Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
I like the "price estimates based on various sources". Please list them as I'm sure they're all from the oil industry's research

being a registered Republican I can honestly say it is MY OPINION that fuel prices won't change (read come down) much regardless of what happens as big oil will come up with some other reason to keep fuel prices high. Hope I'm wrong.

vote NONE OF THE ABOVE
 

·
(enter witty phrase here)
Joined
·
2,250 Posts
Why would someone be offended by made up statistics?

Please cite the "various sources" from the picture.

Anyone can make up numbers.

Check out these numbers -->>> SCARY
Now that's a REALLY big picture. I'll keep gas prices to get rid of that!
 

·
sprocket
Joined
·
3,184 Posts
Exodus11 said:
This may or may not offend people. Either way, i dont care. It pretty much sums up the big picture.
the big picture will not change that amount for about 5 years or so. So, in reality, where I do not live, shut up and ride your bike.
 

·
Sam
Joined
·
78 Posts
I don't believe we can drill our way out of $4 gas

I believe the the information in the original post is misleading at best, blatant propaganda at worst and would like to correct it. I assume that the original poster posted this image in good faith.

So let's do a little math. I know we all hate it, but if we continue to propagate the misinformation our politicians tell us, we'll end up . . . . Well, we'll end up where we are. With $4.00 a gallon gas.

The relevant statistics:

Total world oil production: 82,532,000 barrels/day (2005)
U.S. petroleum consumption: 20,687,000 barrels/day (2007)
U.S. crude oil production: 5,102,000 barrels/day (2006)
U.S. petroleum exports: 1,317,000 barrels/day (2006)
See http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

Projected peak ANWR oil output: 1,595,000 barrels/day (ten years after start of drilling)
See http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/service/sroiaf(2004)04.pdf

Let us assume that the oil coming out of ANWR will go directly towards our consumption and that it will somehow, miraculously, be free. This 1,595,000 barrels/day represents 7.7% of our needed oil, so if it were free it would reduce the cost of $4/gallon gas to $3.69/gallon. Ouch.

But the ANWR oil won't be free and it won't go directly towards our consumption (did you notice how the U.S. exports petroleum?). The ANWR oil will go directly into the world market, where it will increase the world oil supply by 1.93%. Care to take a guess as to what a 2% increase in oil supply will do to gas costs here at home?

You can look up similar statistics for on-shore shale and off-shore drilling. I re-call the numbers for each of these being similar to the numbers for ANWR (don't take my word for it, skepticism is good). So that would be a 6% increase in the world oil supply. If demand remains stable, we could then expect a 6% decrease in the cost of crude oil (oversimplification). So that $4.00 drops to $3.76. Methinks that the "multiple sources" mentioned in the posted image might have a vested interest in drilling.

Now if the federal government wants to actually reduce the cost of gas, they might want to look into some other things such as:

1) The falling value of the dollar. In the past year, the dollar has lost nearly 30% of its value on world currency exchange markets (vs. the Yen, Euro, AU and Canadian dollars, etc.) So if a dollar was worth what is was worth a year ago, gas would be $2.80. The Federal Reserve's actions in lowering interest rates have exacerbated this problem as investment banks are using these low interest rates to short the dollar while borrowing from the Federal Reserve to buy oil futures. Which leads us into:

2) Market speculation. With the falling dollar, investors have been pouring money into commodity markets and driving up the price of oil. The following link estimates that market speculation my constitute more than 50% of the price of a barrel of oil. Please note that I have not found (or looked for) back-up sources for information in the following link. But I believe there explanation of oil-trading futures to be sound.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8878

My personal beliefs:
1) I believe oil companies SHOULD be able to develop new sources so long as they can do so responsibly. I just don't think it will do jack in terms of meeting the world's energy needs. McCain is right about ANWR, however. This land is classified as a refuge. Hands-off.

2) We should build the next generation of nuclear power plants. We also need to start reprocessing our nuclear "waste". More than 90% of nuclear reactor "waste" by weight could be reprocessed to burn in next generation reactors. The remaining radioactive waste would have a half life of under one hundred years. Nuclear power, when done right, is just about the most environmentally friendly energy source imaginable.

3) We should end all energy subsidies and let capitalism work. Energy is becoming expensive enough that there should be plenty of competition for alternate forms of energy production. Let's let the best ideas win on an even playing field.

Thanks for reading. Sorry about the length of the post.
--Sam
 

·
I am Walt
Joined
·
6,393 Posts
scrat said:
I believe the the information in the original post is misleading at best, blatant propaganda at worst and would like to correct it. I assume that the original poster posted this image in good faith.

