Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterLetter to the editor:
Giving Big Oil a license to drill won’t help us
Tuesday, Aug. 5, 2008 | 2:04 a.m.
The big political issue of the day seems to be whether to drill for oil in our coastal waters or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge despite the present prohibition. The implication is that opening up more territory to domestic drilling will somehow lower the price of gas at the pump. When are we going to recognize that we are at the complete mercy of the oil companies and that they will make whatever decision best helps their bottom line and the stockholders?
The oil companies have plenty of domestic oil lands on which they could drill if they chose. They export more than one-third of the domestic oil they produce, and giving them more areas in which to drill will permit more exporting of our oil.
The only answer to our predicament is to bite the bullet and embark on an all-out effort to develop the alternative sources of renewable energy that will not be depleted in our lifetime and not harm our atmosphere. If we can go to the moon in 10 years, we can certainly develop these energy sources to the point that oil prices become inconsequential.
Discussion: 55 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- CityCenter unveils Crystals high-end retail district
- No. 24 UNLV gutsy in 74-72 victory at Arizona
- Vdara exec predicts strong sales
- Sarah Palin wasn’t a disaster, but Obama is
- Freeze warning issued for LV
- Guilty plea a victory for ATF agents
- Cheney’s time to be heard is over
- Fontainebleau lenders sue construction companies over liens
- Noteworthy: More from the Trop, Cher changes, Newton on ‘CBS Sunday Morning’
- NASCAR hits Las Vegas for Champions Week awards show
Blogs
Politics: Ralston's Flash
Superintendents want state to immediately seek Race to Top funds
Top Chef: Las Vegas
The great Jennifer debate
The Kats Report
From Eva Longoria Parker to a cluster of execs, crowd takes a shine to Crystals (1 Comment)
Elsewhere
Harry Reid's recipe for getting health-care deal done (8 Comments)
UNLV in at No. 11 in SI's college hoops power rankings (3 Comments)
Top Chef: Las Vegas
Top Chef Episode 13: A few good chefs
Gray Matter
Fight weekend in Las Vegas and Thanksgiving (2 Comments)
Calendar »
- 4 Fri
- 5 Sat
- 6 Sun
- 7 Mon
- 8 Tue
-
Ray Price at Boulder Station
Boulder Station Hotel and Casino | 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.
-
Clay Walker at The Golden Nugget
Golden Nugget Hotel & Casino
-
Gloriana at LAX
LAX Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Brooks & Dunn at the Hilton
Las Vegas Hilton
-
Bill Engvall at the Treasure Island Theatre
Treasure Island Theatre
-
Ron White performs at the Mirage
Terry Fator Theatre
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Bite the bullet....hmmmmm
Hmmmm...I wonder if Stan knows anybody laid off because of the poor economy. Did he ask them if they are biting the bullet?
I guess Stan is Ok with the big drop in gaming revenues due to the drop in tourist money coming to town. High gas prices are killing Las Vegas.
I guess Stan is Ok with the resulting drop in state tax revenue.
I guess Stan will not be one those crying when more budgets cuts happen soon and next year because he will be biting the bullet.
I guess Stan will be OK in 10 years biting the same bullet if gas prices are $8 a gallon.
Stan sounds exactly like Obama.
I wonder if Obama sent a letter in with Stan's name on it.
Yup...it sounds like something Obama would say.
JMHO, but I don't think it's only "high gas prices" that are keeping tourists from LV. The drop in tourism started before the severe spike in gas prices.
It was noted on another thread that the ridiculously-high prices for room & food, coupled with the seriously-lower payouts by the casinos, have also contributed.
And all of this started long before the severe spike in gas prices.
LV used to be an affordable get-away. Oh you knew you were going to lose some money at the casinos, but at least you knew you could have a clean, comfortable room and decent food for a reasonable price.
No more.
BTW, from what I've read, "Big Oil" ALREADY has licenses to drill. But they don't. Gee whiz; one wonders why.
Drop in tourism and Huge drop in the local economy is related to the economy of the nation. The cause of the drop in the economy is our dollar wont buy anything anymore. Why does a nations currency devalue, when it exports money instead of goods and imports goods borrowing to pay for them. Oil exports 700 billion a year. Taxing jobs with regulation and mandated benefits in bids to win votes make jobs too expensive to employ at home. Using our natural resources that made our country great for 200 years is the same thing other countries are doing that make their economies grow. DEMAND Harry Reid return to Washington and pass the Drill Here Drill Now legislation and increase our use of nuclear, coal, and oil now.
EMAIL Sen Reid at this link
http://reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm...
Las Vegas
Lloyd D. George Building
333 Las Vegas Boulevard
South, Suite 8016
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Phone: 702-388-5020
Fax: 702-388-5030
You have to understand that many of the same energy companies that are going after the alternative sources of renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear) are also in the oil business. Profits from one product line are used to develop other product lines. The oil windfall tax is ultimately a tax on all energy sources.
Democrats have played a game on tax breaks for renewable by only funding them annually (so they can keep bring votes up for public floggings) and taking money away from others (winners and losers) to pay for the credits. If this is our number 1 priority then I think we could find the money in our $3 trillion budget and put them in place for the full transition period.
The idea behind opening up more drilling areas is these areas are simply safer, easier, and quicker than some of the currently available locations, as we transition.
I say give them their drilling. When prices don't drop, ask them to explain it.
They won't be able to explain it, but hey will be laughing at the gullibility of the Re-puke-licans all of the way to the bank.
BTW, from what I've read, "Big Oil" ALREADY has licenses to drill. But they don't. Gee whiz; one wonders why.
Why don't you find out the basics of it? Take off the lead-helmet first, though!
http://www.energytomorrow.org/energy/Fac...
How about "our" untapped reserves - that liberals would and will deny our nation in favor of terror-supporting entities who sell us oil, weaken our economy and hate our guts!
WHY does the American liberal assist those who want us dead, Patricia??
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresourc...
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Teaser: I'll take it! Then as national security strengthens; the American economy strengthens; the lib-efforted national malaise declines; the dollar gains in strength; terrorist-supporting oil entities weaken; gas prices decline or at least stabilize (30+% growth in gas prices this year+/-); inflationary pressures are hopefully eased; the global warming, er, cooling, er, change crowd is further "under the bus" than they already are today and Algore lives in abject shame as he fondles his bogus Nobel P/P; The American spirit that the corrosive liberal tries to extinguish is revived and on and on and on...........
To hammer the supply-side of this equation and say it WON'T HELP is simply indicative of today's Democrat-lib! Pelosi and Obama want INCREASED SUPPLY by draining some % of the Nat. Petroleum Reserves OR Obama caving on off-shore drilling, thus putting to LIE how increased supply won't help!
Liberal-inspired responses to national crises - to be expected shortly:
.....It's just TOO HARD; it WON'T HELP; it'll make our (anti-American) FRIENDS MAD; it'll TAKE TOO LONG; it'll be the WRONG THING AT THE WRONG TIME; The odds are against us; It's just TOO BIG; It is TOO TOUGH; This ONE thing alone won't solve decades of the other thing so we SHOULDN'T EVEN TRY and on and on and on......
The liberal language of defeat and defeatism is the problem today. It does align - THOUGH - with the Socialist fellow and the Corrosive party that runs liberal politics today. Political poison - the American Liberal!
"You have to understand that many of the same energy companies that are going after the alternative sources of renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear) are also in the oil business. Profits from one product line are used to develop other product lines. The oil windfall tax is ultimately a tax on all energy sources."
Well expressed. Choking the very companies who are in the best position to engineer future advancements are being HARMED by 30+ years of unrelenting liberal and en-viral-MENTALIST attack. The liberal arguments today, imo, are just "bitter people, clinging to their global warming and to their socialism and Euro-trash-like corrosiveness and balkanization"(mq).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"The idea behind opening up more drilling areas is these areas are simply safer, easier, and quicker than some of the currently available locations, as we transition."
The position of drilling here at home IS gaining strength rapidly - at around 70% /- approval now - and the Pelosi-ists and the Reid-ists are fleeing from it - even shutting down and running out-of-town, lol!
The more the lib-led leadership keeps gagging supplies - the worse it will get for them, imo!!
Pelosi barely sounds even coherent anymore in interviews, but some over-the-hill carny palm-reader whose mission is to "save the planet...."?? The messiah-istic mass-mentality seems to have taken over lib-leadership - like the "Liberal Invasion of the Body Snatchers" or something.
"Drill, here - Drill now - Develop Alternatives to ease the load - Debunk "global warming, umm, I mean cooling, emmm, change - yeah, yeah - that's the ticket" - Deliverance away from terror-effecting oil-entities and weakened National Security".
For those who think that high gas prices are not having effect on our economy please read the below.
"Southern California gamblers who regularly drive to Las Vegas have cut back their visits by a third because of record gas prices, and those who still come say they’ve cut their gambling back by 29 percent, a new poll has found."
"Airline cuts, high gas prices making Las Vegas tougher to get to and more expensive"
"US Airways Group Inc. announced last week that it was cutting nearly half its Las Vegas flights as part of companywide belt-tightening"
http://www.lasvegasun.com/news/2008/jul/...
There are trillions of oil and gas in US reserves.
Would it not be smarter to extract those valuable assets instead of sending trillions of cash to foreign countries that may be our enemies?
The reason why the price of oil high is because the capacity of supply is marginal above peak summer demand. Any event could push supply below demand. That makes contracts that promise future deliveries of oil very valuable. Once we restore a safe margin of supply capacity over demand then prices will come down significantly.
I am OK with stubborn Democrats like Reid, Pelosi, and Obama who do not think high gas prices are having much of an effect on Las Vegas tourism and who refuse to allow more drilling.
I will help pay for a billboard ad next to the highway if you want to promote your beliefs.
It will say: "We do not think high gas prices are that bad. Just bite the bullet. We do not believe high gas prices are having much of effect on Las Vegas tourism. Vote for us, the Democrats!!!! Sincerly, Obama, Pelosi, Reid"
Gee, NV; after that apology on another thread, I thought perhaps (maybe, just maybe) your stripes had slightly altered.
Apparently I'm ever the optimist.
Tell you what, NV. If you can get through an entire screed without ONCE using either "liberals" or "Democrats" or any derogatory form therein, I'll give you a straight answer.
Sadly, I'm fairly certain you are completely incapable of any kind of civility .... beyond a one-sentence post.
Please stop wasting bandwidth with your ranting nonsense.
jf ... re-read what I wrote. I said high gas prices wasn't the ONLY thing keeping tourists away.
Since you just practice avoidance and shuffling denial, why not show it to you AGAIN - and respond to the question of your previous post (@ 4:03am)
"Wonder" no more! The passive-aggression I see in your posts is just SO quaint. SO quaint!
Why does the American liberal force America too close to those global anti-American nations and ideologies and terrorists - to those who want America DEAD, Patricia??
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"BTW, from what I've read, "Big Oil" ALREADY has licenses to drill. But they don't. Gee whiz; one wonders why.
Why don't you find out the basics of it? Take off the lead-helmet first, though!
http://www.energytomorrow.org/energy/Fac......
How about "our" untapped reserves - that liberals would and will deny our nation in favor of terror-supporting entities who sell us oil, weaken our economy and hate our guts!
WHY does the American liberal assist those who want us dead, Patricia??
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresourc......
How can you discuss whats wrong with this country without the words Democrat, liberal extremist. All three words are interchangeable.
