it the least.

[soonerhubs]

I'd be interested in folks take on this article. (http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/may2008/bw20080513_720178.htm?campaign_id=rss_topStories)

The Reason for High Oil Prices
It's not a supply crisis that explains the sharp spike in oil prices. It's unregulated commodities markets and greed

by Ed Wallace

"One of the things I think is very important to realize is that the growth in the world oil consumption is not that strong." —David Kelly, chief market strategist, J.P. Morgan Funds; The Washington Post, May 4, 2008

"...There is substantial evidence that the large amount of speculation in the current market has significantly increased [oil] prices." —U.S. Senate Staff Report, The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices, June 27, 2006

On May 13, the price of a barrel of oil briefly hit a record of $126.98 on the New York Mercantile Exchange The reason was ostensibly that Iran was cutting oil production. But there is no gas shortage. So why are prices still going up?

In late April the American Association of Petroleum Geologists held its annual invitation-only dinner in Dallas for, as my source put it, "the bigwigs" of the energy industry. During this meeting, influential and knowledgeable CEOs reached the consensus that "oil prices will likely soon drop dramatically and the long-term price increases will be in natural gas." Of course, despite the pedigrees of those in attendance, their forming a consensus on the direction of energy prices does not mean that it's written in stone or is even going to happen. The group is clearly bullish on natural gas. But petroleum keeps getting more expensive.

The energy executives' prediction about the future price for crude oil had sound backing. Just a few days earlier, Lehman Brothers (LEH) investment bank had said that this current oil pricing boom was quickly coming to an end. Michael Waldron, the bank's chief oil strategist, was quoted in Britain's Daily Telegraph on Apr. 24 as saying: "[Oil supply] is outpacing demand growth." Waldron added, "Inventories have been building since the beginning of the year. The Saudi Khursaniya field has just opened, with 500,000 barrels a day of production, and the new Khurais field will start next year with a further 1.2 million b/d [barrels a day]."
No Lines at the Pump

Waldron's assertion rang true. In the U.S. alone, stockpiles of oil climbed by 11.9 million barrels in the month preceding the Energy Information Agency's (EIA) May 7 inventory report; they were up by nearly 33 million barrels since Jan. 1. At the same time, MasterCard's (MA) May 7 gasoline report showed that gas demand has fallen by 5.8%, while the government suggested that gasoline consumption might have fallen by slightly over 6%.

We do know that refineries in the U.S. again cut back their utilization to 85%. That's down from 89% a year ago, in a season when production is normally 95%, only because they're trying to draw down gasoline inventories to bid gasoline prices up. Yet despite the reduced refinery runs, the EIA said, the U.S. managed to put another 800,000 barrels of gasoline in stock. The American Petroleum Institute put the gas gain at 1.4 million barrels. The point is that neither organization is in disagreement that gasoline was added into our active stocks; it's just a question of exactly how much.

Only the day before, the EIA had released its monthly Short Term Energy Outlook report, concluding that U.S. oil demand is expected to decline by 190,000 b/d in 2008. Chinese consumption is expected to rise this year by only 400,000 b/d—hardly the "surging oil demand" usually blamed on China in the media. Last year China imported 3.2 million barrels per day, and its estimated usage was around 7 million b/d total. The U.S., by contrast, consumes around 20.7 million b/d.

The May 8 report from Oil Movements, a British company that tracks oil shipments worldwide, shows that oil in transit on the high seas is quite strong; almost every category of shipment is running higher than it was a year ago. The one exception was oil shipments to the West during the previous 30 days. Even there, on page three of that report, comes the cryptic line, "In the West, a big share of any [oil] stock building done this year has happened offshore, out of sight." Oil Movements' Roy Mason qualified that line: "Oil in temporary floating storage offshore is hard to pin down, and we don't have useful info on that. Whenever this happens it generates market noise—and we don't hear any!"

