Skip to comments.
Oil Price Backlash...When will it strike?
Posted on 03/20/2005 2:06:08 PM PST by xzins
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
To: OpusatFR
I also didn't see the part about high prices due to inflation because the money presses are going at full speed.
21
posted on
03/20/2005 2:26:12 PM PST
by
31R1O
Comment #22 Removed by Moderator
To: xzins
You have some very good points. But the truth is, when people pay $3/gallon, it will stimulate interest in other ideas. Anwr is a go. Lets get some oil/gas drilling in the Gulf and off CA. Also lets fastrack some nuclear power.
We could eliminate federal gas tax, but the truth is that just creates a bigger deficit. Better to suffer for a year or two and get all the new sources of energy off to a start. Then the prices will fall on their own.
FWIW, I think federal/state taxes on gas are outrageous and destructive.
23
posted on
03/20/2005 2:28:01 PM PST
by
ProudVet77
(It's boogitty boogitty boogitty season!)
To: xzins
Drilling in ANWR may not be the solution. But it's a better start than EVER hoping for workable ideas from the Democrats.
24
posted on
03/20/2005 2:28:12 PM PST
by
Enterprise
(President George W. Bush - the leading insurgent detergent.)
To: sinkspur
Has refining capacity fallen that dramatically in the last 12 months that gasoline prices would go from $1.25 to $2.25? Don't the Arabs have something to do with this?
To: xzins
No, there will not.
Adjusted for inflation, oil prices, and gasoline prices, are not quite as high as they were 30 years ago.
Y'all have just gotten spoiled and whiny after years of oil glut and depressed prices.
So9
To: freddiedavis
Why don't we just seize the oil? We have an army nearby that could do the job.
To: xzins
To: Enterprise; Edmund Burke; sinkspur
I think drilling in Anwr -- if combined with something like clean coal liquafaction -- is a great idea.
Approve Anwr, drill it, exploit it, and get 4 or 5 years of oil from it. Use those years to massively undertake a transition to clean coal. We have hundreds of years of coal reserves, and clean coal would keep ALL our energy money in our own economy, it would put gazillions of people to work, and it would tell Arabs to take a hike to the camel races.
29
posted on
03/20/2005 2:42:39 PM PST
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
To: US_MilitaryRules
My old unit, the 160th, is mentioned in that nascar post.
:>)
NSDQ!
30
posted on
03/20/2005 2:45:11 PM PST
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
To: xzins
Coal hydrogenation works out to around $40/barrel(perhaps less if waste heat from nuclear or other industry was utilized), but we would need to build, or convert the plants. It was a serious consideration back in the early 50's before cheap ME oil came along. The Government built a large plant --I forget where-- used it for the military, then converted it to make NH3.
There are many alternatives, we know it, and OPEC knows it, which is why they are trying to regain control of the price.
31
posted on
03/20/2005 2:47:31 PM PST
by
PeaceBeWithYou
(De Oppresso Liber! (50 million and counting in Afganistan and Iraq))
To: xzins
I agree totally. The estimate for potential barrel's of oil from these reserves is mind numbing. Our country needs to quit pussyfootin around with OPEC and get to work.
"The World Energy Council estimates that there are 299 gigatonnes of oil shale. The most significant resources are found in China, Estonia, the U.S., Australia, and Jordan."
link
32
posted on
03/20/2005 2:53:00 PM PST
by
Enterprise
(President George W. Bush - the leading insurgent detergent.)
To: PeaceBeWithYou
I posted a whole series of links prior to the election about clean coal alternatives. It is exciting stuff that could keep all our money at home and NOT displace other industries.
And employ millions.
It is the VERY BEST alternative as we continue the search for absolutely clean and safe nuclear.
In the very short term, however, we need to worry about the 2006 election. There must be a trade off granted to middle class, social conservative families, or this "religion initiative" launched by the Dem Party will siphon some of them off....perhaps a lot of them.
33
posted on
03/20/2005 2:54:19 PM PST
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
Comment #34 Removed by Moderator
To: xzins
ANWR, more specifically the 1002 and surrounding State tribal lands has from 40 to 65 years of production at the median reserve values. It likely has more, how much more won't be known until it is proven.
OPEC doesn't like high oil prices, it spurs conservation, competition, and replacement technologies.
35
posted on
03/20/2005 2:58:49 PM PST
by
PeaceBeWithYou
(De Oppresso Liber! (50 million and counting in Afganistan and Iraq))
To: MinnesotaSmith
Your #2 is interesting...Peak Oil...could you go into that a bit? (Serious question.)
36
posted on
03/20/2005 3:05:23 PM PST
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
To: PeaceBeWithYou
40-65 years in Anwr....what is our daily oil comsumption in the US? I think we currently use a billion metric tons of coal a year, but I don't know how much oil we consume.
How much would Anwr give us daily (if you know.) Thanks.
37
posted on
03/20/2005 3:09:05 PM PST
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
Comment #38 Removed by Moderator
To: xzins; All
.....
Will conservative politicians try to convince families of... THE SHORTAGE OF 'DOMESTIC' REFINERY CAPACITY... and of speculators in the market, risking hard-earned gains with these people, or will they sympathize with the impact a $60-$70+ dollar fill-up has on the attitudes (and pocketbooks) of middle class families? ..... (edited by 'm')
IMO.....the 1st intent of 'THE NEW NAFTA-OPEC is the 'rape-of-our-national-natural-domestic-resoures' PUBLIC (U.N.) LANDS.....
scary stuff......this...'last-straw'....of national sovereign 'property'...
IMO....the 2nd intent 'they' have planned is then to 'NAFTA-OPEC'.....Region-ally 'Nationalize' ALL of the Oil/Gas/Coal/Water/Electric/etc.....real scary stuff.....
IMO....the 3rd intent 'they' have planned is then to.........
naw
The _________ are coming?
/10 Commandments....'ON' rulings by the 'Supreme ______',.....?
/Star Wars?
39
posted on
03/20/2005 3:29:49 PM PST
by
maestro
To: Willie Green; GOPJ; Mitchell; Nita Nupress; PhilDragoo; Dog; areafiftyone; Alamo-Girl; ...
40
posted on
03/20/2005 3:52:25 PM PST
by
maestro
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson