Oil - let's clear something up

[Larry]

I also recall seeing somebody provide the information, round here, that gasoline for automobiles only accounts for something like 25% of the oil that the US uses. This, in turn, says to me that if we could, say, get everybody in the US into a Prius Hybrid, and therefore cut our gasoline usage in half, that this would only result in a 10% or so reduction in the oil used by the US.

Which would result in what, a 1% drop in oil demand, worldwide? How much do you think the price of oil drops if there's a 1% reduction in demand?

If my seat-of-the-pants math is correct, if we could completely eliminate all cars in the US, we reduce worldwide demand for oil by what, 2%? 3%?

(Which doesn't necessarily mean it would be a Bad Idea. If, in some hypothetical scenario, the US eliminates our use of mideast oil, but the world price stays the same, then while we won't have reduced the worldwide price, but we will have vastly improved things like the US balance of trade. Getting the US off of mideast oil might not hurt OPEC much, but it might help the US a bunch.)

But folks, improving US gas mileage, or getting people to car pool, or take the Metro, or any other attempt to reduce our usage of gasoline, really isn't going to effect the price of gasoline much. The US consumer doesn't control enough of the world's consumption.

[cathartic-j]

I also recall seeing somebody provide the information, round here, that gasoline for automobiles only accounts for something like 25% of the oil that the US uses. This, in turn, says to me that if we could, say, get everybody in the US into a Prius Hybrid, and therefore cut our gasoline usage in half, that this would only result in a 10% or so reduction in the oil used by the US.

Which would result in what, a 1% drop in oil demand, worldwide? How much do you think the price of oil drops if there's a 1% reduction in demand?

If my seat-of-the-pants math is correct, if we could completely eliminate all cars in the US, we reduce worldwide demand for oil by what, 2%? 3%?

(Which doesn't necessarily mean it would be a Bad Idea. If, in some hypothetical scenario, the US eliminates our use of mideast oil, but the world price stays the same, then while we won't have reduced the worldwide price, but we will have vastly improved things like the US balance of trade. Getting the US off of mideast oil might not hurt OPEC much, but it might help the US a bunch.)

But folks, improving US gas mileage, or getting people to car pool, or take the Metro, or any other attempt to reduce our usage of gasoline, really isn't going to effect the price of gasoline much. The US consumer doesn't control enough of the world's consumption.

I get the feeling that this may have been directed toward the last paragraph in my previous comment ... to be clear, I'm not hoping we wean ourselves from oil because it would "hurt OPEC"; I feel that way because I think it would help the United States politically, economically, and environmentally.

[JMS]

Furthermore, as the price of oil rises it makes previously unprofitable supply come on line. However, I don't know how much of that type of "slack" is left in the system since it's already profitable to get exotic supplies like oil shale/tar sands deposits and the like. Today's WSJ also discusses the military's research into synthetic fuels derived from coal-which is what the Germans did during WWII iirc.

The big problem with synthetics is that oil companies basically control the retail market. They aren't in the synthetics market, they have a vested interest in the energy cycle which they own. So unless it's a huge financial boone, ( meaning they buy the synthetic for significantly less than they can produce gasoline for ) and they can mix the sytnetic with gasoline to ensure their existing vertical market control remains profitable they aren't interested in synthetics..

In any event, it will take time for consumption patterns to change both here and worldwide. That's really the only thing that will change prices. However, even with conservation, rising population means we may at best only manage to tread water.

Actually oil consumption in the United States are starting to decline because of the high prices. Obviously though with Big Oil and OPEC both still making record profits the decline in consumption isn't hurting them yet.

http://www.oilvoice.com/n/US_Oil_Consumption_Declines/ff895835.aspx

Globally though you are right.... Globally energy demand is still climbing.