Still, the consensus of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists and the energy executives may be right: No supply crisis justifies the way the world's oil is being priced today.
The Truth and Nothing but the (Partial) Truth

So how to explain the May 6 report from Reuters (TRI) that Goldman Sachs (GS) announced that oil could in fact be on the verge of another "super spike," possibly taking oil as high as $200 a barrel within the next six to 24 months? Forget the fact that few other oil analysts agreed with that position, "$200 a barrel!" was the major news story on oil for the next two days. Arjun Murti, Goldman Sachs' energy strategist, predictably laid the blame on "blistering" demand from China and the Middle East, combined with his belief that the Middle East is nearing its maximum ability to produce more oil. While the outside chance exists that Murti is right, his prediction certainly isn't backed up by the EIA's Short-Term Energy Outlook, or by Lehman Brothers' report from 10 days earlier. As for the Middle East being tapped out on oil production, there might be one more thing to consider.

On May 2, the Friday before this prediction made news, Bloomberg had reported that Iran is again storing its heavy crude on tankers in the Persian Gulf because the country has run out of onshore storage tanks while awaiting buyers. Further, Saudi Arabia has extended discounts on its sour crudes to $7.45 for Arabian Heavy. Doesn't sound like there's any real supply problem with that grade of crude, does it?

It is an understatement to say that over the last five years the media have rained reports predicting an impending energy Armageddon. But those reports have tended not to disclose their sources—which often were individuals heavily invested in the oil futures market.

For example, Goldman Sachs was one of the founding partners of online commodities and futures marketplace Intercontinental Exchange (ICE). And ICE has been a primary focus of recent congressional investigations; it was named both in the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations' June 27, 2006, Staff Report and in the House Committee on Energy & Commerce's hearing last December. Those investigations looked into the unregulated trading in energy futures, and both concluded that energy prices' climb to stratospheric heights has been driven by the billions of dollars' worth of oil and natural gas futures contracts being placed on the ICE—which is not regulated by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.
Deceptive Practices

In case you've forgotten, it was only 2001 when BusinessWeekreported that some Wall Street firms were hard-selling to the public stocks that their companies were quietly divesting—and/or pushing questionable stocks for companies in which their affiliated banks had a financial interest. In a nutshell, some individuals with a specific vested interest in a certain financial outcome used the media to enrich themselves and their companies, leaving the public investor holding the bag.

Once that deception was uncovered (after the stock market collapsed), and after the congressional hearings in 2001 proved beyond any doubt that these things had happened, the national media swore that they would never again be taken in by this type of corporate deceit. Then came 2004 and oil.

As the second quote at the beginning of this column makes clear, the Senate pointed out in its 2006 report that oil reserves (not including the Strategic Petroleum Reserve) were at a 20-year high during the time that report was written; therefore, there was no shortage of oil whatsoever. This seemed to confirm a Jan. 10, 2007, article in Reuters that quoted Tony Nunan, a risk manager at Mitsubishi: "We've got a short-term [oil] oversupply problem." Yes, an oil oversupply problem in fall of 2006.

Then, as now, that certainly isn't what we were being told. Instead we were being bombarded daily in the media and analysts' reports with justifications for the high price of oil: The "terrorism premium" on each barrel of oil, the rising demand of China and India, troubles in the Nigerian oil patch, oil pipelines' being blown up in Iraq, wider war in the Middle East, T. Boone Pickens' warnings that the world was on the cusp of Peak Oil, "surging demand" for gasoline in the U.S., the weak dollar—and so on. (Peak oil is described as the world crossing the halfway mark for extracting its oil reserves. It is not maximum production.) However, the Senate took a dim view of those excuses, particularly the ones about Peak Oil or diminished capacity for oil production: "There's a few hedge fund managers out there who are masters at knowing how to exploit the peak [oil] theories and hot buttons of supply and demand, and by making bold predictions of shocking price advancements to come, they only add more fuel to the bullish fire in a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy." (The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices, U.S. Senate, June 27, 2006).

Yes, this line suggests that persons invested in the oil futures market are purposely driving even more money into oil to raise the prices even higher, even though the market's actual supply and demand in no way justifies their claims. On a side note, Enron is named frequently in both investigations as exemplifying this type of energy market manipulation.

And, although both the Senate and the House have already investigated why oil is selling for more than supply and demand dictate, on May 12 we found out that the House Energy & Commerce Committee will look at this issue once again this month and into June.

