Alaska Darin Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 FWIW, to put things in context, oil is up about $100 per barrel since W became president. Which has almost nothing to do with him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 Which has almost nothing to do with him... Just ironic that gas has gone up over what $2.00 since he has taken office. Hope it means nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 Which has almost nothing to do with him... He is pretty impotent. I will agree with that. Apparently that "jawboning" he promised did not pan out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 Which has almost nothing to do with him... The Iraq war, the saber rattling with Iran, the lack of significant reduction in demand, the lack of significant development of alternative fuels, the buildup of terrorism in the middle east due to our foreign policy, huge increases in deficit spending which hurt the value of the dollar, ... yeah, none of that is the fault of the current administration, you're right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 The Iraq war, the saber rattling with Iran, the lack of significant reduction in demand, the lack of significant development of alternative fuels, the buildup of terrorism in the middle east due to our foreign policy, huge increases in deficit spending which hurt the value of the dollar, ... yeah, none of that is the fault of the current administration, you're right... There is that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 I Love how our "friends" the saudis just basically tell us to go f ourselves. A lot of respect for our President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 I Love how our "friends" the saudis just basically tell us to go f ourselves. A lot of respect for our President. "Bush's credibility is zero anyway. I really don't know anyone who follows what he says, especially after what has happened in Iraq and then his Knesset speech the other day." Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 I Love how our "friends" the saudis just basically tell us to go f ourselves. A lot of respect for our President. might have had something to do with the Olympic Israeli Ball Wash, ya think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 The Iraq war, the saber rattling with Iran, the lack of significant reduction in demand, the lack of significant development of alternative fuels, the buildup of terrorism in the middle east due to our foreign policy, huge increases in deficit spending which hurt the value of the dollar, ... yeah, none of that is the fault of the current administration, you're right... That's not at all what I said. Virtually everything that's going on at this point is simply the continuation of the same failed policies by both sides of the aisle. This "crisis" is over 40 years in the making (and longer on certain points). But we can pretend differently if it makes you feel better. I'm curious what you expect the administration to do in regards to "significant reduction in demand" or "significant development of alternative fuels" as if either of those can happen in the short term with some magical policy. Quick politicians, wave your magic wand and get 300,000,000 people (plus China and India) to change overnight, then make some technology available that we've needed for 50 years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 That's not at all what I said. Virtually everything that's going on at this point is simply the continuation of the same failed policies by both sides of the aisle. This "crisis" is over 40 years in the making (and longer on certain points). But we can pretend differently if it makes you feel better. I'm curious what you expect the administration to do in regards to "significant reduction in demand" or "significant development of alternative fuels" as if either of those can happen in the short term with some magical policy. Quick politicians, wave your magic wand and get 300,000,000 people (plus China and India) to change overnight, then make some technology available that we've needed for 50 years! Ok, maybe I misunderstood you. When you inferred the high cost of oil had little to do with Bush, I listed some reasons that either occurred or didn't happen over the duration of his presidency, i.e. medium term. The short term argument was more about what congress and bush are being pressured to do now. None of those things that occurred during his stewardship are applicable to what we could possibly do to affect the price this year. However, getting Saudi Arabia and OPEC to significantly increase production might have lowered the price fairly quickly. You make a pretty good point that this has been going on for some time now, but let's take each of these reasons I listed in context... * The Iraq war and the saber rattling with Iran. Clearly these are 100% to blame with Bush and his cabinet. They have created massive uncertainty about supplies in these countries and driven have up the price of oil. * Our isolationist foreign policy in general, the occupation of Iraq, and other Bush administration decisions, rhetoric, and policies have incensed the Islamic world worse than any time in modern history, escalating terrorism throughout the world and fear of disruption of oil supply in the future. While the Middle East has been a hotbed of unrest for many years, the Bush presidency has thrown gasoline soaked logs on the fire. * Deficit spending has risen exponentially, and other fiscal policies have trampled the value of the dollar. I never thought I'd be saying this about a conservative republican president, but on his watch, even if you discount the cost of Iraq, Bush has signed into law billions of dollars of new spending bills and increased government. Yes, he certainly didn't write most of these, congress did, but he signed them. Only now, after Greenspan chastised him in his book (he should talk...) does Bush push back on major spending appropriations. Other monetary policies pushed (or kept) the value of the dollar down. * Lack of significant reduction in demand. The USA uses more oil per capita than any other country in the world. Bush could have made lowering energy usage a priority during his presidency. He could have pushed legislation that forced better fuel efficiency in newer cars. He could have developed programs to reduce energy usage. Something as simple as mandating controls that shut off lighting in office buildings when there's no people there would have made a difference. He could have pleaded with the American people to carpool, or to buy programmable thermostats or made them available for free for low income families. The point is that reducing our energy use across the country was not part of his presidency to any great degree. * Lack of significant development of better alternative fuels. While we heavily subsidize ethanol (which many argue contributed or even caused the current food