| Who wants to pay more for gas?
Posted: 6/16/2008 8:05:49 PM | ....seems like Bush and co are bent on getting us to pay more for gas.... what do you think will happen if they pull this off?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7456081.stm
Bush and Brown's warning to Iran
President Bush warns Iran that "all options" are on the table
Gordon Brown and President George Bush have warned Iran to accept their "offers of partnership" or face tough sanctions and international isolation.
The UK prime minister said he wanted to maintain a dialogue with Tehran, but if Iran ignores UN resolutions then sanctions would be intensified.
Europe would freeze overseas assets of Iran's biggest bank and impose new oil and gas sanctions, he said.
... and what in the world does "offers of partnership" entail?
(anybody else get the willys when Bush says "all options are on the table"?) | |
|
| Who wants to pay more for gas?
Posted: 6/16/2008 9:38:53 PM | | Well I think it's very diplomatic to offer Iran to become a "partner" I've heard so many Democrats say that we need to be "firm" with Iran.. just what exactly do the Democrats mean by "firm" ? if anyone knows. | |
|
| Who wants to pay more for gas?
Posted: 6/16/2008 10:14:58 PM | well being that oil is a resourse that is finite, perhaps these prices are much more then just our country. bush is the president but do you think he has the power to the change the oil prices for the WORLD. no one truely knows how much oil is left in saudi, and with so many smaller giants declining, the middle east is going to be the hot spot for a long time later.
so iraq is still out of the picture on getting to 100% production, china is wanting to be like amarica and consumerism, with there own twist to it, and the ammount of barrals of oil isnt going to get that much higher per year. world demand is still going to incress. and for those who think we should drill in the us, look up the listings for all the reserves in the us, anwr is a hot spot for the evormentalists for barely any oil when compared to how much we consume. oil shale wont give much bpd(barrels per day) and the energy cost for doing it is a bit high to make a profit(energy is relitive to oil costs anyways)
these prices are a jolt to maby stop being so greedy, and perhaps realize suburbia was never meant to be in the first place, the concept is only 80 years old. and is only fueled bye cheap oil. | |
|
| Who wants to pay more for gas?
Posted: 6/17/2008 8:51:13 AM | No...Democrats and their taxes along with the environmentsl wacks want us to pay more. Mostly an effort to disrupt the economy and hurt average Amercians during an election year. Punish America with bad policies and then blame the other side with the media's help.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/67_support_offshore_drilling_64_expect_it_will_lower_prices
Tuesday, June 17, 2008 Email to a FriendAdvertisement
Most voters favor the resumption of offshore drilling in the United States and expect it to lower prices at the pump, even as John McCain has announced his support for states that want to explore for oil and gas off their coasts.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey—conducted before McCain announced his intentions on the issue--finds that 67% of voters believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. Only 18% disagree and 15% are undecided. Conservative and moderate voters strongly support this approach, while liberals are more evenly divided (46% of liberals favor drilling, 37% oppose).
Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that gas prices will go down if offshore oil drilling is allowed, although 27% don’t believe it. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of conservatives say offshore drilling is at least somewhat likely to drive prices down. That view is shared by 57% of moderates and 50% of liberal voters.
Nearly all voters are worried about rising gas and energy prices, with 79% very concerned and 16% somewhat concerned.
McCain is expected to formally call today (Tuesday) for the lifting of the federal moratorium on states being allowed to explore off their coasts for oil and gas deposits. While acknowledging it is only a short-term response, he has described it as a good first step toward reducing U.S. energy dependence on overseas sources.
The Outer Continental Shelf moratorium, passed in 1981, bans exploration for offshore natural gas and oil deposits. Barack Obama, McCain’s opponent for the White House, voted against an effort to lift the ban last year in the Senate. He argued that it was only a short-term solution. National Democratic Party leaders and most environmental organizations for years have strongly opposed efforts to explore for oil off the coast of the U.S.
According to the new survey, 85% of Republicans are in favor of offshore drilling as opposed to 57% of Democrats and 60% of unaffiliated voters. Those who call themselves conservatives favor such drilling 84% to 46% of liberals and 59% of self-designated moderates.
African-American voters are less supportive of such drilling than whites – 58% to 71%.
Women are more skeptical than men about the impact such drilling will have on gas prices: Nearly one out of three male voters (32%) say prices are very likely to go down, a view shared by only 23% of women.
Four out of five Republicans (79%) think prices are likely to fall thanks to offshore drilling, a view shared by only 55% of Democrats. Sixty percent (60%) of unaffiliated voters expect it to happen.
Voters also believe 61% to 22% that oil companies should be required to reinvest at least a portion of their profits into alternative energy research. On this question, liberal and moderate voters are strongly supportive of the proposal while conservatives are more evenly divided (47% of conservatives in favor, 35% opposed)
Data released yesterday showed that Americans believe developing new energy sources is the best long-term solution to the nation’s energy problem. Forty-seven percent (47%) said private companies were more likely to solve the nation’s energy problem than government research programs. But, at the same time, only 52% said companies should be allowed to keep the profits from the discovery of any alternative fuel sources. | |
|
| |
| Who wants to pay more for gas?
