Lots of pussies out there then.
I know that domestic drilling, even if completely unrestricted, would make little difference to US compe iveness in a global market.
Perhaps you can explain to me why you think that "drill, baby, drill" will make us more compe ive. I really, truly don't know why you think it will.
Your belief in conspiracy theories is irrelevant to peak oil and its ultimate economic effects.
How do you know this?
USA buys more oil then anyone in the world. We would knock out the compe ion for the number one buyer, us. Drilling here would create more jobs. Lower the cost of gas. Create more money for our government which would fund more projects on energy. That's being compe ve and smart.
LOL.........Global warming is a conspiracy theory. FYI means For Your Information.......I wasn't using it to make my point to drill baby drill thus the FYI reference.
the usa doesn't set the price of oil, dumbass.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html
We produce roughly 5 million barrels per day. We import 11 million per day.
Using your logic, and ignoring for a second the way the market actually works, we would have to more than triple our production. (from 5 to 16)
Here is our Hubbert curve, the aggregate of all of the individual state Hubbert curves.
The reserves just aren't there to do that, even if we opened up all the offshore deposits. What you propose to do is physically impossible. We have been using it faster than we have been discovering it, and your schtick would have us produce more oil now than we have EVER produced even at our peak when we could easily find onshore, cheap oil.
Assuming it was, and that we got it online, it would make little no impact at the pump, because of the way oil is traded as a commodity.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb1105.html
The US produces only about 7% of the total global supply. Assuming the reserves are physically there, we would then get to 19% of the global total.
Precisely.
A US producer could either sell it domestically, or export it to somewhere else for a profit.
If someone bids the global price and that is higher than what they can get selling it to a domestic refiner, they will export it.
Ultimately, it is similar to dumping it all into a giant pool. All the producers dump it into a pool, and buyers simply bid on what is in there to get what they need.
Given that the two billion people in China and India are increasing their usage of oil at a rate faster than the US, their oil demands will get bigger much faster than ours. Simple math will bear this out.
This demand will be hitting just as oil starts getting harder to get economically, restricting supply.
What happens at this piont, and we are there now is a topic of much debate.
We produce our own , everyones prices will go down. Common sense, dumbass.
Nice graph, brah. You don't know how much oil the USA has, do you?http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html
We produce roughly 5 million barrels per day. We import 11 million per day.
Using your logic, and ignoring for a second the way the market actually works, we would have to more than triple our production. (from 5 to 16)
Here is our Hubbert curve, the aggregate of all of the individual state Hubbert curves.
The reserves just aren't there to do that, even if we opened up all the offshore deposits. What you propose to do is physically impossible. We have been using it faster than we have been discovering it, and your schtick would have us produce more oil now than we have EVER produced even at our peak when we could easily find onshore, cheap oil.
Assuming it was, and that we got it online, it would make little no impact at the pump, because of the way oil is traded as a commodity.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb1105.html
The US produces only about 7% of the total global supply. Assuming the reserves are physically there, we would then get to 19% of the global total.
WTF are you talking about?
That's what state and federal taxes on fuel are for.
Subsidized my ass. We already pay for them.
Hook, line and sinker, random has been caught by the left. I hate people who want more and higher taxes. YOU. My wife and I pay about half our salary to taxes and they want more. YOU.
The same buttholes have no problem with Mr Fat Cat Barry Obongo going out on date night for a million dollars, playing golf everyday, having concerts at the white house every weekend, bribing congress with our money no less to push through his agenda, throwing in over 8,000 earmarks (said NEVER again with earmarks) in a bill that was supposed to jump start our economy not save some minnows.....
They have no problem with any of this. Lets talk about how much more we can tax and not talk about how irresponsible our elective officials have been for decades with our money!!!!!!
I say YOU respectfully about asking for more taxes on anything. Please don't tell me the USA can't be compe ve in the oil business when our government won't even give us a chance.
Bull . It will drive up the price of inefficient dirty industry. For those businesses who can find a way to do more while polluting less, not only will they be profitable from the industrial activity, but they will have carbon credits to sell to dirty-ass air polluting industrial dinosaurs who have let slide for too long. You did know that, right?
LOL...
You fool. A carbon tax will tax electricity, plastics, etc.
Just where do you think the majority of our electricity comes from?
Only 28% of our (2004) energy usage is for transportation:
Almost 90% of it is carbon based:
2006 numbers have our electrical consumption at 29.26 petawatt hours. Of this, oil, gas, and coal account for 84.79% of our power producing fuel. This will be very heavily taxed under Cap~n~Tax.
Energy in the United States
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 06-17-2010 at 11:27 PM.
That wouldnt be if gov and US auto had let MPGs improve as fast as they made improvements to performance. What a .
for all the charts, you dont have a clue about cap n trade. dont buy the line from those who have the most to lose.LOL...
