quote Originally posted by theBDub: He lied! I mean, he FLAT OUT LIED! Firstly, just because we MAY have 2% of the world's oil preserves, and use 25% of the consumed oil per year... we aren't consuming 100% of the world's oil preserves every year! Not even close! If we started drilling more in America we CAN supply our own petroleum based energy for quite awhile! Also, he said most petroleum use is in trucks and SUVs.... Is he serious? It's in PLASTICS... not even automobiles at all!

You can drill all you want but as far as I understand that oil goes into the world market and is sold according to those prices, so I don't think the amount the U.S. could produce economically would make that much of a difference to those prices.

And as far as I remember transportation is the biggest user of petroleum in the U.S.

quote Originally posted by newf: You can drill all you want but as far as I understand that oil goes into the world market and is sold according to those prices, so I don't think the amount the U.S. could produce economically would make that much of a difference to those prices. And as far as I remember transportation is the biggest user of petroleum in the U.S.

You're right about the transportation. My professor (I'm a Petroleum Engineering student) told us different, but according to the graph here:
http://alternativeenergy.pr...hp?resourceID=001797
he was wrong, and in turn I was wrong.

That being said, companies can buy, sell, refine, or really do whatever with whatever oil they have available. For instance, Newfield Exploration is (as you can probably guess) just an exploration and production company. They don't refine the oil to sell to the American public, they just get it out of the ground and sell it to someone else, who will sell it. However, if Newfield got that oil out of the ground and decided to refine it and sell it to the public, they could do it for whatever price they want to. Most of the oil overseas is bought and transported here, then sold. It's usually easier to just let someone else refine it and buy it later. The companies that DON'T do that keep it at the current prices because they can, and want to prepare for the future.

But if Newfield (or any oil company drilling in America) decided to sell the oil they produced at prices JUST high enough to get the same profit as similar companies... it would go WAY down. They wouldn't have to buy or sell it from anyone, they'd just have it from the ground to the gas station.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: You're right about the transportation. My professor (I'm a Petroleum Engineering student) told us different, but according to the graph here: http://alternativeenergy.pr...hp?resourceID=001797 he was wrong, and in turn I was wrong. That being said, companies can buy, sell, refine, or really do whatever with whatever oil they have available. For instance, Newfield Exploration is (as you can probably guess) just an exploration and production company. They don't refine the oil to sell to the American public, they just get it out of the ground and sell it to someone else, who will sell it. However, if Newfield got that oil out of the ground and decided to refine it and sell it to the public, they could do it for whatever price they want to. Most of the oil overseas is bought and transported here, then sold. It's usually easier to just let someone else refine it and buy it later. The companies that DON'T do that keep it at the current prices because they can, and want to prepare for the future. But if Newfield (or any oil company drilling in America) decided to sell the oil they produced at prices JUST high enough to get the same profit as similar companies... it would go WAY down. They wouldn't have to buy or sell it from anyone, they'd just have it from the ground to the gas station.

Not disagreeing with your theory there but I'm guessing it's not much of an option when it comes to trade agreements and the like. Sure the U.S. could develop it's own oil but the effects on trade and so on might make it detrimental. Not sure of all the dynamics of it mind you just what I am thinking.

quote Originally posted by newf: Not disagreeing with your theory there but I'm guessing it's not much of an option when it comes to trade agreements and the like. Sure the U.S. could develop it's own oil but the effects on trade and so on might make it detrimental. Not sure of all the dynamics of it mind you just what I am thinking.

I'm saying, if the U.S. developed more of its own oil, you wouldn't need trade. The companies would be able to sell what they produced rather than buying then selling. The companies that didn't do the same would still have high prices, but other companies would be able to have lower prices.

If the U.S. developed its own own for awhile, I don't see how that would be detrimental to trade. Other countries already don't produce all they can; they have more or less a fixed rate of production, then sell it. So all they'd have to do is produce less again and when the U.S. started to run low we'd start buying again. By then, another alternative fuel source might show promise.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: I'm saying, if the U.S. developed more of its own oil, you wouldn't need trade. The companies would be able to sell what they produced rather than buying then selling. The companies that didn't do the same would still have high prices, but other companies would be able to have lower prices. If the U.S. developed its own own for awhile, I don't see how that would be detrimental to trade. Other countries already don't produce all they can; they have more or less a fixed rate of production, then sell it. So all they'd have to do is produce less again and when the U.S. started to run low we'd start buying again. By then, another alternative fuel source might show promise.

I'm not surethe capacity is even there but even if it was there's nothing that companies like better than selling their product at a lower price.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 04-10-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: I'm not surethe capacity is even there but even if it was there's nothing that companies like better than selling their product at a lower price.

They would still make more money doing so.

They get the oil the cheapest and easiest way possible. America would be the cheapest, but in order to GET to that point, it's a HUGE hassle. Canada's awesome--they let companies drill for pretty cheap and it's fairly easy. Only problem is.. that oil just isn't good oil. America is out of much of its good oil too, but we still have more than Canada. So why do we drill in Canada instead of the U.S.? American general public doesn't like a rig in their backyard.

If America would let us without the huge hassles, we would definitely drill here and sell for cheaper than it is now. Companies would be making the same profits.

