silvrsvt Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 (edited) http://www.cnbc.com/id/23526903?__source=y...|&par=yahoo You’re predicting $378 a barrel!? “We don't understood the value of oil (domestically), replies Simmons. In England they’re paying the equivalent of $9 a gallon for gasoline. That translates to $378 a barrel and it’s having little impact on England's economy, right now." Lets see..the UK pays huge taxes on Gas and the UK Pound is worth about double the US dollar right now....and this guy is a CEO? Edited March 10, 2008 by silvrsvt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Want to solve the supply problem and import less oil from the middle-east? Turn the spigot off to Japan, and keep the Alaskan oil in the U.S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mlhm5 Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 http://www.cnbc.com/id/23526903?__source=y...|&par=yahoo Lets see..the UK pays huge taxes on Gas and the UK Pound is worth about double the US dollar right now....and this guy is a CEO? Yes and the USD was equal to a UK Pound in 1985. Now the pound is a really strong currency compared to the dollar. Plus most of the UK and Europe are driving cars that get 43 mpg, while the average fuel economy of new cars in the US is now 27.5 mpg. That's passenger cars only, no trucks. Add in the trucks and you get a fuel economy of 21 mpg for the USA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 In a way, the British Pound is irrelevant. OPEC prices its oil in Euros. Where this could lead to $8-9 US a gallon is that the sub-prime lending avalanche could lead to a an avalanche of printed money, which means the US $ will be worth even less against the Euro, because of the inflated money-supply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnostic Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 In a way, the British Pound is irrelevant. OPEC prices its oil in Euros. Where this could lead to $8-9 US a gallon is that the sub-prime lending avalanche could lead to a an avalanche of printed money, which means the US $ will be worth even less against the Euro, because of the inflated money-supply. Weak dollar. This has an indirect impact, but since oil is priced in dollars, as the value of the dollar falls, the price of oil in dollars goes up. Over the last five years, the dollar has fallen by 33 percent against the euro. If that keeps up, the upward pressure on oil prices will remain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Price of oil will go through the roof once supply can't keep up with demand in the future, China and India will start tapping into our supplies bigtime soon. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6658583.stm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Another article trying to compare apples with pears - 70% of fuel price in UK is taxes and excises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Amazing...and I just heard on the news today that there are 2 TRILLION barrels of oil in Colorado in the form of oil shale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 11, 2008 Author Share Posted March 11, 2008 Amazing...and I just heard on the news today that there are 2 TRILLION barrels of oil in Colorado in the form of oil shale. And its super expesive to recover that oil.... But then again I rather spend 3-4 dollars a gallon for US produced oil then importing it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 (edited) And its super expesive to recover that oil.... But then again I rather spend 3-4 dollars a gallon for US produced oil then importing it When it was $20/barrel yes, but not now - $100/barrel clears a lot of hurdles.... We have three massive shale oil areas in my Aussie state - the total reserves exceeds Saudi oil estimates. Edited March 11, 2008 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 And its super expesive to recover that oil.... But then again I rather spend 3-4 dollars a gallon for US produced oil then importing it Yeah...your right...lets just say fuck it...it's too hard to figure out a new way of extracting the oil while making it cost effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Want to solve the supply problem and import less oil from the middle-east? Turn the spigot off to Japan, and keep the Alaskan oil in the U.S. Because cutting off the supply of raw materials has never cause any problems to US-Japanese relations. Will somebody PLEASE teach history in schools? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Amazing...and I just heard on the news today that there are 2 TRILLION barrels of oil in Colorado in the form of oil shale. Shell Oil is running a landmark experiment to see if it's possible to recover any of it. What they are going to do is heat up a large patch of land, about a square mile, to 700 degrees for 2-3 years, to liquify the oil. In order to prevent groundwater from getting in, they have to create a "Freeze wall" around the site. It's called "In Situ Retorting " (In Situ means "in place") It sounds to me like a massive undertaking, but I hope it's successful. Of course, at best it would probably be a decade before we see any commercial extraction... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Will somebody PLEASE teach history in schools? They do, but, if it goes in one ear and out the other . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 (edited) Plus most of the UK and Europe are driving cars that get 43 mpg, while the average fuel economy of new cars in the US is now 27.5 mpg. That's passenger cars only, no trucks. Add in the trucks and you get a fuel economy of 21 mpg for the USA. I love when people bring up MPG numbers for Europe they never mention that they are Imperial gallons (43mpg becomes 35mpg) that they use a totally separate test to arrive at those number than what we use in the United States; that most of these super cars take 12, 14 or even 16 seconds to get to 60mph, that a Focus/Golf is a mid-sized car. Toss in the 1.6L gas into the current American Focus and you have a car that would get great gas mileage(43mpg+ US Gallons) but couldn't get out of its own way and no one would buy one as it would get torn apart in every publication. Notice how when they say the great Euro cars, they always seem to be talking about the mid to high-line ones. If people really cared about the environment they would buy houses / live closer to where they work. Cities in general would come back and mass transit would be a very viable option, but we have this notion in that it is okay to drive 50miles each way to work. It is easier to bitch about it, and change nothing then say random things "there's a conspiracy between the oil companies and the auto companies -- they could make 100mpg cars but don't want to". You make something up -- and the other side has to defend against something with no factual basis. Edited March 11, 2008 by jasonj80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 If people really cared about the environment they would by houses / live closer to where they work. Cities in general would come back and mass transit would be a very viable option, but we have this notion in that it is okay to drive 50miles each way to work. That's all well and good, but to get a house within biking/bus distance would cost 50% more than where I live now -- that's $100,000 on a 2br condo. I could save another 25% by moving another 20 miles away. I could barely afford to buy such a place where I am now, let alone in that neighborhood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 11, 2008 Author Share Posted March 11, 2008 Yeah...your right...lets