Ted Poe R-Tx on the CFL

Cyclone85 · 06-26-2008, 01:57 PM

I'll put it this way; you're begging for higher prices. By restricting where companies can drill for energy (including natural gas), you've written the recipe for higher prices. Also, by not allowing other types of energy (oil sands, shale, etc.) -- the problem is exacerbated.

Also, please note I was using the 'poor people' with a little tongue in cheek; that's the disadvantage of email/blogs/forums. I know you care about them as do most people including me. I used to be one of them, but if we get $9 gas and $250 oil -- I might be one again along with millions of others. For the life of me, I don't understand the restrictions & limitations for energy which is what people need to be happy, free, and prosperous. With $4.07 gas, I can't afford the trips I used to take without even thinking twice. I make a lot more than the average Joe, so if my happiness quotient is down and if my freedom has been restricted, I know it's worse for those that make a lot less. They can't do anything now.

I am with you on the e-car; I want the battery as it will provide instant competition for gas & oil. Competition is needed and it will lower prices in the long term and make things better for everyone. As for competition, look at how much better American cars are today since they have to compete with the Japanese (and more recently, the Koreans). Ok, I'll throw the Germans in as well because they make a fine car. American cars were not world-class back in the day, but that is not true anymore.

The problem with the e-car will be the big issue of initial expense. Most of the lower income people I know drive old used Civics, Cavaliers, Omnis (if they still run!!!), and other such cheap ubiquitous type vehicles w/ high miles. Most of them probably have market values of less than $5,000 because that's all they can afford. Many millions of Americans will not be able to afford an e-car if the cost is anything north of $15k or $20k which is likely the starting point.

In the meantime, we need America's own energy sources opened up which will stabilize and lower prices. In the end, energy companies still need buyers for their products and I'm certain they would rather sell 2 barrels @ $75 per vs. 1 barrel @ 135. The other thing this will do is reduce the probability that we really and truly get into a war for oil. I know some people think Iraq was for oil, but if we get $250 and $300 oil, then you'll know for sure because you won't be able to mistake it then.

Originally Posted by ban basketball

I'm sick of beating my head against a wall, so I'll just respond to one point that you make: I want higher prices for oil/gas. When did I say that? Aren't I the one who is calling for NO PRICE on it, via electric cars? Yes, electric cars will be a bit more spendy at first, but like anything else, their price will come down, and in the end, you save money anyway by not buying gas.

And, don't try to play "poor man" with me. I grew up so working class (and still advocate for them) that I've probably forgotten more about it than anyone on here will ever know. Four kids in a one floor home (no basement or upstairs), three bedrooms, one bathroom, and raised a lot of our own food. So, please, save that bullshit for someone else. I take offense to it from people who know nothing about it or use it as a political pawn or tool.

Cyclone85 · 06-26-2008, 02:47 PM

Well, the guy (whoever he is) @ Chevron might be talking about a much more complicated discovery. It depends on what you're developing, but that big find down in Brazil (which is very complicated) would be developed in less than 5-years. I've listened to plenty of oil execs which indicate that it can be done fairly quickly especially if you're not building a pipeline in the process. We have domestic sources on U.S. soil which are off-limits where there are known reserves which can't be touched!!! Why? Why?? Why???? Those can be developed very quickly and would add precious supply which is what the traders are telling us is the problem!!

Bush is getting bad advice which wouldn't be the first time. The 1-2 cent decrease is ridiculous and doesn't mesh with current observations. You completely dismissed the pipelines which carry droplets of oil in comparison, and we see what it does to prices. We're talking about massive amounts of daily oil that could be developed right here in this country. This would seriously rattle world oil markets (especially OPEC) since they completely depend on exports. But for some reason, you don't want this. Do you want the U.S. to be dependent on foreign oil??

Alternatives are fine, but what are you going to do for people today? We're years away from alternatives that will remove 20.3 million barrels of daily oil, and in the meantime, people are going broke on $4 and $5 gas.

If Obama has your attitude with 'no drilling', please let me introduce President McCain. This is a made to order issue for McCain, and he's slowly changing his opinion. He originally had the 'no drill' mindset, but that was 80-bucks ago when oil was less than 50-bucks. Things have changed, and he's slowly adapting. Obama won't adapt and he may piss this thing away on this issue.

BTW -- on the water thing, for all practical purposes -- it's infinite the way it recharges. The oceans contains a fairly constant 329,000,000 cubic miles of water. In terms of gallons, get your Excel ready: 327,000,000 x 5,280 x 5,280 x 5,280 x 7.5. Now, divide 6-billion into that number. It turns out the ocean has 60.5-billion gallons of water for each person on earth. Don't worry about water.

