What's the story with high gas prices? watch!
youtube.com — New video hits the streets to ask why people thought gas prices were so high, who was to blame, and what could be done to lower them.
tkeeley- 392 diggs
- digg it
- tkeeley, on 06/30/2008, -27/+22Definitely a good video. The unfortunate thing about most debates these days is that everyone tries to cram everything into 10 second soundbites that works well on TV. It's good to see something that goes a little further into detail and offers some perspective at the same time.
- aliengoods, on 06/30/2008, -5/+19Good video? I beg to differ. It start off talking about who controls the oil but fails to mention that oil companies in the US control the refining and distribution. What does it matter who controls the crude when we still need the middle man who picks our pockets clean.
Also, how does asking a lot of people who basically are responding to buzz words further the discussion?- Badandy127, on 06/30/2008, -5/+5The middle man picks our pockets clean? You mean the 8-10% profit companies like Exxon make? Get a clue, it's OPEC and regional instability.
- thcobbs, on 06/30/2008, -1/+7Its also the rise of environmentalism in the USA.
Increased taxes on gasoline to discourage driving, preventing any new refineries from being built in the last 30 years, and boutique fuels are more of a cause than the cost of oil per barrel.
- provost, on 06/30/2008, -5/+24its propoganda.
The oil companies are sitting on top of 80+million acres of untapped leases that they can excersize at any point they want in the US. they only work 10 million acres.
There has only been 1 request for a lease in the last 40 years and it was granted. The refineries are working at 80% capacity. If it was an issue of supply and demand, these numbers would all be dramatically different.
Those leases are like money in the bank for them. They dont want the land so they can drill, they want the land so they can sit on it like cash in the bank for the future. They want to be sitting on those commodities.
The problem is the enron written speculation loophole laws that were pioneered by the finance head of mccain's campaign. There is no trade cap and the price can be artificially inflated however high they want it to go when they only require 5% of the actual value down.
Its amazing how when there was a housing crisis, everyone thought it was stupid.. no way is it supply and demand. As soon as oil comes into it, it MUST be supply and demand, there is no other possibility!
This video is propaganda.- MindStalker, on 06/30/2008, -3/+3Of course its propaganda, though your statement about leases is 90% crap. Almost all the off shore leases are small independent companies.
1) Small independent oil company gets lease.
2) Does some exploratory drilling.
3) Finds a small amount of of oil but not enough to impress investors.
4) Plan falls though.
The price for oil has just recently become high enough that looking at these leases again are starting to become worth it. Do you really think we'd be bothering trying to get shale oil out of the desert if these off shore leases were brimming full of tons of oil? - Loonatickle, on 06/30/2008, -2/+1provost, you clearly don't understand how the market works. The US oil companies are all publicly traded and priced based primarily on short-term earnings. If additional billions in profits were there for the taking, as you described, the shareholders would want them immediately, and the directors and executives would give it to them, because they'd gain more in share price increases than in raw profit.
- provost, on 06/30/2008, -0/+290% this. got facts to back up your statements?
http://www.ewg.org/oil_and_gas/execsumm.php
loonatickle: dude, go back to middle school economics where that statement came from. - citizen782, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2@Loonatickle: If you only knew how dumb your statement is to those who do understand. You just asserted that someone does not know how "the market" works while describing the stock market. It has almost nothing to do with the price of oil which is traded on the international commodities market regulated by the CFTC.
Unbelievable. And a true testament to what we're up against with regards to public education on this problem.
- MindStalker, on 06/30/2008, -3/+3Of course its propaganda, though your statement about leases is 90% crap. Almost all the off shore leases are small independent companies.
- mrmontrose, on 06/30/2008, -2/+9Its a fondation backed by oil companies
Institute for Energy Research has received $212,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
2003
$37,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: Institute for Energy Research website 5/04
2004
$45,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving (a quarter of total revenue in this year)
Climate Change and Energy Policy Issues
Source: ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report
2005
$65,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 Worldwide Giving Report
2006
$65,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report
{source http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institu ...
also the president was public relation manager at enron:
source : http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institu ...
CAN WE SAY PROPAGANDA? - LuxFX, on 06/30/2008, -1/+8Amazon says:
Other users that liked this video also liked:
- The Bomb is Still Out There: Scientific Validity of Post-WWII Propaganda, by George W. Bush
- Support Your Lobbyists, A Video Handbook
- Green: The Color of Evil (and other reasons why we don't really need polar bears), by Amoco, Inc.
- Guide to Effectively Using the DMCA, by the RIAA
--------- (add "How Copyright Works, by the RIAA" to this purchase and get a $10 discount!)
- Expelled
- Fox News - citizen782, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1You want to see oil prices reduced? Here are some necessary steps. Unfortunately most won't see the light of day as long as oil investors are reaping rewards under the current system:
1. The CFTC and the Federal Reserve can step in and limit futures contracts to only those buyers who will actually take delivery.
2. The investment margins on short futures need to be increased to make it more costly for hedge funds to speculate.
3. The margin increase needs to be implemented with immediate effect to avoid any short term rally on short futures.
4. Watch the price at the pump drop within a matter of months.
5. Watch this video again and laugh at it.
- aliengoods, on 06/30/2008, -5/+19Good video? I beg to differ. It start off talking about who controls the oil but fails to mention that oil companies in the US control the refining and distribution. What does it matter who controls the crude when we still need the middle man who picks our pockets clean.
- P8triot1, on 06/30/2008, -24/+39This seems like a whitewash of what's happening. We've already heard in Congressional hearings that "supply and demand" has nothing to do with the price of gasoline. It's the excess profits of the speculators who are risking things with no collateral, and no conscience.
- tkeeley, on 06/30/2008, -7/+25It's funny how the argument for the problems with oil went from everyone blaming the oil companies for their profits, to now blaming the speculators. Do we blame the airlines for hedging their oil purchases next? Even if you want to blame speculators for the price, if you go after them in the oil markets, you might as well go after them in every commodity based market, since they've always been there, when the price was high and when the price was low. Nobody was complaining about them when the prices were lower.
The growth of emerging markets is by far the strongest traceable culprit for the rise in oil prices.- aliengoods, on 06/30/2008, -3/+6I'll give you that speculators are in every commodity market, but oil is quite a bit different. Oil is very necessary to the functioning of our society. While I hope that changes, right now it will remain the same.
- citizen782, on 06/30/2008, -1/+9Those of you who are digging tkeeley's comment are not in tune with commodities trading. Other commodities are not traded like oil and most require larger margins (increasing the investment risk). This is the only thing congress is going after - increased margins. Right now the margin is only 5% even on the short fund. The only argument presented against the margin increase is the threat of a short term rally. In fact many analysts believe part of the price we're seeing right now is based upon their mere discussion of margin increases by Congress.
If an actual margin increase was announced their could be a short term rally, prior to implementation, that would drive prices at the pump through the roof. The solution? Implement the margins with immediate effect and without public or media notice. It could happen.
Either way asking Joe Shmoe on the street why he thinks gas prices are so high is like asking him for the recipe for rocket fuel. People haven't got a clue how commodities or futures trading works so the investors will just sit back and love the fact that the masses and media yell "supply and demand" and "emerging energy markets". Unfortunately our policy makers don't have a clue either since they're bombarded by misinformation in addition to valid financial market claims. Raise the margins with immediate effect and the most skeptical commodity trading analysts agree the price at the pump could be reduced by almost 40% within a few months. That's the reality. - BobOki, on 06/30/2008, -3/+2They could make it retroactive as well.
- bratpack8, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Exactly. To blame speculators is absurd. There are many factors that play a part. The increasing demand for oil (China, India, etc.). The inflating of the dollars is the one that is most overlooked though. A few months ago, the WSJ had a chart showing the rise of oil against the dollar (up 350%), against the Euro (up 160%) and against gold (even). That should tell you how much money our government is printing.
- vonmises05, on 06/30/2008, -12/+14I concur with tkeeley and he is right on the money. In further response to "P8triot1", the speculators are not the bad guys, it is the federal tax on gas coupled with the lack of drilling for domestic oil in ANWR and most importantly oil shale reserves in CO, WY, and UT. This development was blocked under the Clinton administration. The same argument against drilling then was used just a few weeks ago by Obama, "There is no point in opening up the oil fields now as they won't lower prices for several years." Well, that's a farce. The speculators you blame buy and sell according to prices in the future. They are factoring in the fact that there is no domestic drilling, that demand is going up and supply is going down. Of course they are going to sell at a higher price because every day oil is becoming more and more "rare". Allow for drilling in the US, speculators compute that and it factor in, and we have lower prices w/ the help of the "evil speculators." Do your homework before you comment on a market you know nothing about.
- tkstock, on 06/30/2008, -5/+3Well said. I've been trying to say that for a while... :) http://tomstock.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/the-drill ...
(I've even called them "Evil Speculators" in other comments on DIGG!!!) - aliengoods, on 06/30/2008, -6/+4The federal tax on gas?! Do you really think that 18.4 cents/gallon plays in that significantly?
- tkstock, on 06/30/2008, -2/+1Do you agree with everything else? Since you only bring up the gas tax, I guess you do.
I agree the gas tax plays a small role in the overall scheme. - koft, on 06/30/2008, -2/+13You need to do some homework before you advocate drilling ANWR and sites off the coasts.
The problem with drilling for oil off the restricted coasts or in ANWR is that the oil reserves is a drop on the bucket compared to the total world market. Seriously, you can drill the sh*t out of it and it's only going to drop the price of a barrel of oil on the market by $0.70 at best, and it will take 10 years to get there.
Don't get me wrong, there's a butt load of money to be made off drilling in ANWR and off the coasts, especially with oil selling for over $130 a barrel, the problem is that you and I aren't going to see a damn difference when it comes to the prices at the pump.
In 2005 we consumed 7.5 billion barrels of oil. US consumption of oil per day in 2004 was 20 million barrels a day. Peak oil output from ANWR is 780,000 barrels a day, in 2027. 10 years just to get started and peak in 2027. If we could tap the entire field in one year, we'd burn through it in less than a year. We're talking about decades to tap this fuc*er and even longer for the off shore based rigs. It's a drop in the bucket. Our oil reserves are like 2% of the entire world. We've been in oil production decline for 30 years.
The only way to make the price of a barrel of oil go down is to find a deposit you can drill that has sufficient quantity that you can flood the market which makes the supply greater than the demand by a good bit. 4 billion in ANWR or 4 - 8 billion possibly on the coasts doesn't do that. It's peanuts, it's less than the total yearly consumption of the US. It's a lot of money, but it's only going to save you maybe $0.10 on the price of gas in 10 years. Why would you promote that? Promoting that policy just puts piles of cash in the pockets of the oil execs, who have already transfered most of their wealth abroad. They won't feel the pain of the US economy circling the drain as market demand exceeds global oil supplies. The problem with the collapse of mortgage backed financial instruments straining the dollar, combined with the intersection of oil demand approaching the limit of supply makes me wonder why any average guy would ever support the transfer of more wealth to the top 0.5%
It gets even worse when you see the subsidy packages being drafted in congress to pull this fiasco off by the so called "conservatives". Billions of tax dollars spent to offset the cost of the drilling to pull enough oil out of the ground to reduce the price of a gallon of gasoline by 2 cents. I hope people who support this have some stock in the right oil companies, lest you find out that after the subsidies you actually paid more for a gallon of gasoline than if you just left it in the ground. - tkstock, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3koft, same tired old argument "it will only drop the price by $0.01 and it'll take 10 years."
Democrat Senator Charles Schumer, no proponent of ANWR drilling, admits that “one million barrels per day,” would cause the price of gasoline to fall “50 cents a gallon almost immediately,” according to a recent George Will column.
I believe it was Murtha who blasted OPEC for not increasing production by 1 million barrels a day, which he said would drop oil prices by $25 / barrel. But that same 1 million barrels coming domestically would only save us $0.01?
"Peak oil output from ANWR is 780,000 barrels a day, in 2027. 10 years just to get started and peak in 2027" Where does this information come from?
It's been said with our reserves off the coasts, in ANWR, and our oil-shale deposits we actually might have more than the middle east in its entirety, but no one really knows, so how do you?
"The only way to make the price of a barrel of oil go down is to find a deposit you can drill that has sufficient quantity that you can flood the market which makes the supply greater than the demand by a good bit" Supply doesn't have to be greater than demand, but what you need is supply security. Oil price in the markets are set by supply / demand conditions as well as speculation on what the future supply will be. So, if the future supply looks to be greater than it is today, the price of oil will go down.
It's funny how the further you go down in your mini-article, the less we're going to save from drilling - 10 cents to 2 cents. I guess it just underscores the fact that you use sensationalism and not facts to make your point. - MasterPain, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1The government will start drilling for oil in the US when they need it not because the price is high. They need to be sure they can always fuel the war machine.
- citizen782, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1vonmises05 - Prior to my response to tkeeleys post, which you may or may not have read, did you even know what the margin on the short fund for energy trading is? Do you know what a margin is before heading to Google? I've found that those who quickly dismiss speculation as part of the problem usually know little or nothing about the details of commodities trading in general.
It's kind of a no-brainer that drilling will be factored in to 13 year futures. But that means little if the investment risk up front is little or nothing. The best way that most people would understand it today is equating it to house flipping with little or no investment and no credit risk. I can buy a house that costs $200K for $10K down and say "when I'm done this house will be worth $100K more" - and if it's not what do I care? I'll sell it for $130K if it depreciates and I still got my $10K back and no hit on my credit.
Oil companies love the speculative price to be high. If it doesn't work out and prices decrease on the futures, all that money you're spending at the pump right now is pure profit. Since they are selling you gas today for what is speculated that it will cost them to replace it in the future. No one loses in oil trading in the commodities market. It is virtually risk free at today's margins. - honesttussey, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1tkstock, you are aware the if we began construction TODAY of offshore oil rigs and drills in ANWR you wouldn't see the first drop of crude oil for 10 years? Tell me how that will provide short term economic relief? It won't, it's an illusion. Here's an idea. Invest money on aternative energies so we don't have to worry about oil. End our freaking oil addiction and this becomes a non issue.
Off shore drilling is just a freaking bandaid on a bullet wound. What you don't think this EXACT same situation will hapeen down the road 10 to 20 years from now if we don't get off oil?
Lets try to act smartly for once.
Source: http://www.clusterstock.com/2008/6/no_short_term_f ... - tkstock, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1honesttussey,
Putting a bandage on a bullet wound until you get to the hospital is a good idea. Most paramedics do it - they don't just leave the wound open and allow the patient to bleed to death.
There are 247,421,120 registered passenger vehicles according to a 2005 DOT study. Do you think all of those will be replaced in the next 10 years?
What about all the truckers who won't have electric trucks in the next 10 years?
"Future technology" is a good long-term solution, but we need to diversify our energy supply as quickly as possible.
And, it's mostly the liberals who say it will take 10 years to drill. Off the coast it would take half that time.
- tkstock, on 06/30/2008, -5/+3Well said. I've been trying to say that for a while... :) http://tomstock.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/the-drill ...
- dilpil1, on 06/30/2008, -2/+7Speculation IS supply and demand. Specifically, its demand.
The validity of that demand is questionable.
However, consider this. If speculators are the ones driving the prices of oil up so high, we are currently in the middle of an 'oil bubble'. Like all bubbles created by speculation, it will inevitably burst. If you believe this is the case, feel free to short oil futures and put your money where your mouth is.
Didn't think so.- citizen782, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1The problem is many hedge funds are indeed buying into the "oil bubble" you describe because they do not agree that this bubble will "inevitably burst". And with their risk so low, again because of margins, they don't really care if it does.
- kaplanfx, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Speculation IS NOT supply and demand. Speculation is BETTING on future supply and demand. If the future supply exceeds the predicted demand, or is reduced significantly but supply comes in as expected, the oil prices will fall out.
Problem is the damage to the economy will be significant. In other words average Joe American pays for the speculators betting. In fact he pays twice, once from the damaged economy and once because the fed will print more money to stimulate the crashing economy, but it will actually have the effect of making Joe American's dollars worth less. The speculator doesn't lose at all due to the margins, he just moves on to the next big investment opportunity and starts right in on creating the next big bubble.
- jerwin, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4I read a recent report that took the position that a 30 Sq mile solar farm in the middle of the Mohave desert could supply all of the energy needs for the entire state of California. COOL, I thought. I also know that there are already much smaller solar farms out there so presumably some/many of the problems with power transmission and storage are being addressed.
I then, several days later, read another report that development of these solar farms is being slowed/restricted by the government so they can examine the environmental impact of such farms.
Doesn't this seem like it points directly at the issue regarding energy? It isn't that we necessarily need new technologies, we seem to have technologies now that can deeply impact our reliance on oil. It seems that the real issue is actually allowing us to use these technologies and solve the problem.
This is very frustrating to me.- digitizit, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1When you consider that it would cost ~$10,000 to put up solar panels to power my house, how much do you think it would cost to build a 30 square mile farm? Who is going to pay for that?
There are certainly environmental impacts of covering that much space as you mentioned, but the bigger issue is going to be $$$. It always comes back to money. - jerwin, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1Um, I'm no expert, but I would assume that 'selling' the power generated by said solar farm would pay off the bonds that had to be floated to pay for said solar farm...
How do you think coal plants, hydro dams and other electrical generation facilities get paid for? Why would this be any different?
- digitizit, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1When you consider that it would cost ~$10,000 to put up solar panels to power my house, how much do you think it would cost to build a 30 square mile farm? Who is going to pay for that?
- richmomz, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2It's inflation, combined with growing global demand and dwindling supply from easily extractable deposits. We're not "running out" of oil per say, there's actually skads of it left - the problem is that most of these remaining deposits (shale oil, deep sea areas, etc.) are much more expensive and difficult to extract from.
- tkeeley, on 06/30/2008, -7/+25It's funny how the argument for the problems with oil went from everyone blaming the oil companies for their profits, to now blaming the speculators. Do we blame the airlines for hedging their oil purchases next? Even if you want to blame speculators for the price, if you go after them in the oil markets, you might as well go after them in every commodity based market, since they've always been there, when the price was high and when the price was low. Nobody was complaining about them when the prices were lower.
- Fangsinmybeard, on 06/30/2008, -16/+38We have gone way past the point to where we can lower gas prices back down. We will have to abandon gasoline period. It is just too expensive.
- sexybobo, on 06/30/2008, -7/+2*****. I would believe to but to this day i have still never seen some one not go on vacation or not go some where because gas prices are to high. People are bitching and moaning but gas can go quite a bit higher before people stop buying it as much.
- Wargalas, on 06/30/2008, -2/+6I call ***** on your *****.
Demand in the US has been steadily declining over the past 6 months and you're being lied to:
http://www.rightwinglunatic.com/2008/06/opec-is-ly ... - JayWTBF, on 06/30/2008, -0/+12Hi, meet me. I'm am someone who has cut out all excessive driving inluding vacation and driving the 40 miles to see my parents for the holidays or family get togethers. I bought airline tickets with southwest three months ago for my stepkids to visit thier dad instead of driving the 12 hours to get them there. All becuase gas to way too expensive. I was living comfortably one year ago (very comfortably two years ago), now we have to balance food and gas versus bills and house note.
Nice to meet you, now stop saying no one is hurting. - icexe, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1"*****. I would believe to but to this day i have still never seen some one not go on vacation or not go some where because gas prices are to high"
You need to go get your eyes checked then, because everyone I know has altered their driving to some degree, and nationwide, we have driven almost 30 billion less miles this year than we did just last year.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-19-dri ...
- Wargalas, on 06/30/2008, -2/+6I call ***** on your *****.
- mike17032, on 06/30/2008, -5/+4Ya, to bad that isnt gonna happen anytime. As much as the hippies want to pretend otherwise, there is simply no viable alternative coming anytime soon.
- cJw314, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3"...thanks to big oil."
Forgot that last bit there, Mike17032. - mojoface, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1No viable alternative? What about hybrid or electric cars?
Also, the Japanese made a car run solely on water
http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84561 - honesttussey, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1yea forgot solar energy totally doesn't work. It's like some failed high school experiment. MORE OIL PLEASE!
- MeatyMcBeef, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2I'll believe the water car when it goes into mass production. This may be the most realistic looking "water car" I've seen but so far every water-fuel vehicle or power supply has been debunked after people have looked into the possibility of production.
Also don't give me the "oil companies stifle this stuff!" crap because honestly if that was the case in the past, the money in a renewable alternative to oil is so great right now if an alternative existed in the hands of an oil company we'd see it in use today.
- cJw314, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3"...thanks to big oil."
- citizen782, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1"What about hybrid or electric cars? "
I love the idealists who think that Americans are eager to go buy a little plastic car to drive at 75 MPH on the highway beside a semi in the next decade. Where's my affordable 300HP Hybrid? Now, try again. - jonnyboy1544, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1Keep dreaming.
- sexybobo, on 06/30/2008, -7/+2*****. I would believe to but to this day i have still never seen some one not go on vacation or not go some where because gas prices are to high. People are bitching and moaning but gas can go quite a bit higher before people stop buying it as much.
- xXRUSHXx, on 06/30/2008, -10/+61It's the devaluation of the dollar !
- borez, on 06/30/2008, -17/+3Please..
- JJCDAD, on 06/30/2008, -1/+20Exactly! Let's print some more!
- diggthis123, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0Here is a hypothetical question:
If we can print our own money, and we buy overseas goods with that money which has an artificial value - would we have to work again? - dogson, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Nobody wants US dollars.
- diggthis123, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0Here is a hypothetical question:
- diggthis123, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4Yeah it is - the buying power of the dollar is pathetic today
- brenthals, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5Mostly right actually. The value of oil worldwide is based on the American dollar, so as the vale of the dollar decreases it takes more dollars to purchase oil. Knowing that, investors are banking on the weakened American dollar and investing in oil (just as they would gold, bonds, etc...). Investors are the main source of all the heightened demand for oil right now.
It's just not all that simple, so many variables that play into this crappy game that hurts average Joe. - Stormwern, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4It's a combination
OPEC has increased the price of crude oil by ~2$, of which 50c is due to the dollar drop
The gas price has gone up by ~3$, 1$ more than the price of oil, the difference being cashed in by the oil companies. - richmomz, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Inflation is certainly a big part of it.
- citizen782, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Well then it's cyclical because the price of oil is directly contributing.
- greeneyedgirl63, on 06/30/2008, -23/+15I've always purchased an SUV every two to three years. Not too long ago I went to a sedan to save on gas. Now I'm on crutches after 2 knee surgeries that resulted from being hit by a driver who was on his cell phone driving 55 mph in a 20 mph zone. This happened on the 1st day I bought the sedan. I had $13K in damage to the car and I will never climb stairs or fully bend my knee again.
So....I can't afford $4 a gallon in gas no matter WHAT I'm driving...but if gas prices came down (ever) I'd get another SUV and feel safe again.
Sorry for the rambling.- baylat, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5Sorry to hear about that.
- aliengoods, on 06/30/2008, -1/+8Feel safe is the optimal choice of words. A 55MPH impact is pretty bad regardless of the vehicle you drive. If that were a side impact, you likely would have rolled the vehicle.
- Makaveli5022, on 06/30/2008, -7/+12it's stupid that someone would ever purchase a SUV because it's safer. the logic that you kill them instead of them killing you is epic fail. if everyone drove sedans noone would get killed. as the accident, im sorry, it does suck, however i've never been in one to feel your pain.
- nonymous666, on 06/30/2008, -4/+3If you didn't spend so much many by buying a new vehicle every two years, you'd not have to worry so much about gas prices.
- RexxHavoc, on 06/30/2008, -4/+9great ...so next time you could be the one to inflict injury whilst you are persieving yourself to be safe
love the mentality
next time ride a bus if you are so insecure- MasterPain, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0Ya so this can happen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_sdMYUmMQ0 - RexxHavoc, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0are there 50,000 + deaths in mass transit vehicles every year?
no, but then again you may not realize how "generic" playing devil's advocate has gotten... have you?
- MasterPain, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0Ya so this can happen
- skipdog172, on 06/30/2008, -3/+9I'm sorry but if your concern was safety there are plenty of small cars with high safety ratings.
It does suck you got hit, but don't blame it on "you not having an SUV". There are plenty of safe small economy cars, you should've picked one, but the fact that you didn't means that safety must not have been on your mind. - kazolar, on 06/30/2008, -2/+2I was hit head on by drunk driver driving full size Explorer, due to the hight of the vehicle and the way the tire flew of the axle, I can honestly say I would have been much more seriously hurt had I not been driving an SUV myself. It is not about safety ratings of compact cars, it is about the fact that there are people out there driving Hummers and Expeditions and so forth, and if one of those hits a Prius, there won't be much left of it, it's not about feeling safe, it's about the fact that at least in the northeast, the majority of people still drive very large vehicles.
- MattB123, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3That does it. My next car will be an 18 wheeler with a trailer full of concrete.
- hokie47, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1More power to you if you can buy a new car every 2 years, but really who does that. Even rich people hold on to their car for a little longer.
- deMonkey, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Just wondering, were you hit by an SUV?
The solution to safer streets isn't let everyone drive big vehicles, it's reducing the number of big vehicles on the road. I see so many people going 85-90+ on the highway driving some 5500 pound boat. I think most of the drivers have never heard of kinetic energy, and have no idea what happens when the guy in front of them slams on the brakes.
SUVs and giant farm trucks driven by every mom/commuter/dude on cell phone make the roads much more dangerous than if they all just drove something smaller. Many of those huge vehicles have the same or less seating capacity of much smaller vehicles, too. But the majority of people don't use it anyway. - homercles337, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1What a stupid comment. You feel "safer" in an SUV? Maybe you need to learn some decent driving techniques that will make you feel "safe" in any car.
- txchica, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1What an asinine reply, it doesn't really matter how well you drive when someone slams into you doing 55mph in a 20mph zone.
- lukas88, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1I am sorry to hear about your accident. I think public transportation is actually the safest way to go plus it would be much more proactive.
- txchica, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Public transportation is great if you live in an area where it's available, but for a lot of people it's not an option.
- OpCzar, on 06/30/2008, -14/+4No one has a definitive answer and I don't care about passerby opinion.
- diamondbigdog, on 06/30/2008, -20/+15Knowledge is a wonderful thing. They keep saying it will take 10 years to develop, which is what they said 10 years ago. They pushed for alternatives then and there are no new ones now. Let's get our own oil and work on new technology at the same time.
We cannot stop using oil until we have something better. Those who say we cannot drill our way out of the problem are idiots. that is like telling a starving man he cannot eat his way out of starvation or a dehydrated man he cannot drink his way out of dehydration.- acbrown, on 06/30/2008, -3/+9Excellent point. No one is saying that we should just expand drilling and cut off all research for alternative fuels. The smart option is to drill what we have to meet current needs while simultaneously encouraging research that will yield an alternative source of energy. It's not an "all or nothing" choice like the radical environmental lobby would have the public believe. In fact, if you approach any solution from an "all or nothing" mindset, then you probably haven't thought deeply enough about the problem.
One other point - the oil companies are a business and they want to be able to sustain that business well into the future. With that in mind, a person who really thinks about the current energy crisis (as opposed to one who follows along blindly with the reactionary environmental lobby) would come to the logical conclusion that it is actually in the best interests of the oil companies to invest in alternative sources of energy, and that the effort by some in government to place the blame entirely on the shoulders of the "evil" oil companies is simply dishonest political posturing. - NotOptium, on 06/30/2008, -1/+9You say that it's like telling a starving man he can't eat his way out of his problem. I say it's more like telling a starving man he can't eat ex-lax chocolate bars to solve his hunger problem. It might quell the hunger for a second when it gets down there, but in a few minutes it's going to be a ***** storm.
- glaive, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5@diamondbigdog - We need a solution that's workable now, not ten years from now. Drilling in the OCS isn't a short-term solution. It's just another long term option. And not a very good one at that. Thinking otherwise is just moronic.
- tkstock, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Yet the "evil speculators" who speculate on supply and demand would ignore the fact that we will have future domestic oil production and just keep the price of oil rising because they're all in collusion, right?
In fact, dropping the ban would probably drop the price of oil today with the promise of future supply, so it may be a mid-term solution with short-term effects.
We need a solution that will be in place 10 years from now also. You won't be able to replace the entire US car population with oil-free alternatives by then, so we need the solution for 10 years from now also.
And, most oil companies say 5 to 7 years to get started.
- tkstock, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Yet the "evil speculators" who speculate on supply and demand would ignore the fact that we will have future domestic oil production and just keep the price of oil rising because they're all in collusion, right?