EXACTLY!!
That is a silly argument, jfnance32, no one has said higher gas prices isn't effecting the economy. Quite the contrary, in fact.
But NVMakz, if you want to stop funding other nations, especially nations that have ties to terrorists, you have to remove oil completely from the global economy.
The level of demand for oil isn't expected to decrease, only increase, so any reduction in money from the US will just be replaced by funding from another oil-addicted nation like China or India.
Thus, you aren't really reducing the amount of funding to those nations. It may feed a moral superiority, but if the end goal is reduced funding to "those that want us dead," you really aren't doing the trick. "Terrorist-supporting oil entities weaken" is not true.
Without a significant shift away from oil, we're also doomed to return to those sources.
I think people need to wake up and realize that we simply don't have the domestic oil capacity to ensure our own safety. If you want to pick and choose the source of oil, it becomes even more expensive, as unilateral deals between states would be necessary, and which states have enough oil to supply us? Saudi Arabi, Iran and Canada.
But I think choosing between foreign oil, and oil from ourselves is a false choice. We will need both. We will be importing for decades to come.
And NVMakz, yesterday you were critical of MediaMatters and Huffington Post, but today you are sourcing information from a source which says About Us: "API is the only national trade association that represents all aspects of America's oil and natural gas industry. Our 400 corporate members, from the largest major oil company to the smallest of independents, come from all segments of the industry. They are producers, refiners, suppliers, pipeline operators and marine transporters, as well as service and supply companies that support all segments of the industry."
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
ksand99 makes the point that needs to be made here.
Continuing to rely on oil, no matter what its source, is a recipe for disaster. The best thing we can do is to figure out the fastest way to rid ourselves of this addiction (addiction, remember, is the President's characterization of our situation). Further, anything we do to prolong this transition is a very foolish long-term strategy.
To point to any one alternative and say that it can't generate enough electricity on its own to replace oil is defeatist in the extreme. It will take a number of alternatives to do this, but it can be done if we only demonstrate the will.
Our national security is at stake. We need to start moving away from oil immediately, not taking steps to further our dependence on it.
Obama 10 year plan will cost everybody tons of cash. It will kill our economy.
Obama Santa Claus has promised over 150 million mythical Hybrid Plug-in cars to be on road by 2015 (6 years from 2009). The car does not exist today but is in development. The car is expected to go into production until 2010-2011. That means that Obama has to sell 30 million of his mythical cars per year in the US. In 2007, there were only 16 million cars sold in the US. I guess that means some people will be forced to buy a car. Perhaps, the local Hybrid Plug-in Nazi will round up potential buyers. Also, it is very doubtful that car production of the Hybrid Plug-in cars will be anything near 30 million a year. I believe the high end expectations are around 2 million a year.
The cars will be very small 4 door cars. The cars will cost from $30,000 to $48,000. That is two or three times the price of a regular gas car of the same small size and low luxury. As you can see, this will hit the consumer in the pocketbook. Even if gas is at $6.00 per gallon, the payback in fuel savings is beyond 20 years.
The cars will still use fuel of some sort. The Volt will use E85 fuel.
The range of the cars is not known for that is dependent on well they develop the batteries. It could be 350 miles or 600 miles. You will need to recharge the car after that. It will take between 2 to 8 hours to recharge depending again on what type of battery technology gets developed and what type of electric outlet you have.
You will need to recharge the car every day. Not everybody has access to outdoor electrical outlets that can be charge back to the consumers, like condo and apartment dwellers. New infrastructure will be needed to deal with that. Also, theft of electrical energy from unsecured outlets will become a problem which will require even more money.
The current power grid struggles with adding just enough capacity to meet current demands. Adding 150 million daily charging cars to that grid will require a tremendous growth in capacity. That new capacity requirement will cost hundreds of billions in new power plant creation and high power transmission lines.
It will cost the consumer and the taxpayer (which is the same person) an enormous amount of money.
At some point in time, there will be a large number of these very large batteries that will be needed to be disposed of. The cost of that has not been discussed either.
Obviously Obama Santa Claus is a very foolish person. A slower approach is much wiser which will allow the technology to mature and to bring the cost down.
Here are some articles used for research on the topic.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23793222/pag...
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/03/06/...
http://www.wired.com/cars/futuretranspor...
"Obama 10 year plan will cost everybody tons of cash. It will kill our economy."
Wait, you've been wailing around here for the past few months that GAS PRICES ARE KILLING OUR ECONOMY!
Now, reducing gas prices through alternative energy sources is KILLING OUR ECONOMY!
So, you're admitting that our economy is screwed, either way?
And more haphazardly "researched" information?
"After the launch of the 3rd generation Prius hybrid next year (actually, the 4th generation if you count the NHW10 model which was sold only in Japan between 1997 and 2000), Toyota plans to boost its production to 480,000 units per year, or 70% more than now. So while it took Toyota over 10 years to sell 1 million Prius hybrids, it will almost certainly sell its second million in only a couple of years."
That's the production of a single model, increasing by 70%, so your whole "they can't manufacture enough!" is debunked.
Plug-in hybrids are in their infancy. By the mid-2010s, they should be well on their way. Oh, and in case you didn't know: one of the first plug-in hybrids will be the Saturn VUE plug-in hybrid, a SUV that should go into production within a year.
Tiny four-door car? Nope! An SUV! Where do you get your information?!?
And a range of 600 miles? Why, my current gas-powered car only has a range of 320 miles. That sounds great!
And with Obama's push to develop domestic clean energy, we'll be supplying our cars with energy that isn't sourced from dirty coal plants.
And what is John McCain's plan? DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW! He said it himself. More carbon-based fuels, leaving us just as open to NVMakz's fear of terrorism as ever.
