Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Reliance on OIL

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    anyone else notice how this burgeoning oil crisis was a result of IRRESPONSIBLE financial planning on the part of the gov't leaders?

    how can anyone seriously defend the gov't's promotion of SUV's and gas guzzlers ( Hummers are tax writeoffs, while the Honda hybrid tax deduction reduced every year) in this dangerous world we live in?

    the last major economic crisis was in the 70's due to OPEC turning the screws on us... now we are even MORE oil reliant... bigger cars, more cars, more roads, longer commutes... all under the umbrella of increased terrorism (kidnappings of the 70s became suicide bombers of the 21st century)

    they couldn't even CONSIDER instituting MPG caps for residential vehicles?

    this is such bullsh-t. it's not responsible to have the economic fate of the nation rest with Saudi Arabia as the de facto "seller of last resort"

    these guys set the prices on Oil and all Bush does is make our country more reliant on Oil...

    they justified the war partly as a way to free the nation from the economic control of Saudi by getting access to the Iraqi source...

    but they didn't plan for the infrastructure to be as garbage as it was...

    so many different mistakes, GI's are dying but still people blindly love this administration.

    whatever :blink:

    youd need to be brain dead to vote Bush in 2004.

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Lansing
    Posts
    1,337
    Post Thanks / Like
    I thought we get all our oil from Venezuela.

    If that's the case, how does any middle east activity affect the price of oil?

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53223-2004May24.html]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004May24.html[/url]

    we get most of our oil from Saudi

    [quote][b]Homemade Oil Crisis

    By David Ignatius
    Tuesday, May 25, 2004; Page A17


    The "oil crisis" of 2004 is one more sign that a Bush administration that once hoped to transform the sources of instability in the Middle East is instead retrenching to a messier version of the old status quo.



    Desperate to slow the recent rise in oil prices, finance ministers from the Group of Eight industrialized countries last weekend demanded that OPEC countries raise their production, arguing in their communique that "lower oil prices would be of benefit to the whole world economy." Since Saudi Arabia is the only OPEC country with much spare capacity, that put the kingdom back in the familiar position of receiving entreaties from skittish Europeans, Japanese and Americans.

    The Saudis responded graciously enough, and why not? They are in the driver's seat. Saudi Oil Minister Ali Naimi promised that the kingdom would pump an additional 600,000 barrels a day, boosting its output to 9.1 million barrels daily. And Saudi sources have been hinting that they're prepared to go further -- up to the kingdom's current maximum of about 10.5 million barrels a day.

    To underline Saudi Arabia's decisive role in the oil market, Saudi officials were telling insiders at an International Energy Agency meeting in Amsterdam yesterday that over the next several years, they may increase their maximum capacity to 11.5 million or 12 million barrels per day -- to maintain their preferred excess-capacity buffer of 2 million barrels a day above planned production.

    In this week's frantic market, even the Saudi offers to boost production haven't significantly pushed prices down. But analysts expect that as the market steadies, prices will fall several dollars from yesterday's record futures-market close of $41.72 a barrel.

    The drama on the oil spot market has masked the fact that the recent price squeeze has been building for several years -- and is largely a result of conflicting policy decisions made in Washington and Riyadh. A rapidly growing Chinese economy meant that upward pressure on prices was inevitable. But neither the Saudis nor the Americans took appropriate steps to defuse the problem before it became a crisis.

    The Bush administration contributed to the oil price squeeze in several ways, according to industry experts. First, it failed to address the fact that demand for gasoline in the United States was increasing sharply, thanks to ever more gas guzzlers on the road and longer commutes. The administration also continued pumping 120,000 barrels a day of crude into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, making a tight market even tighter. And by letting the value of the dollar fall sharply over the past year, the White House all but forced the Saudis to raise dollar-denominated oil prices to compensate.