- marx2k, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2"Those who say we cannot drill our way out of the problem are idiots. that is like telling a starving man he cannot eat his way out of starvation or a dehydrated man he cannot drink his way out of dehydration."
Politicians have got you believing that you will satiate your hunger by them giving you one m&m (drilling in ANWAR) or giving you a wet napkin to suck the water out of. Yes, you will be fuller by one m&m. You will be less thirsty by a few drops of water.- tkstock, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3I would rather be less thirsty than dead from dehydration.
ANWR promises to produce 5% of our domestic demand, and we could have considerably more if we drill off the coasts and develop the oil-shale deposits.
These are proven ways of getting us energy supplies, not relying on technologies that are not fully developed and available to use. We will still be driving gas-cars in 10 years, so we will need domestic supply security, regardless. - marx2k, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0Except... it still would go to the world market and not directly into our reserves so we'd still need an alternative
- tkstock, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3I would rather be less thirsty than dead from dehydration.
- pintomp3, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3ten years from now we'd save a whopping 3 cents per gallon. meanwhile the oil companies have leases in hundreds of acres they aren't exploring.
- Stormwern, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2See "who killed the electric car", good documentary.
- acbrown, on 06/30/2008, -3/+9Excellent point. No one is saying that we should just expand drilling and cut off all research for alternative fuels. The smart option is to drill what we have to meet current needs while simultaneously encouraging research that will yield an alternative source of energy. It's not an "all or nothing" choice like the radical environmental lobby would have the public believe. In fact, if you approach any solution from an "all or nothing" mindset, then you probably haven't thought deeply enough about the problem.
- iancgi, on 06/30/2008, -10/+22Its the dollar dummies!
- borez, on 06/30/2008, -8/+3No, it's ***** not/
- antoniamart, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3It's China and India. We have to start sharing and we are facing those growing pains. Prices will only come down when stop using so much of it.
- john2kx, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Agreed.. Inflation is partly to blame.
- homercles337, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1No its not. Also, its not due to China and India. It has been shown time and time again that supply has far outstripped demand. Can you idiot repugs do some research and inform yourselves. Rush and Faux News are not the best source for keeping informed. Try turning on NPR once and a while.
- bstein80, on 06/30/2008, -12/+13We need to drink our own milkshake first, before drinking Saudi milkshakes.
- NotOptium, on 06/30/2008, -5/+3My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.
- bs0l, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5What if we stop drinking milkshakes altogether? They're not too healthy anyway. We should drink something else.
- cc1263, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4Saudi milkshakes are full of sand and jihadists, they don't go down that well.
- citizen782, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Canada is the leading supplier of foreign oil to the US genius.
- vonmises05, on 06/30/2008, -20/+12Gas prices are high do to a variety of reasons, none of which cannot be solved by allowing the market to function freely. 1) Gas taxes by the federal government: I Don't care what your particular state tax is, but a federal tax on gas is an overreaching and a travesty in todays oil-hungry world. It must be repealed, and those who vote senators in who keep the gas tax must vote them out of office. 2) Supply and Demand: We have a booming, oil-hungry global economy, and the supply of oil is less than the demand for it. This makes oil somewhat of a rarity, and thus more expensive every day. Open up ANWR and oil shale production in CO, WY and UT (this means you, Sen. Salazar of CO) and get with the program. 3) Speculators: are, you guessed it...NOT the problem. Speculators are simply factoring in the high demand and the low supply of oil. No one blamed them when the price of oil was low, did they? And to answer the left, who states that drilling domestically would have no impact on prices for ten years, you're wrong (yet again). If we start drilling in the US, speculators will factor that into their future prices, and the more we drill here, the lower the prices will get. The market is a complex and multi-faceted conglomeration of several different things all acting on one another. You need to look at the whole picture before blaming any one place in order to be a true economist.
- mike17032, on 06/30/2008, -1/+9Gas tax pays for roads, and is just about the most fair tax around.
How do you suggest we pay for roads?- cJw314, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1As the lobbyists; maybe they can pitch in. -.-
- vonmises05, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0local initiatives and taxes.
- robbiemuffin, on 06/30/2008, -2/+1"due"
good post :) couldn't disagree more with the first point, but good post. (personally I'd like to see a 50% of total cost gas tax (so right now, it would be about $4 extra in taxes in most places), with the money going towards ethanol/biodiesel infrastructure, let me tell you that would sure as ***** move us off of gas inside of 10 years... probably inside of 7). - tba2287, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4Tell me...how will ANWAR actually provide relief at the pump when studies have shown that it will only take off 1.8 cents per gallon, and about 75 cents per barrel? Not to mention the fact that there will only be six months to a year's worth at most, and that it will take a decade for ANWAR oil to reach consumers.
As for the shale...it's not practical due to the enormous amount of energy that is required to extract it. You run into the same problem that makes hydrogen impractical for a replacement.
We are either at peak oil now, or we will approach it in the near future. This doesn't mean that we will run out of oil right away, but the era of cheap oil is over, and with it the era of auto-centric living that we have come to expect for the last six decades. The best short-term solution is for the auto companies to increase their MPG and voluntarily exceed the federal CAFE standards, in addition to investing more in plug-in hybrids. The medium and long-term will involve building up infrastructure that relies on solar, wind, geo-thermal, bio-fuels, clean coal, and even some nuclear (hopefully Nuclear Fusion if we put enough research into it). In addition, we will need to make cities and suburbs more compact, and build a better mass transit system than the pathetic excuse that we have today.- hangglide, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Best reply so far.
- tkstock, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1"As for the shale...it's not practical due to the enormous amount of energy that is required to extract it. You run into the same problem that makes hydrogen impractical for a replacement."
Shale was not practical because it costs about $70 / barrel to extract the oil. That's now a $70 / barrel profit for those companies that can do it...
What makes hydrogen impractical is the lack of infrastructure and the fact that the technology currently costs too much. If we had the infrastructure to manufacture hydrogen fuel cell cars and the infrastructure to fuel them, they would be a fantastic and practical solution. - tba2287, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Even if shale becomes more practical relative to the price of the easy crude oil, it doesn't alter the fact that shale cannot serve as an adequate substitute. Shale only has a fraction of the energy of crude or coal, and requires a lot of electricity and water to extract it (which is scarce is large parts of the western states where it can be mined).
As for hydrogen, even though it is abundant, it takes more energy to extract it than what you will get as a finished product. Until a method can be invented to overcome this hurdle, hydrogen isn't practical either. - tkstock, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1tba2287, you're right about Hydrogen - I hadn't read much about it other than how it was used in the fuel cells. Here's an article that supports your theory: http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html. Basically, it says the electric car would probably be the most efficient way to get energy to the wheels...
The efficiency of oil shale is not the primary issue - it's not expected to replace crude for gas production, but it can replace oil for other applications, like jet fuel and heating oil. There is a lot of reason that oil shale can help diversify our energy supply.
- SolarPandaBot, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3If supply and demand is part of the problem, why shouldn't we work on the demand in addition to the supply?
- tkstock, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1We are. Americans are driving significantly less this year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/business/19gas.h ...
- tkstock, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1We are. Americans are driving significantly less this year.
- theberlindoctor, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2Wow, way to back up any of your arguments (which all seem like pure speculation themselves). Tisk Tisk.
- diggthis123, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1As much as we would like to blame the government subsidies, we shouldn't. Without their subsidies of oil we wouldn't be where we are today. The government has a "deal" (if you will) with oil companies - The government lowers the tax rate on oil companies to around 11% in order to subsidize the price for the country; this allows the country to consume oil at a drastically reduced price for infrastructure (roads, buildings and anything that is built with machines that run on gas), consumers who drive cars, and anything else. Without it, we would pay the real price of gas per gallon at the pump, which according to the Center for Technology Assessment (CTA) would be around $15-$20/gallon - I was surprised to learn this information - check it out, it explains a lot. Can't hurt...
http://www.icta.org/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoli ...
- mike17032, on 06/30/2008, -1/+9Gas tax pays for roads, and is just about the most fair tax around.
- nannyx, on 06/30/2008, -19/+14Less talking, more drilling.
- marx2k, on 06/30/2008, -2/+7Less typing,more thinking.
- MattB123, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Less driving more cycling (or whatever your alternative is/should be).
- marx2k, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0Scooting..
- marx2k, on 06/30/2008, -2/+7Less typing,more thinking.
- Zippo, on 06/30/2008, -7/+9The big US oil companies definitely have a part to play... they have more input and control than you'd think... they have people working for their interests everywhere. On a world scale, all the oil companies have realized just how much they can get away with and are not increasing production because they know they can keep demand up - and thus increase prices.
Also, the fear of the middle east being blown up at any minute keeps investors fearful.- dcrepublican, on 06/30/2008, -2/+7But it's OPEC that is controlling the production, the oil companies are only handling the refining and transport.
- kaplanfx, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1There is actually more supply than the lead you to believe, however the refining capacity is artificially low. This allows the oil companies to keep supplies low and prices high without additional investment.
edit, a quick search yielded: http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/05/news/economy/refin ...
- kaplanfx, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1There is actually more supply than the lead you to believe, however the refining capacity is artificially low. This allows the oil companies to keep supplies low and prices high without additional investment.
- unknownohm, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1I think the oil companies have a large roll n it, you can't tell me that if you started taking out CEO's that the prices wouldn't go down. Also, it's going to be funny when they find out that the oil is one of Earth's coolants, and the world cracks like the liberty bell
- RoxorsPH, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0Are you not paying attention? There are no "big" US oil companies. The biggest of the US oil companies is nothing in comparison to the average foreign state sponsored companies.
Oil as coolant? Nevermind. I should've read you're whole post before replying... - unknownohm, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0no, oil is never used as a coolant, cars?????
