Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=Daseal;449131]Exactly, if we just get more oil, it won't solve any issues. We'll continue to put big oil in charge of finding alternative energy sources (Hell, they might have an engine that runs on water, but they would never tell us -- they're looking for energy they can charge a high premium for.). [B]Go to MIT, give them a boat ton of money, and we'll have ideas within years.[/B][/quote]

Yeah, while I don't know much about the oil industry and how to solve the problems facing us, I agree that we shouldn't be putting the oil companies in charge of finding alternative solutions to oil. It needs to be put in the hands of companies that would actually benefit from finding alternate solutions, oil companies would rather keep getting paid than find a better solution.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=saden1;449110]Umm, why aren't the energy companies drilling these supposed bountiful locations in the Atlantic and Pacific? And why aren't they investing in drilling these oil shells? Maybe the government should be helping them out? Get real, if it's clean and viable you bet your ass it would be happening right now. Oil companies are happy where they are and could [URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7403989.stm"]care less about the environment[/URL].

Massive government funded, academia centered research into alternative fuel (water based solution in particular). Real investment in mass transit.[/quote]
They're not drilling there because the government won't let them.
They are investing in oil shale.
Why would oil companies want to stay where they are when there is more oil for them to drill, thus allowing them to make more money.

This is going to raise taxes a lot when we're in a recession... not a smart move. The government is already doing some investing and so is the private sector. Just give it time and there will be a viable solution. Mass transit is never going to work here as well as it does in Europe. Our country is totally different. Everything is a lot farther apart and there are a lot less cities.

Re: F... gas prices
 

steveo -- Mass transit will never be as effective as Europe, no doubt. However, it could be far more efficient in urban areas.

Re: F... gas prices
 

Anyone who thinks we are ever getting off of oil without the oil companies actually leading the charge is fooling themselves. The best way to get off of oil is to make it worth the oil companies time and efforts and ultimately lead to more profit for them.

Plain and simple, oil companies have more resources to make this happen than anyone else. They just need the motivation. Removing OPEC from the equation(finding alternate sources of oil (ANWR, deep gulf drilling and oil shale) clears a major hurdle in creating a truer free market in the oil industry (OPEC is a cartel. It is the exact opposite of a free market entity). Once that happens then the market forces will start to churn and we will get the most effective and efficient transition to new energy. It may take a while but it wont bankrupt our country, is completely feasible and probably represents our best chance at an effective transition. A transition that leaves us our place in the world economy and maintains our standard of living.

We need to start getting serious with mandating alternate fule vehicles. Within a reasonable, but aggressive timeframe we need to have an achievable goal percentage-wise for alternate fuel vehicles. I'd say 20% new cars sold in 10 years can be done. This stimulates a new energy market which will have somewhat less barriers to entry increasing competition and spurring innvoation. At the same time we need to offer some type of serious tax incentive for oil companies. I know it sounds like more of the same but in the end IT HAS TO BE PROFITABLE for oil companies to do this. Some type of structured tax incentive that dies away over 30 years will be enough time-wise and incentive-wise to build a new architecture and create a more complete transition.

If we force big oil to do this by creating a super competitive market we will be better off as a country in so many ways.

Re: F... gas prices
 

FRPLG -- I disagree. Cpayne and I talked about this earlier. What source of energy is our best bet? Hyrdrogen. Oil companies will struggle mightily to make much in the way of profits off of hydrogen. Why would the oil companies ever go after that, it would kill their business. It has to go through academia as a previous poster said, they aren't in it for money, they're in it to find a solution.

