View Full Version : how to lower gas prices idea
BillGatesJR
2008-07-25, 03:41
THIS IS NOT THE 'DON'T BUY' GAS FOR ONE DAY, BUT IT WILL SHOW YOU HOW WE CAN GET GAS BACK DOWN TO $1.30 PER GALLON.
I hear we are going to hit close to $ 4.00 a gallon by next summer and it might go higher!! Want gasoline prices to come down? We need to take some intelligent, united action. The oil companies just laughed at us when we tried to unite to not buy gas for a day because they knew we wouldn't continue to 'hurt' ourselves by continuing it any longer.
Phillip Hollsworth offered this good idea, and this idea make much more sense than the 'don't buy gas on a certain day' campaign that was going around last April or May!
It's worth your consideration.
The only way we are going to see the price of gas come down is if we hit someone in the pocketbook by not purchasing their gas! And, WE CAN DO IT WITHOUT HURTING OURSELVES.
How? Since we all rely on our cars, we can't just stop buying gas.
But we CAN have an impact on gas prices if we all act together to force a price war.
Here's the idea: For the rest of this year, DON'T purchase ANY gasoline from the two biggest companies (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL.
If they are not selling any gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit.
But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of Exxon and Mobil gas buyers. It's really simple to do! Now, don't wimp out on me at this point...keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people!!
If this makes sense to you, please pass this message on. I suggest that we not buy from EXXON/MOBIL UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $2.00 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN. THIS CAN REALLY WORK.
Keep it going
Would this idea REALLY work? I mean, price gouging is not the problem here. The real issue is supply/demand. Do I have this right?
freeRadical
2008-07-25, 03:43
Would this idea REALLY work? I mean, price gouging is not the problem here. The real issue is supply/demand. Do I have this right?
No, to put it simply, it won't. The real problem isn't supply and demand; its speculation in the market. Oh, yeah, and fucking liberals too..........
launchpad
2008-07-25, 03:58
No, to put it simply, it won't. The real problem isn't supply and demand; its speculation in the market. Oh, yeah, and fucking liberals too..........
No it isn't speculation. You and your ilk are retarded. That is all.
I would imagine if it were that simple, I don't see why one company would lower their price simply for the customer rush to their gas and make an extreme amount of cash in a very short amount of time.
KikoSanchez
2008-07-25, 04:35
LOLOL...so let's rise demand in the oil from other companies...that will lower prices....hahahahaha!!
Really...China + India + many other 3rd world countries' demand + Peak Oil....it is obvious there is no way down from here.
ThePrince
2008-07-25, 04:53
I'm sick of stopgap solutions. We could get rid of our oil demand + carbon emissions and take down total energy use quite a bit if we built a few dozen nuclear plants, converted our cars to plug-in electric and built more trains and light-rail systems.
The exotic solution I'd like to see is a self-replicating robot system to cover the entire the entire desert with these
http://tdaait.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/solar-panels.jpg, but existing technology is perfectly capable of getting the job done.
Want to really lower gas prices? Start killing the politicians who are opposing domestic drilling! :rolleyes:
freeRadical
2008-07-25, 06:29
No it isn't speculation. You and your ilk are retarded. That is all.
You need to go take an economics class and learn how a free-market economy works. That is all.
launchpad
2008-07-25, 12:36
You need to go take an economics class and learn how a free-market economy works. That is all.
Why should I learn about a free market economy when no country in the world has one? What the hell does the free-market have to do with the purchase of options in the oil sector? I don't have to list my qualifications to you, but suffice to say I have studied economics/financing extensively. Explain how you think futures options and put stocks (or 'speculation') is entirely to blame for the price of oil and NOT supply and demand, as you so ignorantly seem to believe.
I suggest you take some REAL econ courses and stop learning what you know from CNN and Fox commentators.