- RoxorsPH, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0Are you not paying attention? There are no "big" US oil companies. The biggest of the US oil companies is nothing in comparison to the average foreign state sponsored companies.
- dcrepublican, on 06/30/2008, -2/+7But it's OPEC that is controlling the production, the oil companies are only handling the refining and transport.
- jeltringham, on 06/30/2008, -11/+12I have to laugh at the idiots and conspiracy theorists who like to blame oil companies. I guess it's just easier to understand.
- CMiYC, on 06/30/2008, -3/+1People always like to put blame on "them." "They" just are just greedy. If "they" understood what we were going through, "they" would (or should) do something about it!
Usually "they" and "them" are the government. When it comes to gas prices, it becomes "the oil companies." Which I don't think most people could name 5, without Google. (Google is smart, "they" have all the answers.)- clayasaurus, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Not the government, but the underworld network.
- Kyan, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1ConocoPhillips
ExxonMobil
BP
Lukoil
TNK-BP
Vanco
Gazprom neft
Ok, that wasn't fair. I work in the industry. But I just had to try.
- CMiYC, on 06/30/2008, -3/+1People always like to put blame on "them." "They" just are just greedy. If "they" understood what we were going through, "they" would (or should) do something about it!
- borez, on 06/30/2008, -12/+7Not one of these comments has even scrapped the truth and I'm not about to spell it out, apart from:
The people who have all the money... want it to be that way.- borez, on 06/30/2008, -2/+1Damn it, somebody please digg me down so we can discuss just what it is that you think you know about oil.
- dcrepublican, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5I'm not sure what you're argument is. There is no reason to digg you down, because you're not really giving something to agree/disagree with. Spell it out, there is definitely a wide view of opinions here already, it's a good debate that sadly isn't had more.
- borez, on 06/30/2008, -2/+2"I'm not sure what you're argument is"
My argument is: Who ( not what ) is really making oil prices inflate to the point of hilarity within the markets.
Cos it's damn not about supply and demand. - tkstock, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3Why is it not about supply and demand? If OPEC constricts the supply, that increases demand, prices go up, and they make more money. So, you're right in saying "The people who have all the money... want it to be that way." OPEC has roughly 2 to 3 million barrels per day excess capacity that they're not tapping in to - that's because they're making boatloads of money and they want everyone to get used to higher prices before they increase supply to stabilize the market. The "evil speculators" are merely guessing at the price based on supply and demand, which is affected by production and the geo-political environment in the Middle East that might affect supply.
The best ways to affect the supply / demand curves are:
1) Conserve - can only be partially effective since we can't conserve for other countries that subsidize oil purchases and whose demand is increasing astronomically
2) Drill - more domestic supply will reduce our dependence on the OPEC supply and stabilize the source.
3) Eliminate - eliminate our need for oil by moving to future technology - this is a long-term solution - goofrey137, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1the reason people blame oil companies is number 3. why is that?
3 indeed is a "long term solution" however, had we implemented it 10 years ago we wouldnt be going ape ***** now over 4 dollar gasoline.
If I remember correctly (which i may not, i was a much younger man then) when Al Gore ran in 2000 he had a plan to have all electric cars within ten years. We're not short the technology at all. We are short implementation, which could, and should have been done by now. So why havent we? Oil companies.
When they hired GWB as president of the united states (he certainly wasnt elected to that position) they secured a market for their product for another 8 years, and ho hum lucky day they also get oil out of iraq again after a 36 year ban, courtesy of the dime of the american public.
so tell me again why we shouldnt blame oil companies.
for sure its not illegal to make a profit, but to rig the game and intentionally bog down cheaper (and gasp, cleaner) alternative fuels ***** should be. - cypherignite, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0While the OPEC spare capacity of 2mbpd might be true, approx 1.8mbpd of this comes from Saudi Arabia. Saudi has always been OPEC's swing producer and the only one with the power to actually significantly effect production coming from the OPEC 10. Just look at http://www.mees.com/ and go to the oil production numbers then look at each nations quota. All of them are consistently going over their quota allocation and essentially pushing at max capacity. Do you really think that another 2mbpd will lower the price back to $80?
I think the real story is that a host of factors have led to a large run-up in price and whether this run-up is a bubble or a change in the long run trend has yet to be seen. I think elements of the financial markets, a weak dollar, an OPEC production quota cut in 2007, increased demand in the developing world, dwindling production, and the arm-chair-economists in this thread are all elements of the price increase. - tkstock, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1If we had implemented 2 twenty years ago, we wouldn't be going ape ***** over $4 gas.
The fact is, how do we move towards a solution the quickest? Even if future technology were available today, the majority of Americans would still be driving gas cars in 10 years. So we will still need oil, and we need to secure our energy supply.
Or is the government going to GIVE everyone a new electric car?
Our long term solutions need to be augmented by short and mid term solutions. - tkstock, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Cypher, I looked at the production numbers, and I don't see where it says who has what extra capacity.
I think that 2mbpd would cause two things:
1) Increased suppy would reduce demand, and
2) This would cause speculators to speculate the price of oil will be lower due to the supply / demand curve.
Quite simple, really. So adding this extra production would theoretically reduce the price of oil a good bit.
- borez, on 06/30/2008, -2/+2"I'm not sure what you're argument is"
- Minarchian, on 06/30/2008, -4/+11I think the "speculator cause" in high oil prices is a scape goat for the Federal Reserve printing fiat money like it mad men.
Sure. Speculating has a part in the high prices. But the fact that our dollar is declining in value plays a much bigger role. The same role it is playing in the rise in gold and other commodities.- robbiemuffin, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4it has nothing to do with oil...that's really about the banking fiasco, which they've done everything in their power in the past 10 years to spread into housing so the can have public sympathy when they go for the bail out
- rockefeller2, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Cause and Effect. Falling dollar is the cause. High oil prices the effect.
- robbiemuffin, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2I'm just saying we're not lowering the value of the dollar so we can have higher gas prices ... we have a lower dollar because we have a banking fiasco. Forget our national debt, our social security debt, etc. If you just look at banking and the dispersion of those problems in property ... and you transplanted that problem to pretty much any other country outside of the few economic powerhouses, you would have hyper inflation inside of a year.
- SergeantSavage, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3Good point, and I'd say your right about both those ideas but I think rising oil prices are caused by a number of different things. Pretty much every answer you get is right, that and about a million other things too though.
- Caerbannog, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Exactly.
Commodities (not just oil) are surging, worldwide.
That's actually the wrong way to say it--the "intrinsic values" of commodities are relatively stable, intuitively. It's more correct to say the value of currency is falling.
- robbiemuffin, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4it has nothing to do with oil...that's really about the banking fiasco, which they've done everything in their power in the past 10 years to spread into housing so the can have public sympathy when they go for the bail out
- SickMonkey, on 06/30/2008, -11/+101BURIED! This is an infomercial brought to you by an energy industry lobbying group.
From Sourcewatch:
Institute for Energy Research
The Institute for Energy Research (IER), founded in 1989 from a predecessor non-profit organization, advocates positions on environmental issues which happen to suit the energy industry: climate change denial, claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless, and the deregulation of utilities.
It is a member of the Sustainable Development Network. The IER's President was formerly Director of Public Relations Policy at Enron.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institu ...- dcrepublican, on 06/30/2008, -9/+9So what? It's not uncommon for people to leave the private sector for a nonprofit job. What's wrong with that?
- SickMonkey, on 06/30/2008, -7/+8A non-profit job? Please, the entire organization is bought and paid for by the oil industry. And the guy who is running it came from Enron, a company that committed wide scale investment fraud and fixed the energy trading markets.
- NoBailouts, on 06/30/2008, -6/+3So what? They're still a 501(c)(3), which means they don't engage in political activities, so what's the big deal? This seems like a foolish argument that avoids addressing the real problem.
- RoxorsPH, on 06/30/2008, -1/+0It's important to point out that SourceWatch was created by Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). No one is surprised that your left wing group doesn't like the pro-corporate IER. It doesn't invalidate their findings against the current oil hysteria.
Quick Wiki search found the following:
[CMD] states its opposition to "the barriers and distortions of the modern information environment that stem from government- or corporate-dominated, hierarchical media. The Capital Research Center, a conservative organization, which rates the ideological leanings of American non-profits on a 1-8 scale it describes as "1=Radical Left and 8=Free Market Right", gives the Center for Media and Democracy a ranking of "2", near the left end of its scale.
- SickMonkey, on 06/30/2008, -2/+25More info:
Institute for Energy Research has received $212,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
2003
$37,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: Institute for Energy Research website 5/04
2004
$45,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Climate Change and Energy Policy Issues
Source: ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report
2005
$65,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 Worldwide Giving Report
2006
$65,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php? ...- NoBailouts, on 06/30/2008, -8/+3Wow, the Institute for Energy Research recieves money for it's research from an energy company? You've got nothing here, but I'm glad this is so compelling to you.
- mejaredme, on 06/30/2008, -4/+2That's a form of an ad hominem argument, bro. One might also consider it a form of Post-hoc ergo propter hoc.
- stankyfish, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0Check the IER's website and look at their staff, see what they've done and who they've worked for.
William Alfred Koetzle: Senior VP of Public Policy
...
Before coming to IER, Koetzle served as the deputy Republican staff director of policy for the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Energy and Commerce. In this capacity, he served as chief policy advisor to Ranking Member, U.S. Representative Joe Barton (R-TX), on matters within the committee’s jurisdiction, including energy, environment, telecommunications, consumer safety and health care, as well as providing strategic and tactical recommendations on legislation, amendments and policy statements for the Committee.
...
A chief policy advisor to a Reuplican Congressman from Texas on matters of energy? Hmmm...