So you have the Barack Obama energy plan that REDUCES our addiction to oil, or the John McCain plan that FEEDS our addiction to oil.
Now there's a tough decision!
jfnance32 and neiman1
Is there any way you can stop lying?
Your arguments are straight out of bush/crony talking points.
Everything you guys say has been disproven time and time again by FACTS.
Please stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
This is all hullabaloo!
The republicans had a chance to immediately divert oil from the strategic national reserve to immediately lower prices. At the same time, it would have not "deny our nation in favor of terror-supporting entities who sell us oil, weaken our economy and hate our guts!"
And what did the republicans do? NOTHING! They sat around and whined they couldn't add pork and special interest money to the bills!
Even when Reid said they could add amendments, they DID NOTHING!
When there was a bill to crack down on speculators and futures trading on unregulated foreign markets, what did they do? NOTHING!
Open your eyes and see the cowardace of the radical right! They throw out all these phony accusations of "helping terrorists" and "America-haters!" and then blindly follow their leaders, who DO NOTHING!
It's more reactionary whining and if they truly believe we are helping the terrorists, they are MORE GUILTY, because they refused to act when they had a chance!
In fact, they celebrated their inaction! And when push comes to shove, and they whined to the President and demanded he call congress back into session, what did Bush do? NOTHING!
You want to act like republicans aren't implicit in this? That's a hilarious and loony lie!
The radical right: all talk and NO ACTION, just whining! LOL!!!!
Obama is young and foolish.
Releasing the strategic national reserve would be reckless.
Even Obama in the past has said so.
That is to be used in emergency. That is why it is called, strategic.
It is not called, "Lets release it to get elected" reserve.
The capacity to supply oil is marginally above peak summer demand. That is why the gas prices are so high. Any event, like an Iranian war or a storm, can push supply below demand.
That is when we should use the STRATETIC supply.
But I am glad that Obama is displaying his foolishness almost on a daily basis.
"Wait, you've been wailing around here for the past few months that GAS PRICES ARE KILLING OUR ECONOMY!
Now, reducing gas prices through alternative energy sources is KILLING OUR ECONOMY!"
Yes it would very dumb to exchange $4.50 a gallon gas cars for cars cost 2 or 3 times as more as the cheapest gas car on the market.
Most people cannot afford a $48,000 or $30,000 tiny car. They would be paying like $900 to $1,500 a month car payments that would exceed any fuel savings.
So if the car was mandated there would a lot less people driving to Las Vegas from California and people would have even less money to spend on gambling.
The electrical and Hybrid Plug-In’s need more time to develop their cars to bring down the cost and to build more functional cars.
""After the launch of the 3rd generation Prius hybrid next year (actually, the 4th generation if you count the NHW10 model which was sold only in Japan between 1997 and 2000), Toyota plans to boost its production to 480,000 units per year, or 70% more than now. So while it took Toyota over 10 years to sell 1 million Prius hybrids, it will almost certainly sell its second million in only a couple of years."
That's the production of a single model, increasing by 70%, so your whole "they can't manufacture enough!" is debunked."
Obama said 150 million cars in 6 years. They would need to produce 25 million cars a year. Do the 1 million times 10 and it is still short of 25 million per year. There were only 16 million cars sold in the USA last year that is short of the 25 million per year, too. Also, he is going to force people to buy the hybrid plug-in. I think he will have a riot on his hand if people are forced to buy a tiny car for $30,000 to $48,000.
It sounds like the rookie, Obama, needs to learn some math.
"And a range of 600 miles? Why, my current gas-powered car only has a range of 320 miles. That sounds great!"
The range is not known for they are still developing the battery technology. Also, the gas car one can pull in over and refuel in 10 minutes. With these cars, one would have to pull over and recharge it 2 to 8 hours.
“one of the first plug-in hybrids will be the Saturn VUE plug-in hybrid, a SUV that should go into production within a year.”
In this article it says the true plug-in version will not be ready until 2010.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/saturn-vue-p...
“Tiny four-door car? Nope! An SUV!”
Look at the picture in the link below. It is the current version of the Saturn hybrid SUV.
I laughed so hard. How can Saturn call that an SUV? I guess it has four-wheel drive. I think my old 2 door Honda Accord was bigger than that.
http://www.soultek.com/clean_energy/hybr...
McCain is for the Hybrid Plug-In too and for the pure electric car. But he is not dumb enough to say in 6 years that there will be 150 million Hybrid Plug-In cars. McCain plans includes getting more oil supply for we will need that to bridge the gap until better and more cost effective hybrids come on the market.
Obama shows us again that he is rookie and foolish. The car is too expensive. The car is to small. There is not enough production capacity. To get 25 million sold each year the government will have to shove the cars down people’s throat by legal mandate.
The plan looks like some lefty nut wrote it.
"But NVMakz, if you want to stop funding other nations, especially nations that have ties to terrorists, you have to remove oil completely from the global economy."
Show me ANY viable economic plan from your side in this era in which oil would be completely out of the picture?? HOW long will we wait to replace the volumes of energy alts needed to replace oil?? I say 75 years, imo.
xxxxxxx
"The level of demand for oil isn't expected to decrease, only increase, so any reduction in money from the US will just be replaced by funding from another oil-addicted nation like China or India."
The oil-lib globalist has already given in to the "the demand is rising and it'll do no good to increase supply in response" = while their lib-leaders want to:
Sue OPEC to increase supply
Remove some oil from the Strategic Reserve to increase supply
Obama flips over drilling to increase supply.....
xxxxxxxx
"Thus, you aren't really reducing the amount of funding to those nations. "Terrorist-supporting oil entities weaken" is not true."
Of course, it is and will ! Thus, SO many benefits and shifts toward a stronger America that the give-in, give-up and surrender liberals MUST kill this.