Big Steamers
2008-07-25, 13:58
1) There is a lot of jibberish to start off the idea
2) The idea is what it claims not to be
3) There is competition in the market
4) You have no idea whose gas you are buying, Chevron stations buy from Valero, Exxon can buy from Conoco, etc
5) If you still buy just as much gas there is still just as much demand
loss
America needs to stop moaning. In the UK were paying $8.29 for the gallon.
monster child
2008-07-25, 15:22
In Australia we are paying $1.67 a litre which roughly equates to $6.70 a gallon. I put 12 dollars of petrol in my car today, which will last me about 140kms, you know why? I don't drive a giant GM truck to haul ass around town in... I drive a 5 speed hatch back hyundai that i regularly kick into neutral. Thats how you beat the gas prices. Don't use as much petrol!
In Australia we are paying $1.67 a litre which roughly equates to $6.70 a gallon. I put 12 dollars of petrol in my car today, which will last me about 140kms, you know why? I don't drive a giant GM truck to haul ass around town in... I drive a 5 speed hatch back hyundai that i regularly kick into neutral. Thats how you beat the gas prices. Don't use as much petrol!
And how about we stop driving like fucking morons on the freeway and not do this retarded ass 'STOP GO' traffic system. I don't know how many millions of gallons of gas are wasted weekly just because people feel the need to be 10 inches away from the person in front of them (which, unfortunately, is also necessary because if you're not right on their bumper, a person in the other lane will cut right in front of you for the hell of it). There is no reason why the freeway shouldn't constantly be moving at a constant pace, except for the occasional accident.
In Australia we are paying $1.67 a litre which roughly equates to $6.70 a gallon. I put 12 dollars of petrol in my car today, which will last me about 140kms, you know why? I don't drive a giant GM truck to haul ass around town in... I drive a 5 speed hatch back hyundai that i regularly kick into neutral. Thats how you beat the gas prices. Don't use as much petrol!
I drive a minivan :(
I painted flames on the sides :)
Not really :(
28 miles per gallon though.
stiletto
2008-07-27, 16:56
High gas prices are forcing humanity to create new, and effective fuel sources which is a necessity if we want to continue to prosper as humans. We can't rely on fossil fuels forever, it doesn't even give us the ability to travel to the stars.
dontfeelbad
2008-07-27, 16:59
America needs to stop moaning. In the UK were paying $8.29 for the gallon.
Well maybe if you occupied a country with lots of oil you could be paying 3.90 a gallon.
mayor of monkey town
2008-07-28, 10:58
There are 2 oil refineries in my city (sydney, Australia) and 5 oil companies.
Do the math.
Whatever brand you decide to boycott your not changing the business.
ITS A GlOBAL THING PEOPLE!!
Dark_Magneto
2008-07-28, 11:52
Would this idea REALLY work?
No. It's pretty obvious that not only will it not work, but it can't work.
I mean, price gouging is not the problem here. The real issue is supply/demand. Do I have this right?
That's absolutely correct.
The real problem isn't supply and demand; its speculation in the market.
This is false (http://youtube.com/watch?v=rkzETN8qfzw).
If demand isn't driving prices and it's all speculation, then where's the oil that didn't get sold because the price was too high?
Every single major oil producing field in the world is in decline and demand is high. That's where the price comes from.
No it isn't speculation. You and your ilk are retarded. That is all.
This.
I'm sick of stopgap solutions. We could get rid of our oil demand + carbon emissions and take down total energy use quite a bit if we built a few dozen nuclear plants, converted our cars to plug-in electric and built more trains and light-rail systems.
http://www.energybulletin.net/image/uploads/35008/6c3djt0.png
http://www.callcenterme.com/email-hosting/acamar/36/uraniumproduction.gif
http://www.uic.com.au/graphics/UprodWorld.gif
Yeah, good luck with that.
The exotic solution I'd like to see is a self-replicating robot system to cover the entire the entire desert with these http://tdaait.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/solar-panels.jpg, but existing technology is perfectly capable of getting the job done.
The horrible reality underscoring energy is that there aren't any alternatives that are going to allow us to continue operating on the kind of scale we enjoy today due to limits in just about everything.