Posted: 6/17/2008 12:18:39 PM | Well you know if there was a way to utilize fuell cell technology so that I could power my home, cut all the power lines and eliminate my gas and electric bills, even if it meant digging up my yard, I'd do it without a second thought so I suppose I'm in favor of offshore drilling in an effort to eliminate dependence on forign oil.
Regarding increases in gas prices one of the consequences is that we're forced to conserve or address our gas/oil addiction which on the bright side must please environmentalists and believers in global warming | |
|
| Who wants to pay more for gas?
Posted: 6/20/2008 7:39:17 PM | http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=298857161272663
IBD Series: Breaking The Back Of High Oil
An online petition circulated by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's American Solutions group and urging Congress to "Drill Here, Drill Now" so consumers can "Pay Less" has reached 1 million signatures.
Meanwhile, a new Reuters/Zogby poll found that 60% of the public is in favor of increased drilling and refining, while two-thirds responding to a Rasmussen poll — including 46% of those who call themselves liberal — think drilling should be allowed offshore.
Not to be outdone, a Gallup poll discovered that 57% are in favor of a new wave of drilling "in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas now off limits."
It seems Americans are well aware that members of Congress, not the oil executives they've demonized for decades, are to blame for the punitive prices we are having to pay at the gas pump. They want lawmakers to do something about it.
But as long as Democrats remain in the congressional majority, it's unlikely that prices will fall even modestly. The solutions the party is offering are, at best, useless. Actually, we're being overly generous, because the Democrats' answers to the oil issue are childish responses that would do more harm than good.
Begin with the fantasy that a "windfall profits" tax would bring down energy prices. Are drained-at-the-pump Americans to believe that insufficient taxes on Big Oil are the cause of high prices? Do Democrats think the public is gullible enough to buy that?
Then there's this nonsense about additional offshore drilling bringing the price of oil down by only a few cents a barrel after five years that Sen. Barack Obama is peddling. Or Sen. Charles Schumer's claim that drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would "reduce the price of oil by a penny" and only after 10 years of waiting.
These men can't possibly know to such a fine point what drilling will do to prices.
What we can know is that opening ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf will put much more oil on the world market as well as send a signal to traders who are buying futures as if the world was running out. If Democrats want to shackle speculators as they have threatened, then more drilling is the way to do it.
But then that would let the market work, rather than the tyranny of government, and — something else we know — the Democrats don't want that.
They'd rather sue OPEC or grandstand as Sen. Russ Feingold did last month at a Judiciary Committee hearing when he asked oil executives to explain why they are developing only "12 (million) of the 42 million acres of federal lands that they are leasing" and developing only "8 (million) of the 38 million acres of offshore leased areas."
Short answer: Not every acre under lease holds reserves that can be recovered now. Many have none. But the leases were necessary for exploration purposes.
At some point, Democrats are going to have to understand that their prospects for retaining their congressional majority and gaining the White House are directly tied to easing the energy burden on American families. Their current positions, however, are directly at odds with the public they think is so easily fooled. | |
|
| Who wants to pay more for gas?
Posted: 6/20/2008 8:36:40 PM | Dearth of Ships Delays Drilling of Offshore Oil
"a shortage of ships used for deep-water offshore drilling promises to impede any rapid turnaround in oil exploration and supply."
"In recent years, this global shortage of drill-ships has created a critical bottleneck, frustrating energy company executives and constraining their ability to exploit known reserves or find new ones."
"the world’s existing drill-ships are booked solid for the next five years. Some oil companies have been forced to postpone exploration while waiting for a drilling rig"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/bu...hp&oref=slogin
============
So there isn't really a need to end the moratorium, since there are 5M barrels/day of oil already leased and permitted, but the no hardware to drill with.
dubya's call to end the moratorium is total bullshit. It's a Repug giveaway to the oilcos as dubya winds up his disastrous terms.
Anybody think the US oilcos will sell their offshore oil to US consumers at a discount from world price?
Anybody think President Old Sick Senile 95% McFlopPanderKeating will vigorously collect lease royalties from oilcos? dubya surely hasn't.
The only people to benefit from drilling offshore are the oilcos, not the US consumers.
I expect the US/UK oilcos, if they can really, finally get started in Iraq courtesy of taxpayer $Ts debt and the suckered US military, will prefer to drill in Iraq for shallow, cheaper-to-extract, higher quality oil rather drill at the bottom of the sea. | |
|
| Who wants to pay more for gas?
Posted: 6/20/2008 8:38:46 PM | "The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.
And the impact of the projected 7% (!) increase in lower-48 oil production that might result in 2030 thanks to opening the OCS is … wait for it …
… any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."
http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/1...s-before-2030/
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html | |
|
| Who wants to pay more for gas?