Try this again:
"Then as national security strengthens; the American economy strengthens; the lib-efforted national malaise declines; the dollar gains in strength; gas prices decline or at least stabilize (30+% growth in gas prices this year+/-); inflationary pressures are hopefully eased; the global warming, er, cooling, er, change crowd is further "under the bus" than they already are today and Algore lives in abject shame....
xxxxxxxxxxx
"Without a significant shift away from oil, we're also doomed to return to those sources."
I agree. EXACTLY how many years will it be until alts take over for oil?? I'm thinking 75 or so, but that's just me? WHAT IS THE REPLACEMENT PLAN - the replacement-schedule phasing out oil for alts?? Why won't the liberal allow drilling for increased Natural Gas??
"I think people need to wake up and realize that we simply don't have the domestic oil capacity to ensure our own safety."
Yes, we do! WE HAVE PLENTY of ENERGY supplies:
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresourc...
xxxxxxxx
"And NVMakz, yesterday you were critical of MediaMatters and Huffington Post, but today you are sourcing information from a source which says About Us:" ...They are producers, refiners, suppliers, pipeline operators and marine transporters, as well as service and supply companies that support all segments of the industry."
Why believe those professionals who DO get the product to YOUR car? THE ALT-SIDE HAS NOTHING PREPARED TO REPLACE OIL AND GAS WITH right now??
That's a main issue with the anti-economy side of this = they first believe those who have nothing to do with producing the product.
First off, quote Obama's plan. You keep saying he's going to mandate plug-in hybrids? Prove that.
You also make this wacky "Obama says in 6 years that there will be 150 million Hybrid Plug-In cars" claim. Prove that.
Do you know how the car market works? 2009 models will be available this fall. 2010 will be available next fall.
The Saturn VUE is as big as a RAV4, CRV and Tuscon. If you think it's small, I guess a Hummer is mid-size to you. LOL!
You're just making stuff up now, and it's really obvious, Nance.
Jfnance32, why do you want Nevada's economy to die!!!?
You said gas prices are killing our economy!
Barack Obama wants to sell less than 10% of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to reduce gas prices NOW!
You said that gas prices are so high because the future supply is so close to demand. Selling 10% of the reserves would reduce gas prices TODAY and save Nevada jobs!
I guess you are OK with Nevada loosing jobs!
I want Nevada to stay strong. Nevada's economy is being killed by high gas prices. If you don't think this is an emergency, I think most Nevadans would like to have a word with you!
John McCain just wants to drill, which will take years! I'm glad Barack Obama is looking out for me TODAY!
Ksand99, I believe that is what we call a "turn."
And you deserve kudos for that!
Yeah, Nance, you're trying to have it both ways.
You say a "short-term" solution to oil prices is more drilling, which, even believing your funny 2 year timeline means we won't see a reduction of prices before the decade is through.
But Obama's plan, which would immediately reduce the price of gas by selling off a tiny chunk of our massive petroleum stockade is "foolish?"
Give me a break.
During the summer peak demand supply capacity is just barely above demand.
If there is an event like a war or a storm that pushes supply below demand then that will be extremely harsh on the economy.
The cheap $4.50 will be gone and we will return to the 1970's gas lines. You are probably too young to have gone through that.
Gas prices are falling and they will continue to fall until late Dec/early Jan. The summer peak demand is over because the summer travel season is coming to an end. During the winter the price will go up but not to $4.50 a gallon. Expect next summer for gas prices to be above $4.50.
If one was going to do a foolish thing by releasing the emergency oil in an non-emergency situation. Then they should do it in the middle of summer when supply is barely above demand.
It is so foolish to even mention releasing our emergency stock two months before an election just to get votes.. It should only be release if supply falls beneath demand.
If Obama and I agreed on everthing else then I would vote against him just for this. It is an extremely bonehead dumb to suggest.
"The United States sits on 705 million barrels of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It was created in 1975 in the wake of the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74, and designed to provide oil in case of a catastrophic supply disruption. Since it is 97 percent full, we could easily sell a half million barrels of oil per day for 100 days without really increasing our exposure to a catastrophic oil disruption. The SPR would still be at 90 percent capacity, and we would still have nearly two months of oil on hand should all imports stop." from CAP
You also ignore the fact that when some of those barrels of oil were purchased, they were worth a lot less than $118 a barrel.
75 years? Is that a FACT, or a FACTOID? LOL! For all your "patriotic" talk, you certainly have a low expectation of American ingeniuty! And a wild guess, at that! And then you ask me "EXACTLY how many years?" Should I throw out a wild guess as well?
Your argument is predicated on the belief that oil = terrorism funding and funding for rogue states. You argue that Democrats are funding terrorism and rogue nations because they buy oil. I am arguing that Republicans are also funding terrorism and rogue nations because they buy oil, but instead of planning to reduce/eliminate the addition, they'd rather SURRENDER! Duh!
"The oil-lib globalist has already given in to the "the demand is rising and it'll do no good to increase supply..."
Wrong. The Dems plan is to radically cut domestic demand. Cut demand 50% by 2030. That's Barack Obama's goal.
The Republican plan? MORE OIL, which, by your thinking ,means MORE MONEY FOR TERRORISTS AND ROGUE NATIONS! Duh!
Show me a single source that says global demand will decrease in the next 20 years. Without it, your "drilling extravaganza" plan only reduces OUR funding to those nations, not GLOBAL funding to those nations. They'll have money, whether it be green dollars, euros ,etc. Are you blind? The end game is the same! So long as global demand is increasing, those "terrorist" and "rogue nations" will be JUST AS WEALTHY in your end game.
While the Democrats have strived to reduce demand on oil, and continue to plan to do so, Republicans have fought conservation at every turn. They blocked CAFE mileage enchancements for DECADES! If you're mad we're beholden to foreign oil, you need to point the finger at the people who gleefully screamed "more! more! more!" when they SHOULD have been saying "less! less! less!" like the DEMOCRATS!