This video is pure propaganda. The use of the "on-the-street" stooges to illustrate how "uneducated" the American people are were a dead giveaway.
Buried.
- arjung, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5i guessed that as soon as i saw the video, but can you provide evidence of any misinformation or partial truths in the video that are not realistic/true?
- lukas88, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6The logic in the video is horrible. First it says that the price of oil is not controlled by the oil companies but by world demand, then it implies that we can lower gas prices by drilling offshore and in alaska. As if this "new" oil would not also be subject to the same influence on price. There is a quick blurb about not fueling the problem in the middle east, which is a valid concern, but the rest is about lowering the price. And Americans wonder why we get suckered into meaningless wars. It is because our *****-o-meter is broken and we will go for whatever carrot they dangle in front of us.
I would say that the worst part about the video is that it doesn't address environmental concerns about drilling (offshore and in alaska) and the main message is to put a bandaid on the problem by increasing supply for a short time. We don't need to use oil, it is out of laziness that we still do. Necessity is the mother of invention, and I don't see it as such a bad thing that there is now pressure to come up with a better way to get from point a to point b.
- lukas88, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6The logic in the video is horrible. First it says that the price of oil is not controlled by the oil companies but by world demand, then it implies that we can lower gas prices by drilling offshore and in alaska. As if this "new" oil would not also be subject to the same influence on price. There is a quick blurb about not fueling the problem in the middle east, which is a valid concern, but the rest is about lowering the price. And Americans wonder why we get suckered into meaningless wars. It is because our *****-o-meter is broken and we will go for whatever carrot they dangle in front of us.
- newbis, on 06/30/2008, -5/+6Using your logic...
An organization to inform people about oil is paid by an oil company so the information must be untrue.
The information in anti-smoking commercials (paid for by Philip Morris) must all be untrue as well.- LuxFX, on 06/30/2008, -1/+8Cigarette ads are required by law to provide accurate health information. Before they were required to do this, their ads were full of "There is no known link between cigarette smoke and lung cancer." Despite decades of evidence contrary to that. There is no such regulation for Oil company ads, they say and/or spin things however they want.
- Quintios, on 06/30/2008, -4/+7Please point out the untruths (aka lies) told during that video. Then we may concede your point.
Thx. - twertyto, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2Simply pointing out that this comes from a lobby group is not enough. Anyone is allowed an opinion. Would you like to argue the facts of the video?
Listen, telling the country to go cold turkey on oil consumption is not a reality. It would have to be a gradual process that would take 50-100 years. The point of the video is to encourage domestic oil production would benefit everyone, even "big oil".
If drilling for oil has to be done the US would likely provide the most environmentally friendly means to do so. Do you think that the other countries that supply our oil care much about the environment? I've heard stories about oil supply lines in Russia that leak and go unchecked for weeks at a time. That wouldn't happen here. - jdbeast00, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2How is this video getting any diggs? This is obvious propaganda.
- bogdon6, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1If it's obvious propaganda, what's the propaganda? Why not point out any untruths? Why not point out a lie?
- bogdon6, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1If it's obvious propaganda, what's the propaganda? Why not point out any untruths? Why not point out a lie?
- dcrepublican, on 06/30/2008, -9/+9So what? It's not uncommon for people to leave the private sector for a nonprofit job. What's wrong with that?
- NoBailouts, on 06/30/2008, -7/+6I think it's a perfect storm of factors that have been brewing for some time now. There is the impact of the markets in Asia, then there is OPEC refusing to up their production, but then there are simple things that the US is doing to make gas prices high like refusing to allow new refineries to be built, then there are the states who use gas taxes as a way to raise money, because people are hooked on oil.
Then there are other things like the United States not being willing to embrace ethanol that is cheaper and cleaner, like ethanol from Sugar Cane that comes from Brazil. Instead of embracing it, the government has imposed these excessive fees and limits. I think that there are many sources of blame for all this. It's just who is going to take action first, and at what expense?- robbiemuffin, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3it's a perfect, naturally occuring, accidental storm — in the most monitored, controlled, and militarized and important economic sector of the world? Can I have some of what you're smoking please?
- richmomz, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1I think you've hit on most of the FALSE reasons for the rise in prices. Most OPEC countries are already running at full capacity - they are having to build more facilities to keep up with demand. Increasing domestic refinery output would have little effect since there is currently no supply shortage. Gas taxes don't amount to much and were already in place long before prices began spiking. Ethanol is NOT cheaper and cleaner - it in fact requires more energy to produce than it provides, and the energy used to produce it usually comes from 'unclean' sources thus negating the benefit - not to mention that ethanol is also helping to drive food costs through the roof.
The real reasons are inflation, combined with increasing global demand and a dwindling supply of easily extractible oil deposits.
- xekko, on 06/30/2008, -0/+8I'd recommend everyone here reads David Strahan's excellent book The Last Oil Shock: http://www.lastoilshock.com/
Transport, food, heating/cooling, plastic and pretty much everything we take for granted in the developed world is going to be dramatically strained by the exponential rise in oil prices over the next few years (which, today, have reached another record high of $143 per barrel). - ILoveBoobies, on 06/30/2008, -11/+24More propaganda.
Solution is not to create more supply but to reduce demand.
Next!- tkstock, on 06/30/2008, -2/+1OK, you go to China, India, and all the other countries of the world (especially the ones that are subsidized) and tell them to stop using our oil.
We're already doing our part: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/business/19gas.h ...
(BTW, reducing demand does create more supply, so does drilling!)- ILoveBoobies, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0If you were a cocaine addict I suppose you would recommend we make more cocaine.
Let China and India deal with their own problems.
- ILoveBoobies, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0If you were a cocaine addict I suppose you would recommend we make more cocaine.
- tkstock, on 06/30/2008, -2/+1OK, you go to China, India, and all the other countries of the world (especially the ones that are subsidized) and tell them to stop using our oil.
- louiebaur, on 06/30/2008, -13/+10We need to get to drilling and quit messing around!
- robbiemuffin, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3I think we really do need to get drilling ... but we need to consider that the most ludicruous of bandaids, and not even consider it as an effect on gas availability. if we don't buy into alternative energy inside the next ten years, I mean big, like wholesale, we'll be so far behind europe and even china that eventually we won't even be part of the first world economically any more.
- homercles337, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2No. Supply is already out stripping demand.
- MacBigot, on 06/30/2008, -5/+9During a good quarter, oil companies make about a 10% profit, while Microsoft makes about a 30% profit. Oil companies make "record profits" because they are SO FRIGGIN' BIG... it's a mater of scale. They are not making increasingly larger percentages of profit. The amount of their 10% profit just seems excessively large because they are so big, and because the cost of oil on the world market continues to climb.
- LuxFX, on 06/30/2008, -2/+3And the Exxon CEO has a $400,000,000 retirement package because he's really more than one person. Their individual retirement packages aren't really so big.
- rugabug, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2Though if MS were to disappear we could survive. We are 100% dependent on oil. They may be only making 10% profit but revenue is 4 times greater then it was 10 years ago.
- Kyan, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2So, it's their fault people use four times as much now?
- pintomp3, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1microsoft creates software, the oil companies don't create oil. they only drill and refine it on land leased from the government.
- TJATL, on 06/30/2008, -11/+11I'm tired of people dismissing a short term solution in favor of long term solutions. We ALL know we need a long term solution, no one is denying this. If we had started drilling in ANWR back during the Clinton administration, we would see relief from our own oil supply RIGHT NOW! It was blocked then, and blocked now because it was said that it wouldn't have an impact for years and we should decrease demand. But, how do you reduce demand for the 99.9% of the millions of vehicles on the road that use gas/diesel? Any long term solution to reduce the demand through alternative fuel or renewable energy will take decades to even make an impact. You can't just replace vehicles by waving a magical wand. People will have to afford it and the supply will be less then the demand, like the Prius is now. We need to find a short term solution as well as work on a long term solution.
- tkstock, on 06/30/2008, -9/+3Well said!
Drill here drill now!
Sign the petition: http://link.smartcommunicator.net/?119-8-8-48428-1 ... - tba2287, on 06/30/2008, -2/+7You're right...I would be paying $4.43 per gallon instead of $4.45!
- robbiemuffin, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1I mostly agree with you... but the north slope is nothing. We need to go for offshore oil down here first... and we need to basically buy a huge stake in canada's oil sands, and most importantly start taxing the hell out of gasoline and using that money to restructure for bio fuels. Batteries still just aren't there for real use.
- tkstock, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Biofuels are a decent mid-term solution. We need to eliminate the tariff on sugar ethanol (which is a lot more efficient than corn ethanol) and the sugar can be grown in third world countries to offset their economic plight (and it can be grown here!). However, biofuels are limited by the number of crops that are grown and can directly affect the food supply prices.
I agree we need to drill here first (offshore).
We need to attack this energy problem from many angles, not just one (hence: supply diversity)
1) Drill here, drill now
2) Alternative sources (biofuels)
3) Conservation
4) Future Energy
- tkstock, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Biofuels are a decent mid-term solution. We need to eliminate the tariff on sugar ethanol (which is a lot more efficient than corn ethanol) and the sugar can be grown in third world countries to offset their economic plight (and it can be grown here!). However, biofuels are limited by the number of crops that are grown and can directly affect the food supply prices.
- wendelgee2, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2The problem is, short-term "solutions" like drilling in ANWR or drilling off the coasts won't help us for another 5-10 years. Even when they do, we have 2% of the supply and 25% of the demand, so it's like bailing out Cedar Rapids with a dixie cup...so, where's the "relief" you're looking for?