Posted: 6/20/2008 9:01:33 PM | | try some research on oil futures and see what you get nef...... join the rest of the thinking.... | |
|
| Who wants to pay more for gas?
Posted: 6/20/2008 9:15:32 PM | | ^^^ so only the US can have it because we are good? talk about hippocracy..... don't forget the Paki's have it too and they are a Islamic country..... or is it only good for our buddies? | |
|
| Who wants to pay more for gas?
Posted: 6/21/2008 10:25:30 AM | tr1414, so far as I;ve gathered, most Iranians DO NOT want "The Bomb". It's absolutely reprehensible to them. Most or moderate Islam doesn't want the bomb.
Also, no one gave Pakistan the bomb, both Pakistan and India created it using CANDU reactors which we ignorantly sold to them because they claimed all they wanted was nuclear power.
Contrary to popular belief, unlike India and Pakistan, Iran doesn't actually have a neighbour it wants to completely annihilate out of sheer bigotry. | |
|
| Who wants to pay more for gas?
Posted: 6/21/2008 10:38:28 AM |
try some research on oil futures and see what you get nef...... join the rest of the thinking
LOL...no thanks I'll pass on the group think thing. Easily led, isn't one of my strong points. | |
|
| Who wants to pay more for gas?
Posted: 6/21/2008 11:26:30 AM | ^^^^ apparently thinking for yourself isn't one of your strong points either....
how can doing your own research on oil futures make you a sheep? truly puzzling..... | |
|
| Who wants to pay more for gas?
Posted: 6/21/2008 1:35:50 PM | I would not be surprised if an attack on Iran was an "October Surprise" to frighten people into staying the course with the Republicans and voting for McCain. I find it hard to imagine that people would fall for this, but I never underestimate the stupidity of the American people.
As far as gas prices...of course Bush wants high prices as he can continue to grow his family dynasty's wealth and power. We need to impeach the S. @ B. | |
|
| Who wants to pay more for gas?
Posted: 6/21/2008 1:50:43 PM | .
I heard today that Bloomberg feels a tax on gas would help..... $.50 a gallon.......
I love it.
I Wish it were a Dollar......
Opec would crap/////////
That is the best way to cure the problem.....
Income could be directed toward ??? | |
|
| Who wants to pay more for gas?
Posted: 6/21/2008 4:45:40 PM |
how can doing your own research on oil futures make you a sheep? truly puzzling
Who said anything about researching oil futures?...or sheep? Not me! Maybe you just had oily sheep on your mind or something. Who's your baaaaa-dy. I was just saying I wouldn't be interested in joining your one thought group. | |
|
| Who wants to pay more for gas?
Posted: 6/22/2008 7:37:17 AM | No...Democrats and their taxes along with the environmentsl wacks want us to pay more. Mostly an effort to disrupt the economy and hurt average Amercians during an election year.
I would say that this is a possibility if it had not been for the fact that the economy has been disrupted and average Americans have been hurting for most of the last 7 1/2 years. Republicans have done far more damage to themselves than Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents could have ever thought of. Thank You George Bush.
Besides, if you remember correctly, it was the non Republican parties who tried to get us to go green in the 90's. There were literally thousands of electric cars being used by every day people. But of course that was put to a halt in 2001 when George Bush made it to office. Coincidence? I think not. Once an oil tycoon, always an oil tycoon.
Conservative and moderate voters strongly support this approach, while liberals are more evenly divided (46% of liberals favor drilling, 37% oppose).
I have to question the political knowledge of anyone who can call a republican "conservative". Lowering taxes while in a war and then going to a communist country to borrow money? Can't call that very conservative at all. Forcing democracy on other countries while simultaneously turning our back on the biggest democracy in the world (the UN)? Not conservative at all. Please tell me one thing that Bush has truly conserved since he has been in office. All I see is destruction and liberal spending. Neither of these things benefit the greater good of our population.
I would also like to point out that most Democrats are not true liberals. Especially if they are registered as such. A liberal is someone who takes all sides of the argument into consideration before making a well formed decision. A liberal is someone who feels that everyone has equal rights and that there should be no such thing as favoritism. A true liberal does not vote according to party, but according to which candidate they think would truly be better.
So please, refrain from referring to Republicans and Democrats as "Conservatives" and "Liberals". I am a true liberal, and I say that the only thing that Democrats and Republicans have ever done consistently is maintain office. Neither party has it all right. Neither party is all wrong. They both have their ups and downs.
And as far as off shore drilling goes, everything I have heard from the Republican stance makes it seem as if we are not already conducting offshore drilling in America. But we are.
And that brings me to my last point. Both the Democratic and the Republican party are guilty of the same thing and it really irritates me. They take us for fools. They speak to us over the airwaves as if we have not minds of out own. They constantly insult out intelligence. Well, I'm not buying it. And I hope that you guys don't either. Please don't believe everything that you hear. Do a little research on your own. Know the facts, not the hearsay. | |
|
Home
login 