From the "they-don’t-call-them-rare-for-nothing" dept, we read:
Supplies of rare earth elements exhausted by 2017. (http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson/journal/206171)
Flat-panel LCDs, high-output solar cells, nuclear reactor control rods (extinct: 2017 due to the world's indium supply - currently at 6,000 tons, gone) - even galvanized steel (extinct: 2037 - world's zinc supply exhausted) - all gone. Rare-earth lasers? Ditto. Doped semi-conductors? Buh-bye. Automotive and cell-phone electronics, and pcs? Don't throw out that old P1 with the crt just yet ... 15 years from now, it may just be state-of-the-art, as newer boxes succumb to tin whiskers, lack of replacement parts, etc.
Even the Wall Street Journal is starting to "get it". (http://blogs.wsj.com/informedreader/2007/05/25/a-metal-scare-to-rival-the-oil-scare/).
We are starting to run out of gallium and other rare earth elements. (http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0806/ref.shtml)
The element gallium is in very short supply and the world may well run out of it in just a few years. Indium is threatened too, says Armin Reller, a materials chemist at Germany's University of Augsburg. He estimates that our planet's stock of indium will last no more than another decade. All the hafnium will be gone by 2017 also, and another twenty years will see the extinction of zinc. Even copper is an endangered item, since worldwide demand for it is likely to exceed available supplies by the end of the present century.
Nice price evolution too:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y90/hybriddiesel/minormetals1.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y90/hybriddiesel/minormetals2.jpg
Bigger charts:
http://www.minormetals.com/chartsall.aspx
Zinc was never rare. We mine millions of tons a year of it. But the supply is finite and the demand is infinite, and that's bad news. Even copper, as I noted above, is deemed to be at risk. We humans move to and fro upon the earth, gobbling up everything in sight, and some things aren't replaceable.
Platinum for fuel cells:
Earth's natural wealth: an audit (http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/027ns_005.htm)
Can we build the future? (http://blog.techfun.org/can-we-build-the-future)
It has been estimated that if all the 500 million vehicles in use today were re-equipped with fuel cells, operating losses would mean that all the worlds sources of platinum would be exhausted within 15 years. Unlike with oil or diamonds, there is no synthetic alternative: platinum is a chemical element, and once we have used it all there is no way on earth of getting any more.
The price of indium has already gone up over 1500% in 3 years ... it's needed for that new generation of high-output solar cells, as well as lcd displays. Extinct by 2017.
Armin Reller, a materials chemist at the University of Augsburg in Germany, and his colleagues are among the few groups who have been investigating the problem. He estimates that we have, at best, 10 years before we run out of indium. Its impending scarcity could already be reflected in its price: in January 2003 the metal sold for around $60 per kilogram; by August 2006 the price had shot up to over $1000 per kilogram.
And people scoffed when I said to invest in metals!
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/7310/eotwprofitmn1.gif
I highly recommend this Richard Heinberg book for anyone who doesn't understand the basic concept of limited natural resources:
Peak Everything: Waking Up to the Century of Declines (http://www.amazon.com/Peak-Everything-Century-Declines-Publishers/dp/086571598X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215095543&sr=8-1)
The twenty-first century ushered in an era of declines, in a number of crucial parameters:
* Global oil, natural gas, and coal extraction
* Yearly grain harvests
* Climate stability
* Population
* Economic growth
* Fresh water
* Minerals and ores, such as copper and platinum
Want to really lower gas prices? Start killing the politicians who are opposing domestic drilling! :rolleyes:
Ah yes, that ol' line. I see it quite often.
The fact of the matter is we already drilled like madmen during the domestic peak in U.S. oil production in the 70's. While there were a couple good scores, it did nothing to reverse the overall discovery trend.
http://www.oilcrisis.com/de/30.gif
Bottom line is that this isn't a problem we can drill our way out of.
High gas prices are forcing humanity to create new, and effective fuel sources which is a necessity if we want to continue to prosper as humans.
Energy is the capacity to do work (no energy = no work). Thus, the global economy is 100 percent dependent on energy -- it always has been, and it always will be.
The first law of thermodynamics tells us that neither capital nor labor nor technology can "create" energy. Instead, available energy must be spent to transform existing matter (e.g., oil), or to divert an existing energy flow (e.g., wind) into more available energy. There are no exceptions to the thermodynamic laws!
The second law of thermodynamics tells us that energy is wasted at every step in the economic process. The engines that actually do the work in our economy (so-called "heat engines"; e.g., diesel engines) waste more than 50 percent of the energy contained in their fuel.
Energy "resources" must produce more energy than they consume, otherwise they are called "sinks" (this is known as the "net energy" principle). About 735 joules of energy is required to lift 15 kg of oil 5 meters out of the ground just to overcome gravity -- and the higher the lift, the greater the energy requirements. The most concentrated and most accessible oil is produced first; thereafter, more and more energy is required to find and produce oil. At some point, more energy is spent finding and producing oil than the energy recovered -- and the "resource" has become a "sink".
There is an enormous difference between the net energy of the "highly-concentrated" fossil fuel that power modern industrial society, and the "dilute" alternative energy we will be forced to depend upon as fossil fuel resources become sinks.
No so-called "renewable" energy system has the potential to generate more than a tiny fraction of the power now being generated by fossil fuels.
This figure represents the amount of oil the world consumed in 2006:
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/3816/cmoig6.jpg
It's 1 CMO. or a cubic mile of oil, or 1/3rd the size of Lake Eerie. The Eiffel tower is included next to it for scale.
So let's get a feel for how much energy would be required from other sources just to get the equivalency of that.
To obtain in one year the amount of energy contained in one cubic mile of oil, each year for 50 years we would need to have produced the numbers of dams, nuclear power plants, coal plants, windmills, or solar panels shown on this amazing representation:
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/4758/ncmo010pg3.gif
It's pretty clear when you take everything into account that the future will have orders of magnitude less energy being consumed than we're consuming today.
There's simply no way to sustain it since it's inherently unsustainable.
And unsustainable systems, by definition, are doomed to collapse.
SLice_760
2008-07-28, 14:55
I drive a minivan :(
I painted flames on the sides :)
Not really :(
28 miles per gallon though.
My friend drives a 1993 Dodge minivan with a huge ass dent on the side. He painted it black with a silver racing stripe down the middle. No joke either if I can get pics I'll post 'em.
My friend drives a 1993 Dodge minivan with a huge ass dent on the side. He painted it black with a silver racing stripe down the middle. No joke either if I can get pics I'll post 'em.
lol
I backed into the bush...it left a dent...
launchpad
2008-07-28, 17:53
Magneto what is it that you study? Do you work in the petroleum sector? Love seeing you argue this shit here because you completely wreck the idiots who totally blame speculation...
Anyway, do you have some other books to recommend? I've started doing some basic reading on the subject (mostly regarding the Alberta tarsands however, not really on a globa stage) but I'm having trouble finding reputable books..
Big Steamers
2008-07-28, 18:46
Sustain? Sustainablity? Who cares bout this idea which bred fromthe mongrel hippy will bring confusion upon all human events? We want preservation of our econsystem, civilization. Oil is the perfect answer!
DonMuttoni
2008-07-28, 22:46
I would like to take this chance to voice certain opinions of mine....
FUCK ALASKA!
dontfeelbad
2008-07-29, 19:51
I would like to take this chance to voice certain opinions of mine....
FUCK ALASKA!
I just looked up Judges 15:15-16... I loled on the inside.
Big Steamers
2008-07-29, 20:13
I just looked up Judges 15:15-16... I loled on the inside.
Barack
ThePrince
2008-07-29, 23:55
]
http://www.energybulletin.net/image/uploads/35008/6c3djt0.png
http://www.callcenterme.com/email-hosting/acamar/36/uraniumproduction.gif
http://www.uic.com.au/graphics/UprodWorld.gif
Yeah, good luck with that.
Hey, Good Post. Uranium production charts don't seal the deal, however. Once the price of energy gets high enough, it'll become economical to get Uranium from more expensive sources, meaning supply will still be there, just at a higher price. You have to take this into account before you dismiss it.
