Obama has a great energy policy...

[MC Twinkie]

Originally Posted by xian

Tune-ups... we have computers in cars that adjust these things eliminating the need for tune ups... adjusting carburateurs for better fuel efficiency etc - you're replacing that notion with oil changes and filter changes which are not historically "tune-ups" they are regularly scheduled mainenance.

Modern cars dont have a carborator, they have fuel injection. You can get carbon deposits that make the spray less efficient. These need to be cleaned off. You can also change out your spark plugs every 10-20K miles. Even with all these electronic timing controls, the car still uses sensors for things like oxygen and emissions. I think regular maintenance can also be considered a tune up. You are tuning the car up to peak performance by replacing wornout parts.

Its not much of an energy plan at all. I think the ecconomy is fucked up because we mess with it soooo much. If they would just let it come to equilibium it wouldn't be a problem. Trying to keep gas/energy at a price that is to low is only going to cause trouble when it rebounds to the place it should be. Much like what we have now. I do the thing price of gas is to high just so oil guys can drill new wells. Our for fathers set out a plan not to drill there for a reason, and they were pretty smart guys. We all know bush isnt smart be damn sure he is going to be rich.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by david austin

the bottle neck in the us isnt the oil... its the refining capacity.

we could have 1000 tankers a day drop oil supply off at the gulf... doesnt mean shit.

Thank you.

[I AM EL-NINO]

Originally Posted by clay donkey

Modern cars dont have a carborator, they have fuel injection. You can get carbon deposits that make the spray less efficient. These need to be cleaned off. You can also change out your spark plugs every 10-20K miles. Even with all these electronic timing controls, the car still uses sensors for things like oxygen and emissions. I think regular maintenance can also be considered a tune up. You are tuning the car up to peak performance by replacing wornout parts.

Its not much of an energy plan at all. I think the ecconomy is fucked up because we mess with it soooo much. If they would just let it come to equilibium it wouldn't be a problem. Trying to keep gas/energy at a price that is to low is only going to cause trouble when it rebounds to the place it should be. Much like what we have now. I do the thing price of gas is to high just so oil guys can drill new wells. Our for fathers set out a plan not to drill there for a reason, and they were pretty smart guys. We all know bush isnt smart be damn sure he is going to be rich.

Spark plugs every 10-20 k? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You dont know what the hell your talking about. Our fore fathers??????? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. They just banned it less then twenty years ago. Bush is already rich. So what. So are the other Liberal Democrats that own oil company stock. Man where do you guys get this mentality at? ITs fucking stupid.

[I AM EL-NINO]

Originally Posted by shaggy

the problem with the democratic party is the idiots who represent it in the house and senate, and we elected them. Their foundation and values stem from being a solid, caring, sympathetic, empathetic person, but unfortunately (and i mean that with all sincerity) the leaders of the party, for the most part, are complete idiots (not sure how pelosi and the other fuck got to where they are). They are too busy trying to destroy bush for all his wrongs ( and there are plenty), instead of correcting them and making some goddamn progress with what has been given them (the house and senate) it is a shame that the convictions they hold are being discounted as naive and stupid, just because the orators of such philosophies are incompetent morons...

bingo!!!!!!

[I AM EL-NINO]

Originally Posted by e-brake

Well mostly because they are talking about drilling in the busiest hurricaine path in Us coastal waters. The same path that resulted in over 120 platform based oil spills during Katrina that is still effecting the gulf to this day. Also it will take over 10 years to actually get the oil thats there, even if we do go get the oil since its off shore it goes on the global market. If we had every square inch of off shore oil tapped and pumping today the Republicans own economists admit that it would only shave about .02 a gallon off the current cost of gas.


Why are the oil companies pushing so hard for permission to open up new oil fields when they are not even opening the wells that are already tapped in the US? Exxon and Texaco are sitting on thousands of already drilled wells inside of North America that they just need to open the taps on and there is absolutely nothing standing in their way. They already own the oil, they already drilled the wells, they already have the pipelines in place, they already have the permits from the government to take it out......yet they are still refusing to open them up.

So why again should we allow them to continue to stake claim to even more oil that they wouldnt be pumping today even if they had nothing to stop them?

