Only the rich will drive everyday

Tight-Waist · 05-15-2008, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by Big

Back to chopping wood and riding a bicycle is what you need to do tight a$$.

You mean like in your Communist Utopias?

Tight-Waist · 05-15-2008, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

"You say they would do nothing to reduce oil prices which is absurdly false"
-I've already explained my reasoning to you on multiple occasions, show me where my thinking is wrong, or show me evidence that it would make a significant difference from a reputable source.

"That can only be done in case of National Emergency and that is NOT the case here"
-It can be done in any instance that involves "national security" whether or not the situation is an emergency makes not difference.

"You havent proven anything more than a few dozen acres of frozen grass will be disturbed. And its more than 1 cent a gallon and you know it."
-I dont' need to prove anything about ANWR, it's a protected area. It won't do anything to solve our energy problem. If you disagree with my estimates of the effect it'll have on gas prices show me a link to another estimate.

"Oh... so you want to shut down every internal combustion engine or would you rather just make us 100% dependent on foreign sources and only pollute THEIR side of the world? Dont you care about ecology worldwide?"
-Yes, I care about ecology worldwide, show me some area of ecological value that is currently being destroyed in the middle east for new drilling. If stuff over there has already been destroyed, continueing to drill isn't going to destroy it more.
-I never said to shut down every internal combustion engine. My point, throughout this entire thread is that the current oil crisis is going to be solved on the demand side, not the supply side.

Look Sully,

I dont disagree at all with your opinion that we need to wean ourselves of foriegn oil. And the BEST way of doing that long term is to find alternative sources of energy. Especially nuclear.

But over the short term and as we are finding and developing those alternatives we DO need to maximize our domestic production. Including ANWR and offshore.

FloggingSully · 05-15-2008, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by skipster

By sayign that industry will increase demand, you are implicitly saying that industry creates demand. You are saying that people buy things because a company wants them to, not because they want to. If you read ANY econ text, intro or otherwise, you will see that demand is consumer-driven, not supplier-driven. If you make something that people don't want, it doesn't matter how available it is or aware of it they are, they still won't buy it.

Demand is created on the consumer end. Supply is created on the industry side.

My point as always been that industry can influence demand, they are not the only factor that influences demand, but they do have an effect. Yes, people buy what they want to, but what they want to buy is influenced by advertising.

Have you ever seen a preview for a movie and thought "that movie looks good, I think I'll go see it", or "that movie looks like it sucks, I'm not going to see it"? If you have, you're consumption has been influenced by the movie companies marketing/advertising. Did you make the decision to see/not see the movie on your own? Yes, but was your decision influenced by advertising? yes.

Let's go back to econ 101. The purpose of a business is to sell a product, the amount of that product that they sell is a function of two factors, supply and demand. A good marketing campaingn can increase the amount of product that a business sells (if it didn't they wouldn't spend their money on marketing). If marketing has no effect on demand (as you've been stating so adamently) then is must either have an effect on supply, or have no effect on how much product is sold. So which is it? Does marketing have an effect on the supply of a good, or does it not have any effect on how much of a good is sold? (and if that's the case, why do businesses spend money on marketing?)

FloggingSully · 05-15-2008, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Tight-Waist

Look Sully,

I dont disagree at all with your opinion that we need to wean ourselves of foriegn oil. And the BEST way of doing that long term is to find alternative sources of energy. Especially nuclear.

But over the short term and as we are finding and developing those alternatives we DO need to maximize our domestic production. Including ANWR and offshore.

Show me an estimate from any reputable source that drilling offshore or in ANWR would have a significant effect on the price of gas.

And how long do you think it'll take to start up drilling in either of these areas? probably years, doesn't sound like a short term solution to me.

Tight-Waist · 05-15-2008, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

Show me an estimate from any reputable source that drilling offshore or in ANWR would have a significant effect on the price of gas.

And how long do you think it'll take to start up drilling in either of these areas? probably years, doesn't sound like a short term solution to me.

Pacific Offshore Only:

The MMS Pacific OCS report documents the oil and gas commodities, resource categories, data and methodologies of the assessment of the federal offshore area of California, Oregon and Washington.
Its significant findings include:

Nearly 11 billion barrels of undiscovered oil and 19 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered gas in the region may be recoverable using existing technology.
Relatively large volumes of undiscovered oil may exist offshore central and southern California, due largely to the presence of Monterey-type strata, which are potential source and reservoir rocks.
Half of the undiscovered, conventionally recoverable oil and gas in the region may be economically recoverable under existing conditions.