Re: F... gas prices
 

well, nuclear is the cheapest and greenest energy out there, but it won't fuel cars (besides electrics and those batteries aren't any greener than a hummer, BUT at least it could weaken oil prices some).

bio-diesel is nice and all (and way more efficient than ethanol), but once you make it a mass commodity, it's price structure just isn't going to work well compared to right now where you can get it for almost nothing (if you know a mcdonald's manager).

sugar cane based fuel is also much more efficient than corn based fuel where applicable, so ending corn subsidies and expanding sugar cane production can even help a little (and sugar is healthier than corn syrup anyways, and could be cheaper if corn wasn't subsidized like it is now)

Re: F... gas prices
 

[QUOTE=saden1;448951]The energy market is free market? That's news to me. These guys have very deep pockets and will crush anyone that attempts to subvert their flow of income. If the government won't step in no one can because they have too many people in their pockets and any new startup/ventures will get crushed ala Microsoft style (bought and shelved, blacklisted, undercut, or pounded into nebulous existence). Anyone that really thinks the "free market" can solve our problems is either naive or utterly stupid. [/QUOTE]

IMHO, I am neither “naïve or utterly stupid” and I believe that, in fact, the only way to fix our problem is to rely on a properly regulated “free market” and that to assert otherwise is to ignore the lessons of history, the realities of market economics involving a finite resource and confuses 1st grade economics with modern free market economics. Also, your assumption requires market collusion by several competitors to “corner the market” and act as one unit. This is, of course, antithetical to even the most basic free market principles and is one of the reasons/needs for government regulation of the market.

First to clarify, under pure market economics with no government regulation, I would agree that oil companies will exploit the current structural need for oil until such time as there is not a penny of profit to be made. Again, IMHO, while an example of otherwise acceptable market economics, this delay is unnecessary and hurtful to both our long term national security and to the environment. Additionally, their ability to do so is the direct result of an artificially created structural benefit.

Big Oil’s ability to exploit the current structural need is a direct result of our society’s decision to spend money (and blood) to create an infrastructure that made their product profitable (For example, the revamping of America’s highway structure in the 1950’s to create the Interstate system). In doing so, we as a society created an infrastructure that, initially anyway, artificially increased demand and created an oil intensive economy. Further, we have limited supply by restricting drilling in many offshore sights and by heavily regulating the product and, thus, limiting the ability of smaller companies to compete with “Big Oil”.

Because we, through our government’s actions, assisted in the creation and support of Big Oil’s market, it is appropriate that we, through government, assist those who wish to compete with that market. In doing so, however, the appropriate response is not to “socialize” big oil or artificially cap its profits. Rather, it is to offer start up protection by providing a similar type of artificial demand that was provided Big Oil. (For example, offer a government contracts to zero-emission vehicles that can perform up to certain standards (i.e. The feds will replace all federal transportation (with certain national security caveats) with a ZEV that can travel at speeds of 75 mph and has a range of 300 miles).

Essentially, government can, and in my opionion should, find ways to create and protect the necessary incentive for alternative energy until such time as alternative energy forms are profitable on a stand alone basis.

Ultimately, however, Big Oil itself would have to switch its product base or go out of business. Big Oil could, through collusion, use the current economic/structural need for oil in a manner to delay the switch to alternative forms of energy for a considerable time. They would be able to do so b/c even though oil is expensive now, it is not prohibitively so and there is enough profit being made to divert some of the profit to lobbying and/or inhibiting ventures “Microsoft Style”. Unlike tech innovations & Microsoft, however, oil is a finite resource. At some point, the market will actually not support the added costs necessary to “crush” the competition and ventures will begin to succeed b/c oil will simply not be able to supply the demand at an efficient cost. I don’t care how many start ups you crush – and even with the built in competitive advantage of the country’s current infrastructure, oil will price itself out of the market. Far sighted oil execs will see this and have income alternatives ready or they will simply go out of business. Essentially, while it might kill the goose that laid the golden egg – I doubt they would do so without another goose lined up.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;449151]Anyone who thinks we are ever getting off of oil without the oil companies actually leading the charge is fooling themselves. The best way to get off of oil is to make it worth the oil companies time and efforts and ultimately lead to more profit for them.

