23 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWRONG.
Because everyone knows that if you increase the supply of oil onto the market it will decrease the price at the pump. Only Democrats are in denial about this.
You don't have enough REFINERY CAPACITY. You can increase all the oil supply you want but if you limit the supply of GASOLINE like you do when you can't refine the oil fast enough, it will make NO DIFFERENCE to the price of gas.
As oil prices were dropping from their high of 147/barrel, your refineries were actually cutting back on their capacity in order to limit the supply of gasoline in order to keep it expensive.
The only way to guarantee that an increase in the supply of oil will result in cheaper gasoline prices is to regulate the refinery/gasoline industry.....good luck doing that in the US. (although they did it with mortgages and insurance so why not gasoline too??)
23 Sep 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterDo you seriously think that, if we began drilling today -- right now, in fact --
Because everyone knows that if you increase the supply of oil onto the market it will decrease the price at the pump. Only Democrats are in denial about this.
that we would see a decrease in the price as a result of that drilling in six to
twelve months?
If not, when do you think we would see it?
Do you think that there would be a price increase as a result of that drilling
before we saw the decrease?
Nemesio
23 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessThe fact of the matter is that the US is estimated to have enough oil reserves to be foreign oil independent for about 3 years. The goal SHOULD be freedom from foreign oil. By doing so the US frees its worries over the continued mess in the Middle East as well as weaken adversaries such as Iran and Russia who depend on rising foreign oil revenue for income. Granted, refinery capacity should be an issue as well, however, I suspect that if McCain in serious about fixing the problem he has a plan for this as well. If not, this issue is nothing but a chance to politicize the situation. Oddly, Obama even jumped on board with McCain on the issue in many regards. I think Obama's original position in being opposed to drilling for oil at home was seen as politically suicidal so he changed it to mirror that of McCains position. Now as to whether either one of them is serious about freeing the US or foreign oil is another matter altogether, however, saying the right things is at least a start.
WRONG.
You don't have enough REFINERY CAPACITY. You can increase all the oil supply you want but if you limit the supply of GASOLINE like you do when you can't refine the oil fast enough, it will make NO DIFFERENCE to the price of gas.
As oil prices were dropping from their high of 147/barrel, your refineries were actually cutting back on their capaci ...[text shortened]... that in the US. (although they did it with mortgages and insurance so why not gasoline too??)
23 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioThis argument would cause the US to do NOTHING to free ourselves of the clutches of foreign oil, therefore, ANYTHING that moves the US in an opposite direction is worth while in my estimation no matter how long it may take.
Do you seriously think that, if we began drilling today -- right now, in fact --
that we would see a decrease in the price as a result of that drilling in six to
twelve months?
If not, when do you think we would see it?
Do you think that there would be a price increase as a result of that drilling
before we saw the decrease?
Nemesio
So what is the price of inaction? Do you like having the US have a continued presence in the Middle East? Do you like having powers like Iran and Russia being financed via high foreign oil prices? Do you like not knowing if you can afford gas from one week to the next? Do you like supporting the continued ill effects of fossil fuels on the environment via global warming etc?
23 Sep 08
Originally posted by whodeyIf you just mandated that new vehicles get 40 mpg, you would reduce your dependance on foreign oil WAY MORE than you would by drilling for it.
The fact of the matter is that the US is estimated to have enough oil reserves to be foreign oil independent for about 3 years. The goal SHOULD be freedom from foreign oil. By doing so the US frees its worries over the continued mess in the Middle East as well as weaken adversaries such as Iran and Russia who depend on rising foreign oil revenue for income. ...[text shortened]... foreign oil is another matter altogether, however, saying the right things is at least a start.
But oh no, the fuel industry pays Washington too much money in political bribes, er i mean "contributions" for that to happen.
😕
23 Sep 08
Originally posted by uzlessyep, to bad obama doesn't want to drill.
If you just mandated that new vehicles get 40 mpg, you would reduce your dependance on foreign oil WAY MORE than you would by drilling for it.
But oh no, the fuel industry pays Washington too much money in political bribes, er i mean "contributions" for that to happen.
😕
23 Sep 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterProbably because to think the US can drill it's way out of this problem is delusional.
Why are the Democrats so opposed to drilling?
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/21/the_drilling_bill_that_bans_drilling/
What the US could do is become the world leader in green technology -- similar to how we dominated the developing computer industry.
That is America's historic strength -- enterprise.
23 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358always an excuse for your side huh? Is the left ever wrong? Anwar (sp?) could be drilled in anytime...that's not the entire solution but it would help people pay for their heat...Come on, isn't the left suppose to be the compasionate side and yet you don't want to help people heat their homes...
Very sensible of him.
23 Sep 08
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter1) We would need a quantity many times over what we currently have to make an appreciable dent. This is widely accepted throughout the industry.
Because everyone knows that if you increase the supply of oil onto the market it will decrease the price at the pump. Only Democrats are in denial about this.
2) It won't affect the market for a minimum of 3-5 years.
3) This does nothing to remove our dependence from foreign oil because it perpetuates the myth that we can continue to consume at the current rate of consumption (see #1).
23 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeySo what happens after 3 years when we run out of oil?
The fact of the matter is that the US is estimated to have enough oil reserves to be foreign oil independent for about 3 years. The goal SHOULD be freedom from foreign oil. By doing so the US frees its worries over the continued mess in the Middle East as well as weaken adversaries such as Iran and Russia who depend on rising foreign oil revenue for income. foreign oil is another matter altogether, however, saying the right things is at least a start.
23 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenThe price of oil is high because of speculation, not because of a lack of supply.
always an excuse for your side huh? Is the left ever wrong? Anwar (sp?) could be drilled in anytime...that's not the entire solution but it would help people pay for their heat...Come on, isn't the left suppose to be the compasionate side and yet you don't want to help people heat their homes...
edit: if you drill now, you'll start pumping just about when prices have bottomed out. And believe me, that will not make a single news headline.