Remember a big reason why OPEC held prices steady from the late 1970's, 1980's and 1990's was because the oil embargo of the early and mid 1970's hurt them as much or more than it hurt us. Every American went out and bought a fuel efficient car. Jimmy Carter lowered the speed limit across the country. It took more than a decade for America's oil consumption to catch up to where it would have been if the embargo had not existed.

This lower demand for oil made many OPEC oil countries have an excess production capacity and that wide spread excess capacity made OPEC's attemted to control production much harder..... OPEC held costs constant largely because they believed it was in their own best interest based on what happenned to their sales in the passed.

From 1999 to late 2006 OPEC watched as Large American oil companies created spot shortages of gas and heating oil for their own profit while they took most of the blame by consumers. After years of watching this happen OPEC decided their product was under priced.

Fact is Oil company profits doubled in 2000, when crude prices were flat. Crude prices just started to sky rocket over the last two years. Gasolien prices have been going up for the last 9.

[Kilmer17]

Larry, taken one by one, you can refute all of the points I made and be correct.

(remembering that Im the guy HOPING for even higher gas prices) What this country needs desperately is a comprehensive plan for the immediate, midterm and longterm solutions to our energy situation.

So yes, Im sure that oil companies dont want more refineries, all other things being the same as they are now. But that's not my point. If we had rigs off of Florida pumping oil, it would be much much more profitable for oil companies to have refineries in FLA than to bring the oil up, then ship it to XXXX, then ship it back.

Blaming Dems for the situation today is probably not completely accurate either. But it is true that Dems have been the force behind preventing alternatives to foreign oil.

[Blackest Eyes]

Exxon is "The Man." I wish there was a solid way to stick it to "The Man."

If they are buying gas from Exxon Kuwait to avoid being taxed...well...thats lame.

[Larry]

Larry, taken one by one, you can refute all of the points I made and be correct.

(Haven't read the rest of your post, yet. Just wanted to respond to this part.)

I'm not trying to refute any particular person. I'm trying to refute what I see as arguments that don't make sense. I'm certain that several people have made these arguments. (I've likely made some of them, myself. Let no one consider me a slave to consistency.)

[PeterMP]

In a bad economy, people put their $$$ in safe things, like housing. That's what happened when the Tech Bubble burst... people put their money into housing. It is historically among the safest investments.

Now that housing has **** the bed, people have turned to commodoties. I firmly believe that there is a commodities bubble going on right now, that is going to burst in probably a year or 2. Gold, Oil, Silver, Wheat, Food, etc... all at record highs. The reason I think is because so many investors world wide are purchasing commodoties b/c they think it is safe.

Sounds crazy, I know, but I bet in 2 years or so the price of Gas is back down below $2/gallon.

And please don't ask for any evidence or fact, I don't have any :laugh:

I'll respond to this and make a couple of comments about other posts also:

1. Oil and other commodoties are fundamentally different than houses because people can buy and sit out homes and frequently make money if not break even. If you are sitting on a commodity, you aren't making money from it and have to pay whatever costs for storage.

In addition, with homes, you can rent (or in many cases the issue was even staying where you are).

2. I seriously doubt that even if you would could get enough oil out of the ground at an economically competitive price to affect world oil prices, I doubt that would affect the price at the pumps. The oil companies would just take home more profit (unless the US goverment put some sort of price control agreement in place in the process of agreeing to allow drilling).

3. Essentially, I agree with much of what JMS has said, but with one exception. More competition doesn't help you with gas. The price is what it is because people will pay that price and they can sell everything they can get their hands on. More companies doesn't change that fact. If I'm Exxon and a new company comes in starts charging .1/gallon than me, there is no incentive to change my price if I am still selling as much gas as I can get my hands on at the price I'm charging. If the guy that is selling for me less than me runs out after two days, then people will still have no chioce, but to buy from me at the price I want. Which is what I believe is happening and is essentially (at least as I understand) the definition of inelastic commodity.