Sometimes there are no easy answers...especially when it comes to cleaning up George Bush's messes.- RoxorsPH, on 06/30/2008, -1/+0DemsEnvironmentalist have been saying that BS for more than 10 years. I don't know about you, but I'll be glad for $2.00 gas 10 years from now. Drill here, drill now, drill it all!
While we're asking, how about 15 new nuclear plants, new oil refineries, and a border fence. - tkstock, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1The "evil speculators" speculate on supply / demand in the market. If there is a promise of future domestic supply, that might cause the prices in the market to drop. Stabilization is the key.
- wendelgee2, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Yes, tkstock, I'm sure the promise of a fractional increase on our 2% of supply will send the price of oil through the floor.
- tkstock, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1With speculation, perception is everything. The perception is now that there will be a shortage. Change that perception, and you change the market.
It's been said that 5% of our domestic demand could come from ANWR alone. Couple that with offshore drilling and what's currently going on in the gulf, and you would dramatically stabilize the market. It's basic economics.
You libs like to downplay the effect because you don't have any solutions that are obtainable to the general public in the near future. It irks you that the republicans are the only ones that have a longterm plan coupled with something that could help out sooner, doesn't it?
- RoxorsPH, on 06/30/2008, -1/+0DemsEnvironmentalist have been saying that BS for more than 10 years. I don't know about you, but I'll be glad for $2.00 gas 10 years from now. Drill here, drill now, drill it all!
- Caerbannog, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3Sorry to burst your bubble, but drilling ANWR wouldn't amount to much:
"The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030"
That's at its peak, more or less. They say it would reduce crude prices by 75 cents per barrel.
Whoopdee doo.
(according to Energy Information Administration government report cited by wikipedia)- tkstock, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1Maybe if that's we share it to the rest of the world...
It would produce about 5% of our consumption. But your leaving out drilling offshore and oil-shale production.
- tkstock, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1Maybe if that's we share it to the rest of the world...
- tkstock, on 06/30/2008, -9/+3Well said!
- MacBigot, on 06/30/2008, -10/+18Obama says he's FOR developing nuclear energy once we solve the problem of waste disposal. The problem is, that's the same reason people cite for being AGAINST developing nuclear energy. In essence, Obama is lying by making a distinction without a difference.
Moreover, the problem of nuclear waste disposal has been solved. Ask the French. That's why France runs on 80% nuclear energy!- skipdog172, on 06/30/2008, -2/+3Sad. The problem is solved and we have some nice sites in the U.S. that are designed for this purpose.
But even digg is ok with Obama being 10% wrong on the Nuclear issue. As long as you have hope... - wendelgee2, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2If you're referring to "reprocessing" it's a fraught process that is both dangerous and expensive. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuc ...
- RoxorsPH, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0You can't improve a process your not doing. I keep hearing "if you build it, they will come". Is that applicable here?
- skipdog172, on 06/30/2008, -2/+3Sad. The problem is solved and we have some nice sites in the U.S. that are designed for this purpose.
- rzxc, on 06/30/2008, -6/+25If this crap makes the front page, I'm going to be pissed. As other posters have mentioned, this is nothing more than a public relations effort from the oil companies to get the public to support new ways to make them money. Speculation is at the heart of the surge in oil prices. Don't believe me? Then ask Saudi Arabia.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25305036/
Don't believe Saudi Arabia? Then read this Business Week article.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20080627/bs_bw/jun2008b ...
As the article notes, there is plenty of supply to meet the demand. That's why Saudi Arabia does not want to increase output. They fear an eventual crash in oil prices due to too much supply.
Here's the truth. Wall Street is trying to bail itself out of its financial woes by creating a huge commodities bubble. Did anyone notice that the recent spike in oil prices came right after the Fed left the Fed funds rate unchanged? On Wednesday, the Fed held its meeting. Then on Thursday, oil surged past $140. It's not a coincidence. The speculators waited until after the Fed meeting to drive up oil prices. Had they done their dirty work before the meeting, it might have convinced the Fed to raise interest rates.- tkeeley, on 06/30/2008, -5/+3There are speculators in every market, and there is absolutely no evidence that supports these claims going after speculators. Just look at any trending chart with the price growth, there is way more to it than speculators. Why would you be angry if something that is sparking a debate makes the front page? Can the front page only have items that are only acceptable to a certain segment of the population? I don't think so.
- citizen782, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1"there is absolutely no evidence that supports these claims going after speculators"
Please quit failing with this statement. There is plenty of evidence. Evidence you will not comprehend unless you agree to be subjected to it. If you want to deny speculation is involved you need provide evidence to support your position, such as information from a "chart with price growth". It is increasingly difficult to find such evidence because almost all commodities analysts agree that speculation on short futures is playing a role with varying opinions on the severity of the impact. Most believe it is the root cause with differing opinions on the remedy. - kaplanfx, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1let me guess, you are heavily vested in oil futures?
- citizen782, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1"there is absolutely no evidence that supports these claims going after speculators"
- nycmac247, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1YES
The Energy Non-Crisis
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697 ... - kaplanfx, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1I tried to digg you twice. Supplies are fine, I hope the speculators get burned. If there was really a shortage, wouldn't there be lines at the pumps like in the 70's? In fact the pumps have been more open than usual.
- tkeeley, on 06/30/2008, -5/+3There are speculators in every market, and there is absolutely no evidence that supports these claims going after speculators. Just look at any trending chart with the price growth, there is way more to it than speculators. Why would you be angry if something that is sparking a debate makes the front page? Can the front page only have items that are only acceptable to a certain segment of the population? I don't think so.
- ColonelTribune, on 06/30/2008, -3/+7Sounds like a 'Seinfeld' bit. What's the deal with high gas prices? (With a Seinfeld voice.)
- MarianaPeyton, on 06/30/2008, -2/+2No matter how much we have in the US we should develop cleaner renewable fuels. I hate the idea that we can continue to pollute all we like, since there's plenty more oil in the ground. It's time to stop using 19th century fuels. High gas prices may be the best thing that ever happens to us. I want viable alternatives!
- tkeeley, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1The problem is that you need fuel to develop the next generation of "clean burning" fuels and vehicles. There is already a large public outcry from people urging this research to increase and companies see that people are willing to spend money on this.
When the cost of fuel goes up, as does the cost of just about everything else that we buy. I think that companies should be pushed to develop new technologies (not forced), but at the same time should be given some sort of break so there is incentive, such as a tax break, etc.
- tkeeley, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1The problem is that you need fuel to develop the next generation of "clean burning" fuels and vehicles. There is already a large public outcry from people urging this research to increase and companies see that people are willing to spend money on this.
- Thrilltone, on 06/30/2008, -7/+1Overpopulation is to blame, along with the price being pegged to a dollar that is backed by nothing..
OPEC are the beneficiaries.
Big Oil is capitalizing on it all.
Those Arabs are richer than Midas now - gyronic, on 06/30/2008, -9/+15Quote from YOUTUBE:
"Dumb Americans
STOP WASTING OIL = CHEAPER OIL
For godsakes you people take your cheap Wal-Mart shait home in BAGS MADE OF OIL. "
Couldn't say it better myself. American consumers are the problem not the "market" nor the "oil companies".- AbsurdParadox, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3Its my understanding that plastic bags are actually made from a former waste-byproduct created during refining.
- gyronic, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4Yes studies show paper bags require more net energy to produce. However, Plastic bags are made of petrochemicals, a nonrenewable resource.
The problem isn't polyethylene bags alone, its presumptuous idea that low energy costs have nothing to do with its demand.
- gyronic, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4Yes studies show paper bags require more net energy to produce. However, Plastic bags are made of petrochemicals, a nonrenewable resource.
- SergeantSavage, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3thats unfair to call all americans dumb, I don't even own a car anymore, i live next to all the grocery stores and other stores, i dont hardly drive anywhere. Yes i do contribute to the oil crisis by buying my food from stores that have all of their inventory trucked in, but if you live in america you are stuck in the web...
so to call all americans dumb is just a waste of time, your not helping anyone your just pushing off your opinion that no one cares about.- gyronic, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1So you are the exception to the rule. Great!
However it doesn't mean that Americans are not ignorant. By watching this clip, its obvious none of these people have any idea what the problem is.
Its ok to give yourself credit, but look around you... there are a lot of people idling in lines with their cars when they could just walk into Starbucks. - SergeantSavage, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Oh i totally agree, Americans do have that tendency to be very wasteful I'm just saying that their are a lot of Americans out there that do try hard to offset our stereotype by not participating in it.
And i definitely agree that the people in this video had no idea what they were talking about, especially that hippie guy, what a dumbass.
- gyronic, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1So you are the exception to the rule. Great!
- AbsurdParadox, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3Its my understanding that plastic bags are actually made from a former waste-byproduct created during refining.
- matthewdestroys, on 06/30/2008, -4/+3i just spent a ridiculous amount of money on gas for the speed boat and waverunner in the ozarks this weekend. the lake was very quiet this weekend too... which is strange for how awesome the weather was.
sucks. - eriku, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5That didn't explain anything and it sounds like a group made for oil companies to help spread the idea that off shore drilling will save the your wallet. HYBRID ELECTRIC CARS ARE STUPID! Gas engines have nothing to do with global climate change right!
- apollo168, on 06/30/2008, -3/+10Even if we drilled out all of ANWAR, it would reduce the cost of gasoline by an estimated $0.02 a gallon to $0.20 a gallon in anywhere from 6 years to 8 years. They didn't really mention that in the video.
- bearcat8543, on 06/30/2008, -2/+1source?
- apollo168, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/jun/16/ ...
The optimal amount dropped is $0.86 as they list here, but other estimates show it as low as $0.02 a gallon. I sped up the time it would take to get it to market because I feel like even 10 years is too long for the optimal amount of time. If we needed gas that bad, we'd get our asses in gear to refine what we needed.