    The administration's more serious mistake was that as energy supplies tightened, it did nothing to reduce U.S. demand. A year when the United States was fighting a war in Iraq would have been an ideal time to ask the country to sacrifice a bit, to reduce its dependence on oil from the Middle East. Instead, the Bush administration let SUV Nation roll on.

    Meanwhile, as Americans burned their energy, the Saudis subtly fiddled with the oil market. By keeping inventories low and encouraging a policy of "just in time" deliveries to refiners, they kept spot prices on a knife edge. The result was that OPEC, after years of powerlessness, became in effect a central bank for oil.

    [b]"U.S. policymakers are guilty of denial," says Roger Diwan, a managing director of PFC Energy, a Washington-based consulting firm. "Tighter specifications for refiners, runaway demand and supply bottlenecks have indeed created market tightness. Blaming the producers doesn't solve the problems created by contradictory U.S. energy policies over the last two decades."

    Bush administration officials who talked blithely in the run-up to the Iraq war about replacing Saudi Arabia as the locus of the oil market should be forced to drink a barrel of crude. As things have turned out, events have underlined the inevitability of Saudi Arabia as the supplier of last resort. An administration that set out to transform the Saudi-dependent status quo has ended up reinforcing it -- at the very time that terrorist attacks are showing the kingdom's vulnerability.

    Conspiracy theorists will see these developments in oil markets as further evidence of a plot between the House of Saud and the House of Bush. That's nonsense. What we are seeing in the market is a result of clever policies in Saudi Arabia and dumb ones in the United States. This "crisis" is man-made, and the more it resembles the oil-crisis frenzy of the 1970s, the more nervous we should all be. [/b]
    [/b][/quote]

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@May 25 2004, 02:55 PM
    [b]
    we get most of our oil from Saudi

    [/b][/quote]
    Wrong. We import the most from Canada. Saudi Arabia is #2, followed by Venezuela, Mexico and Nigeria.

    Oil from Persian Gulf nations represents less than 25% of our total.

    I haven't seen 2003's data yet - the above data is from 2002. Look it up.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    MPG restrictions? Are you kidding me?

    What heats your home, your building where you work and countless other commercial and residential buildings, what powers airplanes? What will MPG restrictions do to those costs and to that consumption?

    Mini-vans and trucks and buses guzzle gas - how to you propose we move our produce and meats across this vast country of ours in order to provide cheap prices for everyone?

    You are over-simplifying a hugely complex issue. This is partisan nonsense. This problem goes well beyond GOP and Democrats. You have to be brain-dead to think voting for Bush or Kerry will make a material difference or that this problem just began getting bad four years ago. Kerry will pass some small, meaningless MPG restriction, and everyone will feel rosy and great about themselves, and our consumption will still increase geometrically.

    You and Kerry should [i]love[/i] these high prices. High prices reduce consumption much more than artifical corrective forces ever would. Kerry wants Bush to tap the reserves to reduce prices so that consumption will stay high!! What the hell is that?

    This has nothing to do with partisan politics or conspiracy theories.

    We need to get to the moon and start mining that m-f. Cold fusion, helium-3, and a host of other minerals that can be used efficiently. Also, we need to focus on finding a cheap and efficient way to extract hydrogen from water or other compounds, perhaps moonrock that is well below the surface.

    MPG restrictions would be like putting band-aid on a severe puncture wound. You KNOW that....

    We need to give tax breaks to companies that perform R&D on this stuff, we need to ignore foolish environmentalists who oppose drilling or even nuclear power, etc. It's a very bad problem, but one that needs sober analysis. Neither party has done squat.

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,649
    Post Thanks / Like
    Of course we should be blaming Bush for the energy policys which have been in effect in this country for decades.

  7. #7
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by JerryK[/i]@May 25 2004, 02:37 PM
    [b] I thought we get all our oil from Venezuela.

    If that's the case, how does any middle east activity affect the price of oil? [/b][/quote]
    The fact is demand from China has as much to do with rising prices as anything else (law of supply and demand).