I love calculations. Here's your quiz for the day just for fun; I won't laugh if you miss it very far. If you took all of the cars ever produced in the U.S. since 1900 and dumped them into the ocean, how much water would be displaced from the ocean? IOWs, how many inches or feet would the water level be raised?

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

"I think that is a distinction without a difference....just my opinion."
-No difference? infinite means there is an unlimited amount, your saying there is an unlimited amount of water on earth? I'm pretty sure there is a set amount.

"The 'decade' argument is just incorrect. It just doesn't take decades to develop anything with today's technology. I maintain there should be precious few restrictions, but instead 85% of the U.S. continental shelf is off limits, not to mention impossible restrictions on interior drilling where there are known reserves. "
-Do you have a source that it isn't correct? Again, I heard from a guy at Chevron (a big oil company) that said 10 years is the best case scenario. And why do you assume that anyone would drill offshore if we opened up the whole continental shelf if they aren't looking for oil on the currently opened areas.

"The several cents reference to Alaska is also silly in my opinion. Today, we have pipelines that get bombed that only carry 50,000 barrels a day, and it increases the world-wide price by up to $5 a barrel. If we could increase supplies by 3 to 5 percent, prices would stabilize and probably down significantly."
-How is it silly? the president (who wants to drill there) agrees with me. Oil has an inelastic demand, so the 1-2% increase in supply that drilling in ANWR would provide wouldn't even cause a 1-2% decrease in price.

"By not drilling and increasing supply, you're writing the recipe for much higher prices in the very near future."
-We can drill all we want, we'll still see the same prices in the very near future, all the extra drilling will do is put off development of alternatives.

"I can't afford it and I know millions of American's can't afford it either. Food costs are also killing my family which is directly related to this crisis."
-No one could afford it when it hit $1, then no one could afford it when it hit $2, same thing when it got to $3, and now $4, when prices go up people find a way to adapt.

"Maybe the libs want higher prices."
-Nobody wants higher prices, some people are reasonable enough to realize that there is nothing we can do to significantly reduce the price. It's time to figure out another option.

FloggingSully · 06-26-2008, 05:00 PM

"Well, the guy (whoever he is) @ Chevron might be talking about a much more complicated discovery. It depends on what you're developing, but that big find down in Brazil (which is very complicated) would be developed in less than 5-years. I've listened to plenty of oil execs which indicate that it can be done fairly quickly especially if you're not building a pipeline in the process. We have domestic sources on U.S. soil which are off-limits where there are known reserves which can't be touched!!! Why? Why?? Why???? Those can be developed very quickly and would add precious supply which is what the traders are telling us is the problem!!"
-The 10 year eastimate I heard was from the time an area was opened for drilling to when oil might start being removed, the 5 year estimate you mention in Brazil seems to only encompass the time it takes to develop the site once oil is found and doen't take into account the time it takes to bid on exploration rights, actually explore, etc.
-What domestic reserves are you refering to? ANWR? We aren't drilling there because it's a protected area. The place in the Dakotas/Idaho? We are drilling there.

"Bush is getting bad advice which wouldn't be the first time. The 1-2 cent decrease is ridiculous and doesn't mesh with current observations. You completely dismissed the pipelines which carry droplets of oil in comparison, and we see what it does to prices."
-Do you have a source that says otherwise? I understand that a small decrease in supply will cause a big increase in price, but that doesn't mean that a similarly small increase in supply will cause a proportionate decrease in price. For example, Saudi Arabia just announced that they'd be increaseing production, and what's happened to oil prices since then?

"We're talking about massive amounts of daily oil that could be developed right here in this country. This would seriously rattle world oil markets (especially OPEC) since they completely depend on exports."
-Yes we're talking about massive amounts of oil, but those massive amounts would make up a tiny fraction of worldwide supply and have an even smaller affect on the price of oil

"But for some reason, you don't want this. Do you want the U.S. to be dependent on foreign oil??"
-I don't want us dependent on any oil, we can drill everywhere the oil companies want and we still aren't going to come close to getting off of foreign oil without making MASSIVE cuts in the amount of oil we use.

"Alternatives are fine, but what are you going to do for people today? We're years away from alternatives that will remove 20.3 million barrels of daily oil, and in the meantime, people are going broke on $4 and $5 gas."
-We're not going to be able to do anything for people today. Alternatives won't help anyone today, increased drilling won't help anyone today. People can use less oil today, that's it.