Personally, I don't mind too much about the price. I just want us to fuel our own economy rather than another nation's. I understand I need oil, and that oil is limited. The stuff is hard to find, and incredibly useful. So I totally get the price... and happily pay it.

Well, in fairness (not that he deserves it), MOST families don't have 10 children. Most don't have 4 children. Most don't have 3 children.

And yet the sales of SUV's in this country are very high.

From a NEED standpoint, the percentage that NEED an SUV or a truck is small.


So if you look at it PURELY from a gas standpoint, there are still VERY fine options out there that use a lot less gas, and therefore save a lot of money. And magnified with gas prices going up.


What Obama does, though, is minimizes personal choice because he WANTS gas prices to be higher, so your personal choice is minimized by economics and you are economically FORCED into something HE thinks you should be driving.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe:What Obama does, though, is minimizes personal choice because he WANTS gas prices to be higher, so your personal choice is minimized by economics and you are economically FORCED into something HE thinks you should be driving.

Bingo.

If people don't want to do what he wants, he creates conditions that forces compliance in some way.
Cap & Tax was a bust, so he gives the EPA sweeping authority and with CO2 now declared a "pollutant" , they can now implement any carbon emission standards Obama wants without the need for pesky legislation or checks and balances.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Is there even a hybrid van on the market? Did he assume that the "big guys" drive SUV's ?

The Ford Transit Connect EV, and also the Ford Transit Connect Hybrid (think it's built off the Fusion platform?)


They're both kind of ugly, and better suited as a work truck for plumbers, electricians, etc... but still, it's a van when you order it as a people-passenger version.

Oh I forgot about those. I don't think they're that ugly either :P

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Oh I forgot about those. I don't think they're that ugly either :P

Yeah... they're growing on me... I'm not sure how I feel about them yet.

The fully loaded people-carrier ones are kind of cool... but I only have one kid... so... I dunno.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: ... but I only have one kid... so... I dunno.

Then you can only have a Honda Fit, Ford Fiesta, or Mazda 2. Or you can have a Prius. Anything more than that is opulence.

Signed,

Barack

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: And yet the sales of SUV's in this country are very high. From a NEED standpoint, the percentage that NEED an SUV or a truck is small. What Obama does, though, is minimizes personal choice because he WANTS gas prices to be higher, so your personal choice is minimized by economics and you are economically FORCED into something HE thinks you should be driving.

Can you explain how Obama want gas prices to be higher and what he thinks you should be driving?

I've heard lots of claims that he took over GM so he must have FORCED them to stop manufacturing SUVS and Trucks and any other vehicles that burn gas?

Also didn't the popularity of SUV's come along because they escaped the milage and emission standards that were brought in years ago? I remember reading that SUV's and the like were classified as small trucks and therefore weren't subject to the same standards and are huge profit makers for car companies. So it would seem that if Obama was truly trying to FORCE you into what to drive he would have done something about that as well.

Do you have some proof otherwise?

It isn't JUST Obama.

There are multiple liberal elitists who have stated they want gasoline prices in the U.S. to be $5 per gallon. They believed that is what it would take to get Americans to change their vehicle purchasing habits. They wanted Americans driving smaller cars, NOT out of energy independence cause, but to save the planet by having Americans consume less fossil fuels which is causing global warming.


Obama DIDN'T take over GM in order to force them to stop manufacturing trucks and SUV's. He did that because he is a socialist, and he couldn't help himself.


Regarding SUV's and truck, I PERSONALLY think the people that are driving them are being wasteful and foolish (that aren't using them for purposes of need), and wish people wouldn't do it.

I'm just not willing to try to manipulate the world market and supply/demand to try to FORCE people to do it.


But I don't care enough to look up a link to prove what they have already publicly stated about their goal of $5 gas. You can believe it or not.


One final p.s. MUCH of the raise of the price of gas is because the monetary "policies" (if you can call them that) of the Obama administration has devalued the dollar and it takes more the less-valuable dollars to buy the oil.

Only one kid? What are you gay?
Agree with frontal lobe that the position of higher gas prices has been taken by many on the left. Also agree that most people in SUVs don't need them. I often argue with people who have them about how unnecessary they are.
But then sports cars are unnecessarily inefficient too. I don' want to outlaw SUVs because I may some day be able to afford a sports car, and they would be next to be outlawed.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Only one kid? What are you gay? Agree with frontal lobe that the position of higher gas prices has been taken by many on the left. Also agree that most people in SUVs don't need them. I often argue with people who have them about how unnecessary they are. But then sports cars are unnecessarily inefficient too. I don' want to outlaw SUVs because I may some day be able to afford a sports car, and they would be next to be outlawed.

Hahah, no... but trying.

My wife's daily driver is a Jeep Patriot. 2.4 / 4 cyl... 4-door...

Mine is a 2-door Explorer... it's better on gas than the big 4-door explorers, but I drive less than 3.5 miles to work each day... and I need it for mulch, pavers, and all kinds of other crap back and forth from Home Depot, etc... we also take it to the beach all the time...

I always tell my friends that home depot rents big trucks for 19.95 a day and if they would probably save tons of moola by just renting the truck when they need to haul big stuff.
The patriot is car based isn't it? My mom has a PT cruiser and I think we fit a couple hundred sq. feet of hardwood flooring in it.
There was a cool Porsche commercial showing a guy load up the front trunk with a couple big bags of soil.