Let's give Congress a little direction.
Covering Their Losses?

Commodities have often been the refuge for investors who have lost money on equities or fixed-income investments. Moreover, the commodities rush today is not limited to oil; now we also have runaway food and feed prices. Could it be that all the financial losses on subprime mortgages, plus the anticipation that the option ARM mortgages about to reset could be an even bigger problem, combined with the huge losses in securities last year, are why investment money today is flooding into often unregulated commodities, where the demand pricing of the final goods is inelastic?

Consider this: You may not buy gasoline or even eat today, but by next Monday you'll probably have to do both, no matter what it costs. Basically, besides enabling the Fed to bail out Wall Street and our banks again, every time you gas up or eat you may be paying investors to cover other financial losses. We know that investors can't control their losses on mortgages, securities, or bad loans. But, demonstrably, if not restrained they can drive up the price of goods that we can't get out of buying. Odds are, that's what's really been going on.

Ed Wallace holds a Gerald R. Loeb Award for business journalism, bestowed by the Anderson School of Business at UCLA. His column heads the Sunday Drive section of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and he is a member of the American Historical Society. The automotive expert for KDFW Fox 4 in Dallas, Wallace hosts the top-rated talk show Wheels, Saturdays from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. on 570 KLIF AM in Dallas.

Any truth to this?

[mdklatt]

When their use is less expensive than using oil, I'm sure we will all be happy to participate.

You mean like now? They can't build wind farms fast enough here in Oklahoma. Damn those leftist utility companies!

How much does it cost per day to keep our military in the Middle East? What are we spending to build a new military command in Africa? How much medical expenses and lost productivity are due to air pollution? What's the cost of a major drought? Let's not forget to add these to the cost of "cheap" oil.

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/InterviewTypeDetail/assetid/50434



Since we are all economic decision-makers as consumers, corporate planners, government policymakers and investment bankers, we rely on market prices to guide our decision-making. The problem is the market is giving us bad information. The result is bad decision-making.

[T]he International Center for Technology Assessment has done a detailed analysis, entitled "The Real Price of Gasoline." The group calculates several indirect costs, including oil industry tax breaks, oil supply protection costs, oil industry subsidies and health care costs of treating auto exhaust-related respiratory illnesses. The total of these indirect costs centers around $9 per gallon.... Add this external or social cost to the roughly $[4] per gallon average price of gasoline in the United States in [May 2008], and gas would cost $[13] a gallon. These costs are real. Someone bears them.


This analysis doesn't even include the potential effects of climate change.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

How much does it cost per day to keep our military in the Middle East? What are we spending to build a new military command in Africa? How much medical expenses and lost productivity are due to air pollution? What's the cost of a major drought? Let's not forget to add these to the cost of "cheap" oil.





This analysis doesn't even include the potential effects of climate change.Say, you're not a Democrat, are you?

[mdklatt]

Say, you're not a Democrat, are you?

FTL

[TUSooner]

look at it this way. Here in the US, we allow the markets to set prices. If Mr. Abdula is getting $120 a barrel for his oil, I am sure Mr. Smith is going to want close to that for his refined from oil shale. With the added supply, prices will drop some, but they can't drop to far because then refining from oil shale become unprofitable. The only way something like this works is to close down our borders like the Japanese did, and isolate ourselves from the the rest of the world.

That is the sad truth guys. Oil shale and coal to gas is only profitable now because of the high price of oil. It cannot lower the prices significantly otherwise it becomes unprofitable and we stop refining from it. The only way this could work to lower prices now is to have the government subsidize it, but in the end we still pay for that.

This is no place for a rational discussion of economics !!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

FTLFinally Tough Love!

[Condescending Sooner]

This is no place for a rational discussion of economics !!


It wasn't rational, his facts were wrong. Shale oil is profitable at $30.00 a barrel, something I pointed out, but he and others are ignoring.

[mdklatt]

The whole lot of them in DC should be ashamed of themselves for the failure they've caused in America.

We put them there and keep them there as long as they want in almost every, so we're the ones that should be ashamed. We tell them the problems that we want fixed, and they distract us with fear mongering and shiny objects so that their big donors can maintain the status quo. And heaven forbid we might be expected to sacrifice in the short term to solve some of those problems in the long term.

We expect "the market" or "the government" to magically take care of everything, for free apparently. I recently read that Ross Perot proposed a 50 cent/gallon gas tax increase back in 1992 for the purposes of funding a long-term national energy plan (something other than "maximize Exxon's profits"). I didn't remember anything about this, but I'm sure We The Sheeple all reacted like he was asking us to fund an army of puppy-kicking robots.

[Chuck Bao]

I'd be interested in folks take on this article. (http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/may2008/bw20080513_720178.htm?campaign_id=rss_topStories)

[I]The Reason for High Oil Prices
It's not a supply crisis that explains the sharp spike in oil prices. It's unregulated commodities markets and greed[I]

Any truth to this?

I've been saying this for several months.

Remember back last year or the year before and there was an investigation or, at least, a hot debate into whether it was real demand or speculation driving oil prices? I think the consenus at that time concluded that the developing economies were the main reason.

Now, there is no reason for a debate. Clearly, there is massive amount of excess money floating around the world and a lot of that money is betting against the dollar and for commodities, especially oil.

I don't blame the oil companies, but they're clearly benefiting.

I blame our modern capitalistic system where huge amounts of money can be shifted around the world in an electronic instant. The markets for currency, equities, debt, commodities are no longer rational. The fund flow is so short-term that they're playing off just knee-jerk reaction to news and and rapidly evolving short-term sentiment.

These are not just a few very large hedge funds that attacked Thailand a little more than 10 years ago (and I'm still really, really bitter about that). I think I posted here recently that I thought betting on commodities or equities linked to commodity prices is pretty much a no-brainer for fund managers.

There are a lot of economists who say that the US recession will be short-lived or not at all. And, that sentiment has recently helped stablize the dollar.

On the other hand, I've heard from many economists that global economic growth has to slow and we'll see oil and other commodity prices slide in the second half of this year, easing inflation concerns and pressure for central banks to raise interest rates.

I don't know which one is right.

However, I think I can safely say that some of the problems remain. Recession or not, the US needs to resolve its trade and fiscal deficits and not rely on short-term gimmick stimulus fixes. Okay, we also have that herd mentality of global fund managers too.

[Sooner_Havok]

It wasn't rational, his facts were wrong. Shale oil is profitable at $30.00 a barrel, something I pointed out, but he and others are ignoring.

You pointed it out. Oh really? First, you said $40 you twit.

I read that the shale oil is profitable as long as oil is over $40.00 a barrel. Do you really think the vote is a good idea or are you just sticking up for your liberal brethren?

Second, I gave a freaking link to the American Association of Petroleum Geologists that said oil shale isn't profitable, you said you read somewhere. Show some proof or STFU. You show some first hand proof that oil shale is profitable at low oil prices, and myself and other may not ignore what you are saying. I provided a link to the AAPG, so a link to someones blog, or a Rush Limbaugh quote isn't going to work. You find one study that says oil shale is profitable at low prices. Go head, get googling, I'll wait.

Do you really think oil shale is a good idea or are you just sticking up for your republican brethren?

[mdklatt]

Second, I gave a freaking link to the American Association of Petroleum Geologists that said oil shale isn't profitable

That link doesn't give any numbers or any way to date when that statement was written. Not that I saw, anyway. For all we know it was written back in 1999 when oil was $10/barrel.

[Sooner_Havok]

I read that the shale oil is profitable as long as oil is over $40.00 a barrel. Do you really think the vote is a good idea or are you just sticking up for your liberal brethren?


That link doesn't give any numbers or any way to date when that statement was written. Not that I saw, anyway. For all we know it was written back in 1999 when oil was $10/barrel.

Least I tried to back what I said. He just said, "I read somewhere..." and then goes changing the facts that he "read somewhere"

[Sooner_Havok]

Ok, here we go.

According to a survey conducted by the RAND Corporation, the cost of producing a barrel of oil at a surface retorting complex in the United States (comprising a mine, retorting plant, upgrading plant, supporting utilities, and spent shale reclamation), would be between US$70–95 ($440–600/m3, adjusted to 2005 values).

