sure fire way to fix the gas crisis...

[casmells]

quit being so dam weak-tight and start drilling in
alaska already...

[MrMon]

But we've got to think about the caribou!

[codewarrior]

The report I heard on NPR said there's only about two years' oil (for the entire US) in Alaska.

[Hiding]

[ QUOTE ]
I heard on NPR

[/ QUOTE ]

Did they verify it with any facts?

[swede123]

You want real solutions? How about they come up with a way to harvest my dog's fart-gas. That's enough energy to power the known world for a few centuries.

Swede

I don't see what people get worked up over. There is a limited supply of oil, the prices will go higher and higher, people will use oil less and less, and eventually the price will probably plateau when people use it barely at all

This shouldn't be news to any one

[codewarrior]

They cited a source I don't remember.

[sam h]

There isn't that much oil in Alaska. The only way to fix the gas crisis in the long term is to develop alternative energy sources.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
The report I heard on NPR said there's only about two years' oil (for the entire US) in Alaska.

[/ QUOTE ]

for $70/barrel they can get a lot more than that -- if i remember correctly that 2-year bit was back when oil was ~$20/barrel.

[shadow29]

Thomas Friedman has been advocating a national gas tax for the past few years. I think that it will end the crisis rather quickly, although admittedly would slow some growth and perhaps adversely affect certain demographics more than others.

It would certainly make soccermom think twice about buying an XtremelyEnormousExcursion or whatever they have now.

[turnipmonster]

aren't taxes the main reason gas prices have always been high in europe?

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
aren't taxes the main reason gas prices have always been high everywhere?

[/ QUOTE ]

here too.

[turnipmonster]

gas in europe has historically been much much higher than here, hasn't it? it was > 5.00/gallon in 2002 IIRC, whereas here it was probably 1.50.

[NoTalent]

That's exactly what we need, more government involvment and taxation...

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
gas in europe has historically been much much higher than here, hasn't it? it was > 5.00/gallon in 2002 IIRC, whereas here it was probably 1.50.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't arguing about relative prices. The point was it's much higher than it should be everywhere.

Even if it was approved right now, drilling could not start for about 10 years due to logistics and execution of a drilling plan.

Edit: Short term help announced http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9141205/

[HopeydaFish]

[ QUOTE ]
quit being so dam weak-tight and start drilling in
alaska already...

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone else said, drilling in Alaska will only put off the inevitable for a couple of years.

A more effective solution would be to make it a law that all new vehicles must be fuel efficient. Take the SUV's off the road. Make gas super expensive for the few remaining assholes who want to drive their Hummers around, but since the rest of us will be getting 100 miles/gallon we won't feel the pinch.

The US auto industry was dying a slow death 10+ years ago. SUVs resuscitated the industry, which is why federal fuel efficiency laws were never passed.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

The EPA recommended today to the governors of each state/territory to temporarily (through September 15) relax the requirements for volatility and sulpher standards in order to allow for more fuel for the country.

Pretty Comprehensive page about all things oil:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8740867/

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

The Transportation Department has also relaxed regulations on the number of hours a trucker can drive.

[Zurvan]

[ QUOTE ]
Thomas Friedman has been advocating a national gas tax for the past few years. I think that it will end the crisis rather quickly, although admittedly would slow some growth and perhaps adversely affect certain demographics more than others.

It would certainly make soccermom think twice about buying an XtremelyEnormousExcursion or whatever they have now.

[/ QUOTE ]

For reasons why this wouldn't work, see Toronto. We have a national gas tax, a provincial gas tax, and a sales tax on top of it all. SUV's are everywhere, racing the sports cars to the next red light.

[groo]

[ QUOTE ]
quit being so dam weak-tight and start drilling in
alaska already...

[/ QUOTE ]

Though I understand and feel your frustration, you have given a moronic, reactionary response to a serious problem.

This is a problem we should have been working on in the US (I say US and ignore the rest of the world here because we use such an absurbly high percentage of the worlds petroleum based fuels) for many years, and the last President to give it more than lip service was Carter.

The Bushes are so tightley tied to the petrochem industry that they will never move on it (as shown by history). Yet we keep fighting wars, killing innocent people, and convincing our young give up their lives to further the profits of these miscreants (yeah, I know it's probably spelled wrong). Drilling more oil wells isn't going to stop any of that whether they are in Alaska or the in the middle east. The only thing that will stop it is using something besides oil for energy. Something that can be manufactured instead of coming out of the ground. If it comes out of the ground it gives the title holder to that land more power than they probably deserve and causes power struggles/wars, just like with oil.

I'm sure their are other options waiting to be found, but we had hydrogen power in use prior to World War II. Now we are being told that it isn't viable for at least another 10-15 years, though I recently read a story about some automaker rolling out a test model later this year. There are too many inconsistancies in the information currently being presented for it to be believable.