Duh!
Your Kiplinger article's first and primary source of domestic oil is shale oil. How's that working out? It's not. Not a single barrel of oil has come from shale in the U.S.
Let's compare the two plans:
Republicans: Drill for more oil. Use more oil. Cut prices in 2018 when drilling finally rewards us with more oil. Rely on "oil reserves" that have never been able to be tapped domestically like shale oil. And when those are gone, go kicking and screaming back to Iran or Saudi Arabia for another FIX!
Democrats: Drill for more oil. Use less oil. Cut prices now by tapping in to less than 10% of the strategic reserves and preventing out-of-control oil speculation and foreign market futures trading. Rely on alternative technologies to futher reduce our dependence, not only on FOREIGN oil, but on oil altogether. Be a global LEADER instead of a global FOLLOWER. Maybe even reduce GLOBAL DEMAND through new technology, which would give your "terrorist" and "rogue nations" less influence.
Now tell me with a straight face which is better! The Democrat's!
I believe that Obama is implying that 500,000 barrels of daily oil will have a significant impact on gas prices.
Wow.... all we need is to increase supply by 500,000!!!!!!!! Woooooowwwwwweeeeeeeee!!!!! Boy that will be a fun fact to use in other postings when talking about the need for offshore drilling.
Also, gas prices are falling and will continue to fall for the next couple of months. The time for his plan has passed.
If he becomes President then he can do it next summer. He can dump the whole reseve if he wants to.
Actually, Obama calls for more than that, but I didn't expect you to do the math.
Yes, and ten years from now, when increased oil drilling accomplishes lower prices, we can enjoy it.
For those of us suffering today (and screeching about how high gas prices are KILLING Las Vegas, LOL!), reducing the reserve by less than 10% seems imminently reasonable.
Mr. Nance,
You said, "During the summer peak demand supply capacity is just barely above demand" as a reason for drilling for more oil.
When supply is equal to demand we have what is called the equilibrium price. Economic equilibrium tells us that the price will not change unless either supply or demand is affected. It also explains why your view of the oil situation is flawed.
Demand for oil worldwide is climbing exponentially while supply is rising only ata linear rate. Simple mathematics tells us that price will continue to climb unless demand is decreased dramatically. Therefore, using less oil is imperative. That means not only more fuel-efficient vehicles, it also means finding alternatives to oil. Simply drilling for more will never solve our proble and Senator McCain is being disingenuous when he suggests that it will.
thebs, I think jfnance32 is mad that it's a good idea but John McCain hasn't thought of it.
But I think in the next few weeks, John McCain will suddenly realize that we should do this.
And when you consider that during Hurricane Katrina, when 95% of crude oil production was shut down in the Gulf, we only used 11 million barrels out of 705 million barrels, I think people sqwaking about a little of the SPR will be drowned out by voters who want it done.
I don't want to wait for cheaper gas prices. We are in an economic crunch. Maybe if we relieve gas prices NOW, Las Vegas's economy will get better.
If we wait for off-shore to have an impact, I think it will be too late. I don't want to wait until 2015 for lower prices!
JohnF is right, we have to conserve as much as possible as a real long-term approach. More efficiency and cleaner technology is the future.
John Mccain is the past.
Nance,
First off, quote Obama's plan. You keep saying he's going to mandate plug-in hybrids?
Prove that.
You also make this wacky "Obama says in 6 years that there will be 150 million Hybrid Plug-In cars" claim.
Prove that.
Both of those sound like more Nance-ified versions of the truth.
Nance: "Obama said 150 million cars in 6 years."
Obama: For automakers, $4 billion in loans and loan guarantees would be made available for PHEV development, with one-million of the vehicles to be ready for sale by 2015.
ONE MILLION CARS, NANCE!
One million! Not 150 million!
And the mandate? He wants FEDERAL GOVERNMENT VEHICLES to be plug-ins, not consumer vehicles!
Read it and weep:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet...
LOL... times 150 million!
LOL.....I really blew it there.......150 million.....
The re-puke-licans prove it over and over. Lies, lies, lies. No facts, no plan. I, and America are ready for a total change.
remember what liberals have always done, they eventually get so politically correct they eat their own. Wait until the left decides gambling is wrong like smoking and they ban it. You don't think it can happen, the city council of Los Angeles just banned all new fast food in half the city because poor people are too fat and unhealthy. Pelosi to save us all and the planet
Yeah and republicans are so better aren't they neiman. Let's see how about we conduct a war AND cut taxes. I think high school econ kids could know better than that. Let's see how about we cut funding to the poor while cutting taxes for the wealthiest 2%. Good track there. Why don't we try to reverse a woman's right to choose and force abortion underground where I hear it will be safer, cheaper. Let's deregulate everything so the vaunted free market can sort everything out. Like cutting funding to the federal oversight boards that might have been able to stop the likes of Enron, who incidentally devoted far more money to the Bush campaign than to the democrats. Let's raise the minimum requirement on arsenic in the drinking water because God knows I've needed more of that in my diet.
Ooo, what about lying to go to war on multiple false pretenses and then covering it up when it doesn't work out. Or how about that bang up job he did with Katrina? Get it straight bub, the republicans have as much blood and dirt on their hands as the democrats. So trying to get all high handed saying that the dems have destroyed the country is just pure propaganda, because the last dem pres we had gave us a surplus, a strong economy, and respect in the world instead of just alienating any ally we might want.
You go gothic!!!!
"Economic equilibrium tells us that the price will not change unless either supply or demand is affected. It also explains why your view of the oil situation is flawed."
It is not just my position. There are over 1,000+ articles on the Internet that explain the high gas prices.