4. I think big oil has determined that the demand for their product will never be higher and due to new technologies and expring patents (that they currently own) in the next 5 years or so the demand for their product is going to drop quite a bit (if they keep prices up) so they are getting as much as possible out of it now. The only that was holding prices down before was that high prices encourage investment into new technologies. I think in 2 years gas might be real cheap, but it will be so to discourage the actual implementation of the new technologies.

[JMS]

I also recall seeing somebody provide the information, round here, that gasoline for automobiles only accounts for something like 25% of the oil that the US uses. This, in turn, says to me that if we could, say, get everybody in the US into a Prius Hybrid, and therefore cut our gasoline usage in half, that this would only result in a 10% or so reduction in the oil used by the US.

Products Made from a Barrel of Crude Oil, 2007

(Gallons)

Note: A 42-U.S. gallon barrel of crude oil yields between

44 and 45 gallons of petroleum products. These totals

are greater than 42 gallons due to processing gain.

Source: Energy Information Administration

So in 2007 about 50% of every barrel of crude was used to make gasoline... and 20% of what was left was used to make Diesel.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasoline/index.html

Also I believe the inelastic nature of gasoline is not as prevelent to the other products... So for example today oil is used to create plastics, but plastics can also be made from soybeans if it became cost effective because of high oil prices...

[Larry]

What this country needs desperately is a comprehensive plan for the immediate, midterm and longterm solutions to our energy situation.

So yes, Im sure that oil companies dont want more refineries, all other things being the same as they are now. But that's not my point. If we had rigs off of Florida pumping oil, it would be much much more profitable for oil companies to have refineries in FLA than to bring the oil up, then ship it to XXXX, then ship it back.

Blaming Dems for the situation today is probably not completely accurate either. But it is true that Dems have been the force behind preventing alternatives to foreign oil.

IMO, there is no immediate solution. The quickest anything can be realistically be done is likely 10 years. (And I'd bet that that is optomistic.)

Seriously, no matter what solution we pick, how much of our energy needs do we need to convert to, say, nuclear, for the transition to have an impact in the market place? If we could convert, say, 10% of our national energy budget to nuclear, would that be enough to make a noticeable impact in our quality of life? Or do we need for nuclear to be accounting for 20% of our energy?

If we knew, right now, with absolute certainty, that nuclear would be the magic cure that would "fix" our energy problem, do we have the ability to build enough nuke plants to take over 10% of our energy needs in 10 years?

(And bear in mind, IIR, electricity generation only accounts for about 25% of our national oil consumption. In order to reduce our national oil usage by 10%, we'd have to retire, what, 80% of the oil-burning power plants in the nation?)

In short, IMO, I don't think it's going to be possible to "solve" this problem, in 10 years, even if we really set our minds to it. IMO, it would take a national commitment to rally behind a leader that hasn't been seen since Kennedy committed us to Apollo.

(And it will take a lot more money than Apollo.)

(Not saying that it wouldn't be worth it. IMO, if nothing else, being able to pull our troops out of the mideast and say "Go ahead and kill each other. We don't care any more." would be a good enough reason to get off this habit.)

[Kilmer17]

IMO, there is no immediate solution. The quickest anything can be realistically be done is likely 10 years. (And I'd bet that that is optomistic.)

Seriously, no matter what solution we pick, how much of our energy needs do we need to convert to, say, nuclear, for the transition to have an impact in the market place? If we could convert, say, 10% of our national energy budget to nuclear, would that be enough to make a noticeable impact in our quality of life? Or do we need for nuclear to be accounting for 20% of our energy?

If we knew, right now, with absolute certainty, that nuclear would be the magic cure that would "fix" our energy problem, do we have the ability to build enough nuke plants to take over 10% of our energy needs in 10 years?

(And bear in mind, IIR, electricity generation only accounts for about 25% of our national oil consumption. In order to reduce our national oil usage by 10%, we'd have to retire, what, 80% of the oil-burning power plants in the nation?)