Energy is the most important commodity in the the US and around the world, (more important even than food since it is used to harvest food) and it is controlled by an incredibly small group of people. People getting richer and richer on the backs of our taxes, on the backs of the money we spend and more importantly on the lives of many people (civilians and soldiers) in war zones around the world.

What the hell, I'm getting mine, what do I care.

[AngryCola]

Define "fix."

Although it would help in the mid-term (obviously new drilling won't help in the coming months), it does nothing to solve the eventual 'real' oil/gas crisis.

Politics (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=politics)

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure their are other options waiting to be found, but we had hydrogen power in use prior to World War II. Now we are being told that it isn't viable for at least another 10-15 years, though I recently read a story about some automaker rolling out a test model later this year. There are too many inconsistancies in the information currently being presented for it to be believable.

[/ QUOTE ]
The fact that a prototype has been built is an indication of development, not maturity of the technology. There is no inconsistency here. Hydrogen technology is not viable at the moment. Also, just because all you see coming out of the car's tailpipe (as it were) is water, doesn't mean that the only byproduct of this energy is water. The pollution is still there, it's just shifted from the tailpipe of the car to the facility that produces the fuel. It takes energy to produce the hydrogen fuel just the same as anything else.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
The EPA recommended today to the governors of each state/territory to temporarily (through September 15) relax the requirements for volatility and sulpher standards in order to allow for more fuel for the country.

[/ QUOTE ]
In this vein, we would also do well for ourselves to have a set of nationwide (or at least regional, where it makes sense) standards for fuel quality and ratings instead of a hodgepodge of varying qualities of fuel from state to state.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
In this vein, we would also do well for ourselves to have a set of nationwide standards for fuel quality and ratings instead of a hodgepodge of varying qualities of fuel from state to state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take it to politics, n00b. /images/graemlins/grin.gif







<font color="white">And yes, more involvement by the federal government is the best thing for any situation. </font>

[jackdaniels]

[ QUOTE ]
And yes, more involvement by the federal government is the best thing for any situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

New batteries needed for this one?

[NutzyClutz]

Although not immediate fix. lets borrow some Iraqi oil. We got an excuse now.

[threeonefour]

gas still isn't expensive. there is no crisis. just a bunch of whiners.


imho at least

[theghost]

[ QUOTE ]
gas still isn't expensive. there is no crisis. just a bunch of whiners.


imho at least

[/ QUOTE ]

It's relative to the prices we had. gas prices have doubled in 3 years, has your salary?

[webmonarch]

[ QUOTE ]
Although not immediate fix. lets borrow some Iraqi oil. We got an excuse now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the Iraq War was an idiotic idea/invasion from the word go, but I think you're right. We ought to get something back for services rendered. Officious or not, $80 Billion spent on freeing that country ought to lead to some type of tangible benefit.

[groo]

[ QUOTE ]
Hydrogen technology is not viable at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it was viable in the 30's and 40's, why would it not be viable now? Certanily there are obsticles, but the largest of these is the current energy supply line status quo.

My larger point, however, is that more drilling for oil is not a long term (and barely a short term) solution, and that the OP was wrong in saying essentiallly, get some stones and drill.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hydrogen technology is not viable at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it was viable in the 30's and 40's, why would it not be viable now?

[/ QUOTE ]
What were they doing with it in the 30's and 40's and what do you want them to do with it now? Just because people were doing things with hydrogen 70 years ago doesn't mean that the technology is there now to reliably and effectively power millions of cars with it.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hydrogen technology is not viable at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it was viable in the 30's and 40's, why would it not be viable now?

[/ QUOTE ]
What were they doing with it in the 30's and 40's and what do you want them to do with it now? Just because people were doing things with hydrogen 70 years ago doesn't mean that the technology is there now to reliably and effectively power millions of cars with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think he's talking about:

http://www.vidicom-tv.com/home/images/vidicom-main-hindenburg.jpg

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
If it was viable in the 30's and 40's, why would it not be viable now?

[/ QUOTE ]

They were doing so well with hydrogen back in the 30s weren't they?

http://www.hydropole.ch/Hydropole/Intro/Hindenburg.gif

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
i think he's talking about:
http://www.vidicom-tv.com/home/images/vidicom-main-hindenburg.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

You did not! /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[swede123]

You're losing your touch, old man. A whole minute behind the ball.

Swede

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
You're losing your touch, old man. A whole minute behind the ball.

Swede

[/ QUOTE ]

must be the arthritis. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[swede123]

Your picture is much more visual though, if it's any consolation.

Swede

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Your picture is much more visual though, if it's any consolation.

Swede

[/ QUOTE ]

i thought my caption was better too. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[groo]

Although humorous, completely off topic. Well not completely, it was that disaster that pretty much ended hydrogen use to power internal combustion engines. Hydrogen as a fuel source would be stored in a frozen state and would be, infact, less volitile than gasoline.

And Patrick, your still going to have to have trouble making me believe that we can't improve upon technologies that were in use 60-70 years ago.