The Government ordered those wells capped. Not the oil companies.
Your claim about spills in the gulf is pretty exaggerated.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9365607/

"Offshore oil
As for oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico, Paskewich said the Coast Guard has fielded no reports of offshore spills there, though leaks could spring when the thousands of oil platforms and hundreds of miles of pipeline are restarted. Last year, Hurricane Ivan was responsible for oil spills in the Gulf, he said.

Paskewich dismissed suggestions by an environmental advocacy group that satellite photos showed some 7,000 square miles of oil floating in the Gulf, saying numerous flyovers revealed only minor sheening.

Skytruth, a group that uses satellite imagery to track environmental damage, says extensive oil slicks are visible in areas of the Gulf raked by hurricane-force winds.

“Daily overflights are being conducted to find the real truth of what’s going on,” Paskewich told Reuters. “As for now, I am confident that we have not received any reports of significant oil spills offshore.”

I live on the coast, work on the coast in the Oil and chemical industry and am closely associated with the EPA, DOT, Coastguard, and OSHA. I have yet to see where any oil spill is effecting the Gulf today. You're time would be better spent looking into the real reason the Gulf is having problems. Most of which can be attributed to fertilizer runoff and sewge seapage from not only New Orleans and Katrina, but from most of the Gulf coast east of the Sabine river because of antiquated piping and process from old treatment plants. Thats the word down here in the industry. Truth. Oh and by the way .....your claim about it taking ten years to drill a meaningfull well is the worst speculation I have heard to date. The industry would go broke if that was the case and no one would be able to afford to drill for oil. And just the mere mention of us lifting the moratorium from the presidents office on drilling has effected the price of oil drasticly. Dropped at least twenty dollars a barrel the week Bush announced it and gas prices have been steadily falling since(thank you President Bush). Oil futures are trading at 119.00 a barrel for Sept. delivery I believe. The word is that it could drop below 100.00 a barrel by the end of the year if Pelosi and Reid would quit blocking the vote on an energy policy with thier stupid claims of "Im saving you're planet". lolllzzzzz. And........our competitors like China and Russia are not stopping thier drilling off our coasts. Dont you think we should do something about that and get off our ass's and drill. I mean hell, I dont hear you protesting thier drilling practices. Why only pick on your own country? The left mentality on this is beyond me and only shows me one thing. Your all all hopeless, selfish and have no clear workable vission or solution. Sorry. Dont take it personally. But you guys are way wrong on this and it will be the undoing of any progress the left thinks they are making in FORCING this agenda down the throats of people who know better. Good luck with that in November. Im out.

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

Originally Posted by Chris Allen

most people? How often, when you are at the gas station, do you see people checking their tire pressure? Next time watch as people come and go. Only a very small percentage (less than 10% maybe) actually check their tire pressure to make sure its ok. How many people even know how to check it, own a tire pressure guage, or even know where to look to find out what PSI is recomended??? Im not saying that people dont do it, but the point is people dont pay attention much unless their tires "look" low. LOTS of peeps arent accurately monitor that ish. Its not sufficient to just check in at the tire shop every 12-6 months and have them rotate your tires.

The tuning thing, not everyone drives a brand new car that fixes itself. Yeah car have ECU's, but that doesnt tune your car, it programs how it operates.
Maybe you need to come down off the high horse and stop getting all robot-dictionary when it comes to real life.

the greater point here is that the suggestion, while useful and true that it will help conserve oil is statistically insignificant compared to bringing new fields on line. further, this isn't a zero sum game - we can do both, inflate tires and drill (and explore lots of other alternatives too.... drove through Iowa today... saw several windfarms with a dozen or more turbines - encouraging)

Originally Posted by Chris Allen

Anyone flaming obama for this is just a racist asshole that doesnt know shit about what he's talking about.

So, to disagree w/Obama is tantamount to racism? Way to establish your credibility.

Originally Posted by david austin

the bottle neck in the us isnt the oil... its the refining capacity.

we could have 1000 tankers a day drop oil supply off at the gulf... doesnt mean shit.

matters to the futures market and the cost to the refineries for raw materials though.... which will help bring down cost.

If new home demand was high and the supply of builders static coupled with a high cost for lumber bringing down the cost of lumber would bring down the cost of new home building despite the lack of new builders. This isn't to say that new builders would help even more but it is to say that more lumer would bring some relief in cost of end product.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by xian

matters to the futures market and the cost to the refineries for raw materials though.... which will help bring down cost.

