lwmuddy
Murrells Inlet, SC
Senior Member
Joined: 04/07/2002
View Profile
 Offline
|
If the oil companies are making such an acceptable living selling us oil at our current prices why would they want to do something that might make them a lot less money? Like only sell us oil from the U.S wells?
As for the statistics and percentages posted there is a big difference, depending on where the figurers are copied from.
One sources says we have reduced usages by 1% and the next one says 5%, and so on.
And by the way, does every American know exactly how many drill sites are operating in the Gulf of Mexico. I didn't know exactly until I saw them on the weather news about the hurricane. I thought a couple and it turns out there are a couple of HUNDRED.
I think WE Americans are suffering from an INFORMATION GAP! Ala CCCP.
* This post was
edited 09/01/08 08:44am by an administrator/moderator *
|
The Texan
Summer: A Cool Climate Winter: A Warm Climate
Senior Member
Joined: 01/16/2004
View Profile
|
lwmuddy wrote:If the oil companies are making such an acceptable living selling us oil at our current prices why would they want to do something that might make them a lot less money? Like only sell us oil from the U.S wells?
They won't, that is the laughable part of this suggestion. They will sell on the open market at the world price and it will never return to the "good old days". China and India drive the price, not the US.
As for the statistics and percentages posted there is a big difference, depending on where the figures are copied from.
One sources says we have reduced usages by 1% and the next one says 5%, and so on.
You're correct on this point, you only know what the oil companies or the Government wants you to know, nothing more.
And by the way, does every American know exactly how many drill sites are operating in the Gulf of Mexico. I didn't know exactly until I saw them on the weather news about the hurricane. I thought a couple and it turns out there are a couple of HUNDRED.
Add to this, all of the wells drilled but capped for future use, in the many oil patch areas of the US and you're correct, we have no idea what is or is not available.
I think WE Americans are suffering from an INFORMATION GAP! Ala CCCP. It's a shame that everyone thinks we can return to the good old days when in fact, they are gone and will never return. The oil companies have million of acres that they have not drilled on, or in many cases not even done any seismograph exploration on to see if there is oil available. Until they utilize what they have available, I say no new leases.
Bob & Betsy - USN Ret'd '78 & FL LEO Ret'd '03 
FMCA #F203528
'05 HR Endeavor, 40PRQ (Our Home) w/400 Cummins - With -'05 GMC Sierra SLT, CC Z-71, the pusher- With -
'07 Arctic Cat 500A & Wilderness Kayak, riding in the pusher -
Our Current Location
|
MikeSmith
Houston, Republic of Texas
Senior Member
Joined: 07/17/2004
View Profile
|
Most of those alleged millions of acres the oil companies have are part of sections that have oil in a small piece of that section. And some of those sections have no oil. And some are just too much hassle to drill, due to all the environmental issues.
And the reason why "big oil" would love to get at our oil reserves is due to competition. I'll keep it simple...
OPEC removes oil from the ground at a cost of $4 per barrel and sells it to "big oil" for $115 a barrel. If "big oil" can get their own oil in ANWR or off our coastline or from shale, they get to keep the difference in the cost of oil.
IOW, If ANWR oil costs $16 per barrel to extract it, they make $99 profit at today's rate. If oil drops to $40 a barrel, they still make $26 profit, as opposed to buying it for $40 from OPEC.
|
Skid Row Joe
On the road in America
Senior Member
Joined: 04/26/2006
View Profile
|
The Texan wrote:It's a shame that everyone thinks we can return to the good old days when in fact, they are gone and will never return. The oil companies have million of acres that they have not drilled on, or in many cases not even done any seismograph exploration on to see if there is oil available. Until they utilize what they have available, I say no new leases. Fortunately, corporations are more interested in profits, than in utilizing what anyone in the general population thinks they should do in running their businesses.
It's called freedom.
I have a sweet tender nature, however I enjoy sharing my thoughts and opinions. 
|
lwmuddy
Murrells Inlet, SC
Senior Member
Joined: 04/07/2002
View Profile
Offline
|
Skid Row Joe wrote:The Texan wrote:It's a shame that everyone thinks we can return to the good old days when in fact, they are gone and will never return. The oil companies have million of acres that they have not drilled on, or in many cases not even done any seismograph exploration on to see if there is oil available. Until they utilize what they have available, I say no new leases. Fortunately, corporations are more interested in profits, than in utilizing what anyone in the general population thinks they should do in running their businesses.
It's called freedom.
True, BUT could Freedom go a little too far if it were in the hands of a nefarious group?
I worked with a welder/rigger in the early '80's that said they were drilling and capping wells all over the place.
Later on I read that the Salt Domes that were used to store New oil were in fact full of WASTE oil and the government was paying for their fraud. The story died out not long after and I never followed up on it.
I guess if I had a product that everyone wanted and couldn't live without I might do the same thing, because it is all about massing money that can then be put to good use somewhere else, like Solar and electric cars.
The TV drive-by's are pushing Natural Gas for your car, but it isn't near as good as gasoline.
We may start hearing shortly about more experiments with Cold Fusion.
You know, the power source that doesn't work.
We are living in very exciting times and are on the verge of great discoveries, as long as there is enough money in it.
|
|
|
Doug4.7
Hartselle, AL, USA
Senior Member
Joined: 10/02/2003
View Profile
|
lwmuddy wrote:We may start hearing shortly about more experiments with Cold Fusion.
You know, the power source that doesn't work. That's sorta the problem with Cold Fusion....it doesn't work. But I guess it works about as well as using water as fuel... 
|
Frankjake
the Beaver State
Senior Member
Joined: 05/27/2002
View Profile
Offline
|
By Chris Lehman
Salem, OR
Call it biofuel backpedaling. Some Oregon lawmakers say it's time to repeal a one-year-old law that requires gasoline sold to contain a 10 percent ethanol blend. Salem correspondent Chris Lehman reports.
