[quote]acurals87 wrote:
In a few months oil will be hella cheap. Gas should actually drop under a dollor a gallon. My friend is drilling for oil in colorado.He was telling me that there is something like 75 trillion
gallons of oil the only problem is that it is incased in a shell of rock. as soon as they can get it out of its shell gas and oil prices will drop tremendously. [/quote]
Is he referrring to getting oil out of shale rock?
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
The neo-cons at the Pentagon wanted to dump Iraq’s oil onto the worlds markets in an effort to weaken OPEC’s control and to decrease the price of oil for American consumer.
The State Department had other ideas. The State Department leaked this plan to the oil companies and they stepped in and put a stop to that.
The oil companys are making so much profit that they do not know what to do with the excess.
The biggest story is the fact we need more oil refineries that can refine the less expensive ‘dirtier’ oil. Texas sweet has an over abundance of refineries while the lower grades of oil can not be refined.
The federal government should push oil companies to build refineries that can process the ‘dirtier’ grades oil into gasoline.
This will not happen as the price of oil would decline as a result and the oil companys like their current income.[/quote]
So who’s running the world, the oil companies or the neo-cons? It’s hard to keep up…
[quote]pkradgreek wrote:
it’s over $59 currently, i watch it live during the trading hours, funny thing is the market does not really care so far, they gapped down the s+p 5 points and then it trades upward.
what we really need to do is implement alternative fuels into society. the technology is there. The energy companies are just trying to milk the world for as long as they can and the US government just contributes to it. The boost to the economy and the regular folk would be tremendous. The fact that ethanol fuel and solar power are not used more is crazy. laters pk[/quote]
The technology is there, but they’re not cost effective at these prices – if oil was trading at $100 a barrell, then maybe you’d see some movement.
The best technology has been around for years: nuclear. We should convert all our oil-run power plants to nuclear immediately.
apparently price pergallon is actually somewhere between $4 and $9, but our taxes subsidise a good deal of it.
i just got a 1994 GMC sierra with the 6.5 Turbo Diesel, once i have a place of my own im going to set up a bio diesel system. unless i can find a coop to join or something. $0.70 a gallon, burns cleaner, has better performance. i dont see a down side.
[quote]Keith Wassung wrote:
I am still amazed that we pay 1.50 for 12 oz of bottled “water”, ( ever notice that Evian is Naive spelled backwards)but complain about gas prices-myself included.
I almost got into a fistfight at the gas station this past week, would have been the first fight I have had in about ten years. [/quote]
I’m always amazed that this argument comes up every time the price of gas does. Bottled water is not a necessity to most people. Gas is. I doubt that most people who make this argument actually care what the price of gas or water is. It’s the people that can’t really afford either or have to decide which one they want that are the ones most affected.
The oil companies care about the price of gas, as much as the cigarette companies care about cancer.
What ever happened to just riding a bike to work?
Simply adjust your calorie intake to compensate for the extra burned calories, go to sleep earlier, leave your house earlier and you’re on your way to saving money and getting into better shape.
Got kids? Make them to ride bikes to school! They can tell their kids and grandkids all about riding uphill both ways.
Fight the system! Ride a bike!
[quote]JeffR wrote:
RoadWarrior wrote:
“Bush was not in the oil business, Bush IS in the oil business.”
Explain please. Please indicate his current oil ties.
Thanks,
JeffR
[/quote]
Your right, my mistake. After coming from four generations of the Oil Business in his family, how could he or his family have any involvement in Oil. The Oil industry in Texas had nothing to do with his gubnatorial election. He was elected governor because they wanted the party-boy owner of the Texas Rangers.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
So who’s running the world, the oil companies or the neo-cons? It’s hard to keep up…[/quote]
They trade off on a daily basis. Just as Varro and Paullus did when leading the Romans against Hannibal. Worked fine for them…
RoadWarrior wrote:
“Your right, my mistake. After coming from four generations of the Oil Business in his family, how could he or his family have any involvement in Oil.”
I’m going to ask the same question. Please indicate his current ties to oil.
If you are going to make the argument that he launched the war in Iraq for personal financial gain, you’d better have more information than that. Imagine the implications of your charge.
By the way, I come from four generations of railroad-men. I have nothing to do with the railroad.
You wrote:
“The Oil industry in Texas had nothing to do with his gubnatorial election. He was elected governor because they wanted the party-boy owner of the Texas Rangers.”
That’s nice. Are you part of the oil industry? It appears you know quite a bit about what “they” wanted.