just say fuck it...it's too hard to figure out a new way of extracting the oil while making it cost effective. Nice way to read into my post and be totally wrong, jackass! If anything the high costs of paying for Arab Oil will make someone figure out how to get it out cheaper... But then again we are supposed to switch over to a hydrogen economy in the next 10-20 years...so they better do it quick! :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordFFfan Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Yeah...your right...lets just say fuck it...it's too hard to figure out a new way of extracting the oil while making it cost effective. BP, Shell, Exxon, and others are spending billions on trying to figure out how to extract it for an economical price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mlhm5 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 The answer is more public transportation, and a lot of it, in the form of rail and light rail. It is ridiculous for so many people to drive a single car to the airport or to the downtown center. No one in Washington is even talking about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 US Fed & central Banks have been pumping billions ($400 billion from banks worldwide) back into markets today trying to fix credit & falling weaker dollar and to suppress oil prices but oil still set a new high again today at near $110. It's just another short term fix. http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN1155480820080311 Oil hits close to $110 today http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=681550275&play=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 The answer is more public transportation, and a lot of it, in the form of rail and light rail. It is ridiculous for so many people to drive a single car to the airport or to the downtown center. No one in Washington is even talking about it. Why would they -- Build new roads & cars -- Gas & Energy lobby, Auto Lobby, Construction lobby, Real Estate Lobby, Union Lobby Mass Transit -- Rail Road Lobby Follow the money..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo2079 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Shell Oil is running a landmark experiment to see if it's possible to recover any of it. What they are going to do is heat up a large patch of land, about a square mile, to 700 degrees for 2-3 years, to liquify the oil. In order to prevent groundwater from getting in, they have to create a "Freeze wall" around the site. It's called "In Situ Retorting " (In Situ means "in place") It sounds to me like a massive undertaking, but I hope it's successful. Of course, at best it would probably be a decade before we see any commercial extraction... The problem with heating up a large patch of land like that is that you expend so much energy in the recovery of the oil that the energy you get from the oil recovered doesn't make it worthwhile. It's like buying a house that's worth less than the selling price. The only way I can see them doing this and getting a net benefit from the oil recovered is with Nukes.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 (edited) Why would they -- Build new roads & cars -- Gas & Energy lobby, Auto Lobby, Construction lobby, Real Estate Lobby, Union Lobby Mass Transit -- Rail Road Lobby Follow the money..... New light rail lines would still have to be constructed, so the construction and union lobbies would presumably be on board. Plus, most transit employees are unionized, so that is further incentive for unions to support mass transit expansion. The real estate lobby doesn't care whether a particular subdivision is served by mass transit or a road. Its members just want to sell townhouses, condos and single-family homes. Today the car companies don't give a hoot one way or another about mass transit. They aren't lobbying against it. Incidentally, in the U.S., federal subsidies constitute a higher percentage of the total cost of mass transit than they do for the total cost of roads. Edited March 12, 2008 by grbeck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 (On cutting off oil) Because cutting off the supply of raw materials has never cause any problems to US-Japanese relations. Will somebody PLEASE teach history in schools? I thought that was just Japanese revisionist history that our cutting off Japan right before the WWII Pacific Theater opened incited them to attack us out of desperation. ("We were hurting so bad, we just gotta bomb the Americans for ruining our economy") Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordowner Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 If people really cared about the environment they would buy houses / live closer to where they work. Cities in general would come back and mass transit would be a very viable option, but we have this notion in that it is okay to drive 50miles each way to work. It is easier to bitch about it, and change nothing then say random things "there's a conspiracy between the oil companies and the auto companies -- they could make 100mpg cars but don't want to". You make something up -- and the other side has to defend against something with no factual basis. This is very true. And yes its true that in most cities its difficult to find affordable decent housing near transist stations (which doesn't include an bus stop where a bus comes once or twice an hour). And its true that theoretically lobbyists would be for roads or transit. But in reality that's not really the case. Transit takes local governement management, you've got to do good landuse, don't allow high density in random places but only allow it in designated corridors where transit is planned. And then preserve the corridor for transit. Since transit has a higher up front cost (but I'd argue lower cost over all and over the long term) it also takes involvement by the government. Since, in Georgia, metro Atlanta is 14 different county governments and even more city governments all the local officials are backed by developers who are looking to flip greenfields to cul-de-sac developments or strip malls, cause almost anyone can build those. So what we end up having is a local government making zoning decisions that aren't really sustainable, they don't want to limit high density development to certain corridors and so serving the random placement of people becomes difficult by transit. Also the fact that generally many of these states only have statewide road agencies (Georiga Dept of Transportation is really just a road building agency) its tough to do metro wide solutions. Heck even the zoning codes are a problem, nixing mixed use and requiring minimum parking that results in free parking for everyone. Parking Cashout - parking decks cost 5k to 10k a space (old figure probably more now) throwout minimum parking requirements if the property tells its employees you can have the free space or $70 a month. The only hope is that because the country has been run into a huge deficit and there are not enough funds to keep up with road demand the massive highway projects of the past are drying up and congestion is getting worse or at least trip inducing development is slowing because its harder to reach new areas, this is causing redevelopment of areas that were previously abandoned or which have declined but are closer intown or to meaningful transit options. So in a perverse way the free market is working, unfortunately its not the most efficient or painless way. The purpose of government should be to control and guide development. To many sunbelt cities fail at this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.