Plain and simple, oil companies have more resources to make this happen than anyone else. They just need the motivation. Removing OPEC from the equation(finding alternate sources of oil (ANWR, deep gulf drilling and oil shale) clears a major hurdle in creating a truer free market in the oil industry (OPEC is a cartel. It is the exact opposite of a free market entity). Once that happens then the market forces will start to churn and we will get the most effective and efficient transition to new energy. It may take a while but it wont bankrupt our country, is completely feasible and probably represents our best chance at an effective transition. A transition that leaves us our place in the world economy and maintains our standard of living.

We need to start getting serious with mandating alternate fule vehicles. Within a reasonable, but aggressive timeframe we need to have an achievable goal percentage-wise for alternate fuel vehicles. I'd say 20% new cars sold in 10 years can be done. This stimulates a new energy market which will have somewhat less barriers to entry increasing competition and spurring innvoation. At the same time we need to offer some type of serious tax incentive for oil companies. I know it sounds like more of the same but in the end IT HAS TO BE PROFITABLE for oil companies to do this. Some type of structured tax incentive that dies away over 30 years will be enough time-wise and incentive-wise to build a new architecture and create a more complete transition.

If we force big oil to do this by creating a super competitive market we will be better off as a country in so many ways.[/QUOTE]

Guess I should read your posts before going off on my own rants. Well said.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[QUOTE=steveo395;449094]Drilling offshore in the Atlantic and the Pacific, the Bakken oil field in Montana and North Dakota, the 1.5 trillion barrels of oil shale under Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The technology to extract the oil from the shale has improved greatly, so we can get that oil if we really need it.

What do you suggest we do about our huge oil problem? I know that you probably want to find alternative energy sources, but we need a lot more time to develop them. This will buy us that time.[/QUOTE]

Pretty timely article in this week's BusinessWeek

[url=http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_21/b4085026098665.htm?chan=magazine+channel_top+stories]The Majors Look West, Again[/url]

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;449191]IMHO, I am neither “naïve or utterly stupid” and I believe that, in fact, the only way to fix our problem is to rely on a properly regulated “free market” and that to assert otherwise is to ignore the lessons of history, the realities of market economics involving a finite resource and confuses 1st grade economics with modern free market economics. Also, your assumption requires market collusion by several competitors to “corner the market” and act as one unit. This is, of course, antithetical to even the most basic free market principles and is one of the reasons/needs for government regulation of the market.

First to clarify, under pure market economics with no government regulation, I would agree that oil companies will exploit the current structural need for oil until such time as there is not a penny of profit to be made. Again, IMHO, while an example of otherwise acceptable market economics, this delay is unnecessary and hurtful to both our long term national security and to the environment. Additionally, their ability to do so is the direct result of an artificially created structural benefit.

Big Oil’s ability to exploit the current structural need is a direct result of our society’s decision to spend money (and blood) to create an infrastructure that made their product profitable (For example, the revamping of America’s highway structure in the 1950’s to create the Interstate system). In doing so, we as a society created an infrastructure that, initially anyway, artificially increased demand and created an oil intensive economy. Further, we have limited supply by restricting drilling in many offshore sights and by heavily regulating the product and, thus, limiting the ability of smaller companies to compete with “Big Oil”.

Because we, through our government’s actions, assisted in the creation and support of Big Oil’s market, it is appropriate that we, through government, assist those who wish to compete with that market. In doing so, however, the appropriate response is not to “socialize” big oil or artificially cap its profits. Rather, it is to offer start up protection by providing a similar type of artificial demand that was provided Big Oil. (For example, offer a government contracts to zero-emission vehicles that can perform up to certain standards (i.e. The feds will replace all federal transportation (with certain national security caveats) with a ZEV that can travel at speeds of 75 mph and has a range of 300 miles).

Essentially, government can, and in my opionion should, find ways to create and protect the necessary incentive for alternative energy until such time as alternative energy forms are profitable on a stand alone basis.

Ultimately, however, Big Oil itself would have to switch its product base or go out of business. Big Oil could, through collusion, use the current economic/structural need for oil in a manner to delay the switch to alternative forms of energy for a considerable time. They would be able to do so b/c even though oil is expensive now, it is not prohibitively so and there is enough profit being made to divert some of the profit to lobbying and/or inhibiting ventures “Microsoft Style”. Unlike tech innovations & Microsoft, however, oil is a finite resource. At some point, the market will actually not support the added costs necessary to “crush” the competition and ventures will begin to succeed b/c oil will simply not be able to supply the demand at an efficient cost. I don’t care how many start ups you crush – and even with the built in competitive advantage of the country’s current infrastructure, oil will price itself out of the market. Far sighted oil execs will see this and have income alternatives ready or they will simply go out of business. Essentially, while it might kill the goose that laid the golden egg – I doubt they would do so without another goose lined up.[/quote]

I think you have me confused because I am not interested in taxing their profits and such. What I am interested in however is having the government force the adapt or die hand by not giving them tax breaks but rather fund research that hopefully spawns the Google of the energy companies. I simply don't want us putting the wolf in charge of guarding the sheep and I want the government to be proactive.

Re: F... gas prices
 

Now I am confused - Your original assertion was that “Anyone that really thinks the "free market" can solve our problems is either naive or utterly stupid.” As a general statement, I found this to be an ignorant and incredibly misinformed knee-jerk response to market economics that stank of discredited marxist/collectivest economic theory. My response was that a properly regulated free market is the best method for finding and marketing alternative energy sources. Further, even without governmental interference, the market will eventually create alternatives.

Based on your assertion, I assumed you were speaking of some form of centralization or socialization of energy markets that would eliminate private incentive. I don’t believe oil companies should be penalized for making profits.

If you are saying “fund research”, I agree for all the reasons stated in my earlier post.

I disagree, however, that this research would not happen but for government intervention. Based on the finite nature of the resource and the naturally increasing prices resulting from that – at some point, alternatives will be developed. I just believe, based on certain structural advantages given Big Oil, that the State should assist in “leveling the playing field” through investment.

Additionally, your implied collusion arguments just don’t hold water to me. These companies want to make money and are in competition with one another. If one of them could, tomorrow, take over the energy market by creating a cheap, profitable alternative to oil and undercut their competitors they would do it so fast your head would spin. The problem is that alternatives are still comparatively expensive to the cheap portability of gas and the internal combustion engine.

Re: F... gas prices
 

When Democratic politicians opposed to drilling in ANWR make either of the following arguments:

1. It will take years to develop, or
2. all the oil there only represents __% of the world's reserves,

they are not revealing their true motives. They are oppossed to it because environmental groups like the Sierra Club have told them to be against it. The next time Obama says he's going to stand up to special interests, someone should ask him why he's against drilling in Alaska.

David Brooks on Obama and Special Interests: [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20brooks.html?hp[/URL]

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=70Chip;449263]When Democratic politicians opposed to drilling in ANWR make either of the following arguments:

1. It will take years to develop, or
2. all the oil there only represents __% of the world's reserves,

they are not revealing their true motives. They are oppossed to it because environmental groups like the Sierra Club have told them to be against it. The next time Obama says he's going to stand up to special interests, someone should ask him why he's against drilling in Alaska.[/quote]

I totally agree and have said that I would love for the Republicans to present a bill just for exploration of oil in Anwr and other areas just to make people either vote for or against. This would be perfect timing with the current gas prices.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=70Chip;449263]When Democratic politicians opposed to drilling in ANWR make either of the following arguments:

1. It will take years to develop, or
2. all the oil there only represents __% of the world's reserves,

they are not revealing their true motives. They are oppossed to it because environmental groups like the Sierra Club have told them to be against it. The next time Obama says he's going to stand up to special interests, someone should ask him why he's against drilling in Alaska.

David Brooks on Obama and Special Interests: [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20brooks.html?hp[/URL][/quote]

Really? Look what my friend Google [URL="http://www.anwr.org/archives/presidential_candidates_views_on_anwr_a_the_democrats.php"]turned up[/URL], by THE pro ANWR group no less:

[QUOTE][B]Senator Barack Obama [/B] ( Illinois ) – Often cited as one of the top presidential contenders. Barack Obama has an abysmal record on ANWR voting on the Cantwell Amendment in 2005 to lock it up. He has been opposed to exploration and has rallied with Sen. Clinton in that regard numerous times. Barack states, "I strongly reject drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it would irreversibly damage a protected national wildlife refuge without creating sufficient oil supplies to meaningfully affect the global market price or have a discernable impact on U.S. energy security.” In his two and a half years in the Senate he has been part of the introduction of over 100 pieces of “green” legislation from promoting ethanol use to increased car mileage. However despite this many in the left see Obama as a moderate as he is caught frequently citing the need for bipartisan support and dialogue on energy issues as the way forward. His support of corn derived ethanol and liquid coal do not win him support in the Green camp either, which when coupled with ANWR proves a weakness. Illinois is, after all, one of the top ethanol states in the nation. Obama has yet to visit ANWR or the Alaskan Arctic. By 2020 Obama hopes 20% of all US energy will come from renewable resources. For more information on Obama's energy platform visit:[/QUOTE]

Re: F... gas prices
 

JoeRedskin, I haven't forgotten about you. Sit tight, you'll have thorough response when I manage to get some free time.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=saden1;449278]Really? Look what my friend Google [URL="http://www.anwr.org/archives/presidential_candidates_views_on_anwr_a_the_democrats.php"]turned up[/URL], by THE pro ANWR group no less:[/quote]

Nothing in there refutes anything I said. Obama failed to stand up the special interests on ANWR and on ethanol. Using the word "bi-partisan" a lot doesn't make you an environmental "moderate" no matter what the extreme left thinks.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=70Chip;449283]Nothing in there refutes anything I said. Obama failed to stand up the special interests on ANWR and on ethanol. Using the word "bi-partisan" a lot doesn't make you an environmental "moderate" no matter what the extreme left thinks.[/quote]

First you claim democrats as a whole are not revealing their true motives and then you proceed to call Obama out specifically. What part of the his quote doesn't suggest his "true motive?" Further more, just because you're pro environment doesn't mean policy is being dictated by the Sierra Clubs. They play an advisory role I am sure (it's called listening to scientist and assessment) but ultimately the candidate makes the decision whether you agree with it or not. Lastly, opposition to drilling in ANWR is not limited to one "true motive," one can in fact have a host of motives.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[QUOTE=Daseal;449154]FRPLG -- I disagree. Cpayne and I talked about this earlier. What source of energy is our best bet? Hyrdrogen. Oil companies will struggle mightily to make much in the way of profits off of hydrogen. Why would the oil companies ever go after that, it would kill their business. It has to go through academia as a previous poster said, they aren't in it for money, they're in it to find a solution.[/QUOTE]

Why is hydrgen our best bet? That sounds like one of the "common knowledge" innaccruacies to me. And why would oil companies struggle to make money off a resource like that? And while we're at it where did I say making money was going to be easy anyways? I thought I made a clear argument that gov't needs to artificially create a market where oil can make money. We'd need to create motivation.

I also tend to think that gov't sponsored research could do the trick. I just notice that history suggests it'll take 30 years before we get anything usable. For fast effective solutions history suggest the free market beats gov't research pants off.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=saden1;449288]First you claim democrats as a hole are not revealing their true motives and then you proceed to call Obama out specifically. What part of the his quote doesn't suggest his "true motive?" Further more, just because you're pro environment doesn't mean policy is being dictated by the Sierra Clubs. They play an advisory role I am sure (it's called listening to scientist and assessment) but ultimately the candidate makes the decision whether you agree with it or not. Lastly, opposition to drilling in ANWR is not limited to "true motive," one can in fact have a host of motives.[/quote]


One can [I]claim [/I]to have a host of motives but in politics there is generally one overriding factor. In this case, Obama knows that the environmental groups have , in effect, a veto over the Democratic Presidential Nominee. He's barely going to nip Hillary at the tape and he could not have done so with the opposition of "Big Green". It's easy to stand up to special interests that don't support you. It's much tougher to do when they give you money. As far as I can tell, BHO has never done the latter, and would seek to make the former an act deserving of sainthood.

Drilling for oil in ANWR is so obviously in the national interest, that only someone enthralled with the narrow interests of the extreme environmental left could be oppossed. Of course, that means the vast majority of Democrats.

Also I'm sure that in referring to the Democrats you meant "whole" and not "hole" but the mistake is understandable,[I] on the whole[/I].

Re: F... gas prices
 

70, while I agree with soem of what you said just about all of it could apply in a vice versa way to Republicans. it is the folly of our system.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[QUOTE=saden1;449280]JoeRedskin, I haven't forgotten about you. Sit tight, you'll have thorough response when I manage to get some free time.[/QUOTE]

No worries. I assumed as much. You wacko lefty commies always take forever to figure out the intellectual stuff. :)

Re: F... gas prices
 

Oil prices continue to soar...

[url=http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/21/markets/oil_eia/]Crude oil sets a new record above $130 a barrel on Wednesday - May. 21, 2008[/url]

Re: F... gas prices
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;449289]Why is hydrgen our best bet? That sounds like one of the "common knowledge" innaccruacies to me. And why would oil companies struggle to make money off a resource like that? And while we're at it where did I say making money was going to be easy anyways? I thought I made a clear argument that gov't needs to artificially create a market where oil can make money. We'd need to create motivation.

I also tend to think that gov't sponsored research could do the trick. I just notice that history suggests it'll take 30 years before we get anything usable. For fast effective solutions history suggest the free market beats gov't research pants off.[/QUOTE]

What I discussed with Daseal is a Nuclear/Hydrogen combo. Nuclear power would give us enough cheap, green electricity to power home hydrogen generation stations (extract hydrogen via electrolysis) that would allow us to fill our cars in our garage.

Re: F... gas prices
 

I don't have enought posts to start a thread on this, so maybe someone else can do that, but how f'n dumb is it to propose "suing" OPEC? For those of you who do not know, our wonderful Congress has passed legislation making it possible to sue OPEC with our antitrust laws. Dumb, dumb, and dumber! This was a bi-partisan effort as well, talk about political pandering! OPEC controls roughly 40 % of the world's oil, and they are heavily invested in our oil infrastructure, i.e. refineries. What do you think is going to happen if we sue them? They'll just stop production, refuse to sell to the U.S. or shut down the refineries here. Talk about gas prices skyrocketing, doubling or tripling over night! While armies of lawyers fight that out, the American people would have years of 7$7-8 dollar gas! Remember when those families sued Libya over that airline bombing in Europe? That litigation dragged on for years! I hope Bush is smart enough to veto this piece of crap. Yes, the price of gas is awful, but both political parties put us in this situation, they both share the blame. However, despite the high price, at least gas is available for sale. If anyone is old enough to remember the 70s, then remember that gas was not even available, it was literally rationed out as people waited in gas lines for hours and hours. I'll gladly pay $4/gallon if I can get it now as opposed to reliving the 70s oil embargo.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=firstdown;449267]I totally agree and have said that I would love for the Republicans to present a bill just for exploration of oil in Anwr and other areas just to make people either vote for or against. This would be perfect timing with the current gas prices.[/quote]

The Dems just voted one down LAST WEEK.

Idiots. They still claim "but it will take years to develop!"

That's MORE of a reason to start it NOW. If they HAD voted for it during the Clinton years, we'd be using that oil TODAY.