[groo]

Come on Jake, as creative as you are, I know you're more intelligent than that.

Well, I could be wrong /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[cardcounter0]

Yes, raising the price will make more barrels of oil magically appear in the ground.

[Roy Stalin]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, raising the price will make more barrels of oil magically appear in the ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basic economics. It costs $50/barrel to get oil in location A which has known reserves of 100,000,000 barrels. It costs $70/barrel to get oil from location B with known reserves of 100,000,000 barrels. Oil company can sell oil for $60/barrel. That makes it economically viable to drill in location A, not location B. When prices rise to $80/barrel, drilling can occur at location B, effectively doubling the supply of oil.

As an aside, this is why artificial price ceilings on commodities do far more harm than good. Lowering the retail price of a good below market does not affect the costs of supplying the good. Hence, less is supplied resulting in massive shortages that don't occur when supply and demand are left to allocate resources effectivly.

[BoogerFace]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
gas still isn't expensive. there is no crisis. just a bunch of whiners.


imho at least

[/ QUOTE ]

It's relative to the prices we had. gas prices have doubled in 3 years, has your salary?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a really small sample size. Between 1980 and 2000, the price of gas was pretty much the same. See linky. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908464.html)

[RollaJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The report I heard on NPR said there's only about two years' oil (for the entire US) in Alaska.

[/ QUOTE ]

for $70/barrel they can get a lot more than that -- if i remember correctly that 2-year bit was back when oil was ~$20/barrel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats some funny sh1t......Do you see why?

[david050173]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The report I heard on NPR said there's only about two years' oil (for the entire US) in Alaska.

[/ QUOTE ]

for $70/barrel they can get a lot more than that -- if i remember correctly that 2-year bit was back when oil was ~$20/barrel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats some funny sh1t......Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand that as the price of gas goes up, more can be pumped out of the ground? Wether that balances out the increase in consumption, I hae no clue.

[RollaJ]

If theres x amount of oil in the ground there is x amount of oil in the ground regardless of the cost of x

[bennyk]

i think he meant that as the price gets higher, the rate at which we are consuming oil will eventually fall, since it will become prohibitively expensive - so 2 year's worth may end up lasting longer since the rate of consumption would fall slightly.

who knows whether NPR took this factor into consideration in their figures...
bk

[Ray Zee]

as the price goes up more wells come on line. as most wells cannot produce at the current prices anymore. higher prices means more oil. but more oil isnt the problem. its too much useless driving big cars.
the real solution is to tax cars by size or miles per gallon they get. and return that tax to the smaller cars that are fuel effecient. this way it does not penalize the poor as they get cheaper gas, and those that want to splurge pay the piper. or put a 5000 surcharge on cars that get less than 30 mpg and it it back to those who buy one that does.
if most of the cars on the road start getting 30 mpg there will be lots of gas around and less pollution to breath for some time.
i think the current system is fine. you pay for what you use. but it seems most people are griping about the cost of a product that they waste. and can do something about it by driving around more carefully. you save about 30 cents a gallon every ten miles an hour you slow down and can cut the average persons gas bill in half by doing that and getting a small toyota or honda.

[utmt40]

Stop buying [censored] gas...

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
as the price goes up more wells come on line. as most wells cannot produce at the current prices anymore. higher prices means more oil. but more oil isnt the problem. its too much useless driving big cars.
the real solution is to tax cars by size or miles per gallon they get. and return that tax to the smaller cars that are fuel effecient. this way it does not penalize the poor as they get cheaper gas, and those that want to splurge pay the piper. or put a 5000 surcharge on cars that get less than 30 mpg and it it back to those who buy one that does.
if most of the cars on the road start getting 30 mpg there will be lots of gas around and less pollution to breath for some time.
i think the current system is fine. you pay for what you use. but it seems most people are griping about the cost of a product that they waste. and can do something about it by driving around more carefully. you save about 30 cents a gallon every ten miles an hour you slow down and can cut the average persons gas bill in half by doing that and getting a small toyota or honda.

[/ QUOTE ]

The government offers a huge subsidy for cars over 6000 lbs. I don't see that changing soon either.

[david050173]

[ QUOTE ]
If theres x amount of oil in the ground there is x amount of oil in the ground regardless of the cost of x

[/ QUOTE ]

So you basically don't know what they mean when they quote sizes of oil fields?

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
quit being so dam weak-tight and start drilling in
alaska already...

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't do any good unless we get more refineries. US refineries are operating at capacity. That's why the problems in Louisiana are making a big spike in gas prices, it's reducing our capacity to refine oil. We can bring crude in through other ports, be we have lost some of our capacity to convert oil into petrol (temporarily).

[groo]

[ QUOTE ]
The government offers a huge subsidy for cars over 6000 lbs. I don't see that changing soon either.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could be wrong Ed, but I believe that subsidy/tax break ended at the end of 2004. It was ludacrous when it existed and I hope you're wrong about it still being in place.