Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.

[magindat]

http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659

Sign the petition...

[Aren Jay]

That will not work.

Bringing your oil to the market will not reduce the price.

It is like you finding gold and selling it for $100 an ounce. Who is going to do that? No one.

[MENINBLK]

Most of the world buys its fuel from the US.
So drilling for more oil here doesn't help the situation.

You really need to look into where the fuel $$$ is going
because over 1/2 of what you pay at the pump is going
to fulfill a lot of people's 401k investments.....

[OneBADLsE]

signed........

[sailsmen]

Most of the world buys its fuel from the US.
So drilling for more oil here doesn't help the situation.

You really need to look into where the fuel $$$ is going
because over 1/2 of what you pay at the pump is going
to fulfill a lot of people's 401k investments.....

The above two statements are wrong. Please explain.

We import over 50% of the oil that we use. How is most of the World buying it's fuel from the US?

"Big Gov't" gets 15 cents for every dollar in Gasoline.

"Big Oil" gets 8 cents for every dollar in Gasoline.

A few simple facts;
Who owns 67% of the untapped oil below US Land? Answer "Big Gov't"

Who owns 100% of the untapped oil off US Coast? Answer "Big Gov't"

Who refuses to sell this oil? Answer "Big Gov't"

How much is this oil that "Big Gov't" refuses to sell? The same amount of oil we are currently buying from the Middle East.

For every dollar of gasoline "Big Oil" makes 8 cents profit.

For every dollar of gasoline "Big Gov't" makes 15 cents in taxes.

The average price paid for a gallon of gas in March 2008 was 10% lower in todays dollars than March 1982.

Chemical, Non-auto mfg, drug, alchohol and tabacco industries in 2007 were more profitable than "Big Oil" in 2007.

In 2007 the market capialization of "Big Oil" which consist of 184 companies was $1.6 trillion. "Big Gov't" takes $4.5 trillion per year in taxes.

Exxon sells 3.2% of the World Supply and owns .62% of the World's known reserves.

Stop "Blood for Oil" by lifting the ban on US Oil. Made in USA Oil protects USA jobs!

[magindat]

Thanx Billy.

[Aren Jay]

All true but it is not going to lower the price.

[Bigdogjim]

"Big Gov't" gets 15 cents for every dollar in Gasoline.

"Big Oil" gets 8 cents for every dollar in Gasoline.


Then how did Exxon-Mobil turn a $40 billion profit and the Gov. borrows more and more money every day?

[OneBADLsE]

Then how did Exxon-Mobil turn a $40 billion profit and the Gov. borrows more and more money every day?


Because they can.

[sailsmen]

All true but it is not going to lower the price.

Then extending the drilling band everywhere will not lower the price or raise the price? Increasing the supply will not lower the price?

There was a time when OPEC controlled the price. No longer buying oil from the Mid East will lower the price.

[sailsmen]

Then how did Exxon-Mobil turn a $40 billion profit and the Gov. borrows more and more money every day?

The two are not related. Gov't takes $4.5 TRILLION in Taxes every year. Jim we are talking TRILLIONS not billions. This equals $15,000 for every man, woman and child in this country and yet it still is not enough.

Tell "Big Gov't" to sell us our own oil and charge us for it. It generates more in Taxes than buying foreign oil and it saves US jobs!

Buy American Oil, stop "Blood for Oil" and save US jobs!

[Breadfan]

All true but it is not going to lower the price.

If we injected enough supply and at a lower rate than OPEC yes it would, especially if we cease or minimize purchases from OPEC. Some OPEC members would hold out, but several OPEC members rely on oil sales and would eventually drop their prices to meet the lower price due to increased supply. We would have both increased supply in the market as well as forcing OPEC to lower their price. The futures market would react to this as well and the commodity price would drop.

[Cordoba1]

I can't speak for what the tax rate on Gasoline is for sure - but I do know that they take a cut PER GALLON and not per dollar - so the government collects the same amount of money per tank of gas regardless of the price. And since consumption has actually declined... a little bit... they are collecting LESS taxes on fuel these days!

[Bigdogjim]

Yes good point and that also means less money to fix the roads

[Dr Caleb]

If we injected enough supply and at a lower rate than OPEC yes it would, especially if we cease or minimize purchases from OPEC. Some OPEC members would hold out, but several OPEC members rely on oil sales and would eventually drop their prices to meet the lower price due to increased supply. We would have both increased supply in the market as well as forcing OPEC to lower their price. The futures market would react to this as well and the commodity price would drop.

The trouble is, as Oil and refined gasoline inventories were released today - there is no supply problem with ether. Adding more supply won't bring the price down.

Now, have a look who is behind that website - American Solutions.com Newt Gingrich. Hmmm, why does he want you to drill for Arctic oil, when that oil would only be a short term solution with long term damage? :whistle:

Take the greedy speculators who run the price of oil to $130/bbl on speculative news that oil might one day reach $250/bbl - put them in a room with 3 men who just lost their jobs at GM because of the high price of oil.

Then the price of oil will come down to where 'supply' and 'demand' meet.

You may all taunt the French, but they know how to deal with people who tell them to 'eat cake'. :fire:

[sailsmen]

The trouble is, as Oil and refined gasoline inventories were released today - there is no supply problem with ether. Adding more supply won't bring the price down.

Now, have a look who is behind that website - American Solutions.com Newt Gingrich. Hmmm, why does he want you to drill for Arctic oil, when that oil would only be a short term solution with long term damage? :whistle:

Take the greedy speculators who run the price of oil to $130/bbl on speculative news that oil might one day reach $250/bbl - put them in a room with 3 men who just lost their jobs at GM because of the high price of oil.

Then the price of oil will come down to where 'supply' and 'demand' meet.

You may all taunt the French, but they know how to deal with people who tell them to 'eat cake'. :fire:

What long term damage?