Just in case you didn’t notice, W. is in his second PRESIDENTIAL term.
Thanks.
Oh, he could have won Texas in 2000/2004 without a single vote from the oil workers.
Thanks again for your response in advance,
JeffR
Soco wrote:
“They trade off on a daily basis. Just as Varro and Paullus did when leading the Romans against Hannibal. Worked fine for them…”
Quote of the month!!!
I assume you also mean they are both doing a terrible job.
Since the original premise of the “neo-cons” and “oil companies” ruling the world is so silly, I don’t feel it’s necessary to “defend?” them.
Excellent post.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
If you are going to make the argument that he launched the war in Iraq for personal financial gain, you’d better have more information than that. Imagine the implications of your charge.
By the way, I come from four generations of railroad-men. I have nothing to do with the railroad.
[/quote]
As usual, you are jumping to conclusions and your need to tie everything to justify Iraq. No, I don’t beleive he started the war in Iraq for financial gain, there are easier ways to make money than that.
And while you come from four generations of railroad men, I would assume they worked for the railroad rather than owning it. This makes you quite different from Bush, who HAS owned oil companies and who family is still very involved in the oil business. While your connection is to buy a railroad ticket, it is Bush’s connection to sell it per se.
If there is any connection between Iraq and the oil industry, it would be the need to cover Saudi Arabia’s butt and protect their current stranglehold on the market. I think ridding the world of the Muslim problem and helping as many Muslims attain martyrdom as possible is justification enough.
I think the bigger conflict of interest comes into play with ecology based concerns, such as the Alaskan Wilderness. There is plenty of land/resources to destroy without touching that. That is like cutting down the rainforest because we need the wood.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Almost word for word from my original post!!![/quote]
You left out the important discussions between the civilian neo-cons at the Pentagon, the State Department, and the oil companys. Every president had contingency plans for Iraq and their oil. Just like we have extensive contingency plans in place at my firm.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Where is the Saudi connection?[/quote]
I guess OPEC is the Saudi connection if you need to look at it that way.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
While you’re at it, better add in the “Bush is holding binladen for an October suprise.”[/quote]
What does that have to do with my post. What I described is not a conspiracy and common knowledge. I heard this first hand from my firm’s fossil fuel company analysts. They hedged their bets accordingly and gained tens of bps verses the Lehman and Merrill indices. Our clients are ecstatic.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
After all, Goss has an “excellent idea” where binladen is!!! wink, wink, wink…[/quote]
Either this is entirely over your head and/or you just like to ridicule others because you are very insecure.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
So who’s running the world, the oil companies or the neo-cons? It’s hard to keep up…[/quote]
When did I ever make a claim that someone was ‘running the world’.
Reality trumps ideology.
Business is business.
I pay more at the pump but Exxon/Mobile, Texaco/Chevron, BP/Shell, etc are showing record profits and that is good for my firm and my holdings.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Y’all wish that high oil prices were the result of a conspiracy. Actually they’re the result of demand, the sliding dollar, relative scarcity and inelasticity in the supply. Used to be the Saudis could just reach down and dial up the output. They haven’t got that much production headroom anymore; maybe they can do that trick one more time. The last time they tried, BTW it did nothing but slow the rise of the per-barrel price.
Even if somebody did find huge, previously unknown reserves somewhere in the world, it would take more than a few months to get them to market. It would take years.
This is why it has turned out Iraqi oil is not an immediate answer either. The oil production infrastructure was crapola. There is plenty of oil, no question, but it is going to take years to ramp up production, especially in the middle of the “insurgency” (or since Iraq is “sovereign” again shall we now call it a civil war?)
Maybe if we start a thread for Zeb called “Bash the Liberals” we could have a discussion about anything else.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Maybe if we start a thread for Zeb called “Bash the Liberals” we could have a discussion about anything else.
[/quote]
Hey, I’d like a thread like that.
LOL
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Since the original premise of the “neo-cons” and “oil companies” ruling the world is so silly, I don’t feel it’s necessary to “defend?” them.
Excellent post.
JeffR
[/quote]
I wasn’t serious. No one seriously thinks they are running the world (well maybe a couple of people).
Far more resources will always be available for conflicts like those in Iraq than for developing long term plans for energy dependence. The massive influence of oil companies is part of the reason for this. Propping up illegitimate governments isn’t a real solution, but as long as American companies have such enormous financial interests in the Middle East, our strategy isn?t going to change anytime soon.
soco