How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

by SamCogar Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:43 am

Yesterday – gasoline – Burnsville @ $3.29/gal … Weston @ $3.39/gal

North African Turmoil Could Rocket Crude to $220

According to a new report from Tokyo-based Nomura, a simultaneous production halt from embattled Libya and neighboring Algeria would reduce OPEC spare capacity to 2.1 million barrels a day and may cause crude to spike from about $97 a barrel today to $220 a barrel.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/02/23/report-north-african-turmoil-rocket-crude-220/

NEW YORK — Oil prices moved above $100 per barrel for the first time since 2008 Wednesday, driven by growing concerns about global supplies, as Libya's Moammar Gadhafi continued to lose his grip on the oil-rich country.

In London, Brent crude added $5.47, or 5 percent, at $111.25 a barrel on the ICE Futures exchange.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41732975/ns/business-personal_finance/

by **SheikBen** Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:23 am

I think the chorus of "drill baby, drill" is about to get too loud for Obama to ignore. Something tells me 5 dollar gasoline will make folks care much less about Alaskan caribou.

by Cato Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:04 am

Will Obama ignore the "Drill Baby, Drill" chorus? Absolutely he will. 5 dollar per gasoline and nearly 6 dollar a gallon diesel fuel is exactly what the idiot and his party, the party of owl gore, want.

by Aaron Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:19 am

I think the first thing that has to be done is to end speculation and price gouging. While I support "record profits" because I know the margins have been consistent, no one can tell me that the recent price increases are due to nothing more then what "might" happen instead of current market conditions.

From there, we have to ween ourselves off foreign oil. That is not only for gasoline and diesel but other energy needs as well. As such, yes, we should drill. But we also need to look at other methods for providing energy and the first is nuclear. Presently, natural gas is proposed to account for as much as 95% of future energy needs. If we reduce that number by replacing it with nuclear energy, we can direct natural gas to vehicles and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil all together. Of course, we likely reduce dependence on coal which won't go over very well in West Virginia but that's another conversation.

by Cato Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:53 am

Aaron wrote: I think the first thing that has to be done is to end speculation and price gouging. While I support "record profits" because I know the margins have been consistent, no one can tell me that the recent price increases are due to nothing more then what "might" happen instead of current market conditions.

First of all speculation is built on "what ifs". There is risk in extracting oil from North Africa and the Middle East, and that risk has a price. The risk premium at present is between $10 and 20 per barrel. However, this price spike didn't start with the trouble in North Africa. It started before that time. Borrowing from a Wall Street Journal article:

It's important to keep in mind, however, that oil was already trading in the $85 to $90 a barrel range before the recent irruption in the Arab world. The run-up to that price territory began in earnest last year after the Federal Reserve embarked on its QE2 strategy of further monetary easing.

Read the article in it's entirity here

Aaron wrote:From there, we have to ween ourselves off foreign oil. That is not only for gasoline and diesel but other energy needs as well. As such, yes, we should drill. But we also need to look at other methods for providing energy and the first is nuclear. Presently, natural gas is proposed to account for as much as 95% of future energy needs. If we reduce that number by replacing it with nuclear energy, we can direct natural gas to vehicles and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil all together. Of course, we likely reduce dependence on coal which won't go over very well in West Virginia but that's another conversation.

Like it or not, that fact is we can never ween ourselves off foreign oil. It sounds nice and plays well with the politicans, and the central planning avocates, but the realities are we will always have a dependancy for foreign oil. Presently the technology doesn't exist to meet the energy and transportation needs of this nation with alternatives. Ethanol was suppose to be the great savior, yet it is less efficient and is running the price of food up. There were all these promises made about cellulistic ethanol, which amounted to pipe dreams. The same is true with wind energy.

Natural gas has possibilities, but the cost of change from gasoline and diesel to natural gas would be unrealistic and would take time. The burning question is, who is going to pay for the switch. The taxpayers can't afford it. We are over 14 trillion dollars in debt now.

Additionally, like with nuclear reactors and coal, natural gas has its distractors because of environmental issues. Energy may have tons of money, but the environmental folks have alot of sway.

Truthfully government isn't going to save us this time. They'll only make things far worse. The very best thing that could happen is to get the politicans out of the picture, allow the public to pay the full cost for energy, and allow the free market place to work. If that were to take place it would be very interesting to see what inovations might come about.

by Aaron Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:43 pm

I disagree. We can't ween ourselves off foreign oil because too many corporations have too much money invested in foreign oil. We could easily provide all of our electrical energy via other sources, divert natural gas to fleet and explore and expand our own oil resources. But Exxon, Mobile and other compaines would lose billions and they can't have that.

by **ohio county** Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:32 pm

I heard a talking head today claim that oil could go to $150 a barrel if the revolution spread to, say, Saudi Arabia. As a simple extrapolation that would mean the cost of gasoline could peak at $4.50 a gallon.

Up my way, we're drilling the living snot out of anything that moves. I'm told that companies like McJunkin Appalachian cannot find a pipe yard in southwestern Pennsylvania. The Interstates are filled with Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana license plates. I see truckloads of drillpipe every day of the week. It's all weird diameters and has thick couplings on the ends.

by SamCogar Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:02 pm

Aaron wrote: We could easily provide all of our electrical energy via other sources, divert natural gas to fleet and explore and expand our own oil resources.

Sure nuff, after about 30 years or so ...... after you get started on it.

by **Stephanie** Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:16 pm

Now I disagree with Aaron.

Corporations are not what stand in the way of American energy independence. It isn't Shell & Exxon & BP. What stands in the way of American success & prosperity and independence is the US Congress and the US President.

We got rid of a few of the bums in 2010. Hell, even WV made some small bit of progress......Mollohan is gone. I hope we get rid of a bunch more in 2012 and elect leaders interested in the American people and what's best for America.

by Aaron Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:15 pm

SamCogar wrote:
Aaron wrote: We could easily provide all of our electrical energy via other sources, divert natural gas to fleet and explore and expand our own oil resources.

Sure nuff, after about 30 years or so ...... after you get started on it.

Nah, a standard nuclear power plant can be put on line in about 3 years.

by Aaron Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:18 pm

Stephanie wrote:Now I disagree with Aaron.

Corporations are not what stand in the way of American energy independence. It isn't Shell & Exxon & BP. What stands in the way of American success & prosperity and independence is the US Congress and the US President.

We got rid of a few of the bums in 2010. Hell, even WV made some small bit of progress......Mollohan is gone. I hope we get rid of a bunch more in 2012 and elect leaders interested in the American people and what's best for America.

You are right but why do you suppose you are?

by **Stephanie** Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:23 pm

Because the vast majority of people who have been sitting in the House & the Senate are only concerned about their own personal wealth and power. They couldn't care less about the rest of us.

by SamCogar Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:54 am

Aaron wrote:
SamCogar wrote:
Aaron wrote: We could easily provide all of our electrical energy via other sources, divert natural gas to fleet and explore and expand our own oil resources.

Sure nuff, after about 30 years or so ...... after you get started on it.

Nah, a standard nuclear power plant can be put on line in about 3 years.

Now that was a funny one. How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'? 33948

by Aaron Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:47 am

You're counting all the red tape and BS Sam. I'm talking about constructing and bringing a plant on line.

But if we truly want to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, the first thing we do is make more fuel efficient vehicles. Increasing CAFE standards to 30 mpg and eliminating the exemption on light trucks and vans coupled with reducing the national speed limit to 65 mph would reduce the demand for foreign oil significantly.

Giving tax incentives for those to reduce their home energy use by 10% or more would further reduce the problem and simply turning off lights in most major cities at night would do wonders.

It’s not that we can’t wean ourselves off foreign oil; it is that we won’t and the reason is simple. There are those who believe we are somehow entitled to that oil to continue our own personal comfort level no matter how we have to go about getting it.

They justify actions like nation building, proping up regimes and outright interference in other countries soverign rights simply to keep the oil flowing. Can you believe the gall of some people?

by SamCogar Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:25 am

Aaron wrote:You're counting all the red tape and BS Sam. I'm talking about constructing and bringing a plant on line. Yup, sure you were.

But if we truly want to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, the first thing we do is make more fuel efficient vehicles. There are plenty of fuel efficient vehicles being produced right now. Do you think you can replace 280 million inefficient vehicles in 10 years? Increasing CAFE standards to 30 mpg and eliminating the exemption on light trucks and vans coupled with reducing the national speed limit to 65 mph would reduce the demand for foreign oil significantly. It would have been simpler for you to say ..... reduce all speed limits to 40mph.

Giving tax incentives for those to reduce their home energy use by 10% or more would further reduce the problem That was as funny as a fart in a spacesuit. Everyone is already entitled to a 10% or even a 30% reduction in their home energy costs iffen they reduce their kw or mcf usage. and simply turning off lights in most major cities at night would do wonders. Yup, turn lights off at night in the cities and there won't be enough left in the morning to worry about.

It’s not that we can’t wean ourselves off foreign oil; it is that we won’t and the reason is simple. Everything you think up there's a simple solution to. There are those who believe we are somehow entitled to that oil to continue our own personal comfort level no matter how we have to go about getting it. That was just a lot of bullshit you felt was a need to be mimicked.

They justify actions like nation building, proping up regimes and outright interference in other countries soverign rights simply to keep the oil flowing. Can you believe the gall of some people? I am more apt to believe the ignorance and cluelessness of most people.

by Aaron Sat Feb 26, 2011 11:07 am

SamCogar wrote:You're counting all the red tape and BS Sam. I'm talking about constructing and bringing a plant on line. Yup, sure you were.
Do you really think I care what you think? Seriously
But if we truly want to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, the first thing we do is make more fuel efficient vehicles. There are plenty of fuel efficient vehicles being produced right now. Do you think you can replace 280 million inefficient vehicles in 10 years?
First, there is not 280 million registered vehicles in the United States. That number is less then 100 million and yes, we can replace a large portion of those within 10 years, even more in 15 and the number on the road for everyday use in 20 years will be less then 1%. It can't be done overnight but it has to start somewhere and when it does, it will make a significant difference. Only a fool would think otherwise.
Increasing CAFE standards to 30 mpg and eliminating the exemption on light trucks and vans coupled with reducing the national speed limit to 65 mph would reduce the demand for foreign oil significantly. It would have been simpler for you to say ..... reduce all speed limits to 40mph.
I'm not stupid. I know people would never obey a 40MPH speed limit but they would a 65 MPH speed limit. And increasing CAFE standards to 35MPG would cut foreign oil imports in half. That is a fact.
Giving tax incentives for those to reduce their home energy use by 10% or more would further reduce the problem That was as funny as a fart in a spacesuit. Everyone is already entitled to a 10% or even a 30% reduction in their home energy costs iffen they reduce their kw or mcf usage.
How so?
and simply turning off lights in most major cities at night would do wonders. Yup, turn lights off at night in the cities and there won't be enough left in the morning to worry about.
Yeah, because theifs can crawl around the top of high rise buildings that are always lit up.

It’s not that we can’t wean ourselves off foreign oil; it is that we won’t and the reason is simple. Everything you think up there's a simple solution to.
More times then not, solutions are simple answers. The problem is, people who aren't quite as smart as they think they are complicating them by overthinking solutions.
There are those who believe we are somehow entitled to that oil to continue our own personal comfort level no matter how we have to go about getting it. That was just a lot of bullshit you felt was a need to be mimicked.
I disagree. I do not think respecting the soverign rights of another nation is bullshit but I would be greatly interested in hearing your explaination as to how US citizens are more entitled to the fossil fuels of Iraq then Iraqi's are.

They justify actions like nation building, proping up regimes and outright interference in other countries soverign rights simply to keep the oil flowing. Can you believe the gall of some people? I am more apt to believe the ignorance and cluelessness of most people.

You're entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong it is Sam. Anything else?

by SamCogar Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:13 am

Aaron wrote:
SamCogar wrote:You're counting all the red tape and BS Sam. I'm talking about constructing and bringing a plant on line. Yup, sure you were.
Do you really think I care what you think? Seriously
But if we truly want to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, the first thing we do is make more fuel efficient vehicles. There are plenty of fuel efficient vehicles being produced right now. Do you think you can replace 280 million inefficient vehicles in 10 years?
First, there is not 280 million registered vehicles in the United States. That number is less then 100 million and yes, we can replace a large portion of those within 10 years, even more in 15 and the number on the road for everyday use in 20 years will be less then 1%. It can't be done overnight but it has to start somewhere and when it does, it will make a significant difference. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Aaron, just pick 1 or all 3 of the below ......... that you want to be "bullheaded" about, ..... it doesn't matter to me which one it is. To wit:

According to the US Bureau of Transit Statistics for 2004 there are 243,023,485 registered passenger vehicles in the US. Out of these roughly 243 million vehicles, 136,430,651 (56.13%) were classified as cars, while 91,845,327 (37.79%) were classified as "Other 2 axle, 4 tire vehicles," presumably SUVs and pick-up trucks. Yet another 6,161,028 (2.53%) were classified as vehicles with 2 axles and 6 tires and 2,010,335 (0.82%) were classified as "Truck, combination." There were approximately 5,780,870 motorcycles in the US in 2004, which accounts for 2.37% of all registered passenger vehicles.
http://www.usa.org/cars/index.html

The United States is home to the largest passenger vehicle market of any country in the world.[1] Overall, there were an estimated 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States according to a 2007 DOT study.