In short, IMO, I don't think it's going to be possible to "solve" this problem, in 10 years, even if we really set our minds to it. IMO, it would take a national commitment to rally behind a leader that hasn't been seen since Kennedy committed us to Apollo.

(And it will take a lot more money than Apollo.)

(Not saying that it wouldn't be worth it. IMO, if nothing else, being able to pull our troops out of the mideast and say "Go ahead and kill each other. We don't care any more." would be a good enough reason to get off this habit.)

Larry, 10 years ago the Dems were preventing us from doing those things.

If they hadnt, where would we be today?

[JMS]

Yes, I'm aware of what OPEC does (although the definitions of monopolies and cartels are generally based on market concentration, not pricing behavior). What I'm saying is that if alternative sources of oil expanded sufficiently so that the market became more oligolopolistic -- that is, if they were at risk of completely losing a major market -- they might not behave the same way.

Ok first of all monopolies or cartels are about control, nothing else is relivent.

Second off - you are talking about using the market to out compete a monopoly which is not possible unless we discovered a new source of oil which approached today's global demand; which isn't likely.

Nope. As I stated before, mergers are part of the explanation, but certainly not all of it:

"The reason for the boom is simple. Much of the investment in finding that oil -- and developing the wells and pipelines needed to produce it -- has already been made. So an oil field that was profitable with oil selling for $20 a barrel is much more profitable with oil trading around $60."

Only Exxon doesn't own the oil they sell. Exxon buys oil like everybody else on the open market. So if Oil goes from 20$ a barrel to 130$ a barrel Exxon's costs just grew by 550%. Which doesn't make them more profitable...

What we saw in 2000-2006 was oil prices remained relatively stable while prices at the pump went up 300%.

Today crude oil prices have doubled and Exxon oil profits continue to go up, while Exxon spokesmen appologize to Wall Street for not making their projected earnings because of high crud prices.

As stated previously, I'm aware that OPEC is a price setter ... in fact, I think we debated a bit about this topic in a previous thread, and you were suggesting that OPEC had less of an effect on the oil market than I suggested...

At times it is true that OPEC's member disipline has fluxuated. I don't recall the specific conversation.

Anyway, if a major new oil source were found and exploited, and in response OPEC expanded its output to regain its market share, then the equilibrium price would drop. It could reduce its production in response, but it would then be conceding that market and losing profits. Maybe that's how they would respond -- I don't know.

The way it works is the opposite. If a new field came on line OPEC would figure out how much crude they were going to produce and then cut production costs to keep oil reserves low. That would stabalize prices. If they cut production more than the new field was producing, they could actually raise prices as new production came on line.

The reason they would do this even though it means they loose market share it's profitable. Because by controling the market they can charge much more for the oil they do sell, making the oil they don't sell irrelivent from a net sum gain.

Keep in mind that I'm not talking about a particularly likely scenario here; I seriously doubt we're going to find sufficient reserves to challenge OPEC's power. And even if we did, I'm not sure I'd want us to attempt it: I believe that OPEC's pricing may be a good thing for us in the long-run, as I hope that it will help us wean ourselves from our oil dependency. But Destino implied that it's impossible for oil prices to drop due to a discovery of new reserves, and I'm saying that he's theoretically incorrect.

Ahh, well never mind then. Theoretically you are right. I could theoretically find twice the Saudi Arabian oil reserves in my back yard. I thought we were having a practical discussion.