Here is an excellent article on the subject by the Federal Reserve.
http://www.dallasfed.org/research/eclett...
Because supply capacity is just above peak demand suppply then there are expectations that an event could occur to push supply below demand.
It is this anxiety of asupply under demand situation that is adding a large part of the price of oil. The drop in the value of dollar is the other large part in high gas prices.
The anxiety is making contracts for promises of future delieveries of oil very valuable.
You are right that if demand is reduced to a certain point than that will restore the saftey margin in supply over demand and there will be a big drop in the price of oil.
Oil is a worldwide product. China, India and USA have been the biggest drivers in demand in the last 4 years.
There is no quarantee that a slight drop in demand during the peak summer demand in the US will not be offset by growth in demand in China and India.
If there is a major recession in any of those 3 countries then demand will drop and so the price of oil.
Currently the price of oil is dropping because demand is dropping. The heavy travel season is over and the peak summer demand is over. Prices will continue to drop until winter. During winter demand goes up and so will the price in oil. In the spring the demand goes down and the price of oil will go down.
Next summer which is the peak demand period expect prices to go back and over the $4.50 price.
"75 years? Is that a FACT, or a FACTOID? LOL! For all your "patriotic" talk, you certainly have a low expectation of American ingenuity! Should I throw out a wild guess as well?"
Since you aren't contesting my 75 year timeframe with information and references, it still stands. I suspect you have no guess, wild or not, to throw out because there - according to your non-response - is NO plan by the anti-economy crowd.
xxxxxxxx
"Wrong. The Dems plan is to radically cut domestic demand. Cut demand 50% by 2030. That's Barack Obama's goal."
"Show me a single source that says global demand will decrease in the next 20 years. Without it, your "drilling extravaganza" plan only reduces OUR funding to those nations, not GLOBAL funding to those nations."
YOU show ME any source, since it is Barry's goal?? Anyway, less of that 700 billion from AMERICA will go to terrorists - rather than the lib-plan of keeping America in DANGER by relying more over the past 30 years on these anti-American (like the Democrat) oil entities.
Ask Barry, Nan and others who want greater SUPPLY by whining about opening the SPR - while the lib-parrots squawk less supply.
"While the Democrats have strived to reduce demand on oil, and continue to plan to do so, Republicans have fought conservation at every turn.
CAFE rises - increases traffic deaths and tiny, flimsier vehicles and greater insurance rates. CAFE rates are as laughable as Barry saying we can eliminate (gotta get that quote) foreign oil by INFLATING OUR TIRES. He was quite giddy about his breakthrough, lol!!
xxxxx
"Republicans: Drill for more oil. Use more oil. Cut prices in 2018 when drilling finally rewards us with more oil. Rely on "oil reserves" that have never been able to be tapped domestically like shale oil. And when those are gone, go kicking and screaming back to Iran or Saudi Arabia for another FIX!"
Your flailing assessment is as laughable as the liberal Democrat side of this argument. 10 years for oil has been off the table for all but the most lead-helmeted liberals - 3-5 years according to "nance's" takedown of "the bs" a couple of days ago. Shale oil is and has been PROGRESSING as a source and Canada's efforts show this. Dems here always love trying to kill off new progresses.
xxxxxxxxx
more to follow
Part 2:
"Democrats: Drill for more oil. Use less oil. Cut prices now by tapping in to less than 10% of the strategic reserves and preventing out-of-control oil speculation and foreign market futures trading. Rely on alternative technologies to further reduce our dependence, not only on FOREIGN oil, but on oil altogether. Be a global LEADER instead of a global FOLLOWER. Maybe even reduce GLOBAL DEMAND through new technology, which would give your "terrorist" and "rogue nations" less influence."
A plan for which there is NO REAL PLAN for WHEN this plan will show results.
Tapping the SPR has had NO REAL economic benefit historically. Just - here as when Clinton accessed it - a liberal flail for a talking point INCREASING supply - pathetic actually. SPR is for national emergency, not as a liberal campaign talking point.
The liberal has FORCED America into a "follower" role with keeping America both close to terrorist nations AND trying to have America be LESS than it can be.
Your "Maybe even reduce GLOBAL DEMAND" is self-debunked for several reasons in your own post and common liberal argument. Go back and see!
Less supply, keeping America closer to terrorists and costs sky-high - driving gas prices higher which feeds oil company profits - not allowing America to effort our own SUPPLY - relying on carny-tricks like accessing SPR and INFLATING OUR TIRES to rid ourselves of foreign oil (LOL) - letting global demand WHICH WILL RISE OVER TIME choke America's ability to get fuels and among SO many other corrosions = blame it on Republicans === THAT'S YOUR PLAN??????
With NO timeframe for when alts will take over the massive volumes of energy needed for not only today, but the future - that's STILL your position. 75 years, it is = since you offer NO reason to believe otherwise and substitute blaming ME about America's ingenuity - which in shale, the liberal attacks - in its place.
Many of the postings are worried about the price of gas, now under $4 a gallon less than half of the price in Europe. If you are so worried about the price, then trade in your gas guzzlers and buy a smaller car that does at least twice the mileage, or reduce your current mileage.
High gas prices are crippling L Vegas, OK, then adapt, stop whinning.
Gas prices are and will further damage the economy, OK then adapt, stop whinning.
HERE IT IS FOLKS. THERE IS NO SANTA CLAUS AND THERE IS NOT WAY TO DRILL AMERICA OUT OF ITS OIL DILEMMA. WE CAN SWITCH TO PLUG-IN HYBRIDS FAR, FAR FASTER THAN WE'LL SEE ANY OIL FROM "NEW DRILLING RIGS" THAT ARE LOOKING FOR AMOUNTS OF OIL TOO SMALL TO EVEN BARELY AFFECT GAS PRICES. HOWEVER, SOME FOLKS WOULD RATHER BELIEVE THE WORLD IS FLAT THAN ROUND..."I cain't see no curve. Looks flat to me..."