Senator Vicki Walker says it's a case of good intentions gone wrong. Last June the Eugene Democrat joined most of her Senate colleagues in voting for the ethanol mandate. Now, just over a year later, she's calling that vote a mistake.
Senator Vicki Walker drives 15 miles to get to a station that sells ethanol-free gas to use in her power tools.
Vicki Walker: "I'm very concerned about the fact that the Legislature was trying to do something environmental, but really I don't think we've done what we expected to do."
Walker says she's going to try to overturn the law next year. She says she feels the pain of regret every time she gets behind the wheel of her car.
It's a Toyota Camry, and Walker paid extra to get the hybrid version. She figured she'd come out ahead by using less gas. At first, she was getting up to 40 miles per gallon. Now, she gets nothing but bad news from her instrument panel.
Walker: "I'm at 33.6 on this tank, which is horrible. It's absolutely horrible gas mileage. And it makes me say to myself why did I buy a hybrid when I'm losing all this mileage that I'm supposed to have."
Walker blames the drop in mileage on the ethanol bill she voted for. And she's not alone in her criticism of ethanol. Each member of the Senate's Environment and Natural Resources Committee expressed reservations about the law at a recent hearing in Salem.
Politicians in Texas and Missouri are also complaining about ethanol mandates. But not everyone is ready to give up.
John Gallaway: "I'm not clear on why we would want to roll back the standards at this point. I haven't heard a compelling case for doing so."
John Gallaway is with the Oregon Environmental Council. That's a group that lobbied for the ethanol mandate.
Gallaway says not only does ethanol reduce the demand for foreign oil, it's also good for Oregon's economy. That's because several companies are gearing up to meet the demand for ethanol.
Gallaway says repealing the law could have a chilling effect.
John Gallaway: "We've already indicated to both the biofuels industry and really the petroleum industry that we want to produce and use biofuels as part of our energy strategy. It is not the single solution to our transportation needs but it's one of many solutions that will emerge."
Most ethanol is produced from corn, and critics say increased use of the additive is driving up food prices. Supporters say that won't be an issue in coming years, when ethanol could be made from things like woodchips or algae. But what about that drop in fuel efficiency Senator Walker complained about?
Even ethanol supporters say you'll see a three or four percent drop-off. But John Urbanchuck, a consultant for a Midwest corn growers group, says that's hardly worth complaining about.
John Urbanchuk: "If you have a car that has an average mileage of 22.3 miles to the gallon, what you're talking about is you're talking about losing maybe 7/10ths of a mile per gallon. By comparison, if you're driving around with improperly inflated tires, you're going to lose about 5 to 6 miles per gallon."
Ethanol critics also say blended gasoline is murder on specialized engines like the kind found in power tools or boats. The Legislature accounted for that by allowing stations to sell some ethanol-free gas but only a few stations are doing that.
Senator Vicki Walker calls it another unintended consequence lawmakers failed to consider.
Vicki Walker: "I'm not ashamed of what we've done. I will be ashamed and embarrassed if we don't address this problem that we've created, however."
The ethanol mandate had broad support in the House and the Senate last year, so it's unclear whether Walker will be able to convince enough of her colleagues to overturn the law.
Gov. Ted Kulongoski supports biofuels but a spokesperson says he's willing to listen to concerns.
|
lwmuddy
Murrells Inlet, SC
Senior Member
Joined: 04/07/2002
View Profile
Offline
|
I hear the political Flip Flop sound. Now we like it-Now we don't.
Looks like they didn't do their homework like you're supposed to.
I wish her well.
|
Frankjake
the Beaver State
Senior Member
Joined: 05/27/2002
View Profile
Offline
|
I know i've mentioned this many times before on here but it's true about the loss of fuel mileage and it's a lot more than people think or the experts say.
I the past three year I traveled back and forth to CA from Oregon about 25 times. And I've been on numerous road trip in both the car and on the motorcycles. I like to make note when I fuel up, no matter what vehicle I'm driving. I proven it over and over again that my mileage drops significantly when forced to use gas with ethanol.
It just doens't make any sense to me. It takes oil to make the power to make the ethanol usable. Then it takes more fuel to get people to their destinations. It seem like a lose, lose situation to me. We are using more resources, paying more money and causing more harm to the environment (which is the least of my concerns).
And the strangest part... it takes an average of 4 to 6 years to develope a new vehicle. Funny how all of a sudden the oil prices go up in our country and at the same time they are coming out with new cars that get better mileage and are made to use ethanol. My guess is "they" knew this was coming long before it did. Somehow I doubt the "flex fuel" vehicles would have even sold back when gas was $2 a gallon.
I can also remember on this very forum when gas went over $2 a gallon, everyone was outraged at the price. Then it went to $3 and more complaints. I remember saying on here that someday we would think $3 a gallon was "cheap" and of course many people thought I was crazy. I sure all of use would love to see $3 a gallon again and "think" it was cheap. he he he
|
grant135b
Ohio
Senior Member
Joined: 05/14/2006
View Profile
|
Skid Row Joe wrote:The Texan wrote:It's a shame that everyone thinks we can return to the good old days when in fact, they are gone and will never return. The oil companies have million of acres that they have not drilled on, or in many cases not even done any seismograph exploration on to see if there is oil available. Until they utilize what they have available, I say no new leases. Fortunately, corporations are more interested in profits, than in utilizing what anyone in the general population thinks they should do in running their businesses.
It's called freedom.
It's also called "fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to maximize profits by all legal means". Anything less is grounds to be removed from one's position and possibly prosecuted.
|
|
|
|