So let's do a little math. I know we all hate it, but if we continue to propagate the misinformation our politicians tell us, we'll end up . . . . Well, we'll end up where we are. With $4.00 a gallon gas.

The relevant statistics:

Total world oil production: 82,532,000 barrels/day (2005)
U.S. petroleum consumption: 20,687,000 barrels/day (2007)
U.S. crude oil production: 5,102,000 barrels/day (2006)
U.S. petroleum exports: 1,317,000 barrels/day (2006)
See http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

Projected peak ANWR oil output: 1,595,000 barrels/day (ten years after start of drilling)
See http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/service/sroiaf(2004)04.pdf

Let us assume that the oil coming out of ANWR will go directly towards our consumption and that it will somehow, miraculously, be free. This 1,595,000 barrels/day represents 7.7% of our needed oil, so if it were free it would reduce the cost of $4/gallon gas to $3.69/gallon. Ouch.

But the ANWR oil won't be free and it won't go directly towards our consumption (did you notice how the U.S. exports petroleum?). The ANWR oil will go directly into the world market, where it will increase the world oil supply by 1.93%. Care to take a guess as to what a 2% increase in oil supply will do to gas costs here at home?

You can look up similar statistics for on-shore shale and off-shore drilling. I re-call the numbers for each of these being similar to the numbers for ANWR (don't take my word for it, skepticism is good). So that would be a 6% increase in the world oil supply. If demand remains stable, we could then expect a 6% decrease in the cost of crude oil (oversimplification). So that $4.00 drops to $3.76. Methinks that the "multiple sources" mentioned in the posted image might have a vested interest in drilling.

Now if the federal government wants to actually reduce the cost of gas, they might want to look into some other things such as:

1) The falling value of the dollar. In the past year, the dollar has lost nearly 30% of its value on world currency exchange markets (vs. the Yen, Euro, AU and Canadian dollars, etc.) So if a dollar was worth what is was worth a year ago, gas would be $2.80. The Federal Reserve's actions in lowering interest rates have exacerbated this problem as investment banks are using these low interest rates to short the dollar while borrowing from the Federal Reserve to buy oil futures. Which leads us into:

2) Market speculation. With the falling dollar, investors have been pouring money into commodity markets and driving up the price of oil. The following link estimates that market speculation my constitute more than 50% of the price of a barrel of oil. Please note that I have not found (or looked for) back-up sources for information in the following link. But I believe there explanation of oil-trading futures to be sound.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8878

My personal beliefs:
1) I believe oil companies SHOULD be able to develop new sources so long as they can do so responsibly. I just don't think it will do jack in terms of meeting the world's energy needs. McCain is right about ANWR, however. This land is classified as a refuge. Hands-off.

2) We should build the next generation of nuclear power plants. We also need to start reprocessing our nuclear "waste". More than 90% of nuclear reactor "waste" by weight could be reprocessed to burn in next generation reactors. The remaining radioactive waste would have a half life of under one hundred years. Nuclear power, when done right, is just about the most environmentally friendly energy source imaginable.

3) We should end all energy subsidies and let capitalism work. Energy is becoming expensive enough that there should be plenty of competition for alternate forms of energy production. Let's let the best ideas win on an even playing field.

Thanks for reading. Sorry about the length of the post.
--Sam
To absolutely blatantly pirate a post from another thread:

"Check out the big brain on Sam!"
 

Attachments

·
shred my gnar
Joined
·
604 Posts
ill bite...

nice left vs right generalization. i tad bit too simple, imo.

btw... bringing "shale" "on-line" will not necessarily do anything to bring the price of a gallon of fuel down. "shale" or tar-sands have been "on-line" for 30+ years and is very expensive to extract (basically stripmine it) and refine... so its just recently become somewhat profitable to produce. the companies that do extract & produce oil from tar-sands (shell among others in far northern alberta) see these high prices as a opportunity to make more money, not to add barrels to the market and help drop the price... its too expensive to produce for those simple economics to pan out. sounds great but do you think shell wants the price to go down? what incentive do they have for that?

so id love to see the math and economics that explain how tar sands production will save 0.70 to 1.60 a gallon... if you can find it id love to read about more.

how about this for simplification... start incentivising alternative fuel technology and development and stop trying to justify the pilaging of finite fossil fuels in order to make short-term price reductions in gas and diesel. which reserves will our kids' kids' (kids' kids') pilage?
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top