Not as high as I had thought, but then no one provided any real information after I asked for some. But It does get better


Assuming an increase in output of 25 thousand barrels per day (4.0×103 m3/d) during each year after the start of commercial production, the costs would then be expected to decline to $35–48 per barrel ($220–300/m3) within 12 years. After achieving the milestone of 1 billion barrels (160×106 m3), its costs would decline further to $30–40 per barrel ($190–250/m3)

So while it wouldn't be profitable at $30 a barrel right away, it could be after 12 years IF we could get to 1 billion barrels. Keep in mind though these figures are from 3 years ago when our money wasn't worthless but still. Uh oh, I am disproving my own opinions, oh nos!!!! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale#cite_note-52)

Oh well. Guess that just further proves I am a dirty donk huh, bringing up facts and numbers. I should just listen to Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken so they can tell me what to think and believe as true.

[Chuck Bao]

I'm watching CNBC tonight and all I can think is that this is scary bad.

This is like bad news on the US economy is not dampening global oil prices, as it should. Instead, it seems to be hastening the flight to commodities and further worsening the situation in a downward spiral effect.

We never had this effect during those very bad years of stagflation.

[Blue]

Somebody farted in Yemen! Onward to $200 a barrel! This should level out right? Unless they know something we don't. Mwahaha!

Can you imagine how this will skyrocket if something actually does happen? ie Strike on Iran, Nother disaster...

What do y'all think about China using all those u.s dollars to rebuild and take care of the 40,000,000 homeless after that eathquake? Mo problems?

[Civicus_Sooner]

Is there any way I could justifiably tell Goldman-Sachs and the other speculators to go to hell?


Just an FYI. Average price of gas in London today, in US dollars in $8.30/g


That's their effin problem. Thank God we don't have to import every drop of oil we use.

[mdklatt]

That's their effin problem. Thank God we don't have to import every drop of oil we use.

I believe GB gets a lot of oil from the North Sea. Plus, the cost of imported oil is the same as domestic oil isn't it? PLUS, the high cost of European gasoline is because they realize all the indirect costs of oil and tax the crap out of it.

[Civicus_Sooner]

I believe GB gets a lot of oil from the North Sea. Plus, the cost of imported oil is the same as domestic oil isn't it? PLUS, the high cost of European gasoline is because they realize all the indirect costs of oil and tax the crap out of it.That may all be true but the fact that a large percentage of our oil comes from here has always kept our prices down.

I mean the price for a barral of oil on the Dow is roughly $115. I have no idea if people in France or GB pay the same price but they do have to pay to ship it there and they do tax everything too much. Which is why we DON'T want to be like Europe in almost every way.

[Vaevictis]

I mean the price for a barral of oil on the Dow is roughly $115. I have no idea if people in France or GB pay the same price but they do have to pay to ship it there and they do tax everything too much. Which is why we DON'T want to be like Europe in almost every way.

The quoted price for a barrel of oil is generally for delivery at Cushing,
Oklahoma. Since almost nobody actually consumes the oil there, everyone pays for shipping... assuming they accept delivery at all.

A lot of these contracts are just hedges and end up being settled in cash to offset price increases or decreases, and the participants just buy it at a local delivery point.

Europe has plenty of access to oil that is nearby -- North Sea, Russia, Middle East. Shipping is not likely to be a major part of the cost difference, IMO.

[mdklatt]

[T]hey do tax everything too much. Which is why we DON'T want to be like Europe in almost every way.

Yeah, imagine having to pay the actual cost for something instead of having it subsidized for us by the government. That would suck.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Yeah, imagine having to pay the actual cost for something instead of having it subsidized for us by the government. That would suck.taxes=actual cost?

[Sooner_Havok]

taxes=actual cost?

OMG:eek: Lolbaugh:D

Taxes are fun!

[mdklatt]

taxes=actual cost?

Yeah, like all the money we've spent on keeping our military over in the Sand Box for the last however many decades. Do you really think we're there to "spread democracy"? And now we're going to have an increased military presence in Africa due to its "emerging strategic value", i.e. hey, they've got oil too!