Also, take into account tar sands, which are economical to extract at the presently high prices and exist in massive amounts. They do release fossil fuels, but we could spend more energy to contain them, but that might not be feasible. You really have to do the math for alot of this stuff.
Also, think about the energy gains to be had from shifting from cars to electrified trains.
Dark_Magneto
2008-07-30, 05:18
Also, take into account tar sands, which are economical to extract at the presently high prices and exist in massive amounts. They do release fossil fuels, but we could spend more energy to contain them, but that might not be feasible. You really have to do the math for alot of this stuff.
Uranium consumption is twice production levels. They're filling the deficit by liquidating above-ground stocks.
The consumption of all the earth's resources follows a bell shaped curve, ultimately hitting a peak and subsequent decline. We're seeing these declines in natural gas, oil, coal, uranium, metals, etc.
Once you cross the peak/plateau, it's essentially all downhill from there no matter how much money you throw at it. You can put some bumps on the downhill curve, but that's about it.
Sure there's trillions of barrels worth of oil in shale and tar sands, but they are nothing like conventional oil. They require shitloads of energy input (the energy ratio is something liuke 1.3 to 1 vs. conventional oil 100:1) and are extremely slow to mine and refine. We'll never get oil production rates from unconventional sources like we do with lightsweet oil.
Simply put, it's a problem of elementary geophysical forces. The more you mine the resource, the harder it becomes to get at, and in many cases the lower the quality of the product. We see this especially in coal and oil. The surface stuff is easy to extract and has a phenomenal energy ratio. The deeper stuff requires more energy to get at and process, and in the case of coal, has even less energy than the earlier stuff.
Also, think about the energy gains to be had from shifting from cars to electrified trains.
Electrical transit is the best thing we have available. Unfortunately it doesn't exist outside places like San Francisco and New York and noone's building it nor has any plans to. The initiative is to try to maintain our unsistainable car culture, but it's not possible simply due to the ridiculous levels of consumption which could be cut down to a fraction with mass electric rail transit.
Rolloffle
2008-07-30, 06:09
Electrical transit is the best thing we have available. Unfortunately it doesn't exist outside places like San Francisco and New York and noone's building it nor has any plans to. The initiative is to try to maintain our unsistainable car culture, but it's not possible simply due to the ridiculous levels of consumption which could be cut down to a fraction with mass electric rail transit.
We've got lots of electrical buses in Vancouver, Canada. :)
Dark_Magneto
2008-07-30, 07:47
I meant inside the U.S.
Yeah, they've got scads of electric rail transit in Japan as well, which most people use. That's the direction the world needs to be heading, but it desperately clings to car culture/personal transportation which is extremely wasteful and totally unsustainable.
To obtain in one year the amount of energy contained in one cubic mile of oil, each year for 50 years we would need to have produced the numbers of dams, nuclear power plants, coal plants, windmills, or solar panels shown on this amazing representation:
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/4758/ncmo010pg3.gif
It's pretty clear when you take everything into account that the future will have orders of magnitude less energy being consumed than we're consuming today.
There's simply no way to sustain it since it's inherently unsustainable.
And unsustainable systems, by definition, are doomed to collapse.
That's not "shocking" at all. That's the entire world consumption of oil, right? Only 5200 coal plants, 2600 nuclear plants, 200 dams, etc etc.? That doesn't seem like a lot at all considering the millions of cities that exist and the billions of people living in them capable of building them. We could do it all with nuclear power alone, the others are just icing on the cake. Also, like theprince said, the math is only done half-assedly. Once you switch millions of cars to electric engines with regenerative braking, the required cube will shrink thanks to all the energy recycled at the pedal. That's a humble estimate, because electric engines are still in beta stages and we don't know how much more efficient they may become.
telecomnerd
2008-08-01, 21:39
Well maybe if you occupied a country with lots of oil you could be paying 3.90 a gallon.
So those British Soldiers in Iraq aren't from the UK?
Edmonton used to have electric buses downtown until the city scrapped them, talk about a backwards place.
Doesn't anyone have a bike? I have been riding 8km to work everyday since March.