    Factor in even if OPEC and other countries double their present output and the price of oil goes down it'll be a while until gas prices go down as our refineries are working at 100% capacity, so there is no where else to refine the oil into usable gas.....

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    5ever i said MPG for residential vehicles that doesn't include COMMERCIAL vehicles that people use to haul groceries for example.

    also i said that coal and nuclear (wind as well) would be used for home energy

    you think it's a band-aid but it's estimated if the American cars used an average of 1 MPG less a day it would result in a savings of BILLIONS of Barrels per DAY.

    [b]George this is exactly what im talking about - you don't actually read my posts you skim them and respond without actually reading them. Why should i bother posting my plan when you can't even bother to read it? this isn't the first time we have had this discussion and yet you insist that i never come up with a decent plan... it's bull****, and now you know why i don't want to post it over and over... [/b]

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever+May 25 2004, 03:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (jets5ever @ May 25 2004, 03:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bitonti[/i]@May 25 2004, 02:55 PM
    [b]
    we get most of our oil from Saudi

    [/b][/quote]
    Wrong. We import the most from Canada. Saudi Arabia is #2, followed by Venezuela, Mexico and Nigeria.

    Oil from Persian Gulf nations represents less than 25% of our total.

    I haven&#39;t seen 2003&#39;s data yet - the above data is from 2002. Look it up. [/b][/quote]
    5ever ACTUALLY, you are wrong this time buddy ;)

    ---

    [url=http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_supply_monthly/current/txt/table_35.txt]http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petrole...xt/table_35.txt[/url]

    [quote][b]The top six countries (by percentage of total USA imports) supplying crude oil to the USA in January 2002 were:

    Saudi Arabia: 16.9%
    Mexico: 15.1%
    Canada: 15.0%
    Venezuela: 14.4%
    Iraq: 11.4%
    Nigeria: 5.9.%

    [url=http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/nogas.htm]http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/nogas.htm[/url]
    [/b][/quote]

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@May 25 2004, 01:54 PM
    [b] youd need to be brain dead to vote Bush in 2004. [/b][/quote]
    This seems somewhere inbetween calling someone a traitor and calling someone brainwashed.

    It&#39;s nice to see that you have left room for active debate.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@May 25 2004, 03:45 PM
    [b] 5ever i said MPG for residential vehicles that doesn&#39;t include COMMERCIAL vehicles that people use to haul groceries for example.

    also i said that coal and nuclear (wind as well) would be used for home energy

    you think it&#39;s a band-aid but it&#39;s estimated if the American cars used an average of 1 MPG less a day it would result in a savings of BILLIONS of Barrels per DAY.

    [b]George this is exactly what im talking about - you don&#39;t actually read my posts you skim them and respond without actually reading them. Why should i bother posting my plan when you can&#39;t even bother to read it? this isn&#39;t the first time we have had this discussion and yet you insist that i never come up with a decent plan... it&#39;s bull****, and now you know why i don&#39;t want to post it over and over... [/b] [/b][/quote]
    You post yours, I&#39;ll post mine. ;) I am talking about a full year (actually Canada was #1 for 2001 and 2000 as well as 2002) not a single month in the beginning of a year.

    [url=http://web.uvic.ca/eosc/courses/460/energy2.pdf]http://web.uvic.ca/eosc/courses/460/energy2.pdf[/url]

    I do read your posts Matt. My point is that MPG restriction won&#39;t [i]solve[/i] anything, especially if restricted only to residential vehicles. People will simply find ways around that "commercial" loop-hole and cars that are already gas-efficient (Toyotas, Hondas, Volkwagons, etc) won&#39;t be affected by those restrictions. Sure, getting every residential vehicle of every type to use 1 MPG less per day would be great. But people who drive these smaller cars aren&#39;t part of the problem, strictly according to MPG issues. Their cars are already efficient and "restricted" in that regard. We&#39;d still need to find a way to have THOSE drivers driving less, and we cannot FORCE people to do that, I am afraid.