The taxes we pay don't even cover the cost of highway maintenance, much less all the other indirect costs.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Yeah, like all the money we've spent on keeping our military over in the Sand Box for the last however many decades. Do you really think we're there to "spread democracy"? And now we're going to have an increased military presence in Africa due to its "emerging strategic value", i.e. hey, they've got oil too!

The taxes we pay don't even cover the cost of highway maintenance, much less all the other indirect costs.You're right. We should just stop using oil, but increase overall taxes to make up for the loss of oil tax revenue.

[Civicus_Sooner]

Yeah, imagine having to pay the actual cost for something instead of having it subsidized for us by the government. That would suck.
You are right and wrong on this one. I'd say our 5% unemplyment compared to Europe's 20-30% is more desireable.

You realize they live in the "welfare" state that R's have been running against forever.

If you want to have socialisim, boardering on communism then vote for more government programs, higher taxes and a huge number of unemployed that "The rich" (defined by billionairs) take care of, then by all means vote for good ol' American style liberal candidates.

FYI - Obama is ranked the #1 most liberal Senator in America. Be carefull what you ask for.

[Sooner_Havok]

If you want to have conservatism , bordering on fascism then vote for more government wars, increased debt and a huge number of unemployed that "The rich" (defined by billionaires) take care of, then by all means vote for good ol' American style conservative candidates.


You see what I did there:D

[Civicus_Sooner]

You see what I did there:DI did and it was so very, very clever. Remove 911 and the Iraq war, and this isn't even a conversation.

Remember, it was the contract with america that forced welfare reform and a balanced budget amendment that Republicans passed that saved Bill Clinton and and semblance of a Democratic presence (since Bill was Prez and took credit for it).

[Sooner_Havok]

I did and it was so very, very clever. Remove 911 and the Iraq war, and this isn't even a conversation.

Remember, it was the contract with america that forced welfare reform and a balanced budget amendment that Republicans passed that saved Bill Clinton and and semblance of a Democratic presence (since Bill was Prez and took credit for it).

Ok, we are still paying for a war in another country, that most people here are tired of, on the nations credit card. What is the difference between democrats and republicans right now? One wants to tax you to death to fund welfare in the US, the other wants to tax you children to death to fund welfare in the middle east.

[Civicus_Sooner]

Ok, we are still paying for a war in another country, that most people here are tired of, on the nations credit card. What is the difference between democrats and republicans right now? One wants to tax you to death to fund welfare in the US, the other wants to tax you children to death to fund welfare in the middle east.
I would say, one wants to turn us into a welfare state and one wants to protect us from very bad people.

[Sooner_Havok]

I would say, one wants to turn us into a welfare state and one wants to protect us from very bad people.

I would say one wants to turn us into a welfare state and the other wants to turn us into Daddy Warbucks to the world

[Sooner_Havok]

I did and it was so very, very clever. Remove 911 and the Iraq war, and this isn't even a conversation.

Remember, it was the contract with america that forced welfare reform and a balanced budget amendment that Republicans passed that saved Bill Clinton and and semblance of a Democratic presence (since Bill was Prez and took credit for it).

Didn't even mention the fact that I cleaned up your spelling. It hurts when people don't notice the little things you do for them:(

[mdklatt]

You're right. We should just stop using oil, but increase overall taxes to make up for the loss of oil tax revenue.

Keep dancing around the indirect costs of oil and repeating to yourself, "I'm not a freeloader, I'm not a freeloader, I'm not a freeloader...."

[Civicus_Sooner]

I would say one wants to turn us into a welfare state and the other wants to turn us into Daddy Warbucks to the worldWow, if we could burry our heads in the sand and hope that bad people with money won't fill the voids (see afganistan under Clinton and how that worked out) then that's your choice.

[Civicus_Sooner]

Didn't even mention the fact that I cleaned up your spelling. It hurts when people don't notice the little things you do for them:(
I type fast and don't use spell check. Sue me, you're a good Dem aren'y you? That's the Dem, American way. Sue.

[Sooner_Havok]

Wow, if we could burry our heads in the sand and hope that bad people with OUR money and guns won't fill the voids (see afganistan under Clinton and how that worked out) then that's your choice.