[yank]

A couple of other points:

1. The average net profit margin for the S&P Energy sector, according to figures from Thomson Baseline, is 9.7%. The average for the S&P 500 is 8.5%. So yes, energy companies are more profitable than many others...but not by an inordinate amount. Google, for example, reported a net profit margin of 25% in its most recent quarter. Should we have an online advertising windfall profit tax?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/markets/thebuzz/

2. GAO found 11 distinct special blends in use during the summer of 2004. Further, when different octane grades and other factors are considered, there were at least 45 different kinds of gasoline produced in the United States during all of 2004. The proliferation of special gasoline blends has put stress on the gasoline supply system and raised costs, affecting operations at refineries, pipelines, and storage terminals. Once produced, different blends must be kept separate throughout shipping and delivery, reducing the capacity of pipelines and storage terminal facilities, which were originally designed to handle fewer products. This reduces efficiency and raises costs. In the past, local supply disruptions could be addressed quickly by bringing fuel from nearby locations; now however, because the use of these fuels are isolated, additional supplies of special blends may be hundreds of miles away.

GAO evaluated pretax wholesale gasoline price data for 100 cities and generally observed that the highest prices tended to be found in cities that use a special gasoline blend that is not widely available in the region, or that is significantly more costly to make than other blends. There is general consensus that increased complexity, and higher costs associated with supplying special blends, contribute to higher gasoline prices either because of more frequent or severe supply disruptions or because higher costs are likely passed on at least in part to consumers.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05421.pdf

3. For the first time in more than 30 years, the United States is reducing its dependency on foreign oil. That trend is expected to continue. Currently, the U.S. receives approximately 60 percent of its oil from other countries. That figure is expected to drop to 50 percent by 2015. The Financial Times attributes the drop in part, to the increased use of ethanol and more efficient cars. The government expects fuel efficiency to keep improving, as well as a substantial increase in U.S. biofuel production over the next 20 years.

http://cbn.com/CBNnews/378585.aspx

[USS Redskins]

This thread hasnt cleared anything up for me - I am more confused than EVER!

[Larry]

This thread hasnt cleared anything up for me - I am more confused than EVER!

OK. Blame the Oil Companies.

Better?

[JMS]

3. Essentially, I agree with much of what JMS has said, but with one exception. More competition doesn't help you with gas. The price is what it is because people will pay that price and they can sell everything they can get their hands on. More companies doesn't change that fact. If I'm Exxon and a new company comes in starts charging .1/gallon than me, there is no incentive to change my price if I am still selling as much gas as I can get my hands on at the price I'm charging. If the guy that is selling for me less than me runs out after two days, then people will still have no chioce, but to buy from me at the price I want. Which is what I believe is happening and is essentially (at least as I understand) the definition of inelastic commodity.

The reason why more companies are important is because they do introduce competition.

If you had 12 gass stations in the Reston Area, instead of 12 gas stations all owned by Exxon/Mobile and one of those independent gas stations cut costs by 10%; business would flow to that single operator rather than the other 11.

If an independent owner was able to provide his product cheaper, then we would have competition and a downward pressure on the market.

Today what we have is 12 gas stations all owned by one company ( five actually) and those companies tell their owners what to charge from a central corporate office. If crude oil goes up.. prices go up. Storm in the Gulf, prices go up. Unrest in Nigeria.. prices go up....

Any excuse to raise prices is transfered to the consumer instantaniously. Any reason to cut prices and they get around to it in the next few weeks.

Competition at the pump would help that. Competition at the refinery, and bulk transportation would likewise significantly help the consumer.

4. I think big oil has determined that the demand for their product will never be higher and due to new technologies and expring patents (that they currently own) in the next 5 years or so the demand for their product is going to drop quite a bit (if they keep prices up) so they are getting as much as possible out of it now. The only that was holding prices down before was that high prices encourage investment into new technologies. I think in 2 years gas might be real cheap, but it will be so to discourage the actual implementation of the new technologies.

I agree that the big oil companies control the price at the pump.... It's not coincidence that 2006 and 2004 were both years where profits growth in big oil dipped... they were election years.

I am not aware of the new technology which will make oil cheaper however.

I think effective government regulation is what squashed the oil monopoly 100 years ago, I think revisiting and strengthening those regulations along with rolling back some of the merges is what needs to happen this time too.

I think any windfall tax on oil profits will make the consumer feel good; but are meaningless. The government swallowing up il gotten gains doesn't help the consumer. The consumer will only be helped by restructuring the market. I actually don't think many newly cost effective technologies such as synthetic fuels like they did in Brazil have much of a chance with Big oil controlling the pumps. Anything Big Oil can't control, they would be fools to promote.

[JMS]

A couple of other points:

1. The average net profit margin for the S&P Energy sector, according to figures from Thomson Baseline, is 9.7%. The average for the S&P 500 is 8.5%. So yes, energy companies are more profitable than many others...but not by an inordinate amount. Google, for example, reported a net profit margin of 25% in its most recent quarter. Should we have an online advertising windfall profit tax?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/markets/thebuzz/

Oil company profits have grown by 400% over the last 9 years. And 9 years ago was a then record year for oil. What are you calling "Energy Companies" a solar cell company which posted no profit?

I'll see your money.cnn article with a Business Week Article...

A Brief History of Oil (Profits)

Don't believe the hype. The real reason for high oil prices is (gasp) that they bring in more profits for oil companies and Wall Street

http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/may2007/bw20070510_630346.htm

[JMS]

Larry, taken one by one, you can refute all of the points I made and be correct.

(remembering that Im the guy HOPING for even higher gas prices) What this country needs desperately is a comprehensive plan for the immediate, midterm and longterm solutions to our energy situation.

So yes, Im sure that oil companies dont want more refineries, all other things being the same as they are now. But that's not my point. If we had rigs off of Florida pumping oil, it would be much much more profitable for oil companies to have refineries in FLA than to bring the oil up, then ship it to XXXX, then ship it back.

Blaming Dems for the situation today is probably not completely accurate either. But it is true that Dems have been the force behind preventing alternatives to foreign oil.

The democrates haven't had a controling interest in the house for 15 years. Clinton has been out of office for 8 years now. It's just frusterating as hell to hear folks blame Clinton for the Bush economic woes and now the Democrats for the oil industry problems.

Fact is Kilmer We've had eight energy plans from Bush. None of them were concerned with controling big oil or introducing competiton into the market.

As for refineries, The reason big oil hasn't built a new refinery in the United States in 30 years is because they didn't want to. They build them in Central America and the Caribien because they have more control over them there and their are fewer regulations.

The lack of regulations is a large components of why prices are climbing too.

The democrats have had a majority in the House now for what 18 months. Not a controling majority, not a majority which could overturn a filibuster or a veto; but a majority non the less. And you want to blame them for the woes of the oil industry and not the two oil men in the executive who invited big oil into their office to write the nation's energy policy?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html

[Larry]

Re: Nuclear:

I've got to admit that I've been wondering if nuclear shouldn't be at least a bigger part of our energy mix. (The fact of zero CO2 emissions is a plus, to me.)

But I also have to wonder, doesn't a nuke simply "burn" a different kind of rare, hard to find, fuel?

My question is: If we could, somehow, migrate some of our current oil addiction to nuclear, then are we simply making ourselves dependent on a different third-world monopoly?

Do we have enough "nuke fuel" in the US for us to be independent? Or would we just be dependent on somebody else?

[Kilmer17]

The democrates haven't had a controling interest in the house for 15 years. Clinton has been out of office for 8 years now. It's just frusterating as hell to hear folks blame Clinton for the Bush economic woes and now the Democrats for the oil industry problems.

Fact is Kilmer We've had eight energy plans from Bush. None of them were concerned with controling big oil or introducing competiton into the market.

As for refineries, The reason big oil hasn't built a new refinery in the United States in 30 years is because they didn't want to. They build them in Central America and the Caribien because they have more control over them there and their are fewer regulations.

The lack of regulations is a large components of why prices are climbing too.

The democrats have had a majority in the House now for what 18 months. Not a controling majority, not a majority which could overturn a filibuster or a veto; but a majority non the less. And you want to blame them for the woes of the oil industry and not the two oil men in the executive who invited big oil into their office to write the nation's energy policy?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html

The GOP is absolutely complicit in this. But not for obstructing. Rather for not having the stones to tell the envirowhackos to go eff themselves.