crisis), over the last 7.5 yrs, there are few incentives to create new biofuels, more efficient solar cells, better wind turbines, geothermal energy production, or other renewable sources of fuel. He could have made it a priority as opposed to new drilling in ANWR. He didn't and that sends a message to the speculators and OPEC that we are wed to foreign oil for the foreseeable future. Investment in alternatives sends a totally different message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 You make a pretty good point that this has been going on for some time now, but let's take each of these reasons I listed in context... * The Iraq war and the saber rattling with Iran. Clearly these are 100% to blame with Bush and his cabinet. They have created massive uncertainty about supplies in these countries and driven have up the price of oil. * Our isolationist foreign policy in general, the occupation of Iraq, and other Bush administration decisions, rhetoric, and policies have incensed the Islamic world worse than any time in modern history, escalating terrorism throughout the world and fear of disruption of oil supply in the future. While the Middle East has been a hotbed of unrest for many years, the Bush presidency has thrown gasoline soaked logs on the fire. * Deficit spending has risen exponentially, and other fiscal policies have trampled the value of the dollar. I never thought I'd be saying this about a conservative republican president, but on his watch, even if you discount the cost of Iraq, Bush has signed into law billions of dollars of new spending bills and increased government. Yes, he certainly didn't write most of these, congress did, but he signed them. Only now, after Greenspan chastised him in his book (he should talk...) does Bush push back on major spending appropriations. Other monetary policies pushed (or kept) the value of the dollar down. * Lack of significant reduction in demand. The USA uses more oil per capita than any other country in the world. Bush could have made lowering energy usage a priority during his presidency. He could have pushed legislation that forced better fuel efficiency in newer cars. He could have developed programs to reduce energy usage. Something as simple as mandating controls that shut off lighting in office buildings when there's no people there would have made a difference. He could have pleaded with the American people to carpool, or to buy programmable thermostats or made them available for free for low income families. The point is that reducing our energy use across the country was not part of his presidency to any great degree. * Lack of significant development of better alternative fuels. While we heavily subsidize ethanol (which many argue contributed or even caused the current food crisis), over the last 7.5 yrs, there are few incentives to create new biofuels, more efficient solar cells, better wind turbines, geothermal energy production, or other renewable sources of fuel. He could have made it a priority as opposed to new drilling in ANWR. He didn't and that sends a message to the speculators and OPEC that we are wed to foreign oil for the foreseeable future. Investment in alternatives sends a totally different message. I think you are right on with most of you analysis, and some can be blamed on Bush. We have systemic issues that both parties continue to fail to address. Our weakened dollar is a direct result of our government AND consumers borrowing ourselves into oblivion. As a nation we are spending our way to ruin. The war is a large part of it as is the other bloated programs GW has put into place with his initiatives. Although I'm not a huge Obama fan, I like what the messiah had to say at the Oregon Rally- that we need to conserve. I don't know why the Republicans are so afraid of telling Americans what they need to know. It is IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST to conserve! McCains' gas tax 'holiday' is political pandering at its worst and I can't believe his advisors let that one out. But we also need to start becoming energy independent from the crack dealers. Nothing happens overnight. It will take years to design, permit and build a nuke plant. ANWR, while not a sole solution, is an untapped resource that we should be exploiting. The bottom line is that I think Bush was spot on this past weekend when he said that the people here crying the loudest about high energy prices are the ones who obstruct progress from happening locally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 Ok, maybe I misunderstood you. When you inferred the high cost of oil had little to do with Bush, I listed some reasons that either occurred or didn't happen over the duration of his presidency, i.e. medium term. The short term argument was more about what congress and bush are being pressured to do now. None of those things that occurred during his stewardship are applicable to what we could possibly do to affect the price this year. However, getting Saudi Arabia and OPEC to significantly increase production might have lowered the price fairly quickly. You make a pretty good point that this has been going on for some time now, but let's take each of these reasons I listed in context... * The Iraq war and the saber rattling with Iran. Clearly these are 100% to blame with Bush and his cabinet. They have created massive uncertainty about supplies in these countries and driven have up the price of oil. * Our isolationist foreign policy in general, the occupation of Iraq, and other Bush administration decisions, rhetoric, and policies have incensed the Islamic world worse than any time in modern history, escalating terrorism throughout the world and fear of disruption of oil supply in the future. While the Middle East has been a hotbed of unrest for many years, the Bush presidency has thrown gasoline soaked logs on the fire. * Deficit spending has risen exponentially, and other fiscal policies have trampled the value of the dollar. I never thought I'd be saying this about a conservative republican president, but on his watch, even if you discount the cost of Iraq, Bush has signed into law billions of dollars of new spending bills and increased government. Yes, he certainly didn't write most of these, congress did, but he signed them. Only now, after Greenspan chastised him in his book (he should talk...) does Bush push back on major spending appropriations. Other monetary policies pushed (or kept) the value of the dollar down. * Lack of significant reduction in demand. The USA uses more oil per capita than any other country in the world. Bush could have made lowering energy usage a priority during his presidency. He could have pushed legislation that forced better fuel efficiency in newer cars. He could have developed programs to reduce energy usage. Something as simple as mandating controls that shut off lighting in office buildings when there's no people there would have made a difference. He