BackdoorJesus

The price of gas can be brought down with the announcement of Congress allowing offshore drilling as shown by the attached Wall Street Journal article. The Dems have prevented offshore drilling and shale oil processing from going forward for many years. So even if it takes 7 years, and some reports indicate it can be done faster, the supply will be even less in 7 years and we will need the oil.

Is this the same argument Bill Clinton used 13 years ago when he stopped offshore drilling?

That oil would be in the pipeline now.

Conservation is needed, but India and China will not conserve and they will be responsible for increased demand over the next 7 years.

We can’t control that.

We can control how much oil is on the market by drilling anyplace we can.

Cuba will develop oil off of their coast so why not us? The Hurricanes in the Gulf did not cause any major spill of oil.

Democrats better change their ways. The oil heat season will be starting around October; this could be the "October Surprise", when people realize how much they’ll have to pay to heat their homes. 47% of the American people want drilling now - what will the percentage be when home heating is factored into the equation?

Either this Congress does it or new Congress with new leaders will.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121...7581-email.html

<excerpt>


But yeah it's far easier for the liberal left tree hugging set to say "oh it's all because of this immoral war and these fascist republicans and oil companies" than to say, "hmmm - we can actually fix, or at least relieve, this situation with a little insight and understanding of how the market works".

___________________________________________

CD

But by that logic, if we go ahead and open up all areas for drilling, wouldn't China and India have more oil on the global market to buy? And if they can buy oil, they WILL buy it. And if they buy more oil, wouldn't the rate of use very quickly escalate to the point that any future oil production gains are offset by immediate use?

The way I see it is this:

There are 2 starving people in a room. One has money (China) and the other doesn't (USA). If there is a vending machine with food in it, increasing the total amount of food may lower prices for one of them to eat, or it may make the other one fat enough to the point were it constantly needs to eat more daily to maintain it's size.

I don't know of another way to put that analogy, but oil is not the long term solution, and anyone that says otherwise is thinking short term. Oh, and not only that, but Bush Sr was the one who stopped offshore drilling, and if memory serves me, didn't Republicans control all major branches of government for 2 years this decade? If so, why is not their fault for making progress while they were in control?

___________________________________________

BackdoorJesus

It's not about having or even consuming the oil now, it is about making changes now that will drive the price down in the future, and that anticipated change will drive the price down now in anticipation of that. I think you missed the main point of the article so I will reiterate:


I don't even want to get into shoulda woulda coulda...for the FUTURE we need to manipulate the market to our benefit, and by increasing the future supply AND/OR reducing future demand, we can do that. It is about working the market, not being worked by the market. You're either a player, or you are getting played, and right now we are most certainly getting played, due to our own reluctance to do what needs to be done.

___________________________________________

CD

Key word is today. Would it help today? Probably. But today is not what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about the future.

What would lower prices today, combined with higher consumption, mean for the world when the supply of oil is dwindling? Call me whatever, but I just don't see how this can help us long term. Hell, I'd rather see a lot of big car companies use the APTERA approach and actually design cars that excel at miles per gallon. It's not hard apparently when 2 guys did what car companies don't do... THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX. They had a goal to design an extremely aerodynamic car with a small efficient motor. Guess what? We can do both, but car companies for some reason want to keep our cars looking more boxy... I ask why?

The price of gas is a very interesting thing now-a-days... the fall of our currency, the rise of China and India, the announcement of falling supplies, the spectators in the field, the world market, etc... I know I can't fully understand all the points and how they interact, but I do know that oil is not the answer going forward. To put all your eggs in the depletable resource when things like wind, water, sunshine and others exist is just crazy talk. I hope the guys over at APTERA can get some major changes happening, because freeing up fuel for cars could then be used for providing cheaper power to homes or commercial trucks... hell, maybe a very nice rail or subway grid could be developed soon for the commercial traffic. Imagine a rail highway for commerce and how tremendous that would be for US businesses. And depending on what powers it, it could pick the economy up to the point where our dollar is so strong, that oil prices wouldn't even matter that much.

/rant

___________________________________________

BackdoorJesus

You know you are myopically latching on to my saying "increasing future supply" and completely ignoring my follow-up of "AND/OR reducing demand".

Fact of the matter is we are not in complete disagreement here, because we both feel increased efficiency of vehicles & alternate energy research is ultimately the way to go, but that all involves a significant paradigm shift in infrastructure that the average American can't really afford to wait around for.

What the average American needs, right now, is a lower cost at the pump, and a lower cost three months from now for fuel to heat their homes.

By opening up drilling NOW we potentially increase future supply, which will drive current price down NOW based upon the behavior of market speculation.

By releasing new technology to lower our demand for oil in the future, which is indeed necessary, we are doing the same thing to the market, but the effects will take longer to hit the market.

Announcing that we are going to drill all we can, wherever we can, whether or not we actually do it is going to knock down prices NOW, and releasing new technology & increasing efficiency is going to keep prices down for the future.

It is all about using the free market to our advantage rather than waiting around for some government regulation or control or other subsidy to slap a band-aid on things - at the cost of more tax dollars that people already can't afford because they are spending all they can just to put gas in the car to get to work.

___________________________________________

FattyJJ

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

This "idea" still keeps us dependent on fossil fuels for an undetermined amount of time. If these companies took the investments they are going to use to pay for these offshore projects, and put them into making renewable energy efficient and affordable, we could be off the "juice" in a matter of years. Where as your idea gives more money to the rich, while giving the average a few dollars back on their bills, a drop in the bucket so to say. Its as much of a sham, and as useless as the idea of eliminating the gas tax for a few months.

I was impressed by the recent story of the oil tycoon investing billions in renewable resources. His plan "claims" to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels by a whopping 1/3! Far FAR more than anyone has been able to say in the past. I really hope this is a good as it sounds, probably not though.

Story
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/scienc...iref=newssearch

BackdoorJesus

No, my idea has nothing to do with "giving more money to the rich", it has everything to do with manipulating a speculative market to the advantage of all of our citizens, so you may wish to dispense with the Robin Hood rhetoric and take a hard look at some principles of economics before you attempt to label what I am trying to communicate here a "sham".

This is a free market economy, and it is ours to either control or to be controlled by - I choose the former, while you, apparently, would choose the latter.

___________________________________________