Dark_Magneto
2008-08-02, 01:17
That's not "shocking" at all. That's the entire world consumption of oil, right? Only 5200 coal plants, 2600 nuclear plants, 200 dams, etc etc.? That doesn't seem like a lot at all considering the millions of cities that exist and the billions of people living in them capable of building them.
That's the amount that would have to be built per year for half a century.
^ Except that oil isn't used entirely in energy/fuel - so you have to remove a large chunk from that CMO for things made from petroleum - and it doesn't tell us of the efficiency of the oil use either - so if it's being wastefully used while other energy sources could be more efficiently used.
It's impressive, but it does have faults to consider.
^ Except that oil isn't used entirely in energy/fuel - so you have to remove a large chunk from that CMO for things made from petroleum - and it doesn't tell us of the efficiency of the oil use either - so if it's being wastefully used while other energy sources could be more efficiently used.
It's impressive, but it does have faults to consider.
Sounds like we as a civilization are screwed. :(
Any hope anybody?
Anyone think that super strong plastics could replace metals?
Dark_Magneto
2008-08-03, 14:52
Anyone think that super strong plastics could replace metals?
Nope.
Carbon fiber can, but it's expensive as fuck.
Want to really lower gas prices? Start killing the politicians who are opposing domestic drilling! :rolleyes:
yeah. that.
we need a fucking king. he could simply wave his hand, and kill the politicians that stand in his way, in order to institute a drilling, and then wave his hand again, and order the entire nation to begin working on alternative energy, such as fusion.
DonMuttoni
2008-08-07, 23:43
ANWR = Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
http://a61.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/43/l_38bc131112e5a8c67544e1e89fe25c84.jpg
http://a118.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/58/l_4d8517b7075bd92b204814af863f0805.jpg
http://a467.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/19/l_be37d58e3c85c163c41f7d6caaf8864a.jpg
The Beauty of ANWR...
http://a69.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/64/l_2d73497a623bc6d041b119470b649c9c.jpg
http://a572.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/123/l_82a09ff93eef5a523022d3094bcc8823.jpg
ANWR Coastal Plain
http://a306.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/1/l_1c1466e152561daa56fe51bf75eec1f9.jpg
The Beauty of the ANWR Coastal Plain
http://a803.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/25/l_04e43952f19e90ec9e036d7ddedbf3ba.jpg
http://a588.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/77/l_b946deb803a512547da375642cca9b2b.jpg
http://a279.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/45/l_3fe0f8e67c6a867db193084583111976.jpg
It good to go in summer... in winter, it can get very depressing
Nope.
Carbon fiber can, but it's expensive as fuck.
I heard it's getting cheaper. Carbon fiber reinforced plastic(I think this is what you were talking about). Also there is plastic that can conduct electricity now too. So the future is plastics and composites as I see it.
such as fusion.
Have you heard of the ITER and DEMO projects?
launchpad
2008-08-08, 14:17
The Department of Energy has said that increased domestic drilling will only lead to "marginal and insignificant " effects on pump prices. Also it would take YEARS before any oil would be pumped at all.
67% of American's believe that this is a good idea.
The hell is wrong with you goddamn sheep!!! Look at the facts, it's NOT GOING TO HELP!! ArGhHhhHHhh....This better not be the issue that decides the election.
The Department of Energy has said that increased domestic drilling will only lead to "marginal and insignificant " effects on pump prices. Also it would take YEARS before any oil would be pumped at all.
67% of American's believe that this is a good idea.