Here are some facts about ANWR
A frequently cited number is 10.4 billion barrels. That represents the amount of oil that is technically recoverable; other deposits aren't reachable by current drilling technology.
To put that in context: The U.S. consumes about 20 million barrels of petroleum a day, or 7.32 billion barrels per year, according to 2003 figures from the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, or EIA. The U.S. produces 5.7 million barrels of crude oil a day, and imports a net of 11.2 million barrels a day. (The rest of the petroleum comes from natural gas liquids, refinery gains, and other factors.)
Proven domestic reserves -- or known sources that oil companies report in their financial statements and are, for the most part, already tapping -- total 21.89 billion barrels, mostly in Alaska, Texas, California and offshore. The total oil in so-called undiscovered resources, which include as-yet-undrilled areas like ANWR, is believed to be about 15 times greater.
But 10.4 billion barrels is just a best guess. The USGS prefers to say the total is somewhere between 5.7 billion and 16 billion barrels, based on a 1998 study republished in 2001. (See the study here, and a fact sheet about it here.) Drilling proponents sometimes use the higher number, while opponents sometimes use the lower one. (The Wall Street Journal recently has been citing the range of estimates.)

I have a question. How old is your data. At what price of oil are your figures based on?

(be back later)

FloggingSully · 05-15-2008, 12:03 PM

The amount of oil that exists in a given area means nothing in terms of price of oil/gas, the amount that can be recovered and added to worldwide supply each day does. My information comes from a recent NPR report that estimated ANWR could yeild about 1 million barrels per day, and from the DOE report I linked to in post #45 (which estimates 1.3 million with a best case scenario of 1.9).

US demand has been estimated at around 20 million per day (i've heard that in various reports and it's been backed up by your post above). I don't have a good estimate of worldwide supply, I figured if I estimated that the US uses half the worlds oil it would yeild a very conservative estimate (40 million barrels per day) but the US probably uses less than half and demand is currenlty increasing in other markets (China and India) and others (either Chance174 or Cyclone) have sited worldwide supply as being over 80 million barrels/day.

My figures were based on percent, not a fixed price (i.e. a 2.5% increase in supply will yield a price decrease of less than 2.5%) you can apply the percent to any price you want.

ban basketball · 05-15-2008, 12:04 PM

Why not just do something that will make our supplies last longer, such as mandate higher fuel efficiency standards? We already know that simply doing that will increase our supply MUCH more than drilling in ANWR could ever dream of doing.

Goes to show how oil interests rule this country, doesn't it?

Tight-Waist · 05-15-2008, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by ban basketball

Why not just do something that will make our supplies last longer, such as mandate higher fuel efficiency standards? We already know that simply doing that will increase our supply MUCH more than drilling in ANWR could ever dream of doing.

Goes to show how oil interests rule this country, doesn't it?

Why not do ALL of it ban?

(BTW, yes we can achieve higher fuel economy standards immediately by making much lighter cars. Do YOU want to have wreck in a Yugo on the highway?)

I could just as easily point out out "how ecology interests rule this country, doesnt it?"

Tight-Waist · 05-15-2008, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

The amount of oil that exists in a given area means nothing in terms of price of oil/gas, the amount that can be recovered and added to worldwide supply each day does. My information comes from a recent NPR report that estimated ANWR could yeild about 1 million barrels per day, and from the DOE report I linked to in post #45 (which estimates 1.3 million with a best case scenario of 1.9).

US demand has been estimated at around 20 million per day (i've heard that in various reports and it's been backed up by your post above). I don't have a good estimate of worldwide supply, I figured if I estimated that the US uses half the worlds oil it would yeild a very conservative estimate (40 million barrels per day) but the US probably uses less than half and demand is currenlty increasing in other markets (China and India) and others (either Chance174 or Cyclone) have sited worldwide supply as being over 80 million barrels/day.

My figures were based on percent, not a fixed price (i.e. a 2.5% increase in supply will yield a price decrease of less than 2.5%) you can apply the percent to any price you want.

I thought some of your earlier talking points mentioned how little additional supplies from AWNR and offshore would lower gasoline prices and so I wanted to know what price they were being based on.

ban basketball · 05-15-2008, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Tight-Waist

Why not do ALL of it ban?

(BTW, yes we can achieve higher fuel economy standards immediately by making much lighter cars. Do YOU want to have wreck in a Yugo on the highway?)

I could just as easily point out out "how ecology interests rule this country, doesnt it?"

Lighter cars is not the issue. It's in the fuel delivery systems of cars. We've made no improvements for 23 years. That's unconscionable.

Simply by mandating this, we'd have no reason to drill in Alaska. Again, I will ask: which interests rule this country?

Only the rich will drive everyday

Politics & Religion