The real reason they won't vote for it because their campaigns are funded by environmentalists who oppose it and will stop writing checks if they do what's right for America.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[b]see Post # 95[/b]

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=Buster;449561][B]see Post # 95[/B][/quote]
For the people who do not want to go thread hunting here is a link to that post and everyone should read to know on of the main causes for high oil prices. To add to that the far left has stopped just about everthing we have tried to pass in the past couple of years for oil exploration, oil refineries, nuclear, natural gas etc... saying they are protecting the enviroment. [url=http://newsmax.com/hostetter/anwr_oil_senate/2008/05/14/96049.html]Newsmax.com - Senate Blocks ANWR Oil Exploration[/url]

Re: F... gas prices
 

buster, did you read that article? John McCain missed the vote, but said he would have voted against it, also. maybe its not just Dem's that have their campaigns funded by environmentalists?

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=dmek25;449603]buster, did you read that article? John McCain missed the vote, but said he would have voted against it, also. maybe its not just Dem's that have their campaigns funded by environmentalists?[/quote]
The article said that a few Rep. voted against some of these Bills which there is a few that are more liberal than conservative. Its like here in Va Dems tend to lean more to the middle than to the left. McCain is clearly not the best choice for the Rep. but thats who we got.

Let me clear up that last statement. I vote most of the time Rep. but on several occasions have felt that the Dem was the better choice and voted for them.

Re: F... gas prices
 

Gas went from $3.85 on Wednesday to $4.02 on Friday. WTF I think it literally went up 3 times in one day.

Re: F... gas prices
 

In the summer, in Maryland, gas is required to have a certain additive (it's an anti-pollution measure). B/c of the additive is more costly AND has been limited in its production, gas prices will see an additional spike above the increased costs of oil.

Re: F... gas prices
 

On the Today show a while back a spokesman for a group of economist said they expected prices to cap out at 12-15 bucks. I find that high, but I bet the current price stays around. Supply and demand -- our lack of foresight is killing us once again. It seems like we never try to be proactive.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[QUOTE=Buster;449559]The Dems just voted one down LAST WEEK.

Idiots. They still claim "but it will take years to develop!"

That's MORE of a reason to start it NOW. If they HAD voted for it during the Clinton years, we'd be using that oil TODAY.

The real reason they won't vote for it because their campaigns are funded by environmentalists who oppose it and will stop writing checks if they do what's right for America.""

I will tell you and everyone now. Any one who votes against drilling in the states will not get my vote. I would think that running against someone voting again on shore drilling would not be too difficult. All one would have to do is run a commercial stating what your opponent has done about high gas prices and what you will do

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=Mattyk72;449820]Gas went from $3.85 on Wednesday to $4.02 on Friday. WTF I think it literally went up 3 times in one day.[/quote]
I recall reading that, in VA at least, it can only go up once per day. The idea was to keep gas stations from implicitly colluding. I haven't verified there is a law on the books, though.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=Skins fan 44;449889]
I will tell you and everyone now. Any one who votes against drilling in the states will not get my vote. I would think that running against someone voting again on shore drilling would not be too difficult. All one would have to do is run a commercial stating what your opponent has done about high gas prices and what you will do[/quote]
all 3 are against the drilling. now what do you do?

Re: F... gas prices
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;449912]all 3 are against the drilling. now what do you do?[/QUOTE]

Vote for someone that will drill. Someone will run that will favor drilling.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=dmek25;449912]all 3 are against the drilling. now what do you do?[/quote]
get really pissed off about how much they all suck

Re: F... gas prices
 

Gas sucks. I drive a cab and my gas expenses more than double my rent!

Re: F... gas prices
 

I broke down and got my wife a horse.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=dmek25;449603]buster, did you read that article? John McCain missed the vote, but said he would have voted against it, also. maybe its not just Dem's that have their campaigns funded by environmentalists?[/quote]
Off shore drilling voted down today on a party line vote. We better get out there before the Cubans and Chinese.

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365627,00.html"]FOXNews.com - House Subcommittee Rejects Plan to Open U.S. Waters to More Oil Exploration - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum[/URL]