The hell is wrong with you goddamn sheep!!! Look at the facts, it's NOT GOING TO HELP!! ArGhHhhHHhh....This better not be the issue that decides the election.
shut the hell up. why is it that every time some one says 'sheep', you know that they think they are some enlightened fucking chink sitting on the mountain watching all the little fools run around, when in reality they are below average in awareness and intelligence. when in reality, they are complete morons.
see, this is why a system in which common people have a say in their government is so easily manipulated and lead, and why it's such a fucking retarded idea.
i guarantee you we could be using american refined oil in three years if the contracts were put out. only a idiot would think that oil companies would sit on their ass with that opportunity out there. and it would have a colossal effect on gas prices, you moron. that's common sense, as well as economic sense.
not only will it help, it's the only reasonable solution. the ONLY reasonable solution. this would give us a century in which we could solve the energy problem altogether, while we were independent and prosperous.
launchpad
2008-08-08, 18:08
shut the hell up. why is it that every time some one says 'sheep', you know that they think they are some enlightened fucking chink sitting on the mountain watching all the little fools run around, when in reality they are below average in awareness and intelligence. when in reality, they are complete morons.
see, this is why a system in which common people have a say in their government is so easily manipulated and lead, and why it's such a fucking retarded idea.
i guarantee you we could be using american refined oil in three years if the contracts were put out. only a idiot would think that oil companies would sit on their ass with that opportunity out there. and it would have a colossal effect on gas prices, you moron. that's common sense, as well as economic sense.
not only will it help, it's the only reasonable solution. the ONLY reasonable solution. this would give us a century in which we could solve the energy problem altogether, while we were independent and prosperous.
What. The....Fuck?
You guarantee me that you will be using American refined oil in 3 years? Who the fuck are you? Because presumably you are in a better position to make predictions than the Department of Energy who claim :
"The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030"
Sounds like a bit longer than 3 years you ignorant fuck. What will the impact on global prices of oil be I wonder? Danzig: "We'll be paying 15 cents a gallon for t3h oiLz yay!!!!" WRONG
"The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. Furthermore, the Energy Information Administration does not feel ANWR will affect the global price of oil when past behaviors of the oil market are considered. Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount."
Both quotes are from - United States. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Don't talk to me about economics and common sense or you'll find yourself getting pimp slapped again. Murder/suicide, huff raid, gtfo my &t and have a nice day.
What. The....Fuck?
You guarantee me that you will be using American refined oil in 3 years? Who the fuck are you? Because presumably you are in a better position to make predictions than the Department of Energy who claim :
"The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030"
Sounds like a bit longer than 3 years you ignorant fuck. What will the impact on global prices of oil be I wonder? Danzig: "We'll be paying 15 cents a gallon for t3h oiLz yay!!!!" WRONG
"The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. Furthermore, the Energy Information Administration does not feel ANWR will affect the global price of oil when past behaviors of the oil market are considered. Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount."
Both quotes are from - United States. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Don't talk to me about economics and common sense or you'll find yourself getting pimp slapped again. Murder/suicide, huff raid, gtfo my &t and have a nice day.
can you read, or do you just like putting words into my mouth so that you can tailor yourself a nice little custom made error that you can jump all over and look cool after disproving, like some rich fuck putting a zebra into a 1 acre enclosure and shooting it? because that is what you did.
read my post again, and then once you are ready to apologize for being an idiot and bothering me, come back and say something that isn't stupid. i didn't even MENTION alaska. alaska should be left alone. that's where you should start unwinding your litany of idiocy. start right there, and stop once you realize i'm right.
launchpad
2008-08-08, 18:39
Forgot Danzig was just a filthy troll and accidentally fed him. How awful.
Forgot Danzig was just a filthy troll and accidentally fed him. How awful.
translation: i realize now i was wrong, as is evidenced by the undeniable fact that i did not properly read his post. so i will do what every single loser on totse does, and simply call him a troll. perfect. i don't need anything to back that claim up.
Issue313
2008-08-09, 02:45
Danzig is not a troll.
I am in favour of huge taxes on all oil. Higher oil prices make me happy, because people have to buy smaller, more efficient cars, drive less, or take the bus.
That means less money for the greedy murdering terrorists of the middle east and texas.
I am in favour of huge taxes on all oil. Higher oil prices make me happy, because people have to buy smaller, more efficient cars, drive less, or take the bus.
or go bankrupt being stubborn. i still see people in SUVs alone, with no cargo.
i see a depression in the future, and i don't think it will be completely negative.
Death Insurance
2008-08-09, 04:45
Get a fucking bike, OP.