You fool. A carbon tax will tax electricity, plastics, etc.
Just where do you think the majority of our electricity comes from?
Only 28% of our (2004) energy usage is for transportation:
Almost 90% of it is carbon based:
2006 numbers have our electrical consumption at 29.26 petawatt hours. Of this, oil, gas, and coal account for 84.79% of our power producing fuel. This will be very heavily taxed under Cap~n~Tax.
Energy in the United States
If it doesn't make energy more expensive to quell it's usage, what good is it?
Dude you dont know about Cap and Trade. Taxes are staged to give industry a chance to clean up their practices. eventually dirty industrial practices become to expensive and "clean coal" becomes economically viable.LOL...
You fool. A carbon tax will tax electricity, plastics, etc.
Just where do you think the majority of our electricity comes from?
Only 28% of our (2004) energy usage is for transportation:
Almost 90% of it is carbon based:
2006 numbers have our electrical consumption at 29.26 petawatt hours. Of this, oil, gas, and coal account for 84.79% of our power producing fuel. This will be very heavily taxed under Cap~n~Tax.
Energy in the United States
Then show us the plan. I think you'll be surprised and find it taxes far more than you suspect.
Why would the govt spend to get us out of an economic depression, then tax to put us back into one? It doesnt happen like that.
The info you are getting is coming from wealthy powerful sources who are going to be forced to update operations with new cleaner equipment, industries who are still operating with factories and technologies from the 50's and 60's. Take a look at the oil spill...the response is the same one they rolled out in the eighties.
Big business doesnt want anything that will pull down their bottom line, and so they try and use scare tactics to rally support.
Cap and trade works like this:
1) everyone has an equal right to pollute up to a certain emissions cap.
2) dirty companies must clean up and upgrade equip and fixtures sufficient to come in under the cap, or pay the tax.
2.5) the cap slowly gets lowered, prompting companies to improve operations slowly over time
3) companies who have newer facilities have an advantage, because they pollute less, and if they come in under the cap, they have extra credits to sell on the carbon market (many already exist in the US). They can sell extra credits to companies who are over, and companies who are over can relenquish these credits back to the govt for a "pass" on their pollution overages.
4) Thus, as the cap is slowly lowered (by reducing credits distributed), companies using older equip will eventually find it necessary to upgrade operations, because less credits on the market means higher price to buy compliance. When the price of credits is greater than the price to bring your facility into the 21st century, you will upgrade or operate at a loss.
5) All the while, this simultaneously drives the new tech market, because companies will be actively be seeking a good deal on new cleaner tech.
Ask yourself this: who loses here? I'll tell you: big biz who wants to keep the status quo, and they give you all the scary numbers.
Again ask: would the gov tax us under the table at such a vulnerable time?
Or is it more likely that big biz has a huge stake in this battle, multi-million dollar retrofits, and potentially losing some/most/or all of their market share to those who embrace new technologies?
You know the old story...big biz has been buying and burying patents to "100 mpg carbs" for years to cover up the advances so they maintain their share of the market. Well, this shows 1. how wealthy/powerful these interests are, and 2. how rtesistant they are to change, and 3. how they do not have the interests of the americcan people in mind.
http://www.rexresearch.com/pogue/1pogue.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1125201.eceEngineers who have tried in the past to build a carburettor using Pogue’s theories have found the results less than satisfactory. Charles Friend, of Canada’s National Research Council, told Marketplace, a consumer affairs programme: “You can get fantastic mileage if you’re prepared to de-rate the vehicle to a point where, for example, it might take you ten minutes to accelerate from 0 to 30 miles an hour.”
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/200mpgcar.htmIf we could get all the energy out of a gallon of gasoline and apply it to overcoming the rolling resistance of a car, we could get about 400 miles per gallon. But the internal engine resistance multiplies the force required by roughly five, meaning the best we could hope for is about 80 miles a gallon. The engineering constraints of getting useful work out of expanding hot gases cuts that figure by 50 per cent to about 40 miles per gallon. So better fuels and fuel injection could improve mileage, but not stupendously...
...Obviously a huge amount of the energy in a gallon of gasoline goes to waste. Some of that is unavoidable by the laws of physics, much of it is unavoidable as a matter of engineering reality. There may be designs out there that vastly exceed what we currently achieve. Maybe you could even fit them under the hood of an existing car. But you won't get them by slapping a cheap retrofit on an existing piston engine.
Indeed, but not by much. Remember, the oil market is global.
Where would you get the massive investment of money for this ramp up?
How long would this increased production last?
Not off the top of my head, but it is rather easily found data.
Nice graph, brah. You don't know how much oil the USA has, do you?
Your point?
If you build roads and highways for those who use cars you are favoring cars over other forms of transport such as rail or bicycles or even walking.
That is the definition of a subsidy. It essentially favors the automotive industry over the rail industry, does it not?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