- apollo168, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/jun/16/ ...
- bearcat8543, on 06/30/2008, -2/+1source?
- Tomondigg, on 06/30/2008, -1/+8I understand that they are paid to promote the corporate agenda, but I'm not buying it.
We can't destroy the environment for a few years of oil for us, then let our kids and grandkids deal with a decimated planet. That would be wrong. - BowZzer, on 06/30/2008, -0/+19Let's pull over a handful of dumbasses in front of a sign that says $4.11/gallon and ask them about a subject that they know nothing about to make it sound like offshore drilling is good idea.
Video produced by the Institue for Energy Research
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php? ...
To put it in perspective, this would be like a "factual" video about abortion released by the American Family Association.
The only solution is international oil regulation leading to the gradual weening of the infrastructure towards renewable fuel. Drilling off shore at best will freeze prices at where they will be in a few years and make these same problems surface in 20 years, only instead of $4/gallon, the prices will go up to $20/gallon (or more!)- twertyto, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Seems like the problem is we depend to much on foreign mean for our energy. Combine that with a weak dollar and we get the current situation. I'm not convinced that moving towards renewable fuel is going to help if we don't cut our foreign ties. I don't see any evidence that we would do that.
- ZephyrNinety, on 06/30/2008, -9/+4DRILL, DRILL, DRILL. It isn't going to kill off some species of bird you've never heard of and even if it did, at least we don't have to go to war over it and lose people we love.
- nonchalantmoon, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1You're an idiot. You think DRILLING is going to prevent WAR?!? So, why is it we're in Iraq again?
- nonchalantmoon, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1You're an idiot. You think DRILLING is going to prevent WAR?!? So, why is it we're in Iraq again?
- DevilInPgh, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4People talking about low supply coupled with high demand being the cause of high gas prices crack me up. If that's the case, then why haven't we seen gas rationing or the long lines of the '70s yet?
- VengeanceNight, on 06/30/2008, -1/+0Because they haven't started leveraging windfall taxes on the oil companies yet.
- theberlindoctor, on 06/30/2008, -0/+7Wow, this sounds like it was produced by the oil companies. Notice how the entire message was "oil isnt bad, we can drill more, we're not to blame."
Snake oil salesmen trying to sell a sucker a smile..- PhilliesBlunt, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Can I run my car on Snake Oil?
- simplyintricate, on 07/28/2008, -1/+0The price is set by supply and demand but driven up due to the falling dollar as well as regulations such as OPEC (as well as congress preventing drilling). In the price of gold, oil is fairly cheap and prices have not gone up significantly. In dollars, however, it has jumped showing our weakness and bad inflation. We, the consumers, need to stand up and push for alternative fuel.
- krnldmp, on 06/30/2008, -2/+2The price of oil is rising because oil is DEAD. The truth is speculation rather than investment finally killed it but that's okay. Two birds with one stone.
- dcbebop, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3That video made no sense. They state that the price of oil is dictated by the market, and then they go on to say that we have tons of reserves and we can start drilling elsewhere. Where did they make the connection that offshore US drilling would have any effect on oil future prices.
Many above have said it before: energy lobbyist propaganda. What crap. Buried. How the hell did this hit front page?- 10ofDiamonds, on 06/30/2008, -2/+1Really?.........Really?......Well........Because when you increase the supply of something the market price goes down. Ergo, if we increase the supply by drilling oil here in the U.S. the global market price will decrease. If liberals don't have an evil to fight, they'll invent one.
- nonchalantmoon, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3We won't see any market fluctuation in price due to supply for over a decade, not to mention the environmental ramifications calling for sustainability. Also, I don't know about you and your bubble of bipartisan preferences, but I don't want to support the Saudis any longer.
I think this was just a blatant excuse to use 'ergo'. - 10ofDiamonds, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Hey dumb-ass, if we tap oil here in the U.S. we wouldn't be supporting the Saudis, because you see, American oil fields located in the U.S. are located in U.S. "We won't see any market fluctuation in price due to supply for over a decade", really how do you figure that, you're just making ***** up as you go aren't you?
- nonchalantmoon, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3We won't see any market fluctuation in price due to supply for over a decade, not to mention the environmental ramifications calling for sustainability. Also, I don't know about you and your bubble of bipartisan preferences, but I don't want to support the Saudis any longer.
- 10ofDiamonds, on 06/30/2008, -2/+1Really?.........Really?......Well........Because when you increase the supply of something the market price goes down. Ergo, if we increase the supply by drilling oil here in the U.S. the global market price will decrease. If liberals don't have an evil to fight, they'll invent one.
- marx2k, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0What is the deal with these high gas prices? I mean hey... I mean... hey... you know? I mean.. hey...
/Seinfeld - SergeantSavage, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4I have heard a million different reasons, but one im willing to believe is that speculation is causing gas prices to rise about 50%.
- antonygrow, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2If we keep drilling for oil then our grandchildren will be faced with the same problems we have now. We are slaves to oil and drilling in the US only means a continuance of this. America uses 25% of all gas in the world and we are now complaining about 4 dollars a gallon? It should go to ten dollars and keep the ***** SUV's and hot rod assholes from destroying our nation. We need smaller cars, more public transportation, and alternative energy. This video is the biggest line of ***** I've ever seen.
According to the video, the oil companies don't control the price, it is controlled by supply and demand, yet gas has shot up in America and not one report has shown a shortage in oil in the middle east or Venezuala. What's going on? It has nothing to do with supply and demand. - bearcat8543, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5i like it how the one guy in the beginning blames the high prices on 'republicans', then later in the video states that he wants to drill in anwar. arent the repubs the ones who want to drill?
- Kyan, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Thanks, I was going to make that very point. funniest part of the whole video.
- BrendanSheehan, on 06/30/2008, -1/+6Bush.
- cJw314, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Exxon Mobil's Profit in 2007 Tops $40 Billion
- Ratm22, on 06/30/2008, -2/+10Garbage Video. Propaganda to start drilling. DON't buy into it.
There is a reason we are not drilling its called the environment. ITS ***** UP RIGHT NOW. Drilling will not help it.
/Sarcasm ***** all the sea life to that oil has killed.
Its in the ground for a good reason. IT SUCKS. Leave it their!
Instead of wasting time drilling.
FIND A BETTER SOURCE OF ENERGY.
You want gas prices to go down stop ***** driving so much.
Use the buss or take a God DAMN walk.
Don't spend anymore money on gas it will only get worse.
Supply and Demand just like they said. No demand and the price will go down.
You don't need cars to live!!!! You need water and food.
***** CARS!!!- bs0l, on 06/30/2008, -5/+1You flip flop more than... pancakes?
If I say McCain I'll get dugg up... so there you go.
If I say that I'm just saying McCain to get dugg up, I might just get dugg down... so there you go.- Ratm22, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1FLIP FLOP on what
I ***** hate OIL and all the wars and death its caused.
Be specific.
- Ratm22, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1FLIP FLOP on what
- john2kx, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2People dugg this incomprehensible garbage up? It's like someone set a monkey loose on a keyboard.
- twertyto, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1You should really think about the connection you are making between drill and the environment. I think most people assume drilling automatically means we are killing the environment. If done correctly (which the US would do because we have so many people here who care) there is very little impact to the environment. If not done properly (like in many 3rd world countries that current supply the our oil and couldn't care less about the environment) is the impact is serious.
- Ratm22, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Very true they may be able to get the oil drilling part to be environmentally friendly.
However, the cars and machinery that run on it are not.
Plastics bags are pretty bad too.
- Ratm22, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Very true they may be able to get the oil drilling part to be environmentally friendly.
- bs0l, on 06/30/2008, -5/+1You flip flop more than... pancakes?
- rl41, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5Related videos include "sexy babe oil wrestling"
Just thought it was funny- john2kx, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2If sexy babe oil wrestling isn't increasing the demand for oil, I don't know what is.
- representDLV, on 06/30/2008, -4/+1There is not an oil shortage. And since there is not a shortage, drilling for more oil will not change anything. Prices are set according to the perceived demand. And with China and India industrializing rapidly, the price is set higher. Speculators are not to blame. Oil companies are not to blame. The government is not to blame. The invisible hand and the demand for oil is to blame. The reality is that a barrel of oil really should be worth $150. Gas is worth at least $5 a gallon. I wish i could get it for cheaper, but that's what it's worth.
- citizen782, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1"The reality is that a barrel of oil really should be worth $150."
Funny, the worlds leading suppliers don't believe that. In fact Saudi Arabia says they've got too much in reserve and don't want to drill more. So it's like going to a car lot and the dealer asking $20K for a car. But because we're going to speculate that the car will be worth $40K in 10 years so we offer the dealer $30K. That's the irritating logic behind speculating on short futures. Investors are paying more, with less risk, than the dealer's think their products worth today.
- citizen782, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1"The reality is that a barrel of oil really should be worth $150."
- Thomaschaaf, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Okay so I come from Germany, we don't need plastic bags because, we bring our own and we have shoppingcarts so we don't have to carry the stuff around. Not only does it not create garbage but its enviromently friendlier than paper bags.
Now the interessting thing would be does a tree clean up more air than the co2 produced by the oil or does it not.- ProjectGSX, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3Thats funny. Im from America and I dont need plastic bags for shopping either. You should fit in just fine here in the US.
- yournamehere, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1I'm from the US and we don't use plastic bags either. We have bags made of cloth that we take with us to shop.
- BOFH2, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1I have been to a few countries and all of them have plastic bags. Weird.
- mrfguitar, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4Did anyone else notice that this was propaganda by an oil company-based research institute?
- tokabowla, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6Pure propaganda.
-
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