If new home demand was high and the supply of builders static coupled with a high cost for lumber bringing down the cost of lumber would bring down the cost of new home building despite the lack of new builders. This isn't to say that new builders would help even more but it is to say that more lumer would bring some relief in cost of end product.

Your analogy is faulty for a number of reasons, most notably you think that the futures market is oblivious to oil's usability. You seem to think they think a barrel of oil is a barrel of oil regardless of whether it can be refined or not. That isn't the case. Does anybody care to remember one of the principal reasons gas prices shot up during/after Katrina? Amongst other things, it was the lack of available refineries since several were shut down during the storm's approach and/or damaged during Katrina.

Lumber isn't worth shit if you can't get the trees cut down & to the stores. The cost of lumber has never been due to a lack of raw materials, it's been the lack of - to steal a term - refining capacity. Lumber demand brought prices up because the mills couldn't keep up with demand, not because of a perception of scarcity of trees. It's not like making an announcement that we're opening up Yosemite to tree harvesting will bring down lumber prices any more than making an announcement that we're opening up ANWR/offshore drilling will do a thing to oil prices.

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

Your analogy is faulty for a number of reasons, most notably you think that the futures market is oblivious to oil's usability. You seem to think they think a barrel of oil is a barrel of oil regardless of whether it can be refined or not.

Well, much like the home builder home can now buy his lumber cheaper the raw materials cost for the home goes down allowing the builder to be more competitive.

So too will the refiner buy the cheaper oil rather than the more expensive oil even if he's got back-orders on refining.

Originally Posted by Dionysos

That isn't the case. Does anybody care to remember one of the principal reasons gas prices shot up during/after Katrina? Amongst other things, it was the lack of available refineries since several were shut down during the storm's approach and/or damaged during Katrina.

And my analogy considered a static capacity to build or refine - what changed was the cost of raw materials.

umber isn't worth shit if you can't get the trees cut down & to the stores. The cost of lumber has never been due to a lack of raw materials, it's been the lack of - to steal a term - refining capacity. Lumber demand brought prices up because the mills couldn't keep up with demand, not because of a perception of scarcity of trees. It's not like making an announcement that we're opening up Yosemite to tree harvesting will bring down lumber prices any more than making an announcement that we're opening up ANWR/offshore drilling will do a thing to oil prices.[/quote]

well then call them widgets huh Mr. Mellon? The issue is that even with static production capabilities lowering the cost of production (by lowering the cost of raw materials used in production) lowers the cost to consumer.



edit: Jonny, I said nothing more controversial than, all other things being equal, reducing the cost of production (through reducing cost of reaw materials) has the tendency to reduce the cost of the finished product.

Further, that a refinery may have all the oil on hand currently that I can refine doesn't mean that it won't, in the future, when it has refined that oil, need more oil.... hence the reason I refer to oil futures. That the number of refiners is finite is not relevent to what the oil futures trade at... only as to production capacity which certainly plays a role in cost. Neither is exclusive but held in isolation we can predict what effect such a change will likely have on the cost of the end product.

To make a concrete example rather than an anology. One of the things that SW Airlines did to remain competitive was to hedge fuel costs and buy a large quantity of fuel futures - years worth. More than their capacity to currently use (or to be analogous - refine) or their capacity to store. However, having paid for the future delivery of fuel at a given cost (well below market) has helpled keep SW competitive. So too does buying oil futures at a lower price tend to have a similar effect on the cost of the finished product gasoline.

[MC Twinkie]

Originally Posted by I AM EL-NINO

Spark plugs every 10-20 k? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You dont know what the hell your talking about. Our fore fathers??????? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. They just banned it less then twenty years ago. Bush is already rich. So what. So are the other Liberal Democrats that own oil company stock. Man where do you guys get this mentality at? ITs fucking stupid.

They are usually less than 5$ for 4 plugs so who cares, they are cheap. New ones make the car run good, and keep gas mileage high.

I'm not talking about washington. They didn't even hace cars back then. The leaders before us are our fore fathers.

Not to many rich guys say,"hey I made 10 million dollars and it will last me the rest of my life so I'm going to just stop making money." I think the more money people make, the more they think they need to make.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by xian

well then call them widgets huh Mr. Mellon? The issue is that even with static production capabilities lowering the cost of production (by lowering the cost of raw materials used in production) lowers the cost to consumer.