I have a client that has an oil field developed in the early 1960's. I went on a tour there are eagles and jack rabbits. He has seen large alligators and is considering applying for a license to hunt alligator. When your land supports the top predator the whole food chain is there as in the land is not damaged. The technology to drill today is enviro firendly.

What you say above makes no sense.

China has been buying steel and driving up the price of steel. But China buying oil does not drive up the price of oil?

The law of supply and demand does not apply to oil, but putting men in a room with 3 laid off GM workers will? What does GM have to do w/ oil? When oil is low does GM hire more people?

What do French people wanting to eat cake have to do w/ the cost of oil?

How is allowing the US people to buy their own oil a bad thing, unless you live in Canada and fear the US will then by less oil from Canada?

[Todd]

I thought the government changed tax on the gallon, but not a fixed fee per gallon.

My understanding is that federal tax along with state and local end up costing around 25% of the cost of every gallon.

I do not fully agree with the statement that demand has gone down. I am pretty sure we are equal to or surpassing our previous demand due to population growth and the fact that people are in love with driving. But I havent researched demand so I may be wrong.

Big oil does make a profit margin of 8%. They made big profits because their profit margin stayed the same but sales went up along with the cost.

I would be pissed if they raised their profit margin to profiteer during tough times, but they have not.


Supply and demand is the issue. Hurricane Rita and KAtrina knocked a number of refineries and oil platforms out in the gulf. Supply goes down, and you see what happened.

[baltimoremm]

1. If we increase domestic production, OPEC will only lower (or threaten to lower) their own production levels to maintain price.
2. As long as developing countries (like china) continue to subsidize oil for their citizens, demand will continue to increase.
3. Even if the government does approve domestic oil exploration and drilling today, we are still a long ways away from seeing relief. The red tape of government and the steps to build the actual infrastructure to get the oil out of the ground in these areas (in large enough amounts to make a difference) are years away.
-Bottom line, cut demand and take steps to discourage developing countries from artificially lowering the price for thier citizens.

[Breadfan]

The trouble is, as Oil and refined gasoline inventories were released today - there is no supply problem with ether. Adding more supply won't bring the price down.

You are correct - there is no supply problem. There is plenty of fuel, it's just that the commodity price is high.

We don't need to inject supply simply to increase supply, we need to inject CHEAPER supply to provide competition, force OPEC to lower prices, and drop the futures commodity price of oil.

[Breadfan]

1. If we increase domestic production, OPEC will only lower (or threaten to lower) their own production levels to maintain price.
2. As long as developing countries (like china) continue to subsidize oil for their citizens, demand will continue to increase.
3. Even if the government does approve domestic oil exploration and drilling today, we are still a long ways away from seeing relief. The red tape of government and the steps to build the actual infrastructure to get the oil out of the ground in these areas (in large enough amounts to make a difference) are years away.
-Bottom line, cut demand and take steps to discourage developing countries from artificially lowering the price for thier citizens.

1.) OPEC only has so many "strong members" who can survive by holding out. These are countries that are rich. There are also member countries who seriously depend on their oil revenue. The longer OPEC tries to hold out, the more these countries voices would raise.

2.) As more and more people use oil, and the countries develop, it's unlikely subsidizing would go on forever. Still, worldwide consumption will continue to rise, no doubt about that.

3.) True, and we better figure that out now rather than later. We need to be better at being flexible to market conditions with oil. By NOT already having the infrastructure we've put ourselves in a bad spot. The longer we wait, the harder it will be to react. Let's cut our losses and get the ball rolling on a solution now.

The big thing is that there are probably SEVERAL ways to solve the problem. The BIGGEST problem is that right now no one is acting. And I doubt ANYTHING will be done until after November 2008. Until then no one wants to rock the boat, so we'll pretend to be green and fix baseball issues in the meantime.

[Bluerauder]

I thought that this thread was an advertisement for the US Army Reserve or the National Guard. ;)

[Pops]

I thought that this thread was an advertisement for the US Army Reserve or the National Guard. ;)

Charlie I like your way of thinking on this problem. You guys have all made some great points but I still do not see a way to fix the problem. The price will stay up and it is still a bargain when you look at rest of the world. The high gas prices are also causing sales to go down here at the store but I do not think I can fix it. If you do not have a lot of income you are going to cut other expenses and I am one of them. It appear .s that all the stimulus money is turning up at Walmart. I am sure that the oil companies are getting a lot of it also. We are going to have to pay for fuel and will need to adjust to the higher prices.

[Dr Caleb]

What long term damage?

I have a client that has an oil field developed in the early 1960's. I went on a tour there are eagles and jack rabbits. He has seen large alligators and is considering applying for a license to hunt alligator. When your land supports the top predator the whole food chain is there as in the land is not damaged. The technology to drill today is enviro firendly.

What you say above makes no sense.

Because you did not read the word 'Arctic'. The rules are different there.



China has been buying steel and driving up the price of steel. But China buying oil does not drive up the price of oil?

The law of supply and demand does not apply to oil, but putting men in a room with 3 laid off GM workers will? What does GM have to do w/ oil? When oil is low does GM hire more people?

What do French people wanting to eat cake have to do w/ the cost of oil?

How is allowing the US people to buy their own oil a bad thing, unless you live in Canada and fear the US will then by less oil from Canada?

Why do placebos work nearly as well as the actual drug?

Why is the universe 14 billion years old and 28 billion years across, but the heat from the big bang is uniform throughout?

Where do tetraneutrons come from, considering the unfied theory of physics says they should not exist?

I have many other questions also meant to confuse the issue and distract from the actual topic because I don't read what you write. Just as you have.


You are correct - there is no supply problem. There is plenty of fuel, it's just that the commodity price is high.

We don't need to inject supply simply to increase supply, we need to inject CHEAPER supply to provide competition, force OPEC to lower prices, and drop the futures commodity price of oil.

I see what you're saying now. I have a feeling that since China is done their hoarding, that the price will come down in the next few months. It's not going to go back down to the $30-$40 range, not with India and China causing greater demand for crude oil.