    I know six guys who run their own business. Not only do they save costs by expensing their leased SUVs and gas used for "business travel" ALL of them use these SUVs at home and on weekends for their own personal use. This would still go on after MPG restrictions and these SUVs would likely be exempted, even though they are only ostensibly "commerical."

    All I am saying is that we need to find a better way to power automobiles.

    I have said you don&#39;t come up with decent plans for the war on terror, not alternative energy. I agree 10000000% that we are too reliant on oil and that alternative energy is a huge problem/need. However, I question the MATERIAL impact of simply instituting MPG restrictions on residential vehicles and don&#39;t simply blame the currewnt administration or the previous three years for this problem. C&#39;mon - you KNOW this problem is bigger than Bush or Kerry or GOP or Dem.

    I can see your general feeling about MPG restrictions being "better than nothing" and yes, it would be a "start." I agree with that. But I think you&#39;d be very disappointed with the results of them if they are not used in combination with many other changes. It&#39;s all about spending the money. We need to get to the moon and we need to spend government money (in the form of research grants and tax breaks for private sector investment in to R&D) to get this problem solved. I don&#39;t know why we are so adverse to nuclear power and there has simply GOT to be a cheap way to extract hydrogen from water---there has just GOT to be&#33;

    Do you know how much ice is out there in our solar system, just waiting to be used in this fashion&#33;

    The problem is there is no quick fix, like MPG restrictions and that is just partisan nonsense. Yes, we have gotten ourselves into trouble, but it is going to take several generations to figure a way out of it, unless a breakthrough of unforseeable proportions happens (which won&#39;t unless we pay for it).

    I am sorry for the tone of my posts, however, I passionately object to your politicizing of this issue. It&#39;s much deeper than that, no? Hell, I would even WELCOME higher taxes if it was going towards mining the moon and trying to find REAL, sustainable alternative energy sources. I&#39;d probably even concede that the Dems are "better" on this issue, but only marginally and only at trumping up superficial, talking-point "solutions" like MPG restrictions that won&#39;t have a big impact and are only useful to bludgeon the GOP with.

    Anyway - sorry if I was being harsh or whatever....

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,263
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@May 25 2004, 01:54 PM
    [b] anyone else notice how this burgeoning oil crisis was a result of IRRESPONSIBLE financial planning on the part of the gov&#39;t leaders?

    how can anyone seriously defend the gov&#39;t&#39;s promotion of SUV&#39;s and gas guzzlers ( Hummers are tax writeoffs, while the Honda hybrid tax deduction reduced every year) in this dangerous world we live in?

    the last major economic crisis was in the 70&#39;s due to OPEC turning the screws on us... now we are even MORE oil reliant... bigger cars, more cars, more roads, longer commutes... all under the umbrella of increased terrorism (kidnappings of the 70s became suicide bombers of the 21st century)

    they couldn&#39;t even CONSIDER instituting MPG caps for residential vehicles?

    this is such bullsh-t. it&#39;s not responsible to have the economic fate of the nation rest with Saudi Arabia as the de facto "seller of last resort"

    these guys set the prices on Oil and all Bush does is make our country more reliant on Oil...

    they justified the war partly as a way to free the nation from the economic control of Saudi by getting access to the Iraqi source...

    but they didn&#39;t plan for the infrastructure to be as garbage as it was...

    so many different mistakes, GI&#39;s are dying but still people blindly love this administration.

    whatever :blink:

    youd need to be brain dead to vote Bush in 2004. [/b][/quote]
    Bitonti, you are so full of sh&#33;t....

    You Libs blame the oil crisis on everyone but yourselves.....

    The oil crisis is a direct result of tree hugging libs such as yourself deathly against drilling for oil in ANWR or off shore..... Not letting any new oil refineries be built in the past twenty years.... along with being for the shutting down of nuclear powers plants in this country....

    You fool no one....

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us