And your point is null & void because lumber isn't traded on a global commodity market like oil is. You can't lower the cost of oil in the same ways you lower the cost of lumber.

[Luxe]

Originally Posted by clay donkey

Modern cars dont have a carborator, they have fuel injection. You can get carbon deposits that make the spray less efficient. These need to be cleaned off. You can also change out your spark plugs every 10-20K miles. Even with all these electronic timing controls, the car still uses sensors for things like oxygen and emissions. I think regular maintenance can also be considered a tune up. You are tuning the car up to peak performance by replacing wornout parts.

Its not much of an energy plan at all. I think the ecconomy is fucked up because we mess with it soooo much. If they would just let it come to equilibium it wouldn't be a problem. Trying to keep gas/energy at a price that is to low is only going to cause trouble when it rebounds to the place it should be. Much like what we have now. I do the thing price of gas is to high just so oil guys can drill new wells. Our for fathers set out a plan not to drill there for a reason, and they were pretty smart guys. We all know bush isnt smart be damn sure he is going to be rich.

The American dollar is almost worthless to the rest of the world and that's why our economy is fucked. Foreign oil companies could be charging us much more per barrel, but they don't because then they would lose American business altogether because we couldn't afford it. The solution is to manufacture more of everything inside the U.S, and not just oil. I say forget oil altogether and get on electric and solar for energy. It would save our economy despite everyone talking about how expensive it would be to change, blah blah blah. These natural resources make much more sense than fossil fuels and in the long run would save our economy. If you're worried that your little sports car wouldn't go as fast on electric, then add more voltage. Problem solved.

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

And your point is null & void because lumber isn't traded on a global commodity market like oil is. You can't lower the cost of oil in the same ways you lower the cost of lumber.

see edit... hell I'll C&P it for you.

And, yes, they are analogous.... all things being equal, increase the supply and you'll cause a drop in price without regard to the product.


edit: Jonny, I said nothing more controversial than, all other things being equal, reducing the cost of production (through reducing cost of reaw materials) has the tendency to reduce the cost of the finished product.

Further, that a refinery may have all the oil on hand currently that I can refine doesn't mean that it won't, in the future, when it has refined that oil, need more oil.... hence the reason I refer to oil futures. That the number of refiners is finite is not relevent to what the oil futures trade at... only as to production capacity which certainly plays a role in cost. Neither is exclusive but held in isolation we can predict what effect such a change will likely have on the cost of the end product.

To make a concrete example rather than an anology. One of the things that SW Airlines did to remain competitive was to hedge fuel costs and buy a large quantity of fuel futures - years worth. More than their capacity to currently use (or to be analogous - refine) or their capacity to store. However, having paid for the future delivery of fuel at a given cost (well below market) has helpled keep SW competitive. So too does buying oil futures at a lower price tend to have a similar effect on the cost of the finished product gasoline.

[david austin]

you are both right.

increasing supply by any noticeable margin will bring a bbl price down just due to the simple nature of greater supply in the chain.

the key here is remembering that RBOB gasoline is traded as a separate distillate entity and although they have direct correlation it isnt 1:1. this is where i think D and X are at odds.

greater oil supply will bring the price of gas down by a certain degree because the cost of pressumed production ($/bbl) is less. based on a decrease in production pricing the futures markets and spot markets for refined gas will go down.

BUT because of our very tight refining capability we may not see as direct of a pricing drop based on american demand for gas and our ability to produce it to meet demand. essentially you have a lower price for the start product at odds with ever increasing demand for the end products with tight capacity to produce that end product. this also can stretch into the fact that refiners have to produce dozens of 'blends' for different parts of the country but thats a whole other part of the equation.

touching on the katrina deal. while oil did have a spike because of our domestic supply it wasnt nearly as severe as what our gas futures traded at. so in that extreme example you had somewhat static oil supply with crippled capacity to refine it. gas pricing shoots through the roof while oil remains stable. while oil has risen (at its 147$ peak) some 90% since katrina... gas pricing is about right where we were days after the storm (4$/gl)

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

Originally Posted by david austin

you are both right.

fucking politician.... Jonny... I got a rope.... you got a tree?

[david austin]

Originally Posted by xian

fucking politician.... Jonny... I got a rope.... you got a tree?

i love you too