The other way, as opposed to drilling, is to reduce demand for refined gas. But I lose hope for that every time someone starts a 'Smart Car' thread.

[sailsmen]

The "rules" are different everywhere including wetlands in the area where I live. There is no eco system in the Artic? There are no animals in the area of ANWAR where drilling will take place. The Trans Alaska pipline did not destroy the eco system.

The ANWAR area that would be subject to drilling is baren and smaller than the DC Airport.

Whats more important plants in a small area of ANWAR or human beings?

Alligators were endangered here due to several factors including over hunting. For the past 10 years there have been so many Alligators the State is asking people to apply for hunting licenses.

My questions were asking you to explain your own "confusing statements" that you apparently posted to distract from the issue, why should the USA people be banned from buying their own oil?

Why are you so againest the USA people buying their own oil? What is so evil about buying what is yours?

Do Canadians buy and use their own oil and is that evil? Is it evil for USA people to buy oil from Canada? Perhaps this USA ban should be extended World Wide, afterall per you it will not affect the price.

In less than 20 years the MPG for autos has doubled.

As far as your "You may all taunt the French, but they know how to deal with people who tell them to 'eat cake'." Are you referencing the French Revolution when the people over threw their greedy overtaxing and over spending gov't? I concur, it is time to reduce gov't taxing and spending.

[Dr Caleb]

The "rules" are different everywhere including wetlands in the area where I live. There is no eco system in the Artic? There are no animals in the area of ANWAR where drilling will take place. The Trans Alaska pipline did not destroy the eco system.

The ANWAR area that would be subject to drilling is baren and smaller than the DC Airport.

Whats more important plants in a small area of ANWAR or human beings?


That area of the continent is very fragile, and any small change has big repercussions due to the very short growing season. It supports a herd of Caribou, which migrate across the border and is the only food source for several villages in the Yukon. If the herd goes - so do those villages. Villages that have been there for thousands of years.

So, your question could be put - which is more important, people or 6 months worth of US oil reserves?



My questions were asking you to explain your own "confusing statements" that you apparently posted to distract from the issue, why should the USA people be banned from buying their own oil?

My statements were not confusing, if you took the time to read them. For instance, no where did I say that the US should not drill for their own oil. All I asked was - what are Newt Gingritch's motives for this petition? Is it in your best interest, or his?

As for the General Motors comment - you'd understand if you have been paying attention to the news.

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/06/06/caw-gmmeeting.html




Why are you so againest the USA people buying their own oil? What is so evil about buying what is yours?

Do Canadians buy and use their own oil and is that evil? Is it evil for USA people to buy oil from Canada? Perhaps this USA ban should be extended World Wide, afterall per you it will not affect the price.

Careful to stretch first, or you may sprain something jumping to conclusions like that.



In less than 20 years the MPG for autos has doubled.


The overall fuel rating for North American products has returned to the same level as before EPA ratings were mandated in the 70's after the fuel crisis. It's like no one took that lesson to heart.

People also kick and scream whenever a 'Smart car' thread comes up, and kick and scream when a gas price thread comes up. PICK ONE!



As far as your "You may all taunt the French, but they know how to deal with people who tell them to 'eat cake'." Are you referencing the French Revolution when the people over threw their greedy overtaxing and over spending gov't? I concur, it is time to reduce gov't taxing and spending.

Exactly. 'Let them eat cake' = 'that is the price of a gallon of gas, and people will just have to suck it up'. But the government is not the one pushing the price of a barrel of crude skyward. It's the commodities speculators.

[JACook]

My statements were not confusing, if you took the time to read them. For instance, no where did I say that the US should not drill for their own oil. All I asked was - what are Newt Gingritch's motives for this petition? Is it in your best interest, or his?

This thread has brought out a lot of good, reasoned, discussion, but I feel compelled
to respond to this, since this is the second time you've played the 'Newt' card.

Ad-hominem attacks, and guilt-by-association are not reasonable discussion. They
serve only to obfuscate the issues, and those who use such tactics are doing so
to avoid reasonable discussion, by way of prejudice. By using this tactic, you lower
yourself to the level of a talk radio blowhard.

If you have specific concerns about the ANWR drilling petition, by all means voice them.
But trying to sway opinion because some popular or unpopular entity favors or opposes
the issue, that's an act of cowardice. Let your arguments stand or fall on their merits.

[Dr Caleb]

This thread has brought out a lot of good, reasoned, discussion, but I feel compelled
to respond to this, since this is the second time you've played the 'Newt' card.

Ad-hominem attacks, and guilt-by-association are not reasonable discussion. They
serve only to obfuscate the issues, and those who use such tactics are doing so
to avoid reasonable discussion, by way of prejudice. By using this tactic, you lower
yourself to the level of a talk radio blowhard.

If you have specific concerns about the ANWR drilling petition, by all means voice them.
But trying to sway opinion because some popular or unpopular entity favors or opposes
the issue, that's an act of cowardice. Let your arguments stand or fall on their merits.

Really? Hmmm. I don't see where I attacked him. I only asked the readers to consider his motives, giving no opinion one way or the other as to what they may be. Any such implied opinions on my part are the result of your own bias.

Basically, because I don't care what his motives are. It's not my future at stake. But I have, and do, see many such 'public opinion' type messages that have ulterior motives. Being able to recognize them is an invaluable tool. The messenger can be just as important as the message.

However, referring to me as a 'coward' and 'blowhard' is in itself an ad-hominem attack. If you read my last post, you will see my concerns with drilling in Alaska. You might want to address that, rather than attack me.

[sailsmen]

That area of the continent is very fragile, and any small change has big repercussions due to the very short growing season. It supports a herd of Caribou, which migrate across the border and is the only food source for several villages in the Yukon. If the herd goes - so do those villages. Villages that have been there for thousands of years.

So, your question could be put - which is more important, people or 6 months worth of US oil reserves?

