True. But this week in may 1993 the gas price was $1.106 average across the U.S. This week in 2011 it's $3.849. That's an increase of 248%. An an annualized basis that's an increase of 7.2% which is easily double the rate of inflation. and this is all thanks you you democratic morons policy of no new oil exploration/drilling/pumping. You've done quite enough damage already.
I get you point, however:
The recent uptick in gasoline prices began around 2008-2009, when the oil markets started boosting prices above $100 a barrel. Those market changes had a number of causes, but the biggest among them were "world" demand - China, India, Brazil etc - vs world supply, and monetary - a cheaper dollar tends to raise the world price of globally sold commodities priced in dollars.
That still leaves your point about greater U.S. exploration and production. And yes, on that point you are right. The U.S. has identifiable additional reserves that investment in exploration and production could bring to market. The question is - at what cost?
The Saudi's sell as much oil as they do for two reasons - they have a lot and most of what is in production now is not expensive to get to.
As much as the U.S. has reserves it has not tapped, they will not come to market at the cost that Saudi light crude does.
I think the U.S. can get more oil products from domestic resources than it does today. The cost of doing that and world energy markets at the time that material comes to market will determine whether or not gasoline prices will have any downward pressure from that, in addition to the domestic economic benefit of more energy dollars staying in the domestic economy, instead of paying for imports (as much).
Someone smarter than you and I could make economic predictions about the price of gasoline based on what is known today. I can't, and I don't assume that if we just get more domestic oil production we will necessarily get a lower price in gasoline. I think getting more domestic production is worth doing regardless of the price of gasoline; if only to reduce imports and be more secure with regard to our energy sources.
I get you point, however:
The recent uptick in gasoline prices began around 2008-2009, when the oil markets started boosting prices above $100 a barrel. Those market changes had a number of causes, but the biggest among them were "world" demand - China, India, Brazil etc - vs world supply, and monetary - a cheaper dollar tends to raise the world price of globally sold commodities priced in dollars.
That still leaves your point about greater U.S. exploration and production. And yes, on that point you are right. The U.S. has identifiable additional reserves that investment in exploration and production could bring to market. The question is - at what cost?
The Saudi's sell as much oil as they do for two reasons - they have a lot and most of what is in production now is not expensive to get to.
As much as the U.S. has reserves it has not tapped, they will not come to market at the cost that Saudi light crude does.
I think the U.S. can get more oil products from domestic resources than it does today. The cost of doing that and world energy markets at the time that material comes to market will determine whether or not gasoline prices will have any downward pressure from that, in addition to the domestic economic benefit of more energy dollars staying in the domestic economy, instead of paying for imports (as much).
I think that greater domestic exploration and production would be a good thing, regardless of what would happen to domestic gasoline prices; if only to reduce imports and be more secure in our energy sources.
I think the Dims attacks on our own oil companies is rooted in the anti-capitalist indoctrination so many of them have been infused with by America's Marxists and the Libs the Marxists "educated".