Oil And Gas Prices

Been To The Pump Lately?

I had a brief encounter with a liberal loon concerning the Big Oil Boogie Man that Obama created the other day concerning subsidies to the oil companies. The article in question wasn't really about the price of oil, oil production or anything close. The thesis was the creation of yet another Boogie Man by the Boogie Man-In-Chief. I was told, in the usual liberal fashion, that I didn't know what I was talking about as this person had been in the oil industry for however many years, yadda, yadda then more yadda. It degenerated into a personal attack, again not unusual, against myself. You never got to read it because I delete personal attacks from my Hubs. They have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

As I was reading this morning, I hit a few articles about gas prices of late. So the question is, "Why Are We Paying $4.00 a gallon for gasoline?" Obama can create all the boogie men he wants to explain why, other than the fact that he has publicly stated that he wants $7 a gallon fuel for our primary means of transportation, the price of gas has more than doubled since he sat his butt in the hot seat of being President. I never feel sorry for Obama because he asked for everything he is getting or not getting.

Now bear in mind that I know nothing about oil and its production and obviously don't have any idea what I am talking about - as usual. But lets take a look at the "why" here from an angle other than the boogie man angle. One has to break it down to what constitutes 100% of the price to get a fix on this subject.

Somewhere around 68% of the price of a gallon is centered on the price of crude. The graph below shows the correlation between the price of crude and the price of gas. The left axis is gas price and the right axis is the price of a gallon of crude oil. Note that move upward and downward with almost being bosom buddies. This chart was made available by the Energy Information Administration and not something I, personally conjured up.


You can usually figure out the price of a gallon of gas if you know the price of a gallon of crude. Take the price of the crude and add a dollar. So if a barrel of crude (42 gallons) is $105, that places the price of the crude at $2.50 and results in the price of a gallon of gas somewhere in the range of $3.50. The question at this point is really where the $1 goes that isn't buying the crude? The next graph is the answer to that question.

To explain state and federal taxes, one must use the average of 43 cents per gallon. It's right there in the price which isn't how taxes are usually viewed. The norm is a sales tax. This isn't the norm since it is embedded in the price. Viewed askew like this, it results in a 13,6% tax from a sales tax perspective.

Some states, such as California, have higher tax levies than others. Californians are averaging around $4.26 per gallon because of the state tax. California's government actually benefits from higher gasoline prices because they levy their gas taxes like a sales tax. The federal tax is fixed across the state lines at 18.4 cents a gallon. Most states don't follow California's lead as my last graph illustrates

The remaining 53 cents per gallon goes to refining and marketing costs. Whether you question if this is a fair price or not isn't the subject here. It is what it is but the rate of return on that end hasn't been really all that spectacular. It does cost money to refine the crude.

While we are saying "OUCH" at the pump, we do continue to pull that lever and watch the numbers spin by based upon the utility of the product we are consuming. The world runs on oil whether Obama likes it or not, whether a tree hugger likes it or not or whether you or I like it or not. It takes people and goods from Point A to Point B. Pack up the two kids and the dog into your tin can of relative comfort and off you go. Does that have any value?

From a producer's standpoint the price is a higher price for replacing a gallon of gas in inventory. Those inventory replacement costs keep getting higher as the government intervenes. That's a stone-cold fact. This administration is threatening big oil (the boogie man) with higher taxes on exploration and development of our domestic crude. That's a fact. What is the cause and effect of this? It discourages, rather than encourages the oil companies. What will they do? Go elsewhere to a more business friendly environment. Does that ring a bell?

Okay, so I know nothing about what I am talking about here. But at least I give it the old Bullfrog U try.

Have a nice day.

As Always,

The Frog Prince

More by this Author

  • "Ineptocracy" Is A Word
    18

    Ineptocracy is the new system of government that Obama-Biden ushered in. It is a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society...


Comments 122 comments

The Frog Princess profile image

The Frog Princess 5 years ago from Florence area of the Great Pee Dee of South Carolina

And todays oil futures will give us prices in the future. Put and calls if you want to call it that like the ole way.

Our prices here only went up 11 cents yesterday so we need to hold our breath for the next rise in price. Our golf cart looks better everyday for me to get to the office dear:)


Hmrjmr1 profile image

Hmrjmr1 5 years ago from Georgia, USA

Frog Prince - great piece of info, but the analysis that Obama is going after Big Oil is more smoke and mirrors. The "tax" subsidies that he is talking about are actually used most often by small independent drillers. The goal here is to put them out of business and continue the consolidation in the industry, reducing competition and allowing Government to pick winners and losers based on their political donations.

The smoke is gonna get thicker now that GE has been outed as a non taxpayer.

Voted up and useful. Thanks Lad.


breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 5 years ago

Great piece Frog. I agree with Hmr. In fact most of what this administration is doing is centered around getting votes (unions) money (unions), voters(Mexico). It's all about power, growing it and keeping it and the public be damned. Up useful and awesome.


5 years ago

The old Bullfrog U try was on target as usual and have been enlightened some more by it and the comments above. Thanks Frog- p.s. is it true we have enough oil reserves in Alaska to run the Country for quite some time but most of it goes to China?


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

We all know that gas and water don't mix well, but both of these are important.

I live in Arizona where water is a very important commodity. For years, cities pleaded with residents to get rid of their lawns and convert to desert landscaping, IE: rocks, gravel, and cactus, requiring little if any water.

All of this pleading and attempts to educate fell on less than open ears. So now they use cost increases to ration water use. Every time they raise the price of water, more lawns are allowed to die a natural death and are converted to desert landscaping.

Every time the cost per gallon of gas goes up $1.00, some can no longer afford to drive their car and still have money for things like food. I strongly feel much of these price increases for gas is to force us to go "green", except affordable technology is just not here yet.


rkhyclak profile image

rkhyclak 5 years ago from Ohio

Up and useful. You know it's sad when you do a little happy dance for getting gas at $3.72 or $3.99 as opposed to the $4.22 it is at most stations around here. It's getting tight for everyone and something's gotta give.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

It's just sick when we probably have enough oil and natural gas for at least 50 years here in the US, and it's almost impossible to get a drilling permit. A good part of that crude oil component is a monopoly premium we pay to OPEC. The only real solution is more supply to drive the price down.


sunflowerbucky profile image

sunflowerbucky 5 years ago from Small Town, USA

Old Poolman just explained a seemingly complex issue in a very simple manner. That is it in a nutshell folks. Gas prices are the way they are because the people in power want them to be...plain and simple. Forcing people to be less reliant on gasoline is a great idea on paper, but just as poolman pointed out, we need an affordable alternative first, which has yet to be provided. What's the answer? Heck, I don't know but replacing EVERY single politician in Washington with a farmer, trucker, policeman, teacher (you know....us normal people) who have NO interest in power and egos....might be a start.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

sunflowerbucky - Yep, you got it, the people in power want high gas prices. Do nothing about increasing supply, but keep raising prices to the point demand starts dwindling. In their minds, they solved a problem and collected some nice tax money in the process.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

The price is up due to unrest in the Middle East. It's as simple as that, because we depend on that oil.

All it would take to drop that price drastically would be the announcement that we intend to develop our own oil and gas wherever we find it.

Obama knows that, but he's silent because he and his liberal friends want high priced fuels. They think America is greedy and has had it too good for too long.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

John - Lately the losers are dragging down the winners along with them. Free enterprise is a sure means of weaning out the losers. But then again, we've bred this everybody is a winner attitude into people. BS!

a - The answer is at a minimum 50 years.

Poolman and Bucky - I'm with you both.

Will - The Middle East unrest is a boogie man. It really is. That's an excuse. Granted that OPEC needs to be slapped down, but look at oil imports in relation to what the US imports and the unrest is easily put to rest.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Frog

I meant that the unrest in the Middle East is the reason speculators are able to drive up the prices despite a glut on the market and lower demand.


Ghost32 5 years ago

Frog: Every notice that "Boogie Man" Obama shortens up nicely to "B.M." Obama? And that "B.M." in medical jargon is short for....

You've got a beautiful Hub here; nice work.

Now, I didn't work in the energy industry for nearly as long as your attacker CLAIMED he did, and I was at the lowest, most blue collar end of things there is--workover roughneck, Halliburton bulk hand, water hauler.

BUT I'm willing to bet Mr. Expert didn't have a clue as to how the oil industry really works, nor did he actually work ANY of those years he claimed.

Why do I say that?

Because, while I was a peon, I met a lot of people who weren't, including a handful of company executives, people at every level who do the actual work of getting oil out of the ground, those who negotiate mineral rights and surface rights leases, you name it.

And not one of them was within a thousand miles of being a liberal. EVERY one of them showed at least some degree of common sense (though, being human, there were a few snarky personalities in the group). And few if any (except for two drunk truck owners who tried to steal a water contract from my boss once) seemed the type to descend to personal attacks.

Just saying.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Fred - Actually the troll was of the female persuasion. She's known to come on Hubs and make useless statements.

I won't call her out on a Hub because then she'll have garnered the attention she so desperately desires.


Dave Mathews profile image

Dave Mathews 5 years ago from NORTH YORK,ONTARIO,CANADA

The fact of the matter is it is due to hidden taxes which are increased whenever the politicians so desire.


TimBryce 5 years ago

Interestingly, the price of oil has dropped $5 this week already. No explanation why.

All the Best,

Tim


AngelTrader profile image

AngelTrader 5 years ago from New Zealand

Well Frog here in New Zealand, where we pump up plenty of oil and gas but send it all overseas to be processed we are paying way over the odds.

I did a quick conversion and the gallon cost here, in US Dollars, is $6.71...41% of which is TAX! Count yourselves lucky lol!

Don't worry about the personal attacks...that generally means they have lost the argument!


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Tim - Maybe one of the boogie men bit the dust? LMAO

AngelTrader - Ya'll need to build a refinery, if the environmentalist there will let you.


Phillbert profile image

Phillbert 5 years ago from The Ozarks

Very interesting! I just can't wait to see how much more gas goes up! Its really exciting every time I go to the pump and it costs just a weee bit more! Its like sticking money in a slot machine that never wins!


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Phillbert - There's a movement going that goes like this.

Buy a pad of large sticky notes and on each one write: HOW'S THAT HOPE AND CHANGE THING GOING FOR YOU?

Then each time you pull up to the one hose bandit to get gas, stick one on the pump.

The Frog


LRCBlogger profile image

LRCBlogger 5 years ago

Add this important piece: The average oil company profits have doubled since last year but gas consumption is about the same. In other words, they are not selling more product but are simply charging 100% more. Straight up price manipulation.

I said this before and I'll say again. People can control the price however they want. If everyone worked together to use less, it would make a massive difference in price.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"If everyone worked together to use less, it would make a massive difference in price."

That's the demand side of the equation. There’s also the supply side, which is currently being blocked by Obama and the left wing environmentalists.

When Pres. Bush lifted the ban on offshore drilling, the price dropped like a rock. OPEC is scared to death of America drilling for its own oil. OPEC loves America’s environmentalist whackos.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

LRC - Look at the graphs above. Those are current. The profit on a gallon of gas is 8 cents.

People are using less as the price continues to elevate. Explain that.

Supply and demand rule the market place. Liberals want everyone to be the boogie man but the government they adore which is having an adverse impact on gas prices.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

By stalling on drilling and banning drilling where we know there's a lot of oil, Obama is helping to drive up the price of oil, something he admits he wants. He also sees America as greedy, which is why he supports drilling in other countries, but not in the US.

But most importantly, Obama is trying to pay off some of the enormous debt by printing billions of new dollars, driving the dollar value down and inflating the price of everything, including food and oil.

So Obama is dealing Americans a double whammy, and right in the middle of a recession!

But at least he has a great smile.


Jeremey profile image

Jeremey 5 years ago from Arizona

I agree with Old Poolman about the increase being used to force us into going green, not such a bad thing. And it could reduce the everyday use of oil and gas by the average person and leave the oil for the airline industry, military, and so on where oil is and will likely remain a nessecity for years to come.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"I agree with Old Poolman about the increase being used to force us into going green, not such a bad thing."

So what's the green replacemernt for gasoline?

Electric cars have a range of a few miles, tops, and even that's if there are no hills, and you don't need a heater or air conditioning. What if you want to go to another town on business or visit grandma?


LRCBlogger profile image

LRCBlogger 5 years ago

Frog, I'm looking at the graphs but not following where you get .08 cents per gallon profit?? That is not making sense?

Oil consumption has not gone down, not sure where you are pulling that from.

Exxon mobil reported profits last quarter of 10 billion. Yes, 10 billion per quarter. Poor oil companies.

WILLSTAR - in response to your comment, how about looking at hydrogen? It is the most abundant element on the planet, the emissions is clean water (no pollution). The only challenge is that to make the hydrogen ready for the engine, it does require a process that turn it into liquid form which requires heat (Heat is generated by burning gas or oil). Once they figure out how to more efficiently turn to liquid form, hydrogen could be the green energy of the future.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

LRC - That's not on the graphs. Do some more research. The profit on a gallon oil gas is around 8 cents. Why do you libs want us to do all your reading and research for you?

Will - Maybe Jeremy should volunteer to give us his car keys. Then we'll see how long it takes him to beg us to them back.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"WILLSTAR - in response to your comment, how about looking at hydrogen?"

A one gallon gasoline equivalent in commercial grade hydrogen costs about $100. In addition, producing hydrogen takes more energy that hydrogen produces.

It is currently not the answer.


LRCBlogger profile image

LRCBlogger 5 years ago

Hmmm, serious question: Are you drunk? I know it is happy hour on a friday? I'm just teasing but seriously, Will, where do you get $100. You see, it is hard to believe that because there is a hydrogen station in wallingford CT not far from where I live. I called them and as of now, a kg of hydrogen is less than $10. One KG is the equivalent of 2.2 gallon which makes the price less than $5 per gallon. Imagine what the price would be when there are 1000's of these.

Oh yeah, how do they make the hydrogen? They use electrolysis, hydrogen is made with clean energy.

The station is owned by a private company that is opening up a number of these along the east coast. All powered by solar and the hydrogen is made through electrolysis.

Not the answer, huh?


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

LRC - No, it isn't the short term answer. There is no distribution system in place for hydrogen. It's like E-85. I own an alternative fuel vehicle. Good luck in finding E-85. I went from here to Sturgis, SD and couldn't get in once during that 3,008 mile trip.

The federal government mandated that US auto makers produce a certain percentage of E-85 capable vehicles. Are you aware of that? But they forgot something along the way - distribution. What a grand plan that fell far short.

The world runs on oil son. You aren't going to change that at the present. Have you seen the national debt lately? Are you aware that we are still in a recession? All the grand schemes running around in your brain cost big bucks. Bucks we don't presently have.

So fix the hydrogen distribution problem then get back with us. You wouldn't happen to be from California would you?


Cousin Eddie 5 years ago

Holy...

I got a pretty good laugh out of the comment exchange, particularly in reference to Frog, LRC and that odd fella with the ridiculous glamor-shots cowboy pic. I don't know where y'all are from, but cowboys where I'm from don't take sensitive pics like that and they definitely don't spend their evenings on internet message boards.

First, Frog, you deserve credit for a good piece here. You have been insightful where most others have failed, so thank you! The Obama bit felt forced (and no, I'm not a supporter of his, I'm more of a second amendment libertarian), but I'm a business guy so I understand how target marketing works.

LRC - Your question was legitimate, even though it was pooped on a bit. Oil Co. profits have a lot to do with the fact that the stuff they deal in (black gold, that is) has a different value in different markets. They buy it for one price in one market, and sell it for another price in another market, and they reap the rewards when the differential is particularly favorable. That differential is supply/demand-dependent, by the way, and they control neither. The biggest profits occur when the market supply of oil is proportionally low in comparison to the global demand for petroleum products (e.g. gasoline). Let's face it, oil companies are in a sweet spot profit-wise most of the time. That's why so many people own stock in oil companies and make money, always trusting that we will remain rabidly addicted to petroleum. Seriously, I'm not even at the point where I'd consider giving it up. The smell is what gets me.

Quick side note: Hydrogen sucks. Forget about it. In order to get hydrogen (H2, not naturally occurring on earth) you have to split water (H20), and the process will ALWAYS require more energy than it produces. Basically you've taken water, split it into its components (H2 and O2) and then put it back together again and ta-da, you have...water! Yay! Net energy loss every single time. Fail. Also the required energy input is roughly 75% fossil fuel (U.S. electricity production mix), which makes it not so "green". One plus is that it shifts our transportation fuel away from oil and toward coal and natural gas, resources that the U.S. has A LOT of. Meaning less reliance on oil imports. We don't have enough oil in the U.S. to have any impact in the transportation fuels market. Anyone that thinks domestic oil production is the answer has absolutely no idea how oil markets work. Is the U.S. domestic oil gonna be cheaper or something? How's that? And if so, who gets to buy it and refine it and then make even bigger profits than before because there's still a market price for gasoline and other petroleum products, and that market price has nothing to do with the price that that particular refiner bought the underpriced U.S. crude for? (Note though that it would help create more jobs in the U.S. and that's actually an excellent argument for expanded domestic production, but the gas price argument is still retarded. sorry.)

And a few quick notes to the silly guy in the cowboy hat. First, Obama doesn't print money, the Fed does. The Federal Reserve is not a part of the Federal Gov't. Yeah, oops. Second, Obama can't do anything to change the price of a barrel of oil. It's just not possible. What could a president, lacking legislative power, possibly do? Even if domestic production could do the trick, do you really think the president can write and enact policy? Do you not know that our representatives and senators are the ones who legislate in this country? It's important to know who in your government does what so you know who to go after when you get pissed. If you're gonna go after a government official, it would be better to go after your Congress-people. The president does nothing at all ever. Ever! The president, every president, has been little more than a puppet for every moment since Nixon's resignation. If you think Bush is better than Obama, or Obama is better than Bush, you haven't taken the time to look for the puppeteers (hint: it's not the voters). And if you did take the time, you would know that the puppeteers are the ones you should really be going after. Get pissed, but don't get distracted by the straw man in the garden.

By the way silly cowboy guy, you look fabulous.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Phillbert,

$3.97 in VT and rising. :(


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Frog,

I just got an email from a major conservative group about the sticky note idea. If that really becomes a fad, I bet people will be selling a variety of sticky notes with different slogans and illustrations on them. stustickers.com - HAHAHAHA.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

LRCBlogger,

You're missing an important point. The price of crude has doubled. Oil companies that focus on refining will obviously make double the money as long as they keep their margins the same. Oil companies with their own reserves will see profits more than double. But no individual oil company controls the price of crude. If you want lower prices at the pump, crude needs to come down, meaning the OPEC premium has to be eliminated. That means DRILL BABY DRILL.

Stu


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Jeremey,

Overpriced oil is a disaster. It depresses jobs both on the supply side (businesses have less to spend on salaries) and the demand side (people cut spending on other things when more money goes to gas). I can't think of anything that would give jobs a shot in the arm like $1.50 oil. But to get there, we need to develop our resources, instead of letting ourselves get extorted by cartels.

Stu


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Will,

Business Week had a great article a few weeks back on electric cars. These are so not ready for prime time. I'm surprised the tree huggers don't want us riding around in Segways. I wonder if there's a bullet proof Segway for vital public officials, like Oblabber, Reid, Pelosi, etc. Maybe there's even a version with a porn player for the Safe Schools Czar. The possibilities are endless. I think I'm having a Gestalt moment.

Stu


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Frog,

Same distribution problem for electric. Everyone's getting so hyped up about this, but you need a special adapter in your garage to recharge. Unless they have these all over the place, you can only use an electric car locally.

Stu


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Cousin Eddie,

The US has over 20 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, and over 275 trillion cubic feet of proven natural gas reserves. And this completely ignores additional reserves that surely would be discovered were domestic exploration to be ramped up. But the whole thing is just theoretical until lease sales and drilling permits are granted by the royal overlords in DC.

Stu


LRCBlogger profile image

LRCBlogger 5 years ago

Cousin eddie is funny, I think he has some smart comments. Cousin, the only thing I'd point out is that everything becomes more efficient. They are already finding ways to use electrolysis to produce liquid hydrogen. With more time, competition, and research (and funding), we'll find alternatives to be more of a realistic solution to oil

STU, I have not paid much attention to your comments. You were the guy trying to convince me a few weeks ago that Obama was not born in America. Unless you have changed your birther views, it is hard to give your comments much credibility.

FROGGER - it was not people like you that discovered the new world, or travelled to the moon, or built the first automobile. It is people like me that are probably a bit over optimistic. Remember, people once said there was no use for computers and that they would always be too big and expensive to be affordable to the average consumer (and too useless). People said portable phones were too big and too expensive and would never become mainstream. Guess how that turned out?

Obama has made the largest investment in our history in green energy (as part of stimulus). That investment will eventually produce results. This thought that we need to light million year old fossil fuels on fire for energy is like clinging to the horse and buggy and saying that motorized vehicles will never work.


Cousin Eddie 5 years ago

@Stu

Yes, we have 20bbl of proven reserves. But the middle east plus russia, canada, and venezuela = about 1300bbl. Pump your 20bbl out as fast as you want, it won't change global oil prices. Like I said before, I'm in favor of expanded domestic production but only because it creates jobs and not because it it would somehow bring prices down. It's ignorant to think that ramping up domestic production will bring down gas prices. Our reserves are just too small in comparison to those of the major oil producing nations (i.e. the price makers) to make a shred of difference in the market for oil.

Also, have you met the fabulous cowboy guy? You two are a similar brand of crazy, and I think you should form a crime-fighting duo.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

LRC

The commercial grade hydrogen equivalent of 1 gallon of gasoline should be $10, not $100. My typo, and a good reason to proofread.

Cousin Eddie,

Your personal attacks tell me you must be a liberal, since that's how they 'debate' a topic.

BTW, are you a member of HubPages so we can read your own contributions or just another liberal troll, taking the usual cheap shots?


CHRIS57 profile image

CHRIS57 5 years ago from Northern Germany

How unpolite and disrespectful the choice of words from Cousin Eddie may be, his analysis of facts is quite correct.

The 22 some billion barrels of US oil reserve would last for alomst 3 years of domestic oil consumption. That is the a little more than the strategic reserve in war times.

That is less than 2% of the world oil reserve. If you know that the US economy still consumes between 15 and 20 % of world consumption, the US should better keep quiet and not exploit domestic oil.

A word about hydrogen. Again C.E. is right. Hydrogen must be chemically or electrically split from water H2O. That process will always require more energy than you later get out of the burning of hydrogen. And it only makes sense if you use clean (at least CO2 neutral) energy sources to provide the electricity. That would be windpower, solarpower, waterpower or even (not so clean) nuclear power.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"The 22 some billion barrels of US oil reserve..."

Those are only the proven reserves:

"The U.S. Department of the Interior estimates the total volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable prospective resources in all areas of the United States, including the Federal Outer Continental Shelf, the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska, and the Bakken Formation, total 134 billion barrels (21.3×109 m3) of crude oil. This excludes oil shale reserves.."

Oil shale reserves in the United States are estimated to be at least 1.5 TRILLION barrels!

That is not a misprint.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

LRCBlogger,

Cousin Eddie isn't funny; he's wrong.

I never said Obama wasn't born in America. I said that whether or not he was born in America, I have grave doubts that he qualifies for natural born status (i.e., this is why he's hiding his records). He might be a non-citizen, a naturalized citizen, or a natural born citizen; we just don't know for certain.

And exactly what is it about you that makes you closer to Columbus, Armstong, or Ford than anyone else? Were it up to liberals, sea travel, space exploration, and automobiles would all be outlawed by regulation (a fish or a bird might get startled by the vehicles and suffer emotional damage).

Investment my derriere. Has Oblabber done anything to compare the cost (principal and interest) to the magnitude and timing of incremental tax revenue from the green "investments?" Do these incremental revenues even exist, and do they liquefy the cost at a business-like rate of return to the "shareholders" (i.e., the taxpayers)? THIS IS NOT HIS MONEY; THE COST (SUBSIDIES AND TAX BEAKS) COME RIGHT OUT OF THE POCKET OF THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER, NOT KING OBAMA AND MICHELLE ANTOINETTE. Getting green alternatives to be financially competitive with fossil fuels, and building distribution systems, will take a decade or more. What am I supposed to do until then? Go back to whale oil for lighting? Pay $4.00 a gallon for gas because King Oblabber won't let us drill? Pay even more for "green powered" cars and utilities because the technology is not yet financially viable? Run out of electricity in the middle of nowhere and not be able to "fill up" because electric car charging stations won't be commonplace for another ten years?

Sorry to be so tough on you. Go relax with a big glass of KoolAid.

Stu


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Counting shale oil, the United States has well over 2 trillion barrels, the largest oil reserve in the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves

...and that is not counting the coal to crude oil liquifaction process recently developed by the University of Texas, at less than $30 per barrel:

http://energyandenvironmentblog.dallasnews.com/arc...

New oil development methods are being perfected almost daily. The only thing standing in the way is envronmentalists. And Democrats like Barack Obama.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"First, Obama doesn't print money, the Fed does. The Federal Reserve is not a part of the Federal Gov't."

The Fed was created by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and it can be disbanded the same way. The Fed is currently printing money to monetize the debt at the direction of Barack Obama. Here's how it's done:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=980_1238948105


Cousin Eddie 5 years ago

@BillyStarr: You callin me a liberal? You're about two seconds from getting challenged to a duel. I once took out three grouse with a single 12 gauge shell (true story). To the best of my knowledge, not even Doc Holiday was able to accomplish such a feat. I imagine I'd be a formidable dueling opponent.

The positions I have defended are not even close to liberal. I can guarantee that I'm politically right of you. I'm anti government control and you're pro government control (but only if it's repubs that do the controllin!). I see Ds and Rs as equally threatening to American liberties, and I'm wise enough to know that a politicians job is to mislead me. I advocate for a free and deregulated market. I know something about energy markets because, well, I analyze them in exchange for a bi-weekly paycheck. I'm only trying to share some of what I know in these comments, but I can't help but also make fun of people who are spreading nonsense and misinformation. For example:

"That's the demand side of the equation. There’s also the supply side, which is currently being blocked by Obama and the left wing environmentalists."

You wrote that, Starr. That's how you understand oil market economics. Do you actually want to know what's going on, or would you rather believe what you wrote? The U.S. is an oil market price-taker, good sir. Saying Obama or Bush or environmentalists or drilling advocates have power in the market for oil is ridiculous. Actually, Bush maybe had some power but only because he knew the Saudi Royal Family's secret handshake. But the rest of them are worthless. The only way the U.S. gains power in the oil market is if its citizens all stop buying the stuff. You go first. I'll be right after you I swear.

Anyway, are you guys gonna form that crime-fighting duo or not?


CHRIS57 profile image

CHRIS57 5 years ago from Northern Germany

Will - I would be very careful in counting domestic oil reserves, which are not really ready for exploitation. The oil shale numbers melt down like the polar ice caps if you get serious.

But that is not the point. Do you think the US is the only lucky country with oil reserves hiding? Today reserves make up 2% of world reserves, let it be tomorrow 5% to be optimistic. Does that really change the picture?

Today the world oil reserve is good for 15 years of world consumption. 1300 billion barrels reserve with 85 to 90 billion barrel consumption per year.

There better be much more oil still undiscovered if we want to get by for the next 50 years.

Time is running out, the US and the world must focus on alternative energy (production and utilization) now. In fact the illusion of the US being able to be self sustained prevents from getting serious about alternative energy sources. The US think they have a choice (to supply themselves), they have not.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Uh, huh.

The oil is here, but producing it is being blocked.

And yes, cousin Eddie, I understand that despite what the world's energy professionals tell us about supply, demand, and speculation pressures, only you, seated in your mother's basement in your PJ's, know the real truth. Thank you for your 'contribution'.


Cousin Eddie 5 years ago

And yes we have tons of oil locked up in shale/tar sands. The Bakken formation is a great example. But don't confuse "technically recoverable" with "economically recoverable". The Bakken formation will give you oil, but it sure as hell won't give you cheap oil. Shale oil recovery is much more resource intensive than conventional crude production. In other words it's expensive. However, when oil prices are up above (very roughly) $100/barrel, shale oil becomes economical and the U.S. becomes a power player in the global oil market (in theory). And that would be great for us in terms of jobs, GDP, national security and so on, but at the end of the day oil prices would still be high.

But even that scenario is unrealistic in the near term because OPEC knows how to hold onto its power. For U.S. to make the large capital and infrastructure investments necessary to move forward on shale development, investors have to be reasonably certain oil prices will remain high so that shale oil remains competitive in the global oil market. OPEC, the sly little turds that they are, are not beyond artificially lowering prices for the sole purpose of screwing those very U.S. investors. Investors know this so they just don't make the investment in the first place. And we're back at square one grabbing our ankles for OPEC. And the U.S. is still powerless when it comes to global oil prices.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Bush lifted the moratorium on offshore drillling and the price immediately dropped $9.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/165893/bush-s...

Obama could easily do the same thing and more, but he refuses because he wants high priced gasoline.


LRCBlogger profile image

LRCBlogger 5 years ago

Will, I thought the moratorium on offshore drilling was lifted many months ago? Back to hydrogen, I'm not sold on it, I'm simply saying it is something we should consider. You are correct that the correlation is $10 but it is $10 per KG which is equivalent to 2.2 gallons. In other words, it is less than $5 per gallon.

Everything I have read that is published in the last year (actual credible sources) say that producing hydrogen fuel is becoming more and more economical due to the use of 'green' energy to produce it.

Want to know why oil is still our primary form of energy? During the last 3 years, we have experienced a global recession. During that time, the Oil & Gas industry spent over 450 million dollars lobbying congress. 450 million!


Cousin Eddie 5 years ago

That was only the executive moratorium, and that was July 2008. If you remember, the congressional moratorium didn't expire until the end of September 2008. So, I think you may have missed something.

I remember when this all happened, and we were all excited and hopeful when Bush lifted the moratorium. I also remember people stupidly saying that that was the cause of the dip in oil prices, apparently unaware that the congressional moratorium was still in place. And here we are almost 3 years later and you're still out of the loop. Welcome into the loop sir.

Bush ending the moratorium was good. Congress allowing the moratorium to expire was good. But it was good because of the resulting increase in development and economic activity and not because it impacted oil prices. It just didn't have an impact on oil prices. I don't know how much more plainly I can say it.

I understand that you are pro domestic oil, and so am I. But there are plenty of strong arguments that support our position, so why focus on the ones without merit? With strong arguments that hold together tightly we can maybe create some momentum. But if we keep up basing our arguments on garbled nonsense like this it's easier for the left to beat us back. So shape up!


Cousin Eddie 5 years ago

Previous comment directed at Pecos Bill, not LRC.

@LRC, the moratorium that was lifted in March was the one put in place in response to the BP spill. There are still various other moratoria in place that Pecos Bill may be referring to, but there is currently no general moratorium on offshore drilling.


Cousin Eddie 5 years ago

My apologies, I got my dates mixed up. The moratorium that was put in place in response to the BP incident was lifted in October. However, you might hear people saying that there's still a de facto moratorium in place because the administration has been painfully slow at issuing and renewing permits. And that's more or less true.

Here's the EIA's analysis of the impact of drilling limitations on oil price.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/aeo_2009...


LRCBlogger profile image

LRCBlogger 5 years ago

Cousin Eddie, you have a lot of insightful and intelligent comments, you should join hub pages!


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Cousin Eddie,

Why are you just focusing on proven reserves? The absence of lease sales and drilling permits has cratered domestic exploration. There could be alot more than we know about.

Stu


Cousin Eddie 5 years ago

@LRC, thanks, I appreciate the vote of confidence. I haven't joined the pages yet because I would have to do it as an alter-ego given that my place of employ would not appreciate some of my opinions. And alter egos have always struck me as a little lame because there isn't any personal accountability for being a doucher or a liar. Serious moral dilemma. However, C.E. has grown on me, mainly because I decided that he would be an a** hole to people who post garbage, so I'm thinking I may turn him into a regular.

Some quick comments on hydrogen. I'm not an expert on hydrogen but I do have experience in the broader energy industry that causes me to be skeptical of its viability. I'm far too tired right now to give detail or supporting evidence of my opinion (I'm typing this with literally only one eye open), but here's basically how I see it: Energy is required to form hydrogen by electrolysis. Let's say, for arguments sake, that all of that energy input is derived from renewables and, even further, that renewables produce electricity at a market competitive price. You lose [a lot] of energy in the H2O-to-hydrogen conversion process (mostly as heat to the environment and losses through transmission, plus a few other odds and ends), and you lose [a lot] of energy again through the conversion back to water. What I feel is the obvious question is why not just use that initial [renewable] energy input to charge your electric vehicle? Why spend the energy to split water?

The counter argument would probably be something along the lines of: EV batteries have the same energy conversion problems as hydrogen fuel cells. And that's a fair thing to say. But at present (to my knowledge) fuel cells can't compete with conventional batteries on an economic level for many reasons that are identifiable to energy conversion efficiencies and cost of production, as well as to technology maturity, production scale, and learning curve factors. That's not to say that I think they never will be cost competitive with batteries, because they very well may, but one has to consider their current economic disadvantage as well as the fact that massive R&D dollars are going toward battery/capacitor technologies with fairly impressive results (to me anyway, especially with supercapacitors). It's going to be hard for hydrogen to catch up with batteries/capacitors as an economical energy storage medium, and that seems to be true for both grid energy storage and vehicle fuel energy storage.

That said, I'm definitely not up to date with hydrogen technology development and if you come across anything that contradicts what I've said please pass it along. There's still a lot of room for breakthrough in energy storage technologies, and I have a gut feeling that the next BIG energy breakthrough will be in storage technology. And there's no reason that breakthrough can't be with hydrogen.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Will,

Excellent point about reserves. Everybody focuses on proven reserves, but exploration has been curtailed due to the absence of lease sales and drilling permits. A big rampup in onshore and offshore exploration could result in a treasure trove in new oil and natural gas.

You can't find what you don't look for. And nobody's going to look unless they are allowed to extract.

Stu


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Will,

Did you know that Bernanke printed $2.9 trillion of fiat money in FY 2010 alone to buy bonds and "stoke the economy." We have alot more cash floating around, but I don't see any "stoking." If he is not careful, we could end up with 1970's style stagflation.

Stu


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Chris,

You are right that proven reserves will only take us so far, but green alternatives are not yet financially viable without government subsidies, and we don't yet have distribution grids for them. It could take a decade or more before renewables become practical. In the meantime, we need to extract the fossil fuels we have already discovered, as well as increase exploration. That means lease sales must be forthcoming, and drilling permits issued. Otherwise, no action on legacy fuels will take place. Getting from "A" to "B" is a process, not something that can happen overnight.

Stu


Stu From VT 5 years ago

WillStarr,

"Bush lifted the moratorium on offshore drillling and the price immediately dropped $9."

This is exactly the point. Eddie is just focusing on proven reserves. Once you allow drilling, exploration will follow. That's where the real action is, if we were just free to do it.

Stu


Stu From VT 5 years ago

LRCBlogger,

Technically, the moratorium was lifted, but so far only 3-4 permits have been issued, and one was to a Brazilian company. In practical terms, the moratorium is still in effect. And land based exploration is dead because Obama won't let us drill anywhere.

Stu


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Cousin Eddie,

"There are still various other moratoria in place that Pecos Bill may be referring to, but there is currently no general moratorium on offshore drilling." - Legally, what you are saying is true. But Obama is still not ACTUALLY issuing permits. And land based drilling is still hogtied too (no lease sales or permits).

Stu


OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 5 years ago

Wow, these comments are all over the place.


Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 5 years ago from Texas

Sounds like to me you broke it down pretty well, Frog. Basically, as long as Obama is flooding the market with threats and potential bad news for oil companies, the price will remain unrelated to the costs in anticipation of potential added costs downstream. Meanwhile Obama invests our tax dollars in an oil refinery in Brazil when the large oil producers are pointing out that there is already a refining overcapacity in the global market. Producers of sweet crude in West Texas are looking for storage space because spot market wholesale prices are soft relative to the price of gasoline. Obama loves to create disasters and then use them as the launch platform for reform...it's a continuous process with him and we just let him keep doing it. WB


Cousin Eddie 5 years ago

@OpinionDuck: Yeah, Stu has been trying to hijack this comments section since the very beginning. He and the WillStarr character have posted some impressively incoherent (and oftentimes manic) stuff over the past several days. They are also homosexual lovers in real life. They will fervently deny this fact.

Sadly WillStarr has disappeared and now we're just left with Stu. WillStarr was a lovable cowboy caricature, and he's the one who made this comments section a worthwhile read. Stu is an annoying yippy little dog sidekick and has always been an expendable character.

@WillStarr: Where are you? I miss you terribly. I'm sorry for making fun of you. Please come back.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Oh, I've been ridiculed by real experts. You're a mere, rank amateur, and in any case, it's just a weak cover for your ignorance.

Besides, now you have another 'hat' in the form of my good friend Wayne Brown.


OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 5 years ago

If they didn't check their guns at the door, I am out of here ~:}


Cousin Eddie 5 years ago

Thank God you're back Will. I thought we had lost you.

Wayne has some good points that have some basis in fact, and I generally agree with what he wrote in his post. Hopefully we hear more from him. I was getting on your case for making comments that are not backed up with fact. (For an example see the drilling moratorium exchange above.) You were making the right look bad, much like environmentalists and kneejerk socialists make the left look bad. You might want to ask Wayne to mentor you given that you don't trust me.

And I have no problem with 'hats'. I wear a Stetson myself, but usually only when I'm working outside. I just put three calves to pasture and I can't quite explain it but I won't go out there without my hat on. It just feels right, you know?

What I do have a problem with is when people who wear hats say ignorant crap, because people start thinking everyone who wears a hat is dumb, and that's not true. And that's why Stu is not an adequate replacement for you. It just doesn't matter as much when he says stupid things. He's a lap dog after all, and who cares when lap dogs look stupid?

Now, any chance we can resume the conversation where you said Bush lifting the moratorium in July 2008 caused oil prices to dip, and I reminded you that the congressional moratorium was still in place through September 2008? Do you still believe that the oil prices dipped because of Bush, or are you convinced that you were mistaken?

@OpinionDuck: We were not asked to check our guns at the door, but if a duel becomes necessary we'll definitely take it outside.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Oily condescension aside, yes, of course the price dropped due to lifting the offshore ban.

http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2008/07/18/A...


Cousin Eddie 5 years ago

That's a commentary/opinion piece, Will. And the author, Martin Sieff, is well-known to be far from independent. You've been duped.

You need to find some primary source data and analysis to back up what you're saying. Economists have published analyses on this topic. I'll link to the EIA study again:

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/aeo_2009

That is what primary source information looks like, Will. Opinion pieces are not trustworthy pieces of information. Get skeptical of what people try to pass off as truth, because most people are out to mislead you (especially in media and politics). Instead, find some studies (preferably from an independent organization, and preferably something that has been peer-reviewed) that perform an economic analysis using numbers and statistics. Start getting tough on everyone.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"That's a commentary/opinion piece, Will"

And you're NOT expressing an opinion?

"And the author, Martin Sieff, is well-known to be far from independent."

And followed by an ad hominem, logical fallacy?

You're not doing well at all, my little friend.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

OpinionDuck,

"Wow, these comments are all over the place." - Stick to mine; they're correct. :)

Stu


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Wayne,

I never really thought about that before, but you could have a really important point. All of Obama's yapping about policies that will lead to $8 oil may be scaring players in the market to overcharge relative to the underlying cost of extracting crude. Maybe if he just shut up, or at least spoke more reasonably about the topic, the "psychic premium" would go away.

Stu


Cousin Eddie profile image

Cousin Eddie 5 years ago from Washington State

Will, I created a profile like you asked. I added you as my best friend. I still need a picture though, so if you have suggestions let me know. The more offensive the better.

Regarding opinion: Yes, I am offering my opinion but I'm not linking to other people's opinion and acting like it's factual evidence for your point.

And your attempts at belittling me make me love you even more. Carry on.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Oh, I expect we agree more than we disagree. Put on your big boy panties.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Cousin Eddie,

So I'm a hijacker because I don't agree with you? Maybe you've been hanging upside too long with GrandPa and the blood is swelling your head.

Say hi to Herman and Lily for me.

Stu

PS: When you get past puberty, you'll have those knobs growing out of your neck, just like Daddy. If you want the flat head too, just release your grip while hanging upside down.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Will - do I need to get a hat?


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Cousin Eddie,

You keep telling Will you love him, but you called both of us gay? Do I detect a Freudian slip here? For my own safety I think I'm going to pass on the hat.

Stu


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Cousin Eddie,

Who in the h**l are you to be telling someone else they need a mentor? And who could give a flying f**k whether you wear a hat?

And what the h**l is wrong with English Sheepdogs?

Stu


CHRIS57 profile image

CHRIS57 5 years ago from Northern Germany

Looked into this hub after some days and found your are still fighting.

What about a little maths: The US consumes 20 Billion barrels per year. If the US would be more energy efficient (50 to 70%) and consume at the level of other developed economies, they would save 1 Trillion USD/year at 100 USD/barrel and 50% less energy consumption. That is close to the federal budget deficit.

A second calculation: If oil price rises 50 USD/gallon, that means spending 1 Trillion more per year.

Save energy and invest into alternative energy sources and you feel it directly in your pocket. And at that point the US still has a high momentum on world development. If the US cut their energy demand by 25%, that is 5% of world consumption and will take the pressure out of the oil prices.

But then i forgot: if oil prices go down, all forget about noble principles and long term thinking and start consuming again.


Cousin Eddie profile image

Cousin Eddie 5 years ago from Washington State

@Will: My big boy panties are at the cleaners. Terrible mishap brought on by an apparent dairy allergy.

@Stu: Make love to me?

Thank you gentlemen for playing along. Our efforts have proven successful and we can move on to more pressing items of business. But it has been fun and I hope that our paths cross again. Your efforts have not gone unnoticed, and if I can repay the favor don't hesitate to ask. As they say in Arizona: Hasta luego!

P.S. Eddie Munster was the bees knees and I'd hang with Grandpa any time.


Cousin Eddie profile image

Cousin Eddie 5 years ago from Washington State

Stu, I made something for you:

http://imgur.com/HDpsH

Unfortunately I could only pull a low-res image off of your profile, but it's the thought that counts, right?


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Chris,

Are you serious? 50-70% more energy efficient? And you want this how fast? What you're not factoring into your equation is that at present, green fuels either cost more than legacy fuels, or require product redesigns that result in giant increases in the cost of the devices that use the renewables (like autos). I'm not saying going green is bad, but it has to be a phased process. Drastically ramp up fossil fuel exploration and drilling now, as well as nuclear, and as green alternatives become economically competitive, transition over time away from exclusive use of legacy energy sources. This is a process, not an "event."

Stu


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Eddie,

Where did that hat come from? It makes Sheepie look like a pimp.

I'll pass on your offer. BTW, one Freudian slip too many. I think you are what you accuse me and Will of being.

Stu


LRCBlogger profile image

LRCBlogger 5 years ago

Frog, you said "People are using less as the price continues to elevate. Explain that.

I'm sure you have seen that over the last 2 weeks, consumption reports show that oil use is down and trending lower. The result is we have seen one of the largest drops in the price of oil in history (not the largest but it is up there). In your comment, you said less use does not equal lower pricing. What's the clever answer for the reality we are seeing in the market? As I said, we control the price of oil. Lower consumption equals lower pricing.

The best chance we have at dramatically lowering consumption is through govt regulation or incentive. That is simply another fact. Im not saying I am advocating for this, I'm just saying if we want to realistically reduce our dependence on foreign oil in the short term, it would have to come from the govt putting stricter standards on emissions or giving incentives for buying green energy, energy star products, etc.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

LRCBlogger,

Does it matter to you AT ALL THAT THE FEDS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE ENERGY CONSUMPTION? Any such restrictions could legally only come from the states. And even if the states imposed them, it would take years of research to improve machinery efficiency over time in a cost efficient manner. Energy use reduction is a process, not a flipswitch.

Stu


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

LRCBlogger

YOU SAID ''As I said, we control the price of oil. Lower consumption equals lower pricing.''

NOT TRUE!

The Democrat Senate introduced legislation to cut oil subsidies and to raise taxes on the oil companies. The additional taxes will be used to fund the alternate fuel industries. The additional taxes will be passed on and should be considered another hidden tax on the consumers of oil. Check this out.

The government receives a 18% royalty on each barrel of oil pumped. Oil companies were pumping 10 million barrels/day before Obama placed drilling moratoriums. Now they pump 7 million a loss of 3 million barrels/day. Not to mention the billions it cost to lease the sites.

Pumping more oil, government gets more money! So why is Obama restricting oil production in these troubled times? How about the loss JOBS?

Check out the billions Obama has invested in subsidies for the alternate fuel industry. The alternates represent only 3% of the energy in our country. WAKE UP AMERICA

Recently I noticed that I was being charged a fee on my electric bill. The fee is another hidden tax to pay for building a solar system to reduce dependence on the existing system.

Obama’s idea to wean us off the use of foreign oil is to use solar, wind and whatever as the main source of electricity.

Oil will never be replaced as the main source of energy in today’s society. The nation has more than enough of oil and natural gas ( a cheap clean fuel )to supply the US .For Congress to allow the nation to not use our natural resources in the these troubled time is unforgiving.

Our Congressional leaders need to be put on notice ! OBAMA must be made accountable.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Hi Jon,

Great reply, but you're responding to a deadhead. He'll never get it.

Stu


CHRIS57 profile image

CHRIS57 5 years ago from Northern Germany

Stu

you are right, finding alternatives to oil is a process, it is not flipping the switch.

With BRIC and developing economies gaining more and more share of world energy consumption, the demand for oil will rise. That should indicate that it pays to reduce the dependency on oil. How much payback - that i wrote in my last comment.

Just take part of the payback and invest into alternatives. It works. Don´t want to bother you with stories from remote places on this planet, but in Europe we had occasional negative electricity pricing last summer. Strong coastal winds had boosted the supply of windmill power and base load power plants could not be shut down fast enough. So electricity was given away for free or consumers were payed for taking electricity. This story shows that many aspects of alternative energy (distribution) are not mature, but the direction is clear.

As you wrote, it is a process. But the world is in the middle of this process, the US is still at the beginning.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Hi Chris,

I agree we need to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. But it should really be a dual track strategy. Pump up domestic supply of legacy energy sources at the same time we perform research in alternatives. Ultimately, we want a broad array of legacy and green sources so we are not subject to excess harm from a price spike or supply shortage in any one source.

Stu


Cousin Eddie profile image

Cousin Eddie 5 years ago from Washington State

Damn good points being made on all sides.

@Stu, you make a good point. The only caveat that I'd add is that even though the Feds have no DIRECT constitutional authority to regulate energy consumption, they still find ways of doing it indirectly. One example being offering energy efficiency investment incentives, which essentially amounts to paying people to use less energy (or, rather, and tying into Ewall's point, having tax payers pay those people).

@Ewall: I agree with the bulk of what you're saying, and you've pointed out what I think a lot of people miss, and that's hidden taxation and the let's-just-tax-some-unrelated-s##t tax. I'm also particularly pissy about the issue of jobs and how the low hanging fruit of the job tree ain't gettin picked. Instead we go for that shiny red bastard way up there on that sucker branch. Where I disagree with you though is where you give Obama credit for picking energy winners. Obama can say lots of words and stuff, and maybe his words have marginal power to persuade constituents of particular congressional districts, but at the end of the day doesn't it really come down to policy makers in congress and the sh##-for-brains that have the nerve to get out of bed and/or stop watching The Price is Right to go down and vote for them? (I might actually mean vote PERIOD.) Isn't Obama sort of a side-note circus show to the issue of picking energy winners and losers when it's our congresspeople who ultimately have the power to legislate?


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

Stu From VT

TAKING CORN OUT OF THE FOOD CHAIN helped create a huge problem back in 2007. One of the first legislation passed when the Dems took over Congress was to pass the ethanol bill. Nobody but Boone Pickens is pushing natural gas ( we have plenty ), IT IS CLEAN AND CAN BE CHEAPER.

OBAMA'S BUDDIES are making big bucks again and Congress and the people are silent. The dollar has been devalued, another hidden burden on the poor and middle class. Wake up America! A past president once said '' to remain silent is to be a coward '' Abe Lincoln

BO’S BUDDIES George Soros, wall street investors and union pension funds who lost a ton but was later awarded $$$$$ millions of the stimulus money to bail out the pension funds liquidity.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

Cousin Eddie

''Obama sort of a side-note circus show to the issue of picking energy winners and losers when it's our congress people who ultimately have the power to legislate?''

Obama has made the Congress useless in what he is doing with the use of executive orders , department new rules and regulations that are hampering the economic recovery.

Because our government is 2/3s controlled by the Democrats ( PRESIDENCY AND SENATE ) the ( HOUSE ) Republicans are neutralized. From Jan 2007 the Democrats had majority control in both houses. In 2009, we the people gave them 100% control of the government hence the Republicans were unable to stop anything that they proposed. So, when you hear the president say ''the Republicans are holding up legislation '' he lies and the people believe him, why not, he is the president!


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Eddie,

Mocking my avatar is really offensive. I'd appreciate it if you would remove it.

Stu


Cousin Eddie profile image

Cousin Eddie 5 years ago from Washington State

@Ewall: Again I agree with the gist of your post (excepting the ad-homonyms). The push for corn ethanol has got to be one of the worst energy policy decisions in the U.S. over the last 20 years. So many people hurt by it (and not just in the U.S.), and it seems that the only purpose was to influence the outcome of future Iowa caucuses.

A couple of quick points though. Actually, the first is more of a humble request for clarification regarding the statement "It is clean and can be cheaper". I'm not asking for an explanation, I'm just wondering "cheaper" referred to (i.e. cheaper than what?). You put the natural gas sentence in the same paragraph as ethanol which makes me think you were talking about natural gas as a transportation fuel. Just want to make sure I'm understanding the point you're making.

Second, T. Boone Pickens was pushing wind pretty heavy a few years back, and then he wasn't. Just saying Pickens might not be the best bellwether or metric here. He's a professional guessworker who is not beyond making judgment errors.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Eddie,

I've got a thick skin, but you're pushing it. Either dump the avatar nonsense, or I'm going to call support and ask that you be deactivated.

Stu


Cousin Eddie profile image

Cousin Eddie 5 years ago from Washington State

@Ewall: Sorry I wasn't clear, but I didn't mean for my post to be an endorsement of Obama or a question about the power distribution of the branches of government. I agree that Obama lies and misleads, and in that way is no different from Bush. What I meant was the legislation itself originates in the chambers of Congress. Obama signs it or he doesn't. Executive orders are of course relevant, but my comment was specifically in reference to the drafting of legislation related to energy policy.

Really I just worry that by focusing predominantly on Obama we misplace some of our anger and misdirect some of our demands for accountability.


Cousin Eddie profile image

Cousin Eddie 5 years ago from Washington State

@Stu: Sorry to offend. I've been known to on occasion hurt people's feelings by misjudging their sense of humor. And because I can't stand the thought of you spending countless fruitless hours on the phone with support or the possibility of my favorite day-old account being deactivated, I will remove my profile pic effective 37 minutes from now. Actually, check that, 43 minutes from now.

You should know though that my heart is heavy this evening. Also my loins ache.


LRCBlogger profile image

LRCBlogger 5 years ago

Jon, if oil will 'never' be replaced as the main form of energy in society today, can you explain how other countries have been able to do so? Canada for example.

They use very little oil in comparison to their energy needs and instead they sell massive amounts to the USA. People who talk in absolutes (Alway, Never, Absolutely not, etc) are often wrong. They don't have the vision to see what others can see.

For all of the comments, no one has explained why lower use correlated directly to lower pricing. If every American made conscious energy savings efforts, demand for oil could absolutely plummet.

Further, what if the govt put out additional incentives for green? They did this in may places and I saw first hand in Florida. About 20% of the houses in my parents neighborhood have solar panels powering some part of their energy needs due to people taking advantage of a govt grant to subsidize part of the cost.

The end of oil is closer than most realize, we'll eventually stop lighting million year old fossil fuels on fire for energy. I'll be excited to see this happen in my lifetime.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Eddie,

I'm sick of hearing about your loins, and the avatar is still present after six hours. Remove it NOW or I'm going to call support.

Stu


Cousin Eddie profile image

Cousin Eddie 5 years ago from Washington State

Stu, I'm sorry it took so long to change my profile pic. Until a few moments ago my aching loins had been a more pressing concern. I hope that my replacement pic does not find its way under your skin.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Eddie,

Thank you. That's enough of a change so we won't be confused by others.

And please, enough about about your loins.

Stu


Stu From VT 5 years ago

LRCBlogger,

I think you are confused on the math. Reducing energy consumption at home does nothing to reduce oil demand. Home energy is derived from coal, nuclear, and natural gas.

The big issue with oil is transportation, and the thousands of products we buy that are made from petroleum (such as roof shingles). If the only way to get people to switch from oil to some other energy source for transportation is via subsidies, then our costs go up, not down. I.e., the purchase price, plus the taxpayer cost of the subsidy, exceeds the cost of the oil not utilized.

The only short-to-intermediate solution to the oil price crisis is domestic sourcing. Renewables can and should replace a portion of fossil fuel consumption, but this is a long range goal. It will take a decade or more before renewables are cost competitive without subsidies, the distribution grids are built, and products are redesigned to be capable of using the new fuels.

Stu


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

Stu From VT

VERY INTELLIGENT RESPONSE, I'M IMPRESSED

YOU'RE RIGHT ON


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Hi Jon,

TY so much!!

Stu


CHRIS57 profile image

CHRIS57 5 years ago from Northern Germany

Stu,

currently 20% of oil go into plastics/chemical products, almost 70% are used for transportation. You got that right.

But that only shows, where to find the lever. Reduce gas mileage by 20% (from 20 mpg average to 24 mpg) and apply simple maths: 70% x 20% is 14%. Remember the US is good for 20% of world oil consumption, so the 14% resembles 2,8% of world oil consumption.

To achieve the same (2,8%) with the increase of domestic oil exploitation you would have to double oil production in the US. What is easier to do?


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Hi Chris,

I follow what you're saying, but with gas already so high, cutting discretionary travel isn't going to give us a big hit (since some of it has already been cut). Clearly consumers are going to be focusing on more fuel efficient cars, but it's a very tough slog. Making compact/midsize cars more fuel efficient makes them pricier and harder to sell, and downgrading to a subcompact is impossible for some people (e.g., with large families). And green powered cars are a long ways off from being marketable without taxpayer subsidies.

We simply have to have a bridge to get from "A" to "B." That bridge is greater oil supply. Really ramp up domestic onshore and offshore drilling, and at the same time invest in exploration. I think it would have a huge impact on crude prices, because OPEC would see that we are becoming more self sufficient, and would drop prices well ahead of major domestic output hikes (in anticipation of the future competition).

Stu


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

A few years ago, a University of Texas at Arlington researcher had a brainstorm, in which he realized there was an easy, cheap, and non-polluting way to convert cheap coal to crude oil. Last year, the university announced publicly that they had the process down to a very acceptable $28 per barrel.

They are now in the process of building a mini-refinery to prove up the process. If they are successful, the United States will become one of the world leaders in oil production, and we have enough coal to last a millenium.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/gasoline-84801677.html


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Will,

If it works, Obummer will appoint a Czar to outlaw it.

Stu


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

I doubt it. That would convince Americans that the Democrats want expensive gasoline...and they do!


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

hubbers

A simple solution is:

Don't vote for the idiots who want $4.00 gasoline in the next election.

The house RECENTLY passed a bill to lift the moratorium in the gulf. Senator Reid said he will not put any oil legislation on the floor this year. Contact your senator( III ) if you want gas prices to drop.III are the Senators up for election in 2012.

The Democrat senate on 5/12/11 ( oil company hearings) are planning to take away oil companies subsidies $ 4.4 billion. Governments own 95% of the oil in the world. Our government leases sites to the oil companies, sometimes paying over $4 billion for a site with no guarantees that the lease will pay the oil companies enough to cover their investment.

One oil executive stated that the oil companies pay the government $86 million a day in taxes and leases, world wide they pay 40% in taxes and are working on 3% profit margin. Exxon’s profits in the US were 3% of their total profits ( don’t sound like gouging the US ).

Shutting down the oil drilling operations has cost the nation 1 million jobs. The industrial industry pays 35% in taxes, is it fair to say that the oil companies taxes should be lowered?

President Obama says ‘’ I know your hurt ‘’, HIS ACTIONS tell a different story.

STU

''We simply have to have a bridge to get from "A" to "B." That bridge is greater oil supply. Really ramp up ''

RIGHT ON AGAIN! JOBS AND MORE TAXES INTO THE TREASURY (NO BORROWING )


Cousin Eddie profile image

Cousin Eddie 5 years ago from Washington State

@Jon: Thanks for your insightful response, specifically in reference to your focus on JOBS. We need to ramp up domestic production (even if it is just a short-term ramp up) because of internal (domestic) economic stagnation. It's a straightforward way of putting people to work while helping to stop some of the bloodletting of U.S. dollars.

@hub: The gas price price arguments still cause me to twitch, but I'm going to ignore them for now because screw it, you know? "You need to choose your battles wisely, lest you find yourself on internet comment boards all day long." --Mark Twain

On another day I'll actually argue in favor of renewables (including within the context of transportation fuels), mostly on the grounds of national security costs, domestic manufacturing, the price of risk, and the benefits of power production decentralization (including the expansion of individual freedoms). Just not today. Not while unemployment is still high and GDP growth poor. (On a related side note, I recently participated in a study on the impact of renewables on job creation. The short of it is renewables are NOT net job creators. Further, on a purely job-creation basis, there are far better investments to be made. Considering breaking my hub-hymen with this topic.)

My loins.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Will,

We already know Obama wants expensive gasoline; he's said so in public.

Stu


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

I'm back from vacationing in Texas. In fact Will, I was at UT at Arlington this past Thursday for my son's graduation. He's a geology major and will start work out in the Gulf of Mexico on the 23rd. I'll be able to start getting firsthand info shortly.

There are many excellent thoughts and exchanges here. As I am catching up, I ran across this article that is very pointed about the Obama's continuance of hampering our domestic capabilities. Check it out.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/11/white-house-slam...

The Frog


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

" In fact Will, I was at UT at Arlington this past Thursday for my son's graduation. He's a geology major and will start work out in the Gulf of Mexico on the 23rd. I'll be able to start getting firsthand info shortly."

Great! I'd really like to know where this project has gone. I've heard nothing more since the February, 2010 announcement.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Welcome back Frog! Thought you had a run-in with a kingfisher!

I read your link about drilling. The House bill may be a bit wild west from an environmental standpoint, but Obama brought it on himself. He imposes complete moratoriums, lifts them but still issues almost no permits, sits back on his duff pontificating "five year plans," etc., and meanwhile we're doing NOTHING to increase our oil supply.

If he wants sensible reactions from the House, he has to act sensibly himself. If you act crazy, it makes people frustrated, and I think this is exactly what you are seeing here.

Stu


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 5 years ago from usa

Stu From VT

ALL ABOUT POLITICS NOW AND UP TO the ELECTION.Can't believe that the media is pointing out some his mis information on the campaign trail.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Jon - Obama is all about spinning a web. It's a web of deceit but a web never-the-less. Some people are still buying into it. He kicked off his campaign mode with a budget that isn't a budget and wants to now scare people. With the shape of the country after 2 plus years, we should be scared and ready to throw his inexperienced, unqualified self under the bus.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Jon - Maybe the MSM is getting bolder because they don't think Obummer is going to win.

Frog - I think you meant to say "under the Bentley" (Obama wouldn't be caught dead under a plain ole bus, double entendre non-intentional).

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working