You cant honestly think that our energy problems BEGAN when Bush came into office? In fact, gas was 2.19 a gallon when the Dems took control of Congress 18 months ago.

[Larry]

And this may be yet another invitation for Larry's regular chance to plug Space Colonization.

Zero pollution.

Renewable.

Pays for itself, with a profit, in 15 years.

Complete energy independence for the US in 20 years from the date we commit.

It's an energy source where the US can be non-dependent on a single other country, ever again, for energy.

(It also gives us the ability to make the rest of the world dependent on us, for their energy, if we chose to do so.)

[Kilmer17]

Re: Nuclear:

I've got to admit that I've been wondering if nuclear shouldn't be at least a bigger part of our energy mix. (The fact of zero CO2 emissions is a plus, to me.)

But I also have to wonder, doesn't a nuke simply "burn" a different kind of rare, hard to find, fuel?

My question is: If we could, somehow, migrate some of our current oil addiction to nuclear, then are we simply making ourselves dependent on a different third-world monopoly?

Do we have enough "nuke fuel" in the US for us to be independent? Or would we just be dependent on somebody else?

Nuclear energy is created by a process. There is no "fuel" to purchase from elsewhere.

[Larry]

Nuclear energy is created by a process. There is no "fuel" to purchase from elsewhere.

Wow. You mean, it doesn't need Uranium? Like, from Nigeria?

[JMS]

If Democrats havent spent the last few decades opposing every alternative to buying from OPEC, then supply WOULD be more elastic.

Oil is an inelastic commodity because #1 there is no substitue for it. #2 the demand is present regardless of price.

Supply is not related to the inelastic property of the commodity only on the price.

Imagin if even 10 years ago we drilled in ANWAR. Dems saaid it would take at least 10 years to get on line. Well, what would that affect be today?

The Anwar reserves were expected to lower prices at the pump less than a penny a gallon. In the last 30 days gas prices have gone up .30$, a penny a day. The problem with gasoline prices isn't too little oil. The problem is the folks who own the refineries have figured out how to make their product worth more by manipulating the market.

What if Dems havent prevented the building of new nuclear plants? And refineries? What affect would that have?

30 years kilmer. It's been 30 years since a new refinery was built in the continental United States. I don't think you can chalk that up to anything other than corporate/industry policy.

What if Dems didnt oppose wind projects like Capewinds? Or drilling off of our shorelines?

You're right Des, there is LOTS of misinformation out there.

I think California is at the front of the wind power plants. I thought Gov Moonbeam (dem) was resible for them too.

[Kilmer17]

Wow. You mean, it doesn't need Uranium? Like, from Nigeria?

touche!!!!

But no, we dont. We have the knowledge and ability to enrich it ourselves.

[JMS]

And this may be yet another invitation for Larry's regular chance to plug Space Colonization.

Zero pollution.

Renewable.

Pays for itself, with a profit, in 15 years.

Complete energy independence for the US in 20 years from the date we commit.

It's an energy source where the US can be non-dependent on a single other country, ever again, for energy.

(It also gives us the ability to make the rest of the world dependent on us, for their energy, if we chose to do so.)

I know you posted that before... How much of those projections were based upon yet to be discovered science? I didn't get into it back when you last posted it... Is that real science or were the posters with people wearing tin foil hats.

I took my daughter to the last space shuttle launch... She's almost five and I figured I would be giving her a memory she could hold onto for the rest of her life.... 4 minutes to launch time, She has to go potty. I take her into the woods, watching out for aligators and she goes outside... She talked more about the bathroom break than the space shuttle launch on the way home...

I'm very excited that we are going back to the moon in the next 4 years and we will finally get NASA away from going in circles for the first time in 30 years.