According to the US Bureau of Transit Statistics for 2006 there are 250,844,644 registered passenger vehicles. Of these, 135,399,945 were classified as automobiles, while 99,124,775 were classified as "Other 2 axle, 4 tire vehicles," presumably SUVs and pick-up trucks. Yet another 6,649,337 were classified as vehicles with 2 axles and 6 tires and 2,169,670 were classified as "Truck, combination." There were approximately 6,686,147 motorcycles in the US in 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

2009 was not a good year for car sales. No surprises there. An interesting side effect of lowered sales last year, though, is that the total number of vehicles in the overall U.S. car fleet dropped. There were 250 million cars here in 2008, and only 246 million at the end of 2009. We may have been buying fewer cars than we usually do in a year – there were around 10 million sold in 2009 – but we still got rid of 14 million units.
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/01/04/report-number-of-cars-in-the-u-s-dropped-by-four-million-in-20/

And Aaron, when you are done arguing with yourself about the above statistics not being what you said, ....... or what you inferred, .......... or what you meant ......... or what you were talking about ....... then you can add to that 250+- millions of registered passenger vehicles ......... another 30 to 80+ milliion inefficient vehicles that are currently being used by the US Government, State & County governments, manufacturing entities, construction entities, farming entities, raw materials producing entities, etc.

Okey dokey ................
,

by Aaron Sun Feb 27, 2011 10:58 am

I concede the point on the car Sam. It doesn't change that fact that within 20 years, those vehicles will be cycled out and less then 1% of them will be on the road in everyday use.

Anything else.

by SamCogar Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:05 am

Aaron wrote:It doesn't change that fact that within 20 years, those vehicles will be cycled out and less then 1% of them will be on the road in everyday use.

Anything else.

Cycle them out to this?

Aaron wrote:we can direct natural gas to vehicles and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil all together.

And just how long will it take you to "cycle" gasoline out and NG in?

Including the conversion and retraining associated with to wit:

1. manufacturing?

2. Service stations?

3. Auto parts dealers?

4. Dealerships?

5. Garages and mechanics?

And then there is 8+ million homes that use fuel oil for heating ...... and thousands of businesses, factories, etc.

And all railroad engines use diesel fuel.

Who is going to pay that trillion(s) in conversion costs?

by Aaron Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:21 am

There's an old Chinese proverb that says the longest journey begins with a single step. I think it's time to take that step.

by SamCogar Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:17 am

Posted by SamCogar on Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:43 am

SamCogar wrote:Yesterday – gasoline – Burnsville @ $3.29/gal …

What a difference a week makes. How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'? 49761

Posted by SamCogar on Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:12 am

SamCogar wrote:Yesterday – gasoline – Burnsville @ $3.49/gal …

by Aaron Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:17 am

It's all speculation. If our Congress would simply eliminate this process and force selling to be based on supply and demand, we wouldn't see these massive increases everytime one of these third world dictators goes all Cato and gets his bloomers in a bunch. Better yet, if we would simply get out of these third world countries and stop beind dependent on them, we wouldn't be held hostage to their manic swings.

by SamCogar Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:51 am

Monday Morning Quarterbacks always call the right plays.

by Aaron Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:36 am

I was saying this last year Sam when you couldn't come up with an adequate reason for continuing nation building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and the price of gas was ~$2.40 a gallon.

by **Stephanie** Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:40 am

Just think how much more energy independent America would be today if instead of invading and occupying other nations for the past decade, we invested in drilling AMERICAN oil, new refineries, and alternative energy.

by Sponsored content

How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

Re: How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

Re: How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

Re: How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

Re: How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

Re: How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

Re: How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

Re: How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

Re: How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

Re: How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

Re: How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

Re: How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

Re: How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

Re: How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

Re: How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

Re: How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

Re: How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

Re: How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

Re: How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

Re: How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

Re: How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

Re: How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

Re: How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

Re: How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

Re: How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?

Re: How high will it go ..... because 'Bush Lied'?