"If Obama has your attitude with 'no drilling', please let me introduce President McCain. This is a made to order issue for McCain, and he's slowly changing his opinion. He originally had the 'no drill' mindset, but that was 80-bucks ago when oil was less than 50-bucks. Things have changed, and he's slowly adapting. Obama won't adapt and he may piss this thing away on this issue."
-McCain can open up all the areas he wants for drilling, if he's lucky we might see a small decrease in price a few years after his presidency is over. More drilling isn't going to have any significant affect on prices and won't do anything to help get us off oil.

"BTW -- on the water thing, for all practical purposes -- it's infinite the way it recharges. The oceans contains a fairly constant 329,000,000 cubic miles of water. In terms of gallons, get your Excel ready: 327,000,000 x 5,280 x 5,280 x 5,280 x 7.5. Now, divide 6-billion into that number. It turns out the ocean has 60.5-billion gallons of water for each person on earth. Don't worry about water."
-I don't even know what the water thing was about anymore. Were we talking about hydropower? if so, yes it's pretty much infinite (if managed correctly). Was it drinking water? that's very much a finite resource.

"I love calculations. Here's your quiz for the day just for fun; I won't laugh if you miss it very far. If you took all of the cars ever produced in the U.S. since 1900 and dumped them into the ocean, how much water would be displaced from the ocean? IOWs, how many inches or feet would the water level be raised?"
-Are the windows on all the cars rolled up?

Cyclone85 · 06-26-2008, 05:30 PM

No -- the windows are down.

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

-Are the windows on all the cars rolled up?

FloggingSully · 06-26-2008, 05:39 PM

Then it probably wouldn't have much effect on sea level.

Cyclone85 · 06-26-2008, 06:28 PM

Actually -- I mispoke. Windows are up in my calcs.....

Your answer is correct and I can share the details later. Fun stuff....

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

Then it probably wouldn't have much effect on sea level.

Cyclone85 · 06-26-2008, 08:44 PM

Flogster....you and I aren't getting anywhere so I'll give you the last word here as I type; which is impossible! But seriously -- we have a very serious problem with energy. The incredible price increases are a tax on people's pocketbooks and it's showing up in the economy in a big way. People are shutting down as I have. $140 oil and going up virtually everyday. We're dependent on foreign oil and we have a big huge growing world with massive energy needs. Massive. 88-million barrels a day would have to be replaced world-wide to go with something other than oil. I don't see anything on the horizon that will replace it; I hope I'm wrong. I seriously doubt people in East St. Louis and East Des Moines would be able to afford nanobot solar panels on their roofs or lithium battery powered e-cars from Nissan for $30,000.

I was wondering; do you have a particular price in mind before you would change your mind? IOWs...what if we go to $200 oil? $7 gas? $9 gas? $250 oil? How high does it have to go before you let us drill? Oil has increased from $10 a barrel after Clinton left office to $140 today 8-years later. So, what makes you think going from $140 to $250 couldn't easily happen with 2 hurricanes hitting the Gulf Coast? If you want $250 oil, you've written the recipe; not me. While things may be out of whack with pricing, ultimately, it boils down to supply and demand (and supply growth vs. demand growth).

Most people agree with me that we need to increase the supply to take the wind out of the market. Since we have a growing world with growing energy needs, we need to increase supply. We cannot continue to supply the same amount of oil in a growing world and expect prices to stagnate. Your desire to not drill doesn't make any sense when viewed against the backdrop of horrific increases in the cost of energy.

You're violating the one of the main tenets of our economy -- S & D. You're saying that increasing the supply of something will do nothing when we know that the exact opposite is the truth.

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

Snip for snip

FloggingSully · 06-27-2008, 10:01 AM

Cyclone,
I agree with you that high oil prices are having a negative effect on just about everyone (I'm moving in about month and my commute is going to more than double), what I disagree with you on is we don't have the option to increase supplies enough to have any significant effect on price. If worldwide demand is 88 million barrels how much of an impact with a couple more million barrels make (not to mention that it will take years and years before that oil comes online).

As to what price I'll change my mind at, the price doesn't matter. We can knock a couple cents off of gas when it's $7, or we can wait until it's $9, the effect of additional drilling by the US will still be insignificant.

I agree with you that it comes down to growth in demand vs growth in supply, I just don't see any feasible way to increase the supply of oil to match the growth in supply. I think all this talk about increasing drilling is just distracting people from the only real solution to the problem, using less energy and lowering the percentage of our energy that comes from oil.

Ted Poe R-Tx on the CFL

Politics & Religion