gas prices

[mtsalmela80]

Republicans??? REALLY??? So he DIDNT have full control of both houses for his first two years?!??!?!? I must have missed something.

Also, the most important thing for this country is that Obama does not get re-elected. Thats why it is so important.

In addition to free condoms, maybe you expect the insurance companies to have someone follow you around to fix your ball marks?

Originally Posted by TitleistWI

Id have to agree that you cant really call it his in-actions when the Republicans try to block everything he does, even when they are things that they have supported in the past, only to come out with basically the same bill on their own a week or 2 later.  I mean, the Republican leadership has gone so far as to say that their ONLY goal is to make sure that Obama doesnt get reelected.  That just goes to show you what they really care about.

Thats the problem with our government right now though.  Theres to much partisan bickering and people who only want to support ideas that their party comes up with.  They all need to stop with the partisan bickering and get down to business of whats best for this country.

The only in-action that Obama is guility of is not ramming through every bill that he wanted when the Democrats had the power to do what they wanted.  You can bet that if the Republicans had that kind of power, they would have done whatever they wanted and wouldnt have tried to play nice and work with the Democrats.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by x129

There are no facts here. It is all biased by your world view. Are oil shales a savior (cheap energy for 10-50 years) or a disaster (global warming, aquafier destroyer), or just not practical (i.e. there isn't anywhere near enough water to get enough oil out). right now I am leaning towards not practical but that number changes all the time. But you can't force technology. it evolves (or doesn't ) at its own pace. You can try and nudge it along.

In the 90s when CARB pretty much mandated electric cars, the technology wasn't there (yes I know about the EV1. It wasn't remotely practical from a cost point of view). Today we are close (cost is still a bit high).  If (big if) battery technology continues at the  current pace for another 10-20 years, they will be a pretty legitimate alternative in a world with 5 dollar gas.  On the other hand a ton of money has been spend on fuel cell cars over the same time period. As far as I can tell they are more like 30+ years away unless some breakthrough is made. And lets not talk about fusion. That has been 30 years away for 50 years.

ANWR and the offshore stuff is easier in that we know how to get it out. That all comes down to what you feel the cost is (mainly environmental) and benefits (a couple years of oil). Over the past 30+ years it hasn't made it up the list of things to develop. It is tough since it requires 10+ years of lead time (i.e. Clinton or Bush would have had to start the development) which in an eternity in politics.

And finally even if the US could produce enough oil for its own needs, oil is a global market place. Oil will be more expensive even if we exploit all of the US reserves. It will be just a bit less expensive. Unless of course we didn't something socialist like nationalize our oil production.

Quote:

As to your first point, yeah--it's all "estimates," and everyone has their own estimate.  It's hard to weed through and get a reliable answer.

As to your second, I think the future is in power distribution infrastructure (wires) and portable power storage (batteries).  There are lots of places in the US where we can generate tons of power without using fossil fuels.  The problem is getting that power to the people that need it in a usable form.  We'll see.

The strategic reserves should be just that:  the strategic reserves.  When all else fails and we have to feed our people or defend our borders.  Opening the strategic reserves to save folks 40 cents a gallon during the summer road-trip season seems like the equivalent of emptying your emergency fund for a trip to Hawaii.

The offshore stuff is more interesting:  the outer continental shelf is estimated at just under 100 billion barrels as well, but it's all in deep water.  As I understand it, no new deep water project has commenced since the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.  I wonder what kinds of conversations are happening in the boardrooms of oil companies about deep water offshore projects.  How do they estimate costs to produce?  The cleanup for Horizon was $10B, and the compensation fund is $20B.  And that doesn't account for overall loss of economic activity, and the trickle-down effect that has on local governments and the regional economy.  How can a company realistically contemplate a new drilling project when the cost estimate for a single well is somewhere between $10 million and $40 billion?

Finally, nationalization.  Yeah, that's pretty much the only way I can think of to ensure domestic cheap gas for Americans, as I argued in a previous post.  So why not at least talk about it?

Current oil-to-market system:  prices controlled by a global market, no way to directly affect refining capacity, most of the supply is controlled by (and the profits going to) petro-dictators, many of whom want to see us hurt, and even funnel some of their profits to groups that exist to try to kill us.  And the entire concept of relying on oil and gasoline companies to take measures to reduce the prices of oil and gasoline pretty much ignores every rule of economics I can think of.  (It would be more reasonable if consumption of oil and gasoline were optional for people, but they're not optional.)

National system:  most of the oil is on federal lands, so it's already ours; we could keep all of the oil domestically, eliminating the market factors; we could build refining capacity without having to worry about whether it will decrease the price of gasoline; we could set the price.  The cost of oil is 67% of the cost of a gallon of gasoline.  $2.00 a gallon gasoline is basically $50/bbl oil (with a 10-12% profit margin, and another 25% added for transportation and refining costs).  So, the target production cost is $50/bbl.  If some of those untapped resources cost $80/bbl to produce, the government may have to subsidize production (that cost could be offset by production at under $50/bbl in other locations).  If we do, think about all of the money the government currently spends to prop up the oil market (mostly in the defense sector).  Our only self-defense concern in the Middle East is oil, so if we have our own oil, then why should we continue to pay for their security.

Obviously the USA will never go for such a system, but our pols should be talking about all options for viable energy policy.

[jamo]

Finally, nationalization.  Yeah, that's pretty much the only way I can think of to ensure domestic cheap gas for Americans, as I argued in a previous post.  So why not at least talk about it?

I think an in-depth pros and cons comparison for nationalization would be interesting. It's imperfect, but it seems to work alright for the electric grid.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by jamo

I think an in-depth pros and cons comparison for nationalization would be interesting. It's imperfect, but it seems to work alright for the electric grid.

Yeah, but it would have to be full nationalization--half measures don't work.  Electricity is basically provided by localized, discrete monopolies, though typically arranged in regional affiliations.  However, the energy itself is still treated as a commodity.  Look at the Enron trading abuses in California in 2000/2001.  Shutting down the grid at one location to drive up the price, then making money on the transfer from one distribution node to another.  Natural gas vs. coal generation is another:  natural gas is cleaner, and we seem to be finding more and more of it every day.  So why are we still using coal for power generation?  At least part of the answer is because we rely on private companies to build power generation plants, and it's hard to convince a for-profit company to outlay a huge capital investment when it won't help them sell any more product.  The government then has to try to force companies to change, but our political system can be bought at prices cheaper than building new power plants.

Well, let me backtrack, as I put the conclusion first.  My hypothesis is that nationalization is a viable option, but the hybrid stuff we do when the government provides public goods through mandated use of a "market" simply doesn't work.  You can't mandate consumption, but let the market determine the price.  That's the point I'm starting from, but it's not really a valid "conclusion" unless the data supports it.  I'd also like to see that conversation play out.

[x129]

We use coal because it is cheap since the energy production is not charged with the externalities. How much air pollution (and this is not just a global warming issue. Things like Asthma, strokes, and heart  attacks have been directly linked to it) should cost is going to vary a lot on your beliefs. If you believe in the I can't see it so it must be safe theory, then you put the cost at 0. If you think it kills 20k people and causes another 500k cases of asthma, you do the math a bit differently. And finally those coal plants have all been built and that  huge fixed cost is paid for. Even if you had the 100 million+ to build a new plant, you would need to be able to find a place to build it which is real hard. No one wants a power plant in their back yard.

Natural gas production is similiar to oil. We were running out of natural gas 10 years ago and prices were rising sharply. If we only had 20 years of natural gas left in the US, you would have been crazy to build a new power plant. Then a technique for recovering shale gas was discovered and production took off.  Now with 50-100 years of reserves it might make sense to build a new plant but it takes 5-10 years for things to change and get moving.

Nationalization isn't going to happen. We are not a country in favor of socialism. That might change in the future but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Quote:

Originally Posted by k-troop

Yeah, but it would have to be full nationalization--half measures don't work.  Electricity is basically provided by localized, discrete monopolies, though typically arranged in regional affiliations.  However, the energy itself is still treated as a commodity.  Look at the Enron trading abuses in California in 2000/2001.  Shutting down the grid at one location to drive up the price, then making money on the transfer from one distribution node to another.  Natural gas vs. coal generation is another:  natural gas is cleaner, and we seem to be finding more and more of it every day.  So why are we still using coal for power generation?  At least part of the answer is because we rely on private companies to build power generation plants, and it's hard to convince a for-profit company to outlay a huge capital investment when it won't help them sell any more product.  The government then has to try to force companies to change, but our political system can be bought at prices cheaper than building new power plants.

Well, let me backtrack, as I put the conclusion first.  My hypothesis is that nationalization is a viable option, but the hybrid stuff we do when the government provides public goods through mandated use of a "market" simply doesn't work.  You can't mandate consumption, but let the market determine the price.  That's the point I'm starting from, but it's not really a valid "conclusion" unless the data supports it.  I'd also like to see that conversation play out.

[mtsalmela80]

We have the most natural gas of anywhere in the world

[Volchok]

Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

We have the most natural gas of anywhere in the world

Not true. Not even the second most. Russia is dominating the market. They're sitting on about 50 trillion cubic meters of natural gas, making them the biggest distributor (Gazprom). USA has proven reserves of about 6-7 trillion cubic meters. There's Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Qatar and Iran ifront of you.

[1player]

I guess when it's 10 bucks a gal and almost no one in SFL can buy it, they will turn i-95 into a new autobahn.

Then I can see what my 550 Benz convertible can really do and my Lambo.

LOL

Let them take the bus 1PLAYER said with a smile.

If they can't afford 10 buck a gal gas.

Higher gas = less traffic

That's GOOD IMO

Less pollution.

Less traffic

Les accidents

[Goonsidious]

Drive pass my gas station this morning. $3.88

Leave work later that day. $4.28