Sailsmen - What proof do you have that the Caribou will not go around it. Same arguement was made againest the Trans Alaska Pipeline and it has been proved to be false, Caribou are smarter than you think. If the Caribou die we can send them alligator meat. I would think after thousands of years of eating the same thing they are ready for some variety. I don't see too many cavemen walking around either. I am sure the oil cos wouldn't mind feeding the caribou.


My statements were not confusing, if you took the time to read them. For instance, no where did I say that the US should not drill for their own oil. All I asked was - what are Newt Gingritch's motives for this petition? Is it in your best interest, or his?

As for the General Motors comment - you'd understand if you have been paying attention to the news.

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/06/06/caw-gmmeeting.html

Sailsmen - Confusing in that do I understand your belief that if we buy our own oil we will not have more jobs to buy GM cars and the price of gas will not be less than if we don't buy our own oil? Let these "greedy speculators" you speak of speculate on the USA buying it's own oil. Think that will raise or lower the price? What I understand is your statement is not a solution but sensationalism to distract from the USA buying it's own oil.Extend the USA Drilling Band world wide and what do you think these "greedy speculators" will do?


Careful to stretch first, or you may sprain something jumping to conclusions like that.



The overall fuel rating for North American products has returned to the same level as before EPA ratings were mandated in the 70's after the fuel crisis. It's like no one took that lesson to heart.

Sailsmen - Marlarkey - Cars toady average over double. The Marauder gets 15 city. In 1975 I got 7 in the city.
People also kick and scream whenever a 'Smart car' thread comes up, and kick and scream when a gas price thread comes up. PICK ONE!



Exactly. 'Let them eat cake' = 'that is the price of a gallon of gas, and people will just have to suck it up'. But the government is not the one pushing the price of a barrel of crude skyward. It's the commodities speculators.

Sailsmen - Malarkey - Try to get it in your head the Gov't owns the oil and refuses to sell, I know you can understand it. Big Gov't is telling it's people no you cannot buy your oil, "Let them eat cake"

[Dr Caleb]

Sailsmen - What proof do you have that the Caribou will not go around it.


What proof do you have that they will? Or that they can? When ecosystems get wiped out - they are gone. No going around that.

I take it then, your answer is people are less important than SUV's.



Same arguement was made againest the Trans Alaska Pipeline and it has been proved to be false, Caribou are smarter than you think.

Proven false - when? Where? I can show you the daily accident reports for the T-A pipeline if you like. You'll also notice this is the difference in our style of argument. I present opinion based on fact. You present opinion and call it fact.

I've met Caribou, and no, they aren't.


If the Caribou die we can send them alligator meat.


I'm sure you believe that, but you also have seen first hand the reality. What odds that a few thousand people in the frozen North would be considered, given the devastation you've seen?


I would think after thousands of years of eating the same thing they are ready for some variety. I don't see too many cavemen walking around either.

And, they are supposed to change their way of life because you think they need a change?



Sailsmen - Confusing in that do I understand your belief that if we buy our own oil we will not have more jobs to buy GM cars and the price of gas will not be less than if we don't buy our own oil?


Is english a second language for you? GM workers lost their jobs because the truck plant they work in is being closed because no one is buying gas guzzling trucks because of the high cost at the pump. See also: Continental Airlines. It's in the news today.

As I said before, inventories released yesterday show no shortage of oil or refined gas. The price of oil has nothing to do with inventories, so increasing them will do nothing. The price of oil TODAY reached a record high ($139) even though the inventory data just came out.

Speculators are the reason for high oil prices. Put the speculators, in a room with the laid off GM workers, and call an ambulance.

Breadfan is in favour of saturating the market with cheap, non-imported US oil to bring the price down. I thought about that overnight, and I don't think that would have the effect we want it to have. I think that would cause the House of Saud and others to show their true feelings toward the West. And, we probably would be in deep then.

Underconstumble now?



Let these "greedy speculators" you speak of speculate on the USA buying it's own oil. Think that will raise or lower the price? What I understand is your statement is not a solution but sensationalism to distract from the USA buying it's own oil.


Careful of sprains . . .



Sailsmen - Marlarkey - Cars toady average over double. The Marauder gets 15 city. In 1975 I got 7 in the city.


What does a Hummer get? Did they have those in 1975? Do you know what the CAFE fuel economy targets are? Or how they work?

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060407/FREE/60403023/1024/LATESTNEWS

This is what they mean:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Images/imagefiles/CafeQ16_1.gif

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.43ac99aefa80569eea575 29cdba046a0/?javax.portlet.tpst=f2d14277f7 10b755fc08d51090008a0c_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_f2d14277f710 b755fc08d51090008a0c_viewID=de tail_view&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=com. vignette.cachetoken&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=com. vignette.cachetoken&itemID=199b8facdcfa4010VgnVCM1 000002c567798RCRD&viewType=standard#6

No go back, and read my statement: "The overall fuel rating for North American products has returned to the same level as before EPA ratings were mandated in the 70's after the fuel crisis. It's like no one took that lesson to heart."

My Marauder gets better millage than my 1975 Buick LeSabre too - but take ALL the vehicles produced today, and ALL the vehicles produced in the 1970's before the fuel crisis, for a given model year, and there is very little difference in their average economy. In the early 80's, the average fell, but it's been steadily increasing since the 90's. New cars, in 1975 had a fleet average of 1.4 MPG. Fleet cars in 2002 were 2.4 MPG.

Nothing has changed.

http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/cleancars/cafe/briefing_book.pdf



Sailsmen - Malarkey - Try to get it in your head the Gov't owns the oil and refuses to sell, I know you can understand it. Big Gov't is telling it's people no you cannot buy your oil, "Let them eat cake"

Malarkey? Firstly *YOU* are the government. YOU own your natural resources. I don't know why people continue to differentiate themselves from the Government. There are people you voted for to represent your interests (not theirs) and others hired to work for the government to administer the country. YOU are that government. THEY work for YOU. Don't hide behind them, pretending like it's their fault. "Let them eat cake."

Secondly, the government sells oil by the barrel, at a flat rate. Here in Alberta, we sell it for the paltry sum of $5 a barrel. In Alaska, they have the smarts to charge more, $12.50 a barrel.

Thirdly, the government does not sell the oil on the open market for $139 a barrel. They sell it to Mobil, or Exxon, or BP for $5 a barrel. Those companies sell it to their own refineries for less than market rate, but far more than $5 and pass those profits off to you at the pumps.

Big oil has no interest in bringing down the price of oil, because speculators are ramping up the price and big oil is making a killing off it. They are eating your cake.

[JACook]

Really? Hmmm. I don't see where I attacked him. I only asked the readers to consider his motives, giving no opinion one way or the other as to what they may be.

Which is entirely the point. Even if one could know his motives, they are irrelevant
to the discussion at hand. Either it's a bad idea because... or a good idea because...
Calling attention to who does or does not support the idea, is the very definition of
guilt-by-association, and as such, it's an attempt to color the debate, rather than
rely on the merits of your position. Having made the reference twice, there is clearly
an agenda behind it, otherwise why single out that one person?


However, referring to me as a 'coward' and 'blowhard' is in itself an ad-hominem attack.

My comments were not meant to stifle debate, or marginalize your position. (Which is
kinda the definition of 'ad hominem'.) What I attacked was your use of the 'guilt-by-
association' shibboleth, not you personally, or any positions you've taken. I characterized
your actions, I did not characterize -you-.

If you interpret my comments as evidence that I'm taking a side here, you couldn't be
more wrong. I'm very 'equal opportunity' when it comes to this sort of thing...

[sailsmen]

What proof do you have that they will? Or that they can? When ecosystems get wiped out - they are gone. No going around that.

I take it then, your answer is people are less important than SUV's.

Sailsmen -You offer no proof the eco system will be wiped out. I offer personal experience it did not in wetlands. Buffalo, alligators, pelican and numerous others prove your statement incorrect.


Proven false - when? Where? I can show you the daily accident reports for the T-A pipeline if you like. You'll also notice this is the difference in our style of argument. I present opinion based on fact. You present opinion and call it fact.

I've met Caribou, and no, they aren't.

Sailsmen - the proof is there are more caribou. What are the names of these caribou you have met? Dinosars were not very smart either. Ther are not too many around, it's called evolution.


I'm sure you believe that, but you also have seen first hand the reality. What odds that a few thousand people in the frozen North would be considered, given the devastation you've seen?

Sailsmen -Seen the reality of what?, the force of mother nature is far greater than the force of man. One volcano emits more "pollution" than all of man since the start of the industrial age


And, they are supposed to change their way of life because you think they need a change?

Sailsmen -No one is asking them to change, they do not live near where any drilling will take place, again the area for drilling is baren and the size of an airport.


Is english a second language for you? GM workers lost their jobs because the truck plant they work in is being closed because no one is buying gas guzzling trucks because of the high cost at the pump. See also: Continental Airlines. It's in the news today.

As I said before, inventories released yesterday show no shortage of oil or refined gas. The price of oil has nothing to do with inventories, so increasing them will do nothing. The price of oil TODAY reached a record high ($139) even though the inventory data just came out.

Speculators are the reason for high oil prices. Put the speculators, in a room with the laid off GM workers, and call an ambulance.

Breadfan is in favour of saturating the market with cheap, non-imported US oil to bring the price down. I thought about that overnight, and I don't think that would have the effect we want it to have. I think that would cause the House of Saud and others to show their true feelings toward the West. And, we probably would be in deep then.

Sailsmen - You ignore the laws of supply and demand. Fine you then ignore what would speculators do when the USA starts buying it's own oil and no longer buys from the Mid East. USA buying it's own oil creates USA jobs and lowers the price of oil. Then GM may higher more, but I doubt it, not efficient to pay people $65 an hour to bolt on parts.
Underconstumble now?



Careful of sprains . . .



What does a Hummer get? Did they have those in 1975? Do you know what the CAFE fuel economy targets are? Or how they work?

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060407/FREE/60403023/1024/LATESTNEWS

Sailsmen - how many Hummers have been sold?
This is what they mean:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Images/imagefiles/CafeQ16_1.gif

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.43ac99aefa80569eea575 29cdba046a0/?javax.portlet.tpst=f2d14277f7 10b755fc08d51090008a0c_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_f2d14277f710 b755fc08d51090008a0c_viewID=de tail_view&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=com. vignette.cachetoken&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=com. vignette.cachetoken&itemID=199b8facdcfa4010VgnVCM1 000002c567798RCRD&viewType=standard#6

No go back, and read my statement: "The overall fuel rating for North American products has returned to the same level as before EPA ratings were mandated in the 70's after the fuel crisis. It's like no one took that lesson to heart."

My Marauder gets better millage than my 1975 Buick LeSabre too - but take ALL the vehicles produced today, and ALL the vehicles produced in the 1970's before the fuel crisis, for a given model year, and there is very little difference in their average economy. In the early 80's, the average fell, but it's been steadily increasing since the 90's. New cars, in 1975 had a fleet average of 1.4 MPG. Fleet cars in 2002 were 2.4 MPG.

Nothing has changed.

http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/cleancars/cafe/briefing_book.pdf

Sailsmen - Marlarkey, the average MPG of all cars has doubled since 1975, do a search numerous sources will verify it.

Malarkey? Firstly *YOU* are the government. YOU own your natural resources. I don't know why people continue to differentiate themselves from the Government. There are people you voted for to represent your interests (not theirs) and others hired to work for the government to administer the country. YOU are that government. THEY work for YOU. Don't hide behind them, pretending like it's their fault. "Let them eat cake."

Sailsmen - thank you, thats why the government as you say needs to let us buy our own oil. Just like it lets us buy our own water, corn, wheat, beer, meat and so forth.