The Hybrids Plug-ins that Obama is preaching about do not exist.
They will come out, maybe in 2010-2011.
The Chevy Volt will cost $48,000 and it is a tiny car and it will still use fuel that contains oil.
I am OK with all the liberals buying one. The payback in fuel savings is like 40-60 years for each car.
Go ahead and sign up for the tiny $48,000 car.
Put your money where your mouth is.
The current power grid barely adds enough supply to keep up with current growth in demand.
If 100 milion people got a Hybrid then one would have to a ton of power plants and high power transmission lines at cost of hundred of billions of dollars.
How fast are you going to build the power plants?
How are you going to pay for that?
I bet you can drive that tiny $48,000 car on a flat earth.
"THAT ARE LOOKING FOR AMOUNTS OF OIL TOO SMALL TO EVEN BARELY AFFECT GAS PRICES"
Obama thinks so.
Obama says releasing 500,000 barrels of daily oil from the national reserve will have a significant impact on oil prices.
I guess you think that Obama is dumb for saying that.
Haha, looks like I struck a nerve with NVMakz! A two-part comment? LOL!
I'll reply to that in time. In the meantime, I'd just like to remind everyone that "HIGH GAS PRICES ARE KILLING OUR ECONOMY!" - jfnance32
Note that jfnance32 thinks merely signing oil leases will bring down the cost of oil because they indicate future supply.
But when you talk about ACTUALLY releasing 70 million barrels of oil into the market, which would immediately lower the price of oil, he ridcules the plan and implies it won't work. Huh?
Jfnance32, why are you explain why you are "KILLING OUR ECONOMY?!"
And if John McCain truly has the "kitchen sink" energy policy, why hasn't he endorsed this plan?
"But when you talk about ACTUALLY releasing 70 million barrels of oil into the market, which would immediately lower the price of oil, he ridcules the plan and implies it won't work. Huh?"
Hussein is talking about doing that at 500,000 barrels a day and he says it will lower prices by 20%.
I am OK with that statement.
It is an EXCELLENT arugment for more offshore drilling.
We can easily get millions more barrels a day out of offshore drilling. That will help in the future.
Thanks Hussein......You are so smart!!!!!!!
Continue using fossil fuels for energy production, continue using gas guzzlers for your own transport, refuse to adapt to newer energy forms, refuse to alter your way of life.
Why should you Americans do anything about the changing climate, its not your fault, blame it on the Chinese, they who robbed you of FIRST place as the country with most pollution.
Continue on your merry way, and the economy of the USA will never recover to what it was in the past.
"Haha, looks like I struck a nerve with NVMakz! A two-part comment? LOL!"
Haha, looks like I struck "99" totally SILENT if that is the response. I'll take the win! It was just such a target-rich libbie-wipeout environment that it was my pleasure to overflow.
xxxxx
"Note that jfnance32 thinks merely signing oil leases will bring down the cost of oil because they indicate future supply."
"But when you talk about ACTUALLY releasing 70 million barrels of oil into the market, which would immediately lower the price of oil, he ridcules the plan and implies it won't work. Huh?"
"99':
Thank you for agreeing that increased supply means lower prices! You can count on seeing this again. This statement by you self-negates the last month or so of your arguing otherwise.
Releasing SPR oil - as Clinton did in an election-season stunt - did little to nothing (ims, 1-2 cents for a week) for gas prices. Nan, Barry and Harry and I know this! You don't, it seems!
xxxxxxx
You had received the benefit of the doubt. That benefit is gone!
I'll look forward to your next roll-over-and-play-dead, lol!!
"Hussein is talking about doing that at 500,000 barrels a day and he says it will lower prices by 20%."
Jfnance32, you have been proven to not actually know Barack Obama's plan.
You claimed he wanted 150,000,000 plug in hybrid vehciles on the road by the middle of next decade, but he didn't say anything even close to that!
I think you also claimed that he wanted to FORCE citizens to buy plug in cars, which was also proven FALSE!
Barack Obama is for releasing 70 million barrels of oil from the strategic national reserve to immediately lower gas prices.
Off-shore drilling, which the radical right has constantly cried about, saying that they don't have land with oil on it because they can't tell where there's oil? Signing a new lease (which the signing usually takes 1-2 years along) will NOT relieve gas prices today the way 70 million barrels would. Add on to that the fact that having the land doesn't guarantee more oil says everything.
"Thank you for agreeing that increased supply means lower prices! You can count on seeing this again. This statement by you self-negates the last month or so of your arguing otherwise."
Wrong. More supply lowering prices is Econ 101. Maybe you didn't take or do well in that class? But the oil market is not strictly governed by the laws of supply and demand.
A large portion of the price of oil is based on futures and speculation. Do you disagree?
The lunatic fringe on this board has been constantly reminding us that the "68 million acres of available land" is not an arguement because that land doesn't have oil. So what makes them think any additional land will have oil? It seems readily apparent to me, and most who try to follow your thinking, that it's nearly impossible to tell how much oil is in the ground before you actually drill.
What that means is that just signing a lease DOES NOT GUARANTEE IMMEDIATE OR FUTURE SUPPLY. Do you disagree?
Whereas, releasing 70 million barrels of oil DOES GUARANTEE INCREASED IMMEDIATE SUPPLY. Do you disagree?
So when you look at both proposals, how in the world could the fringe be proposing new drilling, which is a hit-and-miss and completely unknown product, but not releasing less than 10% of the SPR, which would immediately make more oil available?
That doesn't make any sense!. (Which is not a surprise when trying to understand the LF!)
And to criticize this, but not John McCain's gas tax holiday? For shame!