Nah, I hate both choices. either path you walk down is full of ****. But since we have a beautiful two party system here in Merika...I pick the side that wants to tax me and give my money to my fellow countrymen, not tax my children and give their money to people who will always hate us.

[Sooner_Havok]

I type fast and don't use spell check. Sue me, you're a good Dem aren'y you? That's the Dem, American way. Sue.

What in the **** are you talking about? Put down the crack pipe and walk away slowly. The spiders will soon be out from under your skin

[Civicus_Sooner]

What in the **** are you talking about? Put down the crack pipe and walk away slowly. The spiders will soon be out from under your skin



Didn't even mention the fact that I cleaned up your spelling. It hurts when people don't notice the little things you do for them:(


:rolleyes:

[Sooner_Havok]

:rolleyes:

Yeah, those were good ones. I am kinda proud of myself there.:texan:

[Civicus_Sooner]

Yeah, those were good ones. I am kinda proud of myself there.:texan:"If you don't have the facts on your side, argue the rules. If you don't have the rules on your side, argue the facts."

I think in this debate, you're obviously the former.

[Sooner_Havok]

"If you don't have the facts on your side, argue the rules. If you don't have the rules on your side, argue the facts."

I think in this debate, you're obviously the former.

Hey homey-de-clown, go back and look at who posted the facts that contradicted their previous assertions.

[Civicus_Sooner]

Hey homey-de-clown, go back and look at who posted the facts that contradicted their previous assertions.I'm def. thinking NY strip for dinner tonight.

Cheers.

[Sooner_Havok]

I'm def. thinking NY strip for dinner tonight.

Cheers.

What the hell:confused: :confused: :confused:

What the hell does your lack of hearing have to do with your stupidity?

[Civicus_Sooner]

Cab or Syrah?

Man, I never can decide.

[Sooner_Havok]

Is that how you defend yourself when people back you into a corner intellectually? You say your going to eat a steak and then just go lalalalalalalalala? Second thread I have seen you do that in

[Civicus_Sooner]

Is that how you defend yourself when people back you into a corner intellectually? You say your going to eat a steak and then just go lalalalalalalalala? Second thread I have seen you do that in

You lost, I changed the subject because you went grammar smack out of desperation. I am actually headed up to Red Prime for a slab of beef and some wine. Feel free to stop by and say Hi. I'll be the guy in the blue suit, crimson and cream striped tie with the hot chick.

[Sooner_Havok]

You lost, I changed the subject because you went grammar smack out of desperation. I am actually headed up to Red Prime for a slab of beef and some wine. Feel free to stop by and say Hi. I'll be the guy in the blue suit, crimson and cream striped tie with the hot chick.

I didn't go to grammar smack, I merely pointed out you never thanked me for what I did for you. Typical Republican, never thanking the people that help you.

Oh, and I am glad you proclaimed yourself some kind of winner. Everyone needs an ego boost every now and then. Good Job you, you earned it!

[Big Red Ron]

I didn't go to grammar smack, I merely pointed out you never thanked me for what I did for you. Typical Republican, never thanking the people that help!
Paying the bill means you don't have to say thanks.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Keep dancing around the indirect costs of oil and repeating to yourself, "I'm not a freeloader, I'm not a freeloader, I'm not a freeloader...."We pay taxes for the govt. to subsidize the cost of petroleum, so we can pay more for it now than ever before. IOW WTF?

[Condescending Sooner]

You pointed it out. Oh really? First, you said $40 you twit.


Second, I gave a freaking link to the American Association of Petroleum Geologists that said oil shale isn't profitable, you said you read somewhere. Show some proof or STFU. You show some first hand proof that oil shale is profitable at low oil prices, and myself and other may not ignore what you are saying. I provided a link to the AAPG, so a link to someones blog, or a Rush Limbaugh quote isn't going to work. You find one study that says oil shale is profitable at low prices. Go head, get googling, I'll wait.

Do you really think oil shale is a good idea or are you just sticking up for your republican brethren?


First of all, your link didn't mention ANY numbers and was an old article. My second post (which you obviously didn't even read) gave a link (that was the first article to appear on google, heh) that said it was profitable at $30.00 a barrell. Maybe you need to STFU.