Secondly, the government sells oil by the barrel, at a flat rate. Here in Alberta, we sell it for the paltry sum of $5 a barrel. In Alaska, they have the smarts to charge more, $12.50 a barrel.

Thirdly, the government does not sell the oil on the open market for $139 a barrel. They sell it to Mobil, or Exxon, or BP for $5 a barrel. Those companies sell it to their own refineries for less than market rate, but far more than $5 and pass those profits off to you at the pumps.

Big oil has no interest in bringing down the price of oil, because speculators are ramping up the price and big oil is making a killing off it. They are eating your cake.

Sailsmen - Big Oil makes 4 cents a dollar of gas. The 8 cents is what they make on sales w/ the majority of profits from non- gas/diesel petroleum by products. Either way 8 cents ain't no killing.

By your line of thinking drilling for oil destroys ecosystems. Then ban drilling oil everywhere, lets start the ban in Canada.

Buy USA oil, protect USA jobs and no more blood for oil!

[Blk Mamba]

The above two statements are wrong. Please explain.

We import over 50% of the oil that we use. How is most of the World buying it's fuel from the US?

"Big Gov't" gets 15 cents for every dollar in Gasoline.

"Big Oil" gets 8 cents for every dollar in Gasoline.

A few simple facts;
Who owns 67% of the untapped oil below US Land? Answer "Big Gov't"

Who owns 100% of the untapped oil off US Coast? Answer "Big Gov't"

Who refuses to sell this oil? Answer "Big Gov't"

How much is this oil that "Big Gov't" refuses to sell? The same amount of oil we are currently buying from the Middle East.

For every dollar of gasoline "Big Oil" makes 8 cents profit.

For every dollar of gasoline "Big Gov't" makes 15 cents in taxes.

The average price paid for a gallon of gas in March 2008 was 10% lower in todays dollars than March 1982.

Chemical, Non-auto mfg, drug, alchohol and tabacco industries in 2007 were more profitable than "Big Oil" in 2007.

In 2007 the market capialization of "Big Oil" which consist of 184 companies was $1.6 trillion. "Big Gov't" takes $4.5 trillion per year in taxes.

Exxon sells 3.2% of the World Supply and owns .62% of the World's known reserves.

Stop "Blood for Oil" by lifting the ban on US Oil. Made in USA Oil protects USA jobs!

Isn't this tax used to fund road repairs, build new bridges, & build new roads?

[sailsmen]

The figures I have seen are approximately 60% go to Roads, I have not verified it for I do not see the relevance.

The point is what many have seen as "outrageous profits is almost half of the taxes". The taxes are then also "outrageous". Add up all the taxes go'vt has collected on gas from 1985-2005 and it's more than double the profits of "Big Oil." There are other taxes such as road use taxes that are also suppose to go to roads. Perhaps it's similar to the Tobacco Settlement money that was suppose to be used by gov't to treat smokers or certain state lotteries that were suppose to go to education.

It all boils down to this our gov't makes a killing off of selling us gas and refuses to let us buy our own oil so instead we are buying it from those who haved vowed to kill us and are using our money to aquire the weapons to do so. But hey buying our own oil might kill a few fish or caribou.

Ask any fishermen in the Gulf where the fish are and they point to an oil platform. The envrionmentalist have been petitioning the gov't to keep the old platforms in the Gulf, made into reefs.

I have a client who is now being prevented from buying old vessels from a nearby state because they require the vessels be scrubbed of all sealife before leaving port so as not to cross contaminate. The fear is the srubbing may leave lead paint chips. What the EPA will not recognize is that the same fish that are in the nearby state do not know they are in a nearby state and therefore freely swim back and forth! Perhaps the EPA will survey the fish as to what state they live in and how often they visit the nearby state? Anybody speak fish?

The irony is this same client can buy vessels from overseas w/o any scrubbing worry. The vessels in the nearby state continue to rot and the possiblity of causing enviro damage increases as time goes by. My client completely complies w/ all enviro laws and has the vessels remediated as they should.

[whd507]

from what I've read, less than 40% of gas taxes go to roads, most of it either goes to the general fund, or light-rail/bus routes/bike trails/car-pool lanes/jogging trails etc. the real winner here, are the states, which take a bigger share than the feds, PLUS charge sales tax on top of the other taxes, and that does go up with the price as its not per gallon, but per dollar. the oil companies make 4-8 cents per gallon,

For the first quarter of 2008, the average state gasoline tax is 28.6 cents per gallon, plus 18.4 cents per gallon federal tax making the total 47 cents per gallon. For diesel, the average state tax is 29.2 cents per gallon plus an additional 24.4 cents per gallon federal tax making the total 53.6 cents per gallon. (http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/)

plus sales tax.

[whd507]

Alaska Pipeline

Construction on the pipeline began in 1975, and oil first moved through it on June 20, 1977. Former Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton summed up its success in 2003 that “Today the pipeline produces 17 percent of our domestic petroleum. It has pumped nearly 14 billion barrels of oil and $400 billion into our economy. We need the pipeline even more now than when it was built.”

Just in time for the PBS special, “The Alaska Pipeline (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pipeline/),” set to air April 24 on PBS, theBusiness & Media Institute compared predictions from the pipeline’s inception to the realities of the past three decades.
Propaganda, Not Policy: Approval of the pipeline “was not based on facts but on oil industry propaganda,” according to some of the Department of Interior’s top ecologists, reported The Washington Post on Feb. 11, 1971. The New York Times ran an editorial that began, “passage of the Alaska pipeline bill is the triumph of scare propaganda and economic pressure over reasoned public policy” on Nov. 14, 1973.

Reality: Despite those claims, the pipeline has had tremendous policy implications. It created tens of thousands of jobs, from the construction of the pipeline in Alaska to the manufacturing of the pipe in Pennsylvania, to the building of the tankers to transport the oil in Louisiana.

And as gas prices rise going into another summer driving season, the pipeline’s effect on the oil market bears mentioning. “Alaska produces about 800,000 barrels a day or about 1 percent of the world market of 73.5 million barrels a day,” said Peter Van Doren of the Cato Institute.
“A loss of that production would increase prices by at least 10 to 16 percent. In the 1980s, when production was 1.8 million barrels a day and the world market was smaller (54 mbd), the loss of Alaskan oil would have increased world oil prices by 30 to 50 percent.”

Bye-bye Caribou?: Many people suddenly developed a “passionate concern for the mating habits of Alaska caribou and campaign noisily against intrusion of Arctic pipelines into this essential activity,” reported The Christian Science Monitor on Oct. 10, 1972. The New York Times on Oct. 14, 1973, said the question is “whether the caribou will go the way of the buffalo.”

Reality: Thirty years later we can see the effects of the pipeline on the caribou. Walter Hickel, a former U.S. Secretary of the Interior and governor of Alaska, said (http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17320/article_detail.asp) that the caribou herd “has not only survived, but flourished. In 1977, as the Prudhoe region started delivering oil to America's southern 48 states, the Central Arctic caribou herd numbered 6,000; it has since grown to 27,128.” Alaska’s Department of Fish and Game Web site (http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/biggame/caribou.php)reports that “in general, caribou have not been adversely affected by human activities in Alaska.” Pipelines and other manmade objects have been built to accommodate caribou movements, and the animals have adapted to people and machines.

Earthquake Risk: Larry Moss of the Sierra Club stated in the Los Angeles Times on June 14, 1973, that the oil industry “has continued, single-mindedly, its attempt to turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse.” Support for this claim was that the pipeline had “basic design flaws which cannot really be overcome by engineering ingenuity.” This was supposedly because the pipe “would cross one of the most active earthquake zones in the world, would scar and despoil vast tracts of magnificent, undisturbed country and would threaten extensive oil spills in the numerous rivers which the pipeline would cross.”

A report from “top ecologists” at the Department of the Interior claimed that dangers of “severance in earthquake prone areas” were “inadequately dealt with,” read The Washington Post on Feb. 11, 1971. “The Alaskan area involved is renowned for its extreme seismic activity,” the Post reiterated on May 7, 1972. In the 70 years before 1972, 23 major earthquakes had “clobbered the terrain” where the Alaskan pipeline would be built, any one of which “could have caused a catastrophic break in the pipe,” the Post article continued.

Reality: The time passed since the construction of the pipeline allows for testing of this claim. On Nov. 3, 2002, a 7.9-magnitude earthquake struck Alaska. It was the worst earthquake recorded on Alaska’s Denali fault, and considered a once-in-600-years event. The New York Times on Nov. 5, 2002, called it “one of the largest earthquakes in American history,” which, had it struck a major city, “would have destroyed hundreds of buildings and killed many people.” Tremors caused movements around Yellowstone National Park and even rocked boats in Louisiana. In comparison, the great San Francisco earthquake of 1906 was weaker at 7.8.

Yet the pipeline “withstood the powerful quake just as designed – damaged but not ruptured,” according to the Nov. 10, 2002, Los Angeles Times. “If anything, last week's powerful earthquake shows that the pipeline could have withstood more,” the pipeline’s seismic design coordinator said. The New York Times article said that “After an aerial survey today, pipeline officials said they found no leaks in the structure.”

Gale Norton summarized the effects: (http://www.doi.gov/secretary/speeches/030109speech.htm) “The Alaska pipeline was just 60 miles from the quake's epicenter. It shook back and forth, some supporting struts broke. But the pipeline held. It did not crack. Not a drop of oil was spilled. No one was injured. The safety systems put in place worked to perfection.” The predicted “design flaws” that supposedly couldn’t be “overcome by engineering ingenuity” weren’t mentioned after the earthquake occurred.

[whd507]

‘Misplaced Effort’: Less than five months after the announcement of the oil discovery and proposed pipeline, members of the Sierra Club complained that they were invited to only two “superficial meetings” where they “were told nothing significant,” according to The New York Times on July 5, 1969. The Sierra Club and their fellow environmentalists from the Wilderness Society, Friends of the Earth, and Environmental Defense Fund Inc. delayed pipeline progress with lawsuits. The Feb. 13, 1973, New York Times said the delay in construction “is the best the oil companies can expect, while the possibility grows ever livelier that after years of misplaced effort the Alaska pipeline will join such forgotten and costly fantasies as the South Sea Bubble (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/england/geo_south_sea_bubble.shtml).”

Reality: That “misplaced effort” has pumped 15 billion barrels of oil into the U.S. economy. Adrian Herrera of Arctic Power (http://www.anwr.org/), an Alaska-based group that advocates oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, said the effects of the pipeline have “been huge. The benefit is both economic and social.” Infrastructure that was built in conjunction with the pipeline has a trickle-down effect that has helped all businesses. “Nationwide the effect has been quite profound,” he continued. “Not just a direct benefit … there’s indirect benefits too.” Jobs supporting the pipeline have been spread across the nation, as have the advantages from having more oil available.

Pipeline Breaking: On May 6, 1970, The New York Times said that the head of the Naval Arctic Research Laboratory warned that “the proposed trans-Alaska oil pipeline might break and wreak great damage to the environment.”

Reality: Despite leaks in the past, the pipeline has improved and is leaking less. The United States has the most stringent environmental controls on oil. Any spill of more than a teaspoon is reported (http://www.alyeska-pipe.com/PipelineFacts/pipelineoperations.html). The whole pipeline is scanned every day from the ground or helicopters for leaks. Despite being three decades old, the pipeline is more modern than many others around the world.

‘All Hell’ to Break Loose: The New York Times on Nov 10, 1974, quoted an internationally known professor on Arctic soils from Rutgers University. He predicted “‘all hell will break loose’ on Alaska’s north slope within five years after hot oil starts flowing through the trans-Alaska pipeline.” He then “compared the spread of damage to the permafrost ‘to a cancer that takes five years.’”

Reality: Of the 800-mile pipeline, 420 miles are above ground to avoid the permafrost. When above ground, it has a 2-inch “heat pipe” containing pure ammonia. When the air is cooler than the ground, the ammonia vaporizes and draws the heat from the earth. The ammonia then condenses on the pipe, starting the process again (http://www.alyeska-pipe.com/aboutus/Matter%20of%20Fact/keeping-cool.html).

[whd507]

the only benefit I see to our current policy is when the arabs run out of oil, we will still have 100s of years worth sitting around.

meanwhile the Chinese are drilling in the gulf of mexico, and we dont even replace damaged platforms we already had.

[Dr Caleb]

Having made the reference twice, there is clearly an agenda behind it, otherwise why single out that one person?

I wouldn't have even commented in this thread, had I not researched who commissioned this 'petition' and had to jump through several hoops to find out who it was. I recognized the name.

It is my nature to ask 'Why?' especially of people in authority. I understand why you think I have an agenda, but I don't. Perhaps this will explain my personality quirk.

http://www.justlaugh.com/online/vol2issue13/wc201.gif

It's not that I am questioning <b>his</b> motives - I question <b>everyone's</b> motives.

Whether this petition is good for you, or good for him - or good for both; I question anyone who seeks to change people's opinion from a position of authority without offering facts but instead relying on passion.

[Dr Caleb]

Sailsmen -You offer no proof the eco system will be wiped out. I offer personal experience it did not in wetlands. Buffalo, alligators, pelican and numerous others prove your statement incorrect.

I offered no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow ether. None of those animals live in the Arctic - it is a much more fragile environment than wetlands.

Edward O. Wilson has done some amazing work on what happens to ecosystems when they are disturbed. I invite you to read some of his studies and see for yourself.

http://www.eowilson.org/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/eowilson/program.html



Sailsmen - the proof is there are more caribou. What are the names of these caribou you have met? Dinosars were not very smart either. Ther are not too many around, it's called evolution.

I did not ask these caribou for ID. Evolution does not come from extinction with extreme prejudice. It's easier to make SUVs extinct, and they can be brought back at any time.



Sailsmen -Seen the reality of what?, the force of mother nature is far greater than the force of man. One volcano emits more "pollution" than all of man since the start of the industrial age

And? What does that have to do with the conversation?



Sailsmen -No one is asking them to change, they do not live near where any drilling will take place, again the area for drilling is baren and the size of an airport.

You are asking them to change. The caribou they rely on for food do migrate right through the drilling area. And the drilling area is small, but roads and right of ways for pipelines are much larger. And accidents happen.

CBC did a really excellent series about the Alaska Pipeline. "Oil: The world over a barrell". You should download and watch it.



Sailsmen - You ignore the laws of supply and demand. Fine you then ignore what would speculators do when the USA starts buying it's own oil and no longer buys from the Mid East. USA buying it's own oil creates USA jobs and lowers the price of oil. Then GM may higher more, but I doubt it, not efficient to pay people $65 an hour to bolt on parts.

I am not. I have shown the supply is fine, and the demand is low. Yet the price rises. The really disturbing part, is those GM workers signed a new contract on May 15, protecting their jobs. If it's not efficient to pay workers to bolt on parts, they why are Toyota and Honda both building plants in the US and Canada - and their sales and profits are increasing?

It is my wish that the US buy less from the mid east, in case you haven't gleaned that bit of information.



Sailsmen - how many Hummers have been sold?

Did your subscription to Google run out?



Sailsmen - Marlarkey, the average MPG of all cars has doubled since 1975, do a search numerous sources will verify it.

Now, that's why I stopped replying to you in the healthcare thread. You demand proof, I provide it, you ignore it. The EPA statistics show just the opposite. Average Fleet MPG has risen 1 MPG since 1975. One. Mile. Per. Gallon.



Sailsmen - thank you, thats why the government as you say needs to let us buy our own oil. Just like it lets us buy our own water, corn, wheat, beer, meat and so forth.

Chapeau!



Sailsmen - Big Oil makes 4 cents a dollar of gas. The 8 cents is what they make on sales w/ the majority of profits from non- gas/diesel petroleum by products. Either way 8 cents ain't no killing.


So, given that they made record profits last year, how many gallons of gas is that at 8 cents profit each? Why doesn't that equal the number of gallons of gas sold?

Your numbers do not add up. Look at their yearly SEC filings, and SEE how much they sell the $5 barrell of oil to their own refineries for.



By your line of thinking drilling for oil destroys ecosystems. Then ban drilling oil everywhere, lets start the ban in Canada.

Did you stretch first? The Arctic is a special case. Most ecosystems can handle some stress, but the Arctic is a place that cannot.

And I would prefer that oil, especially oilsands took a step back. Most Albertans think so, especially since 10% of the gas in your tank comes from here. Oil has done things, both good and bad, to our economy. But the environmental damage is harsh, far harsher than you can imagine. It's time to rethink our dependence on oil.



Buy USA oil, protect USA jobs and no more blood for oil!

I agree, just make sure you aren't trading blood overseas for blood at home.

[prchrman]

This discussion went beyond my knowledge and what I want to know...7 things I do know...1st- I voted for Bush twice, 2nd - A couple of years after he went into office Big Oil made more money than anyone and still is...3rd - Gas prices have went up more in Bush's administration than in the history of mankind (about $1.50 to over $4.00, increase of $2.50)...4th - He has done nothing to help reduce prices (outside of grovelling to the Oil countries, "pwease pwease produce more oil")...5th - Democrat congress and senate have done nothing, zero, zilch, nada for the same cause...6th - If I were president and we had went to war, spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives in a oil producing country the size of Iraq, gas would be 50 cents a gallon here in the states...7th - Obama or McCain will not do anything either, they do not care until it effects them...willie