could have pleaded with the American people to carpool, or to buy programmable thermostats or made them available for free for low income families. The point is that reducing our energy use across the country was not part of his presidency to any great degree. * Lack of significant development of better alternative fuels. While we heavily subsidize ethanol (which many argue contributed or even caused the current food crisis), over the last 7.5 yrs, there are few incentives to create new biofuels, more efficient solar cells, better wind turbines, geothermal energy production, or other renewable sources of fuel. He could have made it a priority as opposed to new drilling in ANWR. He didn't and that sends a message to the speculators and OPEC that we are wed to foreign oil for the foreseeable future. Investment in alternatives sends a totally different message. I don't disagree with any of that but each of those is just a continued progression. We lied to ourselves throughout the '90s because oil stayed about $20 a barrel despite all the warning signs that were available to us. With the exception of Iraq, there's little doubt in my mind each of the other points would be issues no matter who was in the White House. The last time I checked, Congress has the ability to bring forth whatever the hell they want. They simply continue to be an ineffective buncha blowhards because gaining control of the Whitehouse/keeping/increasing control of the Senate and House in the next election are more important than doing what is right for the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Brady Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 umm, the Congress didn't ask the Saudis to increase production, Bush did. The American people consistently oppose more drilling when polled, especially in ANWR. You would hard pressed to find a poll (except one in Florida) that support increased drilling and the bulk of the analysis done by the oil companies (and they're damn good at it) shows the US doesn't have much in the way of light crude reserves and what is available would be quite expensive to extract. The answer isn't to drill our way out of this - we have to conserve more energy and develop cost effective alternative fuels. I believe this is considered light and sweet, and they are currently drilling it for about 20 a barrel. http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911 http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=60017 http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/04/usgs-bakk...leased-365.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 I believe this is considered light and sweet, and they are currently drilling it for about 20 a barrel. http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911 http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=60017 http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/04/usgs-bakk...leased-365.html umm, this is not being drilled yet. They don't even know if they can. It's considered technically feasible oil It might turn out to be a great source or perhaps closer to deep sea oil - lots of it, but not economically or technically possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Brady Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 umm, this is not being drilled yet. They don't even know if they can. It's considered technically feasible oil It might turn out to be a great source or perhaps closer to deep sea oil - lots of it, but not economically or technically possible. You might want to read this report from a few weeks ago, they are drilling and producing. At least thats what I read. Here in western pa. they are currently popping nat. gas wells at 15,000 ft. compared to the old depth of 4,000. 1st one in this county last year is currently pumping a million per day whsl. I'm just sayin. http://paguntaka.org/2008/04/29/north-dako...kken-formation/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 You might want to read this report from a few weeks ago, they are drilling and producing. At least thats what I read. Here in western pa. they are currently popping nat. gas wells at 15,000 ft. compared to the old depth of 4,000. 1st one in this county last year is currently pumping a million per day whsl. I'm just sayin. http://paguntaka.org/2008/04/29/north-dako...kken-formation/ Sorry, I don't consider it credible until I hear it from Mr. Mortgage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I don't know about the rest of it, but for the love of all that is sacred, let's not even discuss drilling for more oil in our own country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 So today our House of Representatives passes a bill to sue OPEC countries that are "limiting oil supply". WTF! I'm sure it has nothing to do with our weak dollar and the fact that we are consuming like crack fiends. Think about this- they have the oil, we are addicted to it (as are other countries) and so they are able to charge more. If Sam the crack fiend wants his drugs, but Habib and Bruce Lee are also becoming addicted and have more cash to spend, he can raise his prices. This election year posturing is too much. What our Congress needs to do is stop mortgaging our future by slowing spending. The blame everyone else first line of defense is getting old. We as a nation are being forced to lie in the sh------- bed that we made for ourselves. Yet, these assclown's aren't willing to discuss solutions, they just want to be able to blame and sue someone. Fuggin lawyers... When the !@#$ are we going to wake up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 So today our House of Representatives passes a bill to sue OPEC countries that are "limiting oil supply". WTF! I'm sure it has nothing to do with our weak dollar and the fact that we are consuming like crack fiends. Think about this- they have the oil, we are addicted to it (as are other countries) and so they are able to charge more. If Sam the crack fiend wants his drugs, but Habib and Bruce Lee are also becoming addicted and have more cash to spend, he can raise his prices. This election year posturing is too much. What our Congress needs to do is stop mortgaging our future by slowing spending. The blame everyone else first line of defense is getting old. We as a nation are being forced to lie in the sh------- bed that we made for ourselves. Yet, these assclown's aren't willing to discuss solutions, they just want to be able to blame and sue someone. Fuggin lawyers... When the !@#$ are we going to wake up? Don't know, but I love this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Don't know, but I love this post. I'm just hoping that the Saudis stop drilling - because for far too long - they have been hurting the habitat of the Arabian sand flea. How their Senators and Representatives get re-elected without